Monday, May 7, 2012

ORA - "beis din should give authorization"

guest post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern admits (at 58:00) that public pressure on a husband for not giving a get is inappropriate halachically absent a ruling from a beis din that a get be given.  Nonetheless, Ora was publicly demonstrating against Friedman and his family for over a year before any beis din had called on him to give a get.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEi4SXT_fCA

22 comments:

  1. Did gedoilim like Harav Shmuel Kamenetsky Shlita command him to give a get before then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Stern said there must be an order from a Beis Din, not a "command" from "gedolim"

      Delete
    2. The idea that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky could be considered an impartial or neutral arbiter between Epstein and Friedman is not credible.

      See the most recent version of Yated or the following: http://articles.philly.com/2010-04-20/news/25213049_1_family-physician-geriatric-medicine-future-wife “Dr. Epstein [Tamar’s father] was an active supporter of Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, a religious school for Orthodox Jewish boys and young men in Overbrook. He volunteered his medical services to the school and was on call to care for the students 24/7, said a close friend, Rick Goldfein [Tamar’s lawyer].” Rabbi Kamenetsky is founder and dean of the yeshiva.

      Delete
  2. The scary thing about hilchos gitten amongst Modern Orthodox Rabbis is that they can not seem to even agree themselves about why there actions are permitted.

    1st) We have 3 public shiurim by Rabbi Schachter totally contradicting themselves and arguing on each other. a)We can in theory use physicahl force b)We aren't even doing the harchakas of R'tam; we are machmir for the schach and only use pressure which is much less than the harchakas of R'tam c) We are doing the harchakas of R'tam.

    2)Then we have Rabbi Broide who states that the shach would agree that one could apply the harchakas in america because we don't have clear walls in our communities. Rabbi Broide states, "In the typical Orthodox community in America, where most people earn their living through economic interactions with the secular world, of course, withdrawing favors from an individual would not have nearly the same impact as it would in those communities." While Rabbi Schachter claimed in shiur 2 that we must be machmir for the shach, Rabbi Broide explains that the shach would agree to the actions of the ORA in our times.

    3) Rabbi Bechhofer clearly argues with Rabbi Broide in his understanding of the harchakas of R'tam. Where Rabbi Broyde implies that withholding favors would be considered force in a community like in Europe, Rabbi Bechhofer has stated many times that withholding favors from a man is never an act of force as only physical violence, financial fines, and beis din sanctioned pressure is force. Rabbi Bechhofer publicly claims that the actions of the ORA are permitted because they are NOT a going by the psak of a BEIS DIN. Therefore, Rabbi Bechhofer claims this is never considered pressure that will invalidate a GET.

    3) Then we have Rabbi Bechhofer's attempt to justify the ORA actions with his different version of the harchakas of R'tam and his statements that totally contradict Rabbi Stern of the ORA. As Rabbi Stern states that the public pressure must come from the psak of a beis din.

    So here we have it. 4 different Modern Orthodox Rabbis contradicting themselves publicly and arguing with each others logic on the most serious issues in halacha. I find this scary. Why can't there at least be consensus amongst themselves on this issue?

    (Please don't make this a public guest post as this is meant as a comment only)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are way too many errors in your post to discuss in detail. Your assumptions about the ideological bent of Rabbi Bechhofer, Rav Schachter's inconsistencies, and Rabbi Broyde's position are completely wrong. Nonetheless, I will answer the question of "why can't there at least be consensus amongst themselves on this issue."

      First - There is consensus that the actions of ORA do not constitute a coerced GET and are completely justified by halacha.

      Second - To the extent that they differ in their svara (and I dont think the differences are as you describe them), so what? What is wrong with one Rabbi saying ORA isnt RT, and another saying it is? You seem to assume a Modern Orthodox cabal acting in concert to destroy Torah. That is not the case.

      Delete
    2. James' first paragraph is succinct and precise. ואידך זיל גמור

      Delete
    3. Well said, Yitzy Hillel. Yasher Koach for the succint analysis.

      Delete
    4. Is there consensus in the Chareidei world? It sure doesn't seem like it!

      Delete
  3. For every legitimate intellectual activity there is a counterculture equivalent. It frequently comes as a revelation to people to learn that there is an intellectual counterculture, that not everything claimed to be intellectual really is.

    This applies to the Talmud. There is two rigorous approaches to it. Rambam and tosphot.the activity to understand the approach of the Talmud to any given issue is a valid intellectual activity. This is what many orthodox rabbis claim to be doing. Here we have a good example of an anti Talmudic approach which mask itself as talmudic.
    The problem here is not the level of scholarship. It is simply lying and fraud concerning what the Talmud actually says.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James please explain where my ears are going wrong in listening to the inconsistencies amongst the above Rabbis. I have listened carefully to each of them and summarized there words. You accuse me of misquoting them, so please correct my quotes. Have you listened to each version of them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not accuse you of misquoting anyone. I couldnt have done so because you didnt quote anyone.

      Delete
  5. Well said Rick It appears That Rabbi Kamenetsky cannot judge in the Epstein-Friedman divorce case because of his indirect benefit received from Tamars financial suport . see
    http://articles.philly.com/2010-04-20/news/25213049_1_family-physician-geriatric-medicine-future-wife This is a repeat of Rabbi Moshe Green accepting support for his Yeshiva from another womans family as listed here: http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2009/09/rabbi-moshe-green-violates-rabeinu-tam.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually it appears that he can:

      Sh"A C"M 9:1-2

      1 A Dayan must be (1) [1] very, very careful not to take bribery [2] even with intent to vindicate he who deserves vindication. If he took bribery [3] he is obligated to return it when the one who gave it claims it. Just as he who
      accepts bribery violates Torah prohibition, so, too, he who pays bribery, for he transgresses, ‘Do not put a stumbling block in front of the blind.’ Not only is monetary bribery forbidden; so, too, [4] are favors of a non-monetary
      nature. (2) Any Dayan who borrows an object from someone is forbidden to judge that person, but this applies only when the Dayan lacks things to lend that person. If, however, [5] he does lend him things he is fit to judge him, for that person borrows from him, as well.

      2 If (3) before making a monetary claim against someone in Beis Din, a person gives a gift to one of the Dayanim, [6] the plaintiff is unable to claim that the gift disqualifies the Dayan from judging the case. On the other hand, if the Dayan wants, he is permitted to refuse to judge the case (such as when he knows that his heart became biased) (Tur), but it is only (4) [7] middas chassidus (non-obligatory piety).


      The Sma S"K 5 writes: In order to retain his eligibility, the Dayan does not have to actually lend possessions to this person. It is sufficient that he owns belongings that the
      person might want to borrow from him.


      Since neither the Rema nor the primary Notei Kelim(Sma Shach and Taz) argue on the ruling of the Mechaber, it is essentially an open and shut Sh"A.

      Delete
  6. Some rabbis have PROVEN themselves corrupt or, at best, clueless when it comes to avoiding impropriety. So why do are we still surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  7. tell me tzadok how many volvo's did shas obtain when they abstained and voted yes for Oslo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Stan D"T and I were chatting and we were wondering how you would answer these simple questions:

      1) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is physically abusive?

      2) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is emotionally/verbally abusive?

      3) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when there is also spousal rape?

      4) Should a B"D force a get in a case of Maus Alei when the husband is mentally deranged/psychopathic?

      Delete
  8. dear Daat Torah: you asked me to be specific. I was referring to the "agunah" issue. But I did not specify it because I am trying to figure out why in general is the problem with orthodox rabbis and why their decisions are usually so far from the Talmud and any sense of justice. This does not include rabbis that are actually sitting and learning Torah because their decisions are usually straight forward Talmudic decisions. I have an idea about this i might write about on my blog if i have time. But as for this issue it is easy to see how rabbis can make a whole crusade against this fellow cloaking themselves in rabbinical garb while their decision has absolutely nothing to do with the Talmud at all. there are very specific situation in which a get can be forced and this does not come close to any of them. In fact you might even wonder why what she did to him does not raise even a whipper? The reason is probably too deep for me but at least i have some idea of what it might be. [and i don't wrote this because i am in any way against women. I like women in general and think they are often nicer than guys and often smarter. But that does not give them a blank check to steal a man's children and money and then get rabbinical backing for it. This is injustice. and trying to twist the Talmud around to justify it is a further injustice. These rabbis ought to get a taste of their own medicine-or better yet do teshuva

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just wanted to applaud Adam for this (with my editing):

    "I don't write this because I am in any way against women. I like women in general and think they are often nicer than guys and often smarter! But THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM A BLANK CHECK TO STEAL A MAN'S CHILDREN AND MONEY AND THEN GET RABBINICAL BACKING FOR IT!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...but fortunatley, men get rabbinical backing for extorting money from their ex-wives who want a get!

      Delete
    2. So then we're on the same campaign!

      Enough with religious-cloaked corruption, in ALL forms, whether against men or women.

      Women shouldn't torment the father of their children by whisking away their children and then seek rabbinical backing by crying Maus Alay.

      And men should't use Get as leverage for extorting money.

      Etc, etc, etc.

      This plague of manipulating Halacha for clearly selfish and hurtful motives is spreading wildly and we need every opportunity to protest it to do so. When this happens within the sacred context of marriage, we're in especially bad trouble.

      AT LEAST HERE we should be making every effort to resolve conflicts b'emes, shalom v'reus.

      Delete

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