Friday, May 18, 2012

R' Bechhofer: Get M'eusa - all questions answered

I will be giving a shiur on Shavuos night, 3:30 am, at Blueberry Hill shul in Monsey http://ohaivyisroel.net/ on the topic of persuading vs. compelling gittin. I will, of course, address all the "issues" raised on this blog. You are all invited to attend!

If there is sufficient interest (email me), then I can give the shiur over again after Yom Tov as a conference call.

KT, GS,
YGB

9 comments :

  1. I doubt there will be anyone in the audience that will challenge RYGB with the many various serious points that were raised on this forum about this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would like to ask someone to volunteer to list "the many various serious points that were raised on this forum about this topic," and I undertake to bring them up (and refute them, of course) one after another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Humility doesn't exist in your lexicon does it?

      Delete
    2. It is important not to confuse humility with cowardice.

      Delete
  3. Rabbi Bechhofer I sure hope you devote a significant time to try and explain your "chidush" in the Rambam. I have told it over to a number of talmidei chachomim and they thought it was a joke.

    Regarding what you call "issues" that I have raised. You apparently are unaware that I have made a number of posts which have repeatedly summarized the main points - so just make the effort to read through my posts and the cogent comments - both for and against my position - which are found there. It is always appropriate to be aware of what the issues and the basic sources are before pontificating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RDE: You should send them to me.

      In terms of issues, it all boils down to two assertions against me:

      1) That Harchaka d'RT is severely limited and contingent on passivity, as opposed to broad-based and sanctioning activity.

      2) That a woman who had gone to ercha'os is wicked and/or a moredes, as opposed to one who has made an understandable mistake for which penalization is not inevitable.

      Everything else is elaboration of one or both of these points.

      Delete
    2. RYGB: Here is a question for you to address:

      If a wife going to arkayos is merely, as you say above, someone "who has made an understandable mistake for which penalization is not inevitable", then why isn't a husband who unjustifiably refuses to give a Get merely someone "who has made an understandable mistake for which penalization is not inevitable"?

      And a second question is, is anytime a wife demands a Get, is she entitled to one? Or some cases of a wife demanding a Get are times she is not entitled to one and the husband may decline to give her one?

      Delete
  4. "That a woman who had gone to ercha'os is wicked and/or a moredes, as opposed to one who has made an understandable mistake for which penalization is not inevitable."

    Very interesting to say the least. The Shulchan oruch/ rema/ tur vechulu say someoone in arko'oys is a rosho who is mairim yad be'toras moshe and meyaker elilim. The gro says someone in arko'oys denies Hashem and denies his Torah. But Rabbi bechofer knows better obviously.

    And about a moyser (which arko'oys inevitably leads to mesirah) it is said yored le'gehionom le'dorei doros ve'ano poleh, nishmoso kolo ve'chulu. And many of these women fall into the category of being a Rodef.

    Interesting that this is described as an "understandable mistake" like making a left turn instead of a right turn.

    If this is not called being oyker the Torah, then I am not sure what is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rygb,
    A third point unrelated to the two you mentioned is a distinction between private action and BD actions.

    ReplyDelete

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