Sunday, May 6, 2012

R Bechhofer's pshat in Rambam - critique

To review briefly, I posted the following assertion by James.
James (May 3, 2012) wrote : Even if it [ORA's actiities] is humiliation, (and I do not think it is) it is not humiliation ordered by the Beth Din. There is nothing new with publishing seruvim and calling the public to urge Aharon to give a GET. The only thing different is that ORA has decided to use the Internet to organize the public in a way that was never possible before the advent of the Internet. This is a private action
I disagreed and responded : In sum. It follows from the initial premise that as long as the force is unrelated to beis din we avoid all the tiresome discussion of what constitutes legitimate pressure according to Rabbeinu Tam or Rambam etc etc. Thus if this idea is correct - any and all types of force can be applied to force the get - because it is only vigilante action and not the legitimate psak of beis din!

I also posted two sources which I claim indicate that forcing by unauthorized individuals makes it a get me’usa.

Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 2:20): If it isn't required according to the halacha that the husband be forced to give a get and beis din made a mistake or it was a beis din of laymen - [Rabbi Tougher's translation is " a Jewish court or simple people compel him"] and they forced him until he gave a get - the get is not valid.  But since Jews have forced him he should give her a valid get [because he might think it was valid and when he marries another without obtaining a valid get it produces mamzerim]. However if goyim force him not according to halacha it is not a get.... since the law does not require it and the force was from goyim it is not a get.
Chazon Ish (E.H. 69:23) describes a case that the wife's father refuses to give back money that belongs to the husband - unless he gives a get. The Chazon Ish says since the beis din did not authorize this it is kefiah by a hedyot. Therefore he urges that beis din be convened and rule that the father should not give back the money until the get is given.
============================
Batmelech commented
So what happens if his mother, or worse: mother in law, insists he give a get???This would be a forced get in any case, because nothing is more fearsome than an angry mother, or worse, mother in law!!!
================
You can taunt James all you like, but he is absolutely correct. This is medukdak in the Rambam, but you missed the diyuk because you inaccurately translated hedyotos as laymen - implying it is a separate category from a BD that was in error. The Rambam is saying that a get compelled by an erroneous BD or a BD of simpletons is invalid. V'duk.
"Batmelech" also cut through to the heart of the matter:
Rabbi Bechhofer’s criticism of my position continued on his blog  

Yitzy Hillel asked Rabbi Bechhofer:
So what does Rav Sternbuch mean (5:344) that woman hiring thugs to beat men to give GETS is a Get Batul and causes Mamzurs. I am not talking about a fight between the husband and wife or family members, I just want clarify your statement that any actions that are not sanctioned by a beis din can never be Kefia?
Binyamin asked Rabbi Bechhofer
    The Rambam is in gerushin 2:20     "If the halacha does not require that he divorce her and the beis din erred, or if they were hedyotos, and they pressured him until he divorced, the get is posul" i.e. koshjer midioraisa and posul midirbanan. He does not say anywhere that if individuals pressured him the get is kosher. The Lechem Mishna explicitly says that if individuals pressure him where he is not required to give a get the get is posul midoraisa, same as if a non-Jewish court forced him to give a get.
Rabbi Bechhofer answered:
1) The Rambam doesn't have to say that if individuals pressured him the get is kosher. Any get that is not specified as batel or pasul is a priori kosher! The Lechem Mishne is very veit from pshat in the Rambam, u'devarav tzrichin iyun. All this, however, is lomdus. I believe my pshat in the Rambam, is emes, and any lamdan will be modeh al ha'emes.
2) But even if you don't, the logic which - despite your scoffing elsewhere - is represented by Batmelech's phrasing holds true. And that is why even according to the Mechaber, who does not pasken like the Rambam and holds me'useh al yedei a private citizen is me'useh, any pressure that does not entail: a) violence; b)direct financial penalties; c) niddui - does not create a state of me'useh. This is the yesod of Harchaka d'R"T. And that is why mei'ikar ha'din we do not need a BD to impose the harchokos. For, if a BD was essential to the process, Harchokas RT would be a form of Kefi'ah, and RT could not have sanctioned its use in cases in which he himself rules that ein kofin. Al karchach, the imposition of harchokos is not a Ma'aseh BD. What BD statement that the Harchokos are appropriate does is merely to verify that the activation of harchokos in this or that case is appropriate, and not creating undue nuisance for someone who does not deserve it.To turn the tables, your position is unsustainable. L'shitas'cha u'l'shittas haEidensohns, if I as a solitary individual would constantly go and harass someone until he gave a get, the get would be me'useh. If a Rav called a husband too late at night and that caused the husband to give a get, that would also be me'useh. If a very prestigious Rav called on the husband to give a get, and he felt he could not say no to such a distinguished personage, it would also be me'useh. Absurd, of course.

My Response:
Rabbi Bechhofer makes two points – the second assertion is that anyone who uses the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam – even without authorizing can not create a get me’usa. That is because the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam are  not considered force. It is an interesting point. But it is not clear that it is true. We see clearly from the fact that Rabbeinu Tam was not utilized for centuries because major poskim thought that it might create a get me’usa and that we see from contemporary poskim like Rav Sternbuch that they have a great reluctance to use them. I don’t think that Rabbi Bechhofer's assertion is obviously correct. The fact that Rav Ovadia Yosef says that beis din can authorize them at times - because of the needs of modern society – indicates he doesn’t think that they should be used indiscriminately. According to Rav Bechhofer – why the hesitation amongst great poskim? Why do so many prohibit the use of them? But Rabbi Bechhofer goes even further by saying that – even if beis din did not authorize Rabbeinu Tam – any and all harrasment would be permitted as long as it was not physical violence, monetary pressure or niddoi.
But even if Rabbi Bechhofer is correct that harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam do not require a beis din to authorize their use and can not create get me’usa - the question is and was whether ORA’s public demonstration or the screaming of neighbors or mother‑in‑laws are included in Rabbeinu Tam.
However Rabbi Bechhofer’s first assertion is totally absurd. He claimed that according to the Rambam - only a beis din is restricted to apply pressure according to the law. In contrast he claims that a layman who is not part of a beis din can apply any type of pressure and the get is still kosher. This “chidush” is explicity rejected by Rav Sternbuch, Chazon Ish, Lechem Mishna and I could not find a single source that explictly agreed with Rabbi Bechhofer “chidush”. Rabbi Bechhofer rejected the Lechem Mishna by saying, “The Lechem Mishne is very veit from pshat in the Rambam, u'devarav tzrichin iyun. He notes, “All this, however, is lomdus. I believe my pshat in the Rambam, is emes, and any lamdan will be modeh al ha'emes”.
This would mean that according to the Rambam any type of vigilante justice can not create a get me’usa – but only incorrect pressure applied by a beis din. Please find anyone – lamdan or otherwise - who agrees. It also does violence to the source of the Rambam – Gittin (88b) where only beis din can authorize pressure – any non-authorized pressure invalidates the get.

[[update May 14, 2012]]

I 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 vigilante justice can in fact produce a get me'usa? So what is your true position?
Rabbi Bechhofer commented:"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.

Reply of Rabbi Bechhofer:

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.

38 comments :

  1. Firstly, I think there is a typo here:

    Rabbi Bechhofer makes two points – the second assertion is that anyone who uses the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam – even without authorizing can not create a get me’usa. That is because *get me’usa is* not considered force.

    I think that should be: "That is because Harchokos R"T are not considered force."

    L'gufo shel inyan, I'm not sure what the problem is with the sugya in Gittin. The Rambam in the Peirush HaMishnayos (both in the Vilna and in the Kapach ed.) learn the sugya is talking about Battei Din and Shoftim. From the Bar Ilan CD, which is the Kapach ed.:


    פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת גיטין פרק ט משנה ח

    [ח] מעושה, שנלקח בכפייה והכרח, כלומר שכפו את הבעל לגרש. אם היו בית דין של ישראל הם הכופין הרי זה גט כשר. ואם שופט הגוים כפה אותו לגרש הרי הגט פסול על כל פנים, אלא שאם היתה כפייתו כפי מה שמחייבים דיני ישראל, כגון שתבעה האשה את הגרושין, או שהיה חייב לגרשה מן הדין, הרי אותו הגט פוסל מן הכהונה ואף על פי שהוא פסול. וכן אם כפאוהו בית דין של ישראל על הגט שלא כדין הרי אותו הגט פסול ופוסל מן הכהונה. ואם כפאוהו הגויים שישמע לישראל, וצווהו בית דין של ישראל לכתבו הרי זה כשר.

    Nothing about private citizens.

    I have already explained the lomdus of the Rambam, based on the fundamental principle of להיות מישראל, as I wrote in a comment to
    http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/05/mechooh-contd-ii-james-gets-it.html:

    The Rambam's shittah is that a person really wants to do whatever it takes להיות מישראל. That's why even where a mistaken BD compels a get, the Rambam holds that me'd'orysa it is a valid get, but is pasul d'Rabbanan because the compelling was done by mistake or by incompetence. This is also why, OTOH, a get unilaterally compelled by non-Jews is batel me'd'orysa - because the להיות מישראל is inapplicable.

    Now, a BD must act according to procedure and protocol, and has no carte blanche to compel a get just because it feels like it. Therefore, even though להיות מישראל a person will submit even to the compelling of a improperly constituted BD, and even to an incorrect ruling - the Rabbanan passeled the Get.

    But where other Yisraelim - not purporting to be a BD, and not issuing rulings - compel someone to give a get, להיות מישראל would be applicable and the get valid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks - you are right it was a typo and I corrected it

      Delete
    2. I don't understand how להיות מישראל results in kosher get derabanan by a get coerced by a private citizen. It really makes no sense whatsoever. These is no more "ratzon" liyot miyisrael when a private citizen acts in sheloy kedin than when BD acts sheloy kdin (by mistake).

      Furthermore the statemnt of the rambam "lihyot miyisrael" iis clearly in sequence to his writing that a Jew wants to keep the mitzvot and distance from averot. So it does NOT cover a situation where the Torah rules that he does not have to divorce. There there must another reason why Rambam holds that in these cases does not passel min hatorah. (The AChronim -look at Tzemach Tzedek Beis Efrayim and the clear teshuva by Rav Hetzog- pose theories realted to "agav onsoy gomar umakneh" and that the person really is not interested in staying married to her and his not really divorcing *only* because of the coercion etc.).

      since the core of pssul derabanan is for lack of ratzon and will to divorce (on alevel derabanan) so that even if BD errs it does not reach that level of ratzon, how can you pose that when a a citizen erroneously forces that it would not passul mederabanan?

      Delete
  2. The CI has nothing to do with the Rambam. He is following in the footsteps of the Rishonim who hold that Kefi'as BD works because of mitzvah lishmo'a divrei chachomim. As I wrote in another comment to http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/05/mechooh-contd-ii-james-gets-it.html:

    The Shulchan Aruch (134:7) does not follow the Rambam, but rather passels a get compelled by Kefi'ah of public minded citizenry. This is in line with the other Rishonim in BB 48a who learn that Kefi'ah k'din works because of מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים - which of course is never applicable to private citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Forcing a GET or coercing it against the will of the husband is never acceptable. The only reason that we can, on certain occasions force a GET is because "it is a mitsvah to listen to the sages." We therefore assume, Rambam explains, that the husband wants to remain a Jew and that the coercers are masters of Jewish law and are to be obeyed. But if plain people who are not accepted by the husbands as the experts on the Torah that he must obey, the GET is invalid. This is an example of somebody who does not understand the basic laws of Gittin who is opening his mouth wide without shame to declare things that nobody ever heard of. When will it end? Is this a forum where everybody who has a small understanding of the laws of Gittin can get up and pronounce things that bring mamzerut?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look in the MirrorMay 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

      Then he would have to ban your comments too.

      Delete
  4. I think that when somebody comes to your blog and begins deciding the laws of Gittin, you should ask them who gave them semicha and where they trained. And if they are not trained, they should not talk about the laws of Gittin. Is Torah hefker?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "However Rabbi Bechhofer’s first assertion is totally absurd."

    Rabbi Eidensohn, I think you're absolutely correct about Bechhofer's assertion. Furthermore, I think we need to add that its utter dishonesty to claim that ORA's gangsterism is "harchaka d'Rabbeinu Tam". ORA's thuggery goes far beyond "harchaka", as Schachter's videos and also the directives in the fake seruv against Friedman indicate.

    There's another element you might address. It's astounding that the Bechhofer crowd could actually believe that a Get forced by laymen is kosher. It seems that Bechhofer, Berger, Tzaddok, and the ORA gang are suffering from some type of delusions that cause them to arrive at utterly absurd halachic conclusions. It almost seems like they've become disconnected from reality when they're pondering any Gittin related issues.

    Any ideas what could be causing this peculiar syndrome?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Be that as it may, as I note in the excerpt RDE cites here, we do not need to come on to the Rambam, because even the Machmirim only passel Kefi'ah by the citizenry, which does not include the Harchakos. וז"פ

    As to why the Harchokos are not mentioned that often throughout history, to me it is pashut that in the old days, when the Rav told the man to divorce, he divorced. It is b'avonoseinu ho'rabbim that niskayem banu the Mishnah at the end of Sotah that we need to specifically invoke the Harchokos.

    As to ROY's statement that caution be used in exercising the Harchokos - that too is true, as it would be unjust - and worse - to deploy the Harchokos if they were unwarranted.

    But when a BD sanctions the use of the Harchokos, they are not issuing a psak din. They are giving a haskomo to the use of the Harchokos. Accordingly, even a Rav who is not a part of a BD can serve as the basis for deploying the Harchakos. For example, if Reb Shmuel Kamenetzky said Harchokos were warranted in a certain case, then he is more than enough of a bar samcha for people to assume that their deployed was just and justified. No BD necessary.

    Again, as James has said, were a BD essential to deploying the Harchokos, that would indicate that they were a form of Kefi'ah, and - according to the accepted psak - inappropriate in cased of Ma'us Alai. But the BD is not essential to the process, serving only to verify that the deployment would be justified and just. That is because they are not a form of Kefi'ah, and therefore would never passel a get. ותו לא מידי

    ReplyDelete
  7. what bechoffer who purports to be orthodox should be focusing on is the mesirah that many of these fake agunahs have perpetrated in court (despite tzadok's laughable attempts to whitewash this admitting that he knows nothing about how divorce court works) and what can be done to excommunicate these rashantahs from klal yisroel.

    the halochohs of mesirah are pretty clear in shulchan oruch and the nosei keilim and action to remove this terrible mageifoh from our community is long overdue.

    the fact that our alleged gedolim keep silent on this and organize rallies about the internet shows how bereft of gedolim america is. the only concern of these rabbis is to prevent criticism of their hypocrisy on blogs.

    No doubt that these women are in the category of being rodfos and those fake refomadox rabbis who support them probably fall into the same category of rodfim as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still waiting for that condemnation of Aharon Friedman for going to arkaot and then staying there after the B"D ordered him to dismiss that case. Until then you and your sock puppets really having nothing worthwhile to add, because it is clear that you are more than willing to twist Torah in any misogynistic manner that suits you.

      Delete
    2. What would you do if your child was abducted? Would you go to the civil authorities or the Beis Din?

      Delete
    3. A macho'oh.

      Stan, "Bechhofer who purports to be Orthodox" gives shiurim in both shasin, is perhaps THE go-to person on Eiruvin halakhah lemaaseh in the US (I know numerous towns that referred to RYGB when they broadened the acceptibility of their eruv), teaches for Ohr Samayach, writes sefarim for ArtScroll, and wrote the sefarim "Bidgei Sheish" on Mes BB and on Sefer Shofetim.

      For you to think you know enough to critique his shitah is simply misguided. At least there is no indication of you having the necessary knowledge from what you've posted here.

      Delete
  8. On first assertion, I also find it hard to understand the rationale of his chiddush and a source that claims so: At first glance, the halacha is that a get must be given with the ratzon and free will of the husband. The rationale that changes this is "agav onosoh gomar umegaresh" (using the rationale by Rav Hertzog and others starting with Rashbam etc.) but if it is sheloy kdin it would at least be passul miderabanan). But it is clear that if anything then, if B"d forces there is more room to make it kosher for then it becomes "mitzvah lishmoah chachamim" and the rationale elaborated by Rambam gerushin 2:20. But if coerced by an individual "vigliante" it certainly lacks this power and it should be less kosher.

    However regarding the second assertion: Here is where I think, it is murky and unclear. I don't think that wording of Harchokos R"t is worded in terms that they require beetzem authorization of B"d. The question is, that perhaps it;s not plain maoos olay (with umdenah) and maybe chashash of "eynah nosnoh beacher" requires prudence of a psak by Rabbonim, but I don't recall that Rav Sternbuch states that they are required beetzem.

    Regarding if humiliation and demonstration are included in R"t: I don't see anyone saying that they are not included. In fact, the critics of these harchakos mention how strong they are (Galus is no easy matter look at the teshuva of TT mentioned earlier שו"ת צמח צדק (לובאוויטש) אבן העזר סימן רסב

    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. )' so I'm not sure that humiliation is worse than causing "exile". And not to do business with him (and cause him loss of livelihood) is no easy matter.

    Another issue that seems to be glossed over in your writings: It makes it sound that the concerns of Rav Shechter and many others, that maybe these women would leave yiddishkeyt and resort to znoos is NOT their new invention: As Rav HErtzog cites at length (and the Tzemach Tzedek earlier) the GEONIM enacted the takanah to FORCE the husband to divorce in Mauss Alay and Rif ruled so. The following Rishonim disagreed and questioned if the takanah was forever. Rav Hertzog raises this in his analysis and therefore it is important to keep this in mind so at least bedieved you cannot unequivocally say that the get is meusseh bedieved.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would ask: Giving mussar to the fellow who refuses to give a Get (when he should give it), would make it "meusseh"? Obviously, you would have to find some kind of demarcation line where it starts to be labeled as "threat" as opposed to explaining to him in vivid terms how repugnant his actions are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is really the basic question which has been asked over and over again on this blog. There is a world of difference between informing that he should give a get and yelling at him and publicly embarrassing him.

      The charidi poskim avoid going beyond telling the husband in a clear justified case of ma'us alei - that it is a mitzva to give a get and not to be cruel - as Rav Sternbuch explains in the teshuva I translated on this blog. In another teshuva 5:345 he notes that if the husband refuses after a years that since he is close to a certain rebbe - the rebbe should be told not to give him kavod until he gives a get.

      The Rosh is cited by Chasam Sofer & Rav Eliashiv as being the foundation chareidi psak in these matters.

      Bottom line - the basic concern here has been for people to be aware that there is a problem of get me'usa and that they need to ask a posek before they act.

      The chareidi position is that in these issues - innovation needs to be agreed upon by the major poskim - something which has not happened in the case of ORA.

      Delete
    2. The point is: There is no clear demarcation in posskim when it considered merely doing something right (so that one could say: If society beemes thinks this fellow is disgusting and they as a tzibur want to distance from a lowlife is not to be considered "coercing" since they are doing what any sensible man would do in normal circumstances in life in their immediate family) and is within harchokos r"t or even better than those harchokos (as it does not force "exile") or maybe this is actually considered past harchokos dr"t. Bottom line: there is no clear guideliness for this question and certainly a godol beeyisroel and posskim are enetitled to their opinion in such matters.

      You quote RS 5:345. I remember seeing another Teshuva quoted here by him in the first volume where it was also pointed out in this blog wherer RS states that he would be "Noteh" to allow these harchokos if mous alay with amasla.

      While it might bwe important to raise councioussness in these issues; you equally should be careful: not to label those bedieved cases as safek get, for they have plenty of room in teshuvos of gedoyley yisroerl to rely upon who clearly state bedieved LOY TEYTZEY! in many of these cases.
      Likewise: There is a large amount of Teshuvos by gedoyley yisroel, like the Tzemahc Tzedek I mentioned (and later Ravv Hertzog equally elaborates on these points) that therre is a concern "sleoy yetzoy letarboos" and this is the basis for the opinion of Geonim and Rif and according to Tzemach Tzedek it is actually the yessod of the position of Harchakos Derabeynoo Tam! so while you harp on the problem of get meusa (lechatchila) you must equally be sensitive for the sound position of your opponents.

      Delete
  10. BINGO!

    Finally the Eidensohn brothers have summed things up with sobriety, cogency and honor. Namely...


    Dovid EidensohnMay 5, 2012 08:08 PM:
    Forcing a GET or coercing it against the will of the husband is never acceptable. The only reason that we can, on certain occasions force a GET is because "it is a mitsvah to listen to the sages." We therefore assume, Rambam explains, that the husband wants to remain a Jew and that the coercers are masters of Jewish law and are to be obeyed. But if plain people who are not accepted by the husbands as the experts on the Torah that he must obey, the GET is invalid. This is an example of somebody who does not understand the basic laws of Gittin who is opening his mouth wide without shame to declare things that nobody ever heard of. When will it end? Is this a forum where everybody who has a small understanding of the laws of Gittin can get up and pronounce things that bring mamzerut?


    Daas Torah, May 6, 2012 01:11 AM:
    that is really the basic question which has been asked over and over again on this blog. There is a world of difference between informing that he should give a get and yelling at him and publicly embarrassing him.

    The charidi poskim avoid going beyond telling the husband in a clear justified case of ma'us alei - that it is a mitzva to give a get and not to be cruel - as Rav Sternbuch explains in the teshuva I translated on this blog. In another teshuva 5:345 he notes that if the husband refuses after a years that since he is close to a certain rebbe - the rebbe should be told not to give him kavod until he gives a get.

    The Rosh is cited by Chasam Sofer & Rav Eliashiv as being the foundation chareidi psak in these matters.

    Bottom line - the basic concern here has been for people to be aware that there is a problem of get me'usa and that they need to ask a posek before they act.

    The chareidi position is that in these issues - innovation needs to be agreed upon by the major poskim - something which has not happened in the case of ORA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This coming from someone who has openly admitted that he is keeping his wife an Agunah... Nice.

      Not that you are biased or anything.

      Delete
  11. It is interesting how some wish to turn this into a simple question of party line. I strongly disagree. there was a long time of violent debate - which really was basically resolved by acknowledging that not all cases of ma'us alei are treated the same and not all pressure is the same.
    There are three tasks that need to be done - categorizing the major poskim of the last 100 years regarding ma'us alei whether they say no pressure other than telling husband this unaccepable behavior or they permit harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam. Is monetary pressure worse or better than the harchakos. Are we dealing with one issue e.g., ma'us alei or are we dealing with mulitple issues such ma'us alei in combiniation with impotence, age of the woman, wife beating.

    Then we have to factor in the sociology - is there a change in the likelihood that the wife with remarry without a get. Is there a problem of women leaving the marriage to readily if there is an easy get.

    Finally after all of the above - is there actually a difference in the readyness to do something different that is related to party line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However it is about party line.

      As long as you have people such as your brother, Stan, Binyamim, Emes L'Yaakov ect. who are fine with a man being moser a woman, who are fine with man going to Arkaot, who are fine with a man ignoring a B"D(both on dismissing the case, as the Baltimore B"D ordered as a hazmanah as from UOR), then it is about party line.

      If they will twist and distort halakah for a man on something as clear cut as Arkaot, then you have no hope of conducting a discussion about more complicated matters.

      The hypocrisy demonstrated by that side has made it an uphill battle on their end to demonstrate that they can at all discuss the halakha objectively and without gender bias.

      Delete
    2. Tzadok, does the torah really expect us to be suckers? According to the Friedman camp, there was a very real concern that Tamar would not let BD decide the custody issues. If that were to happen BD would probably give Aharon permission to take her to court. By the time BD would give up on the case, he would have no legal rights left if he didn't start proceedings sooner.

      Aharon got a pesak from ONE rabbi that he can go to court in order to preserve his legal rights but not to have the court actually decide the case. The goal was still to have the case judged by a beis din. It's not difficult to understand why a rav might pasken that BD's permission is not necessary for this kind of action.

      In fact in the end his action did not help. At a later point he postponed a court date in order to let Beis Din judge the case. But Beis Din never did. What do you think Aharon should have done?

      You are Aharon Friedman, your wife just took your daughter out of town to a locality you cannot move to due to your line of work. You suspect that she's planning on stalling proceedings in order to have an advantage when the case eventually goes to secular court. What's your next move?

      Delete
    3. Epstein violated the Baltimore BD's orders regarding dismissing the civil court case. Friedman agreed to the Baltimore BD's regarding postponing and then dismissing the civil court case - at great prejudice to himself. This was because even if the BD were to rule in Friedman's favor such decision would have been much less likely to have been upheld in court the longer the case would have been postponed because of the time that had elapsed since Epstein abducted the child.

      Delete
    4. Tzadok, does the torah really expect us to be suckers?

      The Torah really expects us to have one law for all the people.

      If you are going to call something mesirah when a woman does it, you had better be willing to call it mesirah when a man does it.

      Personally I believe that it was not Mesirah for Aharon to go to court, but lacking a valid psak from a B"D it landed him in a much worse final halakhic position, in which a B"D now cannot halakhicly rule on child custody.

      My problem is not so much with what Aharon did. My problem is with Stan/Binyamin/EmesL'Yaakov who would call it mesirah, and a number of other things if the roles were reversed and it was Aharon that bolted with the child. If you think that male or female, they would have had a right to do so given the circumstances, then my fight is not with you.

      Delete
  12. the major issue is also how bwchoffer continues to be employed in a yeshiva that follows halochoh when he holds that the issurim of get me'useh of arko'oys, mesirah and genaivah and kibud av and a rodef have been expounged from the torah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The major issue is how you and your sock puppets refuse to condemn Aharon Friedman for being moser his wife, and ignoring 2 Batei Din.

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Tzadok,
      If your child was abducted, would you go to BD or the civil authorities?

      Delete
  13. I have already answered you. my explanation was censored. i am protesting iot and will not be re-posting but clearly you don't understand halochoh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. furthermore your comment calling Aharon Friedman a moyser shows that you don't even believe your own filth and lies. He told the truth that she had abducted and kidnapped his daughter which you hold is not mesirah. now you accuse him of being a moyser. Shame on you.

    i am waiting for another 1000 words to explain the unexplainable from you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The major error in all of Bechoffer's arguments was conflating the degree of pressure with the source of pressure. Basically saying that since any individual can apply some pressure, it must be that pressure from individuals does not make a get posul.

    Most individuals will usually not be able to apply enough pressure to make a get meusseh, but if they do, there is no reason to think it is kosher. Is a get given at gunpoint kosher because an individual did it? No, because this individual was able to exert enough pressure to be a problem. If an individuals calls up their neighbor and encourages a get it is kosher, because there was no real pressure applied, not because it was only an individual involved.

    And this is also where Micha's argument was wrong, when he said that ORA's only innovation was to get organized. Even if that was true, that can easily create enough pressure to be a problem, simply because they are organized. So by organizing, they lose the benefit of only being an individual who cannot exert real pressure.

    I still have no idea what Bechoffer's diyuk is in the Rambam, and can't make any sense of his argument that lhiyos miyisrael means that people respect vigilante justice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. furthermore your comment calling Aharon Friedman a moyser shows that you don't even believe your own filth and lies. He told the truth that she had abducted and kidnapped his daughter which you hold is not mesirah.

    1) My views are irrelevant to this. You have said that in your view they do not accord with Torah. So we are talking your hypocrisy.

    2) Whether his wife moved with his permission(her claim) or without(his claim in court) is a matter of dispute. Again showing your misogyny in that, knowing no more than the rest of us you have picked a side.

    now you accuse him of being a moyser.
    According to your definition, which you refuse to apply to him(or apparently any other man) yes. You have said you consider such people mosrim, so again I simply point out your hypocrisy.

    Your failure to grasp that unequally applying that title to everyone who commits a certain action possuls all of your Torah is the shameful thing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. nice try but again total dishonesty. if you would have said that according to you its mesirah that would be one thing but that is not what you said in your posting, you accused him of mesirah without qualification. you just invent as you go about - that is your way with your opinions and your fake psak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan since I have already made my views on mesirah plain, I didn't see a need to make it any more clear that I was calling you out for your misogynistic hypocrisy.

      Delete
  18. i have been accused of many things but not of lacking things to say. i have already posted about why friedman cannot be compared to a woman in arko'oys and since i see that censorship is applied incionsistently, i especially will not re-post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan,

      Thank you for finally admitting that a man going to Arkaot is in your opinion, not to be considered a sin, like a woman going to Arkaot.

      Now that we understand that you do not follow the Torah's imparative to have one law for all the people, but that you think that the Shulhan Arukh should only be strictly applied to women, while men should be exempt if it fits them, we can move on with the discussion and completely ignore you.

      Delete
  19. computer program: (infinite loop)

    repeat until infinity until michael tzadok finally understands and gets it:

    i posted about this matter already and refuted your accusations. my post was censored and i will not be repeating the post.

    end of loop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't refute it Stan. You made excuses. You have said that any going to court without a valid heter from a B"D is mesirah. Yet you refuse to condemn Aharon for mesirah. Vis A vis you have a double standard.

      Delete
  20. i am not the psychologist here but it would appear to me as a classical Freudian slip tzaddok. you cannot fool all the people all the time only some...

    ReplyDelete

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