Tuesday, May 15, 2012

R' Bechhofer: Using Secular Courts & Demanding a Get


Rabbi Bechhofer Shlitta has publicly come out with tremendous chiddushim in matters of Gitten based on pure svaras and no sources. Everyone must agree that he is a lamdan and can hold his own in svaras, but he can't seem to produce actual sources especially any achronim that hold like him. He has also publicly been m'lamed zchus on woman who run to secular court in order to gain child custody and monetary settlements even if this is against halacha. Check out his blog to see his own words:(RYGB)

Contrast Rabbi Bechhofers approach with the approach of these 70 Rabbonim:http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/KOLKOREH-ERKAOT-70GADOLIM-SEALS.pdf) Look especially at warning Vuv,(6), Zayin (7),ches (8), and tes (9)to see the obvious disagreement between being malemud zchus and demanding teshuva and getting out of secular court or no help at all. I think this is the biggest underlining problem in these cases. Should Rabbonim be malamud zchus on men or woman who sin or should Rabbonim tell them to repent and no GET until repentance and getting out of secular court and having the case tried in beis din (even after the secular courts have awarded one side)? Is it immoral for a Beis din to tell the husband to deposit a GET on condition that the woman drops the secular court case. The above Rabbonim seem not to think this is immoral. However, from the view of Modern Orthodox Rabbonim these Beis Dins are considered criminals. The Modern Orthodox say the case has had a "fair judgement" and now the man must give an unconditional GET or because of chillul hashem the man must give a GET, etc. This seems to be the biggest underlining debate in my eyes. In the end, this blog has hosted a debate about forced gitten in contemporary times, and I am waiting to see in writing from great Rabbis whether or not the actions of the ORA are considered potential problems of forced gitten or not. (L'kavod Rabbi Dr. Eidonsohn: you claimed at the beginning of the debate that you planned on getting in writing the opinions of great Rabbis. Are you attempting to fulfill this statement?) However, one thing is for certain, and that is that running to secular court and demanding an unconditional GET at the same time is certainly not acceptable according to most Rabbonim outside the world of Modern Orthodoxy.
 ====================
[Update regarding his chiddush the following was posted today
 DT wrote:

Rabbi Bechhofer: Please clarify your view. You noted that Rambam(Hilchos Gerushin 2:20) says that a beis din that errs or a beis din of hedyotos that force a get shelo kadin - the get is posul derabbonin. You made the diyuk that therefore if it is not beis din but individuals who force a get shelo kadin it is kosher. Obviously the Rambam was not referring to passive social withdrawal since that is not considered to be kefiya according to the poskim. It can only be dealing with issues such as financial or physical forces - and yet you said from the diyuk that vigilante justice can't posul the get.

Now you are stating that vigilanted justice can in fact produce a get me'usa? So what is your true position.
Rabbi Bechhofer wrote: "Three types of vigilante justice do produce get me'useh. These are specified by the Poskim: Violence, monetary sanctions and niddui. There is no precedent to ban any other form of persuasion, and the Harchokos in fact encourage other forms of persuasion. No one here has brought any definitive legitimate proof that demonstrations, petitions, and ostracism create a situation of get me'useh."
You can't have it both ways. The above statement contradicts the diyuk you made from the Rambam. If you always intended the above then you don't need a diyuk in the Rambam to permit someone not to speak to another person. However the case of the mother in law who yells at her son in law to give a get or the case of the father in law who takes his son in laws money to force him to give a get - you said were valid pressure when not done through beis din. You rejected the Lechem Mishna that rejected your diyuk.

Rabbi Bechhofer replied:
It is not a retraction. I believe that my pshat in the Rambam is emes. Nevertheless, since it is clear that many Gedolei HaPoskim either do not accept my pshat, or do not rule like the Rambam, I go on to clarify that my position stands independently of the Rambam, the distinction being that according to the Rambam any form of persuasion not initiated by BD would be valid, while the consensus of the Poskim (which I, of course, accept) is to exclude three forms of persuasion as kinds of Kefi'ah no matter how they are initiated. I believe this is pashut k'bei'ah b'kutcha.

18 comments:

  1. we don't pasken like the rambam so academics can make whatever diyukim they like.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Is it immoral for a Beis din to tell the husband to deposit a GET on condition that the woman drops the secular court case. The above Rabbonim seem not to think this is immoral. However, from the view of Modern Orthodox Rabbonim these Beis Dins are considered criminals. "

    These MO purported Rabbonim's views are a joke. They are supporting rodfim and anyone who views them as rabbonim is completely ignorant of the Torah. They don't have an authentic halachik leg to stand on. They are feminists masquerading as Torah abiding Jews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These MO purported Rabbonim's views are a joke. They are supporting rodfim and anyone who views them as rabbonim is completely ignorant of the Torah.
      Stan,
      I believe you are a bit confused. Over here you defended Ohr Somayach as being Hareidi now you are saying that they are MO(at least I assume that you include Rav Bechhofer in that grouping).

      Here's a thought why don't you do us all a favor and contact Ohr Somayach Monsey and see what their Rosh Yeshiva has to say about Rav Bechhofer's ideas as presented here. That was what you originally threatened him with. I have even done you the favor of looking up their contact info for you:
      Phone: (845) 425-1370
      Fax: (845) 425-8865
      Email: ohr@os.edu

      Delete
  3. No it is you who is confused tzedoki. Ohr Sameach is charedi and they are employing someone who is anti the torah. why don't ask me why, ask them why.

    you can keep your favors for the women in arko'oys you support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well my previcating pritzus purveying friend, the problem you have is that either Ohr Somayach is employing at least two people who teach very problematic things, one of whom does so at the Yeshiva itself, or they are not Chareidi.

      Either way, now we have your measure. You threatened repeatedly to take Rav Bechhofer's opinions to the Rosh Yeshiva of Ohr Somayach, but it would now appear that you like the intestinal fortitude to do so.

      So now we see you for who you really are Stan. You post pritzus and ask Jews to go view it. You lie to libel about Rav Schachter about a gerut that he came no where near. You huff and puff about how you are going to blow R' Bechoffer down, only to back pedal.

      Delete
  4. Yitzy Hillel, thank you for highlighting the EMES - "The Modern Orthodox say the case has had a "fair judgement" and now the man must give an unconditional GET or because of chillul hashem the man must give a GET, etc. This seems to be the biggest underlining debate in my eyes."

    In a Forward article linked to recently on this blog, a noted agunah activist admitted:
    "In 99% of agunah cases, the wife, not the husband, is the plaintiff."

    In response to this situation, the YU - ORA feminist theologians have simply erased various parts of the Shulchan Aruch which radically conflict with their feminist agenda - GET MEOSO (Evan HaEzer 134), MOREDES (Evan HaEzer Seman 77), MOSER (Choshen Mishpat 388), ISSUR ARCHAOS (Choshen Mishpat 26), etc.

    Bechhofer and company certainly do NOT hold by the RAMBAM as they pretend - while ORA's fake "agunot" rob their husbands blind in ARCHAOT, the feminists delete the Rambam's PSAK in Hilchos Ishus (14:8) - "she (the wife) is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should return even the shoe on her foot and her head-covering that he gave her ..."

    Bechhofer, Schachter, Stern, Berger, Tzadok, etc. can perform all the halachic voodoo they like, but their agenda of aiding and abetting MOREDES's has no authentic Torah sources, it's a great perversion of Torah law and justice, and it produces GET MEOSO and MAMZERIM.

    Until Torah justice is restored for Jewish husbands (and wives), there's no chance of solving the so-called "agunah" problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bechhofer and company certainly do NOT hold by the RAMBAM as they pretend - while ORA's fake "agunot" rob their husbands blind in ARCHAOT, the feminists delete the Rambam's PSAK in Hilchos Ishus (14:8) - "she (the wife) is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should return even the shoe on her foot and her head-covering that he gave her ..." Bechhofer, Schachter, Stern, Berger, Tzadok,

    This is actually bordering on the obscene. Let me clarify for you:
    1) I am not MO, I am Sephardi Hareidi
    2) I believe that the Rambam's position on Kefia is a rejected opinion.
    3) I am absolutely against the use of Arkaot wihtout a heter from a valid B"D(whether it is a man or a woman, which means Aharon Friedman as well whatever woman you want to ask about).
    4) If pressure is applied in any of the ways the B"Y Eh"E 134 says is kefia or asui, the Get is invalid M'D'Rabbanan. However, if it is applied in any of the ways that he says is not kefia or asui, the Get is perfectly valid by all opinions.
    5) Kefia does not produce Mamzerim as the B"Y and Sh"A rule that it is only invalid m'd'rabbanan and then it is sofek.

    That represents the majority opinion Halakha, which I believe that Rav Bechoffer is well outside of, which is why he staunchly refuses to post sources of any sort.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "5) Kefia does not produce Mamzerim as the B"Y and Sh"A rule that it is only invalid m'd'rabbanan and then it is sofek.

    That represents the majority opinion Halakha"

    That represents the MO opinion as stated by Tzadok. Dayan Gestetner disagrees and holds that a get forced through the courts or violence is a Get Meuseh d'orayseh and does lead to mamzeirim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So holding by the SH"A and B"Y is now modern Orthodox? I need to tell Rav Ovadiah, he appears to be unaware.

      Delete
  7. It is unbelievable how you allow this Tzadok to continue to lie on your web site DT. i did not look at those links and by him being motzi sheym ra about me shows what a biryon he really is and I am glad because he will have to answer in shomayim for this.

    His attempts to defend Schachter after condemning rav shach and lying about his positions show just who is. But then again he advocated violence against me so what is new.

    How do you know whether or not I complained to Ohr Sameach yet or not?

    Carry on with your fake views tzedoki.
    1) going to arko'oys is not mesirah
    2) one who is in arko'oys has not got the status of lo tzias dina and can litigate on other matters in bais din
    3) one does not need to pay the legal costs of the victim if one took someone to arko'oys without a hetter bais din.

    a) you can only get someone arrested for violating an order of protection if a police officer witnesses it.
    b) rav shach supported oslo 1 and 2
    c) shas were not oyver lo sa'amod al dam reicho because giving guns to PLO terrorists is not a definite sakonoh
    d) i did not advocate violence against you - i just said that the sefardi gedolim would be watching in glee if you were beaten up for no rhyme or reason.
    e)stan approved of gang rape

    Dude you need help badly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is unbelievable how you allow this Tzadok to continue to lie on your web site DT. i did not look at those links and by him being motzi sheym ra about me shows what a biryon he really is and I am glad because he will have to answer in shomayim for this.
      It is impossible to post a link without having opened it Stan. You yourself said you got them from Unorthodox Jew, which is a site filled with pritzus. So this is your first lie.

      1) going to arko'oys is not mesirah
      Once again another lie. I did not say that. I said with a valid claim as is brought down in the Sh"A 388:5.

      2) one who is in arko'oys has not got the status of lo tzias dina and can litigate on other matters in bais din
      That is meforash in C"M 26:1. You have yet to post any source that says otherwise.
      3) one does not need to pay the legal costs of the victim if one took someone to arko'oys without a hetter bais din.
      Again FOR A VALID CLAIM as is meforash in the Sh"A and Notei Kelim.

      a) you can only get someone arrested for violating an order of protection if a police officer witnesses it.
      That wasn't what I said. I said if a woman calls the police to report a violation of the protection order, the police will not hunt the man down on her word alone. They either have to witness the violation, or the woman has to prove to a judge that the violation occured.

      b) rav shach supported oslo 1 and 2
      He did, he never retracted his psak on land for peace. He only did not want Labor to get the credit for it. His own speeches say so.

      c) shas were not oyver lo sa'amod al dam reicho because giving guns to PLO terrorists is not a definite sakonoh
      Arming and training Palestinians was Oslo 2 which Shas voted against so you are lying again.

      d) i did not advocate violence against you - i just said that the sefardi gedolim would be watching in glee if you were beaten up for no rhyme or reason.
      No that is another lie. I said that your racism would incite them to violence. Just like spouting racial epithets against african americans in the Bronx would incite them to violence.

      e)stan approved of gang rape
      Again another lie. That is not what I said. I said that your remark was that compasssion for the rape victim was feminism and tantamount avodah zara.

      Delete
  8. Question for DT and his brother R Dovid E. I am still trying to understand how you allowed that vicious attack on Dayan Abraham which had zero facts and mekoros in it and was pure motzi sheym ra?

    I can only infer that you are against both Dayan Abraham and Dayan Gestetner because you allowed such nonsense to be published. I have also heard that R Dovid E has said things against both Dayoinm A and
    G. I would appreciate your comments.

    If you don't believe they are acceptable Botei Din (with reasons given of course) I would like to know which Botei Din IN NYC and Monsey you approve of for Gittin?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike and Stan:

    Can you two delinquent juveniles just shut up already?

    ReplyDelete
  10. nice try tzedoki:

    0) I copied the link without looking at what the site was about so enjoy your motzi sheym ra rosho and enjoy the even hotter temperature tzedoki.

    1) i explained to you how divorce court works which you admitted to be ignorant about - it is all lying and exaggerating but your interpretation is dead wrong - I discussed it with rav gestetner.

    2)one who is in arko'oys has not got the status of lo tzias dina and can litigate on other matters in bais din
    That is meforash in C"M 26:1. You have yet to post any source that says otherwise.

    again your false interpretation.

    3) one does not need to pay the legal costs of the victim if one took someone to arko'oys without a hetter bais din.
    Again FOR A VALID CLAIM as is meforash in the Sh"A and Notei Kelim

    and women'as claims for money in arko'oys in excess of what the halochoh is is a valid claim biryon?


    a) you can only get someone arrested for violating an order of protection if a police officer witnesses it.
    That wasn't what I said.

    sorry liar that is what you said regardless of how many times you deny it. it does not change what you said.

    b) rav shach supported oslo 1 and 2
    He did, he never retracted his psak on land for peace. He only did not want Labor to get the credit for it. His own speeches say so.

    you are lying okay about the previous godol hador.

    c) shas were not oyver lo sa'amod al dam reicho because giving guns to PLO terrorists is not a definite sakonoh
    Arming and training Palestinians was Oslo 2 which Shas voted against so you are lying again. part of oslo 1 liar.

    http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/oslo_eng.htm - OSLO ONE, ONE, ONE

    "Article VIII
    Public Order and Security from Oslo one

    In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Council will establish a strong police force, while Israel will continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order."

    d) i did not advocate violence against you - i just said that the sefardi gedolim would be watching in glee if you were beaten up for no rhyme or reason.
    No that is another lie. I said that your racism would incite them to violence. Just like spouting racial epithets against african americans in the Bronx would incite them to violence.

    so you compare your sefardi brothers and sefardi gedolim to african americans in the bronx and lied in the process.

    e)stan approved of gang rape
    Again another lie. That is not what I said. I said that your remark was that compasssion for the rape victim was feminism and tantamount avodah zara.

    I said no such thing again a lie. Get help dude you are pathological

    ReplyDelete
  11. I still await your brother and your own views on the botei din of rav gestetner and rav abraham.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stanley,

    Rav Shach supported land for "peace" , and the jokes in Haredi Yeshivot at the time were "why do the Zionist rabbis allow selling land for heter mechirah, but not land for peace".

    Now here is my take: Many Rabbis from Haredi, Sephardi, MO, and even some Tzioni supported Land for a deal with the PLO. Oslo started before rabin's treacherous government was elected. At the time it was illegal to meet PLO reps, and thast what atheist Beilin and shaigetz peres did.

    Since R' Shach ztladvocated LFP, assumin he was reasonably intelligent and knew who arafat yemach shmo was, then he knew that such a deal would be done with that murderer.

    R' Shach did teshuva at the end of his life. R' Yochan Ben Zakkai also made a similar mistake, but he was unable to rectify it.
    Perhaps in a certain sense R' Shach was doing a Tikkun for RYBZ.
    R' Shach at the end of his life, adopted the position of his fellow Talmid Hacham Muvhak of R' Isser Zalman Meltzer (I refer to R' Goren, whom r Shach once approached to set up a Kollel with).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eddie thanks for your megilah and for your info. that Rav Sach did 'tshuva'. Once again you and your biryon buddie tzedoki just can't think very deeply.

    While rav shach was in favor of "land for peace", it was only when the outcome had a high probability of succeeding. That's why unlike the volvo receiving crowd, he opposed Oslo.

    He was not in favor of settlements for provoking the wrath of the goyim but there is a difference between building settlements on land to provoke the goyim and to not give the land to the PLO.

    I am amazed that I need to explain such basics to you more liberal and worldly folks than myself - after all shaul shapira told me this blog was not for me as I thought like the folks in the Meah Sheaorim shtiblach.

    The lack of ability to think by some of the contributors to this blog is astounding - similarly to not understand not even that subtle arguements shows the intelectual barrenness of the pro fake "agunah" getora crowd led so stridently by tzedoki

    ReplyDelete
  14. 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

    ReplyDelete

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