Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Wife should be ruled by husband: Torah Temima


Torah Temima (Bereishis 3:16): And he will rule over you - we learn from this that a woman asks for intercourse through her actions while the man asks for it directly and this is a good trait for women (Eiruvin 100b). Even though the trait of modesty is a good trait, nevertheless it is a curse that she can’t openly express her desires to her husband. It should be noted that this doesn’t explain the language “And he will rule over you” in terms of its literal meaning of having a master… Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezar (Chapter 14) notes that this is one of the curses of a woman and she should have her ear bored as a permanent slave and as a maidservant. The Radal says that this teaches that it has been decreed that a woman always has to pay attention to the words of her husband. It is logical that the reason for the practice of piercing a woman’s ears for jewelry is an allusion to the fact that she is enslaved to her husband as is noted in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezar. If so then why isn’t the expression in this verse “He shall rule over you” explained according to this understanding [and instead the gemora says it means that she can’t asked openly for intercourse]? … Nevertheless it definitely would appear that the verse doesn’t lose its literal meaning and that is also meant. Therefore in terms of the relationship of a husband and wife, the wife is obligated to accepted the authority of her husband as we find in the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:20): “Our Sages have commanded that the wife view her husband as a king and lord.”Aside from the language of this verse this idea of rulership can also be seen in the Sifre…that a woman does not have permission to speak before her husband. This is also possibly the source that Pesachim (108a) that a woman does not have to recline at the Pesach Seder in the presence of her husband. The reason being that he rules over her. She is exempt in the same way that a student is in the presence of his teacher. He cannot recline in the manner of freedom because of his fear and respect of his teacher. It is logical that this is the reason that a woman who does not fulfill the wishes of her husband is called a moredes (rebel). Since it is an obligation to accept him as king and lord [as stated in Rambam] therefore when she does the opposite - it as if she had rebelled against the kingdom. …

84 comments :

  1. Are you perhaps working with one of those anti-Semitic sites that posts embarrassing things from the the seforim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing from the seforim is embarassing. Unless one is reform and can thus just change whatever one likes.

      Delete
    2. To say that "change" means "being reform" is an oversimplification.

      Take the death penalty. So many crimes are liable to death penalty, and still it says that a beith din who pronouces one death penalty in 7 (or 70) years is a "bloody beith din".

      So the execution of death penalty was severely limited from the get-go. Nothing to do with reform.

      Delete
  2. No I truly accept the authority of Torah & Chazal and therefore I accept positions and values which are sometimes against that of contemporary society. I don't like apologetics which avoid acknowledging information because the contemporary society doesn't approve. I am quoting mainstream sources. However if you find them embarrasing because you think they are unaccepted minority views - then please show me the mainstream sources which say otherwise. However if they simply are not poltically correct - why should that concern me? Being an Orthodox Jew itself is not politically correct.

    Do you believe in rejecting all views that anti-Semites get excited about? Or are you just saying they should not be publicized on a blog or printed in books - but simply whispered in the privacy of our homes?

    I remember walking down the street one Shabbos soon after I was married - I got some fellow Jews very upset. They accused me of chillul hashem. My crime - I was wearing my talis outside of shul!

    Do you believe I should conceal that the Torah does not approve homosexual activities or intermarriage. Or that adultery or violating Shabbos is liable to the death penaly?

    Please give me your guidelines and the reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is very interesting that you post this sources. However, they should come with an explanation about validity and field of application.

      When I read them as you posted them, I understand: this is the present-day legal basis for a marriage according to jewish law. i.e. if, as a woman, I accept to go under the chuppa, I automatically accept to be a slave to my husband, to execute every order he gives (as long as it does not conflict with torah), I surrender my revenues to him, I oblige him sexually even if I don't want (as long as I'm not niddah), he manages my capital and is entitled to the capital revenue), my daughters don't inherit (only sons), I am not free to do what I want.

      As soon as I go against one of those commands, I am not an orthodox jew, I go against the torah.

      I think that in reality, there is a vast grey zone in every realm of jewish civil and penal law, resulting from 2000 years of galut.

      i.e. we adapted our value systems, our moral compasses so strongly to the cultures surrounding us, that going back to torah legistlation "as it should be" (death penalty for homosexuals, adultresses and mechaleley shabbat, no right to conclude contracts for women, no inheritance for girls (when they have brothers) is not deemed a viable option for vast parts of orthodox judaism.

      So nobody really knows what the law is, the long debate about the concept of "forced get" on this side is but one example for it.

      Delete
    2. your analysis and conclusion are not fully related to the material and are extreme. Nevertheless you have clearly articulated a starting point.

      1) Not following one of these values or guidelines does not mean you are not an Orthodox Jew. It at most means you are not behavioring in accord with the ideal of what you should be. And no it doesn't mean you are automatically going against the Torah either.
      2)You are correct that galus has had a major impact - the question is what does that mean in reality.
      3) If you mean that the Torah view has been abrogated that is incorrect. That most Jews do not relate to this value system is correct. My question is how much should education emphasize these values and how much is it largely counterproductive in terms of other values such as a successful home environment which protects against the outside world and is a healthy place to raise your children.

      4) The question I really want addressed - and I assume you would also - is how much of the sources I cited are inherently Torah values and how much they themselves are a reflection of the galus at the time they were written. On the other hand it could be that they do in fact reflect absolute Torah values that should be approximated as much as contemporary Jews can accept.

      5) So your conclusion that "nobody really knows what the law is" is like saying that in America nobody knows what civil rights laws or, or rights of sexual identity or that nobody knows what copyright laws are in the digital/ internet age.

      Law in both Jewish law and secular law is determined by acknowledged core values, by precedent, by judges with awareness of current and future realities. The resulting law is not random or arbitrary - but is determined by human beings with an awareness of continuity. There will inevitably be disagreements - but certain innovations will be accepted and certain interpretations will be rejected.

      So I agree with you that determining what Jewish marriage or divorce laws are - is not a simple mechanical process that any computer can determine. But we do have parameters and the awareness that we want a healthy society and Jews committed to accepting the rulings of rabbinic leadership.

      I am just trying to raise awareness of what the issues are.

      Delete
    3. If they weren't a reflection of true Torah values, but rather merely a reflection of the cultural norms of the time of the author, the gedolei achronim who authored it would not have recorded it in their seforim hakedoshim. So clearly it represents true Torah values.

      Delete
    4. The dispute between Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam about forcing a get in ma'us alei - which is the Torah value?

      Having more than one wife - which is the Torah value?

      Woman learning Torah - is this a Torah value or emergency measure? When Rambam says that it is like teaching immorality since most women's minds can't deal properly with it - is that a Torah value or sociological observation which varies over time and societies?

      Custody going to father or mother - Torah value or reflection of society in Talmudic times?

      Women not being chashuv - Torah value or sociological observations.

      Delete
    5. "If you mean that the Torah view has been abrogated that is incorrect."
      No, I do not mean they are abrogated. I mean, more or less, that there are many realms where case law has been missing for almost 2000 years, because it was not under jewish jurisdiction. And I mean that it is not easy to fill up a gap of 2000 years in case law.

      Take the concept of death penalty and its very restrictive application:

      In jewish law, there is death penalty (for some crimes) or nothing. The conditions for death penalty are extremely restrictive (two kosher eidim, warning).

      However, there is no "intermediary penalty" (like prison). Either the criminal is condemned to death or he walks free.

      So this would mean that a murderer, even if he committed the murder in front of 100 women, (or 10 men who were all related to each other or 100 women and 100 gamblers and 100 boys under bar mitzwa) would walk free. He could even commit 100 murders, each in front of 100 women, etc and would still walk free.

      It does not seem practicable to run a coutry or a society on these premisses.

      So what we know from 2000 years ago is not enough to fill the gaps in this realm.

      I suppose that the same goes for the relationship between husband and wife.

      I think that the concept of marriage according to the sources you cited here and in a previous post (wife has to follow her husband's every order, has no means of her own, cannot make contracts, can be ordered to have sexual relationships against her will, has no possibility of getting out of the marriage if the husband does not agree) present a huge risk for psychological and other abuse against the wife. In fact, she would have to endure his every whim.


      I do not think that couples who base their marriage on those principles are "frummer" than couples who base their marriage on a basis of equality.

      Furthermore, we see that there are other realms where the Hareidim are champions in contravening the letter of the law: the ketuba (and the rules you cited here) state clearly that the husband has to provide for his wife and children. How many hareidi couples live on the income of the wife or donations by her parents? That's something considered completely normal in the "frum" world. Yet, it is really "reform".

      By the way: I would be very gratefull for an answer to the questions I asked under the rambam post, concerning the wife's revenues.

      Delete
    6. RDE: If it is brought in the Seforim HaKedoshim, it is certainly a Torah value, not merely a contemporary value. If another Sefer disagrees, then both positions are Torah values, albeit there is a machlokes. Eilu v'eilu.

      But if you have no Sefer disagreeing with thia Sefer, then this is a Torah value and the opposite opinion is not a Torah value.

      Delete
    7. I think that you're missing the point when you speak of "political correctness" vs. Torah values. There is a real tension between different Torah values here that may be more acute or easier to recognize because of contemporary society.

      We are told that what is hateful for us we shouldn't do to others, and that this is a fundamental idea in the Torah.

      Then we are presented with a very stark notion of a husbands authority. Many of us, male or female, are uncomfortable with the notion of such authority being granted arbitrarily to one gender to the disadvantage of another.

      If Darchei Torah are Darchei Noam then explaining this in application isn't "apologetics", at least in any sort of negative sense. Don't just pontificate about how it is, explain why it is and what sort of safeguards the Torah provides to make certain life doesn't become a living hell.

      Delete
    8. The Seforim HaKedoshim don't cite contemporary societal values that aren't Torah values.

      Delete
    9. You are making a blanket assertion that any and all statements found in seform hakedoshim are by definition Torah values.

      It would help if you defined seforim hakedoshim

      if we have two seforim and one states that the view in which is stated in the second is apikorsus or a mistaken minhag or is merely the minhag of a particular society at a particular time - you can't simply say eliu v'eilu

      If we find statments such as involving astrology or health issues or science in general - are you asserting these are Torah views and thus can't be false?

      If seforim discuss historical facts - are you saying that these facts must be true - even if they are contradicted by other seforim or by established historical facts?

      In sum, while as a general rule I agree with your assertion it is not an absolute rule

      Delete
    10. If seforim hakedoshim say something, and there are no other seforim hakedoshim opposing that, it clearly is accepted unchallenged as Torah values.

      Delete
    11. >I remember walking down the street one Shabbos soon after I was married - I got some fellow Jews very upset. They accused me of chillul hashem. My crime - I was wearing my talis outside of shul!<

      I heard that even Reb Yakov Kaminetsky would get upset. I get upset too. Often it just looks so ridiculous (like when under a jacket). Sometimes I even see it done on YT, when one is allowed to carry!

      In general: If the root of hatred towards us is from jealousy ('sina' and 'sinai'), why provoke goyim by ostentatious displays like tzitzis to the knees, etc?

      Delete
    12. For those who like to paint things as black and white only, here's something I was reading today:

      >Emden was a traditionalist who responded to the ideals of tolerance being circulated during the 18th-century Enlightenment. He stretched the traditional inclusivist position into universal directions.[8] Believing, like Maimonides, that Christianity and Islam have important roles to play in God's plan for mankind, he wrote:

      We should consider Christians and Moslems as instruments for the fulfilment of the prophecy that the knowledge of God will one day spread throughout the earth. Whereas the nations before them worshipped idols, denied God's existence, and thus did not recognize God's power or retribution, the rise of Christianity and Islam served to spread among the nations, to the furthest ends of the earth, the knowledge that there is One God who rules the world, who rewards and punishes and reveals Himself to man.

      In a remarkable apology for Christianity, he wrote that that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the Seven Laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law.[9] Emden praised the ethical teachings of the founder of Christianity, considering them as being beneficial to the Gentiles by removing the prevalence of idolatry and bestowing upon them a "moral doctrine."[1][10] Emden also suggested that ascetic Christian practices provided additional rectification of the soul in the same way that Judaic commandments do.[1]
      Stance on polygamy and concubines

      In his responsum, Emden theoretically advocated the taking of a pilegesh (concubine) by a scholar since the Rabbis stated that "the greater the man, the greater his evil inclination." He collected many Talmudic and medieval examples from Judaic literature that support such behavior.[11] Although he never put his theories into practice, he criticised the institute of obligatory matrimony and suggested that it's permissible for a Jew to cohabit freely with a single Jewish woman or even with several women without marriage, or as an addition to the legal wife. He wished to revoke the ban on polygamy instituted by Rabbeinu Gershom as he believed it erroneously followed Christian morals, but admitted he did not have the power to do so.[2]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Emden

      Delete
  3. The Torah Temimah also says that the reason thewman pierce their ears is to sho that they are servants to their husbands. (n the same pasukthat you are quoting)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "So nobody really knows what the law is" no I though tzadok knew with his invented ideas about Torah.

    By the way tzadok when are you going to answer about the Volvos already that shas acquired after voting yes by abstasining in Oslo vote and being oyver lo sa'amod al dam rei'echo literally?

    I will repeat until I receive a satisfactory answer or admission about shochad being accepted?

    by the way how come none of rav elyashiv, reb shlomo zalman zt"l, rav yisroel ya'akov fisher, the steipler vechyulu saw it necessary to have a volvo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean the volvo that every MK gets... well I guess it would depend on the number of seats that they got.

      by the way how come none of rav elyashiv, reb shlomo zalman zt"l, rav yisroel ya'akov fisher, the steipler
      Probably because they preferred white Cadillacs, at least that is what they went around in. Apparently a Cadillac is considered more prestigious because of its increased price.

      voting yes by abstasining in Oslo

      Let me understand. You are upset with Shas for abstaining from the Oslo 1 vote, and then voting no on Oslo 2 and Gaza.

      HOWEVER you are find with Degel HaTorah who voted YES on all three?

      Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

      Delete
  5. "No I truly accept the authority of Torah & Chazal and therefore I accept positions and values which are sometimes against that of contemporary society. I don't like apologetics which avoid acknowledging information because the contemporary society doesn't approve."

    still waiting for the condemnation of the marriage of the eishes ish and zonah ex mrs. briskman and the assault on mr. briskman...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the assault on mr. briskman...

      I CONDEMN THE ATTACK IN THE STRONGEST TERMS POSSIBLE

      still waiting for the condemnation of the marriage of the eishes ish and zonah ex mrs. briskman

      You won't get one. The Get was ordered by a valid B"D. I am glad that the police were finally able to apprehend him and return him to Israel. I am only sorry that he had to suffer and assault for it to happen.

      Delete
    2. Stan - your knowledge is obviously vastly superior to my incomplete and fallible knowledge. I simply have no information about the Briskman case. It was clear that he had been ordered to give his wife a get by beis din and he ran away rather than dealing with it - she was left an aguna 7 years. then he was beaten up in Lakewood to give a get and Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky oked calling the police on the assailants I have no information except what I see in the paper- there simply hasn't been any new information published. Who is on his side - and who is supporting his wife?

      Why don't you write up a guest post - just leave out the ad hominem attacks and the nasty cracks and the judgment as to which rabbi is evil, stupid etc etc - maybe I'll post it.

      Delete
    3. 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?

      Now you tried to dodge by saying:
      regarding your boych kashes:
      1) see shulchan oruch for the halochos of when a man is mechuyev to divorce his wife 9even ho'ezer siman 133


      So here is the headline of the Siman:
      קל"ג צריך שימסור הגט בפני שני עדים כשרים ובו ג"ס

      So we can see that this siman does not talk about any of the questions at all. If you would kindly just answer yes or no, and stop with the dodges that would be great.

      Delete
    4. Mrs. Briskman did NOT remarry.

      Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky said that the Get that Briskman gave while he was being beaten by that couple in Lakewood is a Get Me'usa. And that if she remarries under it, she becomes an adulteress and future children mamzeirim.

      Delete
  6. rav shmuel kamenetsky.

    and rav shlomo fisher called the decision of dichovsky etc a decision of reshoim. Briskman had the letter up on his web site. search for it yourself. you were the one pontificating about how he should give a get.

    which bais din? the ra bonut. we all know what the decisions of corrupt botei din are worth...

    let us see the psak from them explaining their reasoning with all marei mekomos as required by halochoh.

    tzadok the only thing we will get out of you is kefirah.

    why don't you publicly order your brother to do the same thing? mussar begins at home after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now while Hebrew books only has the first 18volumes of Piskei Din available online, and I don't have time to shlep to the national library to hunt up the case in the later volumes, it would appear that there is nothing in common between the two cases.

      In the Friedman-Epstein case you have a wife who decided she wanted out of the marriage. Who(possibly with the consent of her husband) moved back to her parent's home with her child, and whose husband went to Arkaot(with or without a valid heter depending on who you listen to), and no valid B"D has issued a ruling.

      The Briskman case, from what I have been able to find via google(again haven't seen the piskei din so I am not certain of all the details). The husband left the wife, the wife went to B"D to seek a proper divorce. A valid B"D(and several after) ruled in the wife's favor. The husband refuses the order of a valid B"D, and flees the country. A valid B"D ordered harchakot ect.

      Now let me head you off with your Brisker Rav quote, saying that Rabbinut is tamei. Even if you feel that way, and if Briskman felt that way, he was not without recourse. The 1955 Beit Din law allows either party to refuse to be judged by the Rabbinut B"D in favor of any of the Eida Batei Din that pre-existed the State(i.e. the Eida HaChareidit or Eida HaCharedit Sephardit if you lived in Jerusalem). At which point the respective Eda B"D would supply two Dayyanim who would themselves pick a third from the Rabbinut approved Dayyan list so that their ruling would be legally enforceable.

      Whether or not Briskman chose to do this is irrelevant. What it establishes is that he was judged by what he considered a valid B"D and he refused their ruling...

      That you consider taking a stand against that to be "pro-woman" is actually quite disturbing.

      Delete
    2. He apparently no longer has a website, and as he was a criminal on the run from Israel, I am assuming that when he went to the police it also lead to his extradition.

      If you have a source for anyone speaking out against the B"D who ordered the Get please bring it.

      Also please answer these 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?

      Now you tried to dodge by saying:
      regarding your boych kashes:
      1) see shulchan oruch for the halochos of when a man is mechuyev to divorce his wife 9even ho'ezer siman 133

      So here is the headline of the Siman:
      קל"ג צריך שימסור הגט בפני שני עדים כשרים ובו ג"ס

      So we can see that this siman does not talk about any of the questions at all. If you would kindly just answer yes or no, and stop with the dodges that would be great.

      I have answered yours as you know.

      Also if you could please explain to us all why you think that having compassion on a Jewish teen who was gang raped by a group of non-Jews constitutes feminism that would also be great.

      Delete
  7. stop lying. degel did not vote for oslo I but shas for volvos did.

    i am still waiting for the answer on this tzeddoki.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Google it.

      That you used the rape of a Bat Yisrael to attack someone shows all that needs to be said about you, you misogynist hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. I hate to be on the same side of Stan, but I distinctly recall Shas voting for Oslo. I also recall ROY even sending birthday greetings to Arafat, ys'v. I also recall that when his car was stolen a quick call to the PA returned it within hours.

      Delete
    3. Dovy,

      They abstained. Google it. Or look at Stan's link. They abstained.

      Rav Shach gave a psak(which he never withdrew) that land for peace was Pikuach nefesh. Hence UTJ went with the Gaza disengagement.

      Rav Ovadiah likewise issued that psak, but refused to back Oslo 1 over Aryeh Deri's objections. As a result, instead of going with his initial compulsion to vote against it, Rav Ovadia allowed the party to abstain as a compromise. A position which he admitted was wrong. Likewise he withdrew his psak on land for peace, and said that it is clear that ceeding land will only result in the shedding of more Jewish blood.

      Shas thus voted against Oslo 2(Rav Shach's wiki says Degel Hatorah voted for it, but I can find nothing official).

      Shas thus voted against Gaza, and left the govt with half of Likud in an attempt to topple the Govt that was doing it. UTJ(then under the leadership of Rav Eliashiv) joined with Kadima in exchange for funding for their schools and voted in favor of the Gaza disengagement.

      The spiritual leadership of Degel HaTorah has never withdrawn its official psak that land for peace is necessary as a pikuach nefesh.

      Delete
  8. get help dude. your true colors came out a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also please answer these 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?

      Now you tried to dodge by saying:
      regarding your boych kashes:
      1) see shulchan oruch for the halochos of when a man is mechuyev to divorce his wife 9even ho'ezer siman 133

      So here is the headline of the Siman:
      קל"ג צריך שימסור הגט בפני שני עדים כשרים ובו ג"ס

      So we can see that this siman does not talk about any of the questions at all. If you would kindly just answer yes or no, and stop with the dodges that would be great.

      I have answered yours as you know.

      Also if you could please explain to us all why you think that having compassion on a Jewish teen who was gang raped by a group of non-Jews constitutes feminism that would also be great.

      Delete
  9. tzedokki dude thanks for lying. I will not use the word misrepresenting when it comes to you.

    here from the web site of the Israeli govt:

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1992-1994/110%20Statement%20in%20the%20Knesset%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Rab

    The accords were approved by the Knesset on 23 September by a vote of 61 in favor (56 Labor-Meretz, 5 from Arab parties), 50 against (29 Likud, 8 Tsomet, 6 National Religious Party, 4 United Torah Judaism, 3 Moledet), 8 abstentions (5 Shas party, 3 Likud). The three Likud members Shitreet, Milo and Asaad Asaad abstained in violation of their party discipline. Excerpts from Mr. Rabin's address follow:

    5 black Volvo dude, zero white Cadillac.

    You don't owe a pathetic apology. You owe all your other readers dude. and stop lying I have caught you out far too many times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, good find. Apparently I was wrong. However, I will point out to you that this website says that the National Religious party voted in favor
      http://mondediplo.com/focus/mideast/israel-5-1-2-en

      And Rav Shach's hebrew wiki says that he ordered Degel HaTorah to vote in favor.

      However, I will concede the point as this is an official Israeli govt. page.

      However you are lying in saying that Oslo passed on account of Shas abstention. By the vote count there you have 61-50. If all of the abstentions voted against you would have had 61-58. In othere words they would have passed either way.

      Thank you for your ongoing blood libel. Now how many volvos did UTJ get for the Gaza disengagement?(see two can play this foolish game)

      Now if you would please answer these 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?

      Now you tried to dodge by saying:
      regarding your boych kashes:
      1) see shulchan oruch for the halochos of when a man is mechuyev to divorce his wife 9even ho'ezer siman 133

      So here is the headline of the Siman:
      קל"ג צריך שימסור הגט בפני שני עדים כשרים ובו ג"ס

      So we can see that this siman does not talk about any of the questions at all. If you would kindly just answer yes or no, and stop with the dodges that would be great.

      I have answered yours as you know.

      Also if you could please explain to us all why you think that having compassion on a Jewish teen who was gang raped by a group of non-Jews constitutes feminism that would also be great.

      Delete
  10. tzedoki, i put question marks because I dont remember exactly what siman it was. it is discussed in shulchan oruch or are you disputing that fact as well?

    dude get help for being a pathological l**r already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why can you not simply answer the questions with a yes or no?

      Delete
  11. Tzedokki you have been wrong about many things.I have little doubt that if I had the time to read all the sources you quote I would find many holes in them.

    glad to know that to you whatever the tzionim claim must be true. that's why when their thuggish death bin rules that briskman must give a get after a bnei brak bais din rules otherwise, we should rely on the esteemed tzionishe dayonim.

    No blood libel. it proves when it comes to dinei nefoshos one should not rely on rav ovadyia. and dinei nefoshos in spiritual terms are gittin and geirus where rav ovadya had to back dow despite your claims otherwise.

    "Why can you not simply answer the questions with a yes or no?" you have got to be joking. read the siman, there are multiple conditions involved dude. even you should know better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan- You really need to read up a bit. See this fascinating post on Seforim blog. I'll just cut and paste one paragraph here:

    "What, from today's standards, would be the most cruel thing imaginable, is described by R. Ishmael ha-Kohen of Modena, the last great Italian posek (Zera Emet 3:111).[55] R. Ishmael rules that the word "mamzer" should be tattooed (by a non-Jew) on a mamzer baby's forehead![56] This will prevent him from being able to marry. I know that no contemporary rabbi would recommend such a step (although the Zera Emet's advice is quoted in R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira's Darkhei Teshuvah, Yoreh Deah 190:11). Nor would anyone want the mamzer's house or grave to be plastered, as was apparently the opinion of some in talmudic days, in order that people would be able to shun him.[57]"

    http://seforim.blogspot.com/2009/09/marc-b-shapiro-thoughts-on.html

    Do you believe this reflects a current torah value???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Current Torah values are no different than the Torah values of 500 or 1000 years ago.

      Delete
    2. attitudes towards women have remained constant? Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershon was not an innovation? Women's education, voting, working out of the home, even the concept of chashivus.

      the idea that woman are not like captives - articulated by the Rambam which he deduced from the gemora - was understood by most to be post talmudic

      when was the last time you went to a wedding where there was a 3 year old bride or one which the father married her off against her will? how many people do you know with more than one wife? How many people have a pilegesh?

      Delete
    3. I was speaking of TORAH VALUES. They have not changed. Attitudes did change.

      BTW, source please that women are not like captives, as per Rambam, is a post-Talmudic idea "per most", as you claim. I believe you are very mistaken. Women were never considered like captives according to the Gemorah.

      Delete
    4. Look at the Kesubos 63b. Does it say that when a woman can't stand her husband we force him to divorce her? Does it explain that she isn't a captive? All it says is we don't force her - no explanation given. Then the gemora mentions another view where in fact the wife was forced to remain with the husband and had a child. Though the gemora acknowledges that was not correct. The halacha of the gemora is that the husband does not need to divorce her. The rishonim explain that is because we are only concerned she is interested in another man. So what do we do? Beis Din does not force her to have sexual relations with her husband but she remains married.
      It was in the period of the geonim that they decided that the husband needed to be forced because woman were turning to the Moslems to save them from their tragic fate.

      Where do you see that the gemora - especially from the understanding of the rishonim - was concerned with the reality that she would be stuck with a man she hated?

      In other words by not ruling like the Rambam - his view is rejected. Freedom only came to women through the decree of the Gaonim and that was only because women were leaving yiddishkeit. Even that takana was viewed as time limited . See Ramban.
      Sounds like they were basically captives to me - except they didn't have to have sexual relations with their husband - but it doesn't sound like they were free.

      Delete
  13. glad to know that to you whatever the tzionim claim must be true. that's why when their thuggish death bin rules that briskman must give a get after a bnei brak bais din rules otherwise, we should rely on the esteemed tzionishe dayonim.
    Source please?

    No blood libel. it proves when it comes to dinei nefoshos one should not rely on rav ovadyia. and dinei nefoshos in spiritual terms are gittin and geirus where rav ovadya had to back dow despite your claims otherwise.

    Gaza for sure does the same thing(at least) for the leadership of UTJ.

    "Why can you not simply answer the questions with a yes or no?" you have got to be joking. read the siman, there are multiple conditions involved dude. even you should know better.
    Why I know is that you don't want the world to see what a misogynist hypocrite you are.

    Also please explain to us all why you think that having compassion on a Jewish teen who was gang raped by a group of non-Jews constitutes feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "glad to know that to you whatever the tzionim claim must be true. that's why when their thuggish death bin rules that briskman must give a get after a bnei brak bais din rules otherwise, we should rely on the esteemed tzionishe dayonim.
    Source please? all on the briskman site search for it yourself dude. do i look like i am your secretary?

    "Also please explain to us all why you think that having compassion on a Jewish teen who was gang raped by a group of non-Jews constitutes feminism." where did i say this dude?

    ckeep up good work pravda censoring.

    as bad as gaza was it was not oslo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Briskman has no site. For some reason he has taken it down. Even if he did, why should I believe a criminal.

      "Also please explain to us all why you think that having compassion on a Jewish teen who was gang raped by a group of non-Jews constitutes feminism." where did i say this dude?
      http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/bare-bones-jewish-marriage.html#comment-form

      Delete
  15. Rav Avigdor Miller writes in his Seforim that the husband is the Captain and the wife is the First Mate who always must defer to her husbands decisions. And the husband must always consider his wifes input before making a deciaion.

    This is a common theme among many gedolim. So, yes, this certainly applies in our contemporary times. The husband is the King and ultimate authority and the wife is the Queen and his closest advisor and confident.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you really publish those texts to open the eyes of bnoth Israel and explain them what they sign up for in jewish marriage?

    Thank you for doing that and thank you for your anti-marriage campaign. If more jewish girls read your blog, it could be quite efficient.

    What you publish really has the power to disgust many girls and women form marriage under those auspices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting how you twist things around to state something negative that you know are not true. Anything to knock religion.

      But you do raise an important issue. Jewish texts have been written over a very long time and they reflect a variety of value systems and goals.

      There are in fact women who are trapped in disgusting and unhealthy relationships because their husbands cite texts - which are either taken out of context or are not conducive in our society to produce the goals that were accomplished in a different society by these attitudes.

      A simple example of something being inappropriate - even though it was appropriate elsewhere. I was once studying the mussar sefer Kav v'yashar in the beis medrash. My rosh yeshiva - Rabbi Friefeld saw what I was learning and came over and closed the sefer. 'This sefer is very good - but it was written for Europeans who lived in very difficult times. People became hardened and insensitive. The only way to reach them was to give them a powerful message dealing with hell and punishment. You are a sensitive American - such an approach is not appropriate for you."

      One of the things I have noticed in shalom bayis counseling is that the husband will typically come in and say that his wife is violating his rights or she has halachically mandated obligations that she is not fulfilling. In other words he throws the Shulchan Aruch etc at her. Or some story he heard about how a gadol's wife never asked her husband to change the diapers or carry out the garbage.
      The wife typically replies - "I don't know what it says in the Shulchan Aruch but when I am taking care of 5 little kids and I am recoverying from Strep throat and holding down a job - he could be more understanding and not demand a meal whenever he shows up."

      It is important to be aware of texts and also which ones are inappropriate or wrong for the society or for that couple. Even rabbis or mashgichim might be caught up in giving advice which is "Torah true" but simple destructive for this particular couple. An example is the tape I just posted of Rav Steinman dealing with the problem of Torah scholars who don't want their schools and children influenced by the "wrong type of kids"

      Delete
    2. It is important to be aware of texts and also which ones are inappropriate or wrong for the society or for that couple. Even rabbis or mashgichim might be caught up in giving advice which is "Torah true" but simple destructive for this particular couple. An example is the tape I just posted of Rav Steinman dealing with the problem of Torah scholars who don't want their schools and children influenced by the "wrong type of kids"

      I agree with you, and I know Stan is going to say we are both flaming feminists, however, as the video of Rav Steinman points out there are people who think that there are people who are going to take what the Torah says(or what they think the Torah says) and use it to destroy people.

      While Batmelech is making an extreme statement I think at its essence there is truth which is that a girl needs to be just as worried, if not more so, as to what kind of hashkafa she is marrying into.

      As another case with which I am familiar. I know a lady whose husband did all sorts of aveirot with her. When she tried to refuse he would force(i.e. rape her). Finally she refused to go to the mikvah.

      So the husband took her to his Rav, explained that his wife wasn't meeting his needs. The Rav turned to her and asked her what she had to say for herself. She tried to explain the wicked things that her husband would do to her. The Rav told her to shut her mouth, as it was forbidden for a wife to denigrate her husband to someone else. Then told her to go home and act like a proper frum woman.

      THat you post videos like the Steinman video(which is a major Kiddush HaShem), and psakim like that of Rav Klein's I thought you would realize that not everyone has a view that Torah is supposed to build whole and healthy individuals and families.

      Delete
    3. The law is made for cases of conflict. As long as everybody is happy, there is no claimant and no judge.

      So it is important to know what the bottom line of the law is.

      The bottom line would be, according to the texts you published here, that the wife in your example fails her duty when she does not cook for her husband. Of course, it would be nice and humane if the husband understood why she could not do it in this particular situation, but he is not obliged to forgo his rights (if they are his rights).

      And that is the problem I see with the statements you publish.

      If it is true that a wife has to oblige her husband sexually (as long as she is not niddah), that she has no right whatsoever to manage her own money or make contracts, that she has to do everything he says, just because he says so (as long as it does not conflict with halacha), that she has no right to leave the house without his permission, that she is considered a moredet if she flees the common household for whatever personal reason she has, that he has no duty whatsoever to give her a get when she asks for it, I do no think that marriage under those conditions could be very appealing to jewish women.

      So I do not really understand your position, DT: are you saying: well, it's written in those texts, but it is balloney all the same? Or are your publishing those texts to point out that our western culture is balloney and that the only torah-true position would include a women's rights situation worse than in Iran?

      Delete
  17. Basically, what I want to say is: based on what we know about the torah, we have no possibility of knowing what a society based on torah values would like.

    It could well be a society like Saudi Arabia or Iran or even Afghanistan under the taliban or a more open society. It could be a society with extreme disequalities between rich and poor or not.

    There are too many factors that are undetermined.

    If we let the extreme chassidim and litvim rule, I suppose we would land somewhere between Iran and Taleban-Afghanistan...

    ReplyDelete
  18. as bad as gaza was it was not oslo.

    You are right, it was much much worse.

    At least Rav Ovadiah had the moral fortitude to admit that he was wrong, and withdraw his psak that land for peace could be a pikuah nefesh.

    Rav Shach and Rav Eliashiv, to this day never have. Despite the lives that Oslo and Gaza have cost the Jewish people.

    ReplyDelete
  19. as bad as gaza was it was not oslo.

    You are right, it was much much worse. please stop with the lies already. oslo is the worst thing that ever happened.

    "Briskman has no site. For some reason he has taken it down. Even if he did, why should I believe a criminal." If he took the site down that is his business. You should be sued for defamation. Exactly who made him a criminal? You, the tzionim?

    you are the last person on earth to talk about being believed. falsehoods and you are synonymous.

    lastly i am not relying on the psak of rav elyashiv alone. i am relying on the chazon ish and brisker rov far bigger than anyone alive today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should be sued for defamation.
      Why? He was sentenced to a yr in Israeli prison for his criminal behavior. Thus he was a prosecuted criminal. You can try to prove defamation, but first you have to prove that he was not sentenced to one yr in prison, and then you have to prove that I meant him malice when I wrote it(oh and it would be libel, not defamation, as it was written).

      lastly i am not relying on the psak of rav elyashiv alone. i am relying on the chazon ish and brisker rov far bigger than anyone alive today.
      Fine. I am not relying on Rav Ovadia alone. I am relying upon the B"Y, the Rema, the Beit Shmuel, the Hok Mechokkhet, the Ben Ish Hai, Rav Mesas, Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Tzitz Eliezer...

      Oh and you have a source for the Brisker Rov or am I supposed to just believe racist misogynist who calls compassion for a Jewish girl who suffered gang rape avoda zara?

      Delete
    2. You are right, it was much much worse. please stop with the lies already. oslo is the worst thing that ever happened.

      I'm not quite sure how you figure that.

      However your claim that Shas voted for Oslo, has been proven false by your own link. So you lied there.

      Your claim that has Shas voted against Oslo it would have failed has also been proven false by your own link. So you lied there.

      You have claimed that they got volvos for voting for Oslo. Well as they didn't vote for Oslo, that would be another lie.

      I told you my sources for my apparently mistaken information. You can see from whence I got my mistaken ideas. Now I suppose you can claim that I maliciously relied on those...

      However, at least I had the moral fortitude to admit when I was wrong in light of superior evidence.

      You still claim that Shas did something that your own sources claim never happened, yet you want to accuse someone of being a pathological liar? Stan look in the mirror, you will see one staring back.

      Delete
  20. "At least Rav Ovadiah had the moral fortitude to admit that he was wrong" when will all of those fake psakim le'kuleh by all the ra bonus judges suffer the same fate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably when a flock of pigs fly wing tip to wing tip in formation over the frozen expanses of hell.

      Delete
  21. 'At least Rav Ovadiah had the moral fortitude to admit that he was wrong, and withdraw his psak that land for peace could be a pikuah nefesh."

    were the volvos returned or paid for out of shas thugs pockets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan what are you talking about Volvos? Unless you mean the one that every MK gets, which is entirely dependent upon being elected to the Knesset. Please do try to make sense.

      I know you hate Sephardim. You have made that abundantly clear. You also think that rape victims are undeserving of compassion.

      Your moral turpitude has been splashed all over this blog. Please continue. No one can do a better job of undermining your own positions other than you.

      Delete
  22. "I know you hate Sephardim. You have made that abundantly clear. You also think that rape victims are undeserving of compassion.

    Your moral turpitude has been splashed all over this blog. Please continue. No one can do a better job of undermining your own positions other than you."

    stop inventing delusions just like you did with the claim that UTJ supported oslo. anyone who joins a govt. in defiance of rav shach who was the godol hador in order to get perks is a thug. you brought in racism not me. i did not say sephardic nut job.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "lastly i am not relying on the psak of rav elyashiv alone. i am relying on the chazon ish and brisker rov far bigger than anyone alive today.
    Fine. I am not relying on Rav Ovadia alone. I am relying upon the B"Y, the Rema, the Beit Shmuel, the Hok Mechokkhet, the Ben Ish Hai, Rav Mesas, Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Tzitz Eliezer...

    Oh and you have a source for the Brisker Rov or am I supposed to just believe racist misogynist who calls compassion for a Jewish girl who suffered gang rape avoda zara?"

    stop lying. your interpretations are not just suspect but downright wrong.

    i know nothing about gang rape and have not a clue about your rants about this.

    dude go for help already.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DT I see pravda censorship continues.

    as for the rantings of this tzaddok guy, boy most people would think he is a nut.

    he tries to hairsplit about shas not supporting oslo by claiming they abstained. how many times does he need to hear about lo sa'amod al dam reicho and shas knowingly abstained in order to get the volvos.

    boy this guy is slow.

    ReplyDelete
  25. A little order here... Rav shach זצל said land for peace theoreticly but when oslo came up he was ery against it . This caused the. Big fight between r o yosef and rav shach. Deri says he went to jail because of supposed kepeda of rav shach.

    ReplyDelete
  26. you claim that briskman is a criminal. He had a ruling from a bais din in bnei brak that he did not have to give a get.

    she ran to the ra bonnus where it is ossur to step inside and this bunch of fakers re-heard a case which is ossur al pi halochoh and ordered a get.

    I am sure in the tzeddokim's eyes this is right but not in the halochoh's eyes. rav shlomo fisher called them a bunch of reshoim. not my fault if briskman removed his sight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a source for Rav Fisher saying that?

      Do you have a source for the Bnei Brak ruling?

      We are supposed to believe you with no proof?

      Delete
  27. still waiting for shas to repay the cost of the volvos

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? Every MK gets one. Hence so did UTJ. You are not making any sense.

      Delete
  28. he tries to hairsplit about shas not supporting oslo by claiming they abstained. how many times does he need to hear about lo sa'amod al dam reicho and shas knowingly abstained in order to get the volvos.
    To be over אל תעמוד דם רעך there has to be a definite and known danger. Considering, aside from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, every Gadol at the time had ruled that land for peace was pikuach nefesh, you cannot apply this here. There was no clear definite danger.

    Why Rav Shach was against joining the govt, I cannot say, other than he liked Likud.
    Why Rav Ovadia was for Labor and against Likud is that he believed that Likud would definance Yeshivot and cut the child benefit... and he was right. He believed that stripping people of their parnassa or joining a govt that did so would be violating אל תעמוד דם רעך.

    The reason he ordered Shas to abstain from the vote, instead of voting for Oslo as Aryeh Deri wanted, was that it wasn't certain that it would save lives. In the end it didn't.

    However lacking certainty means that אל תעמוד דם רעך does not apply.

    What was Rav Shach's reason for not rescinding his psak on land for peace? What was UTJ's reason for backing the Gaza withdraw? By Gaza everyone knew that land for peace only meant more Israeli lives.

    You call Rav Shach the "Posk HaDor", and certainly he was, for Ashkenazim, in Israel and then only AFTER the petirah of Rav S.Z. Auerbach in 1995. Rav Auerbach was also posek land for peace, a position that I had from two of his talmidim Rav Neurwith and Rav Ostroff that he rescinded before his death. He did not order Rav Ovadia and the Shas party not to join the govt. Nor were his relations with Rav Ovadia at all strained by the Shas party being a part of the govt.

    Likewise Rav Ovadiah has been for nearly 50yrs the Posek HaDor for Sephardim, so to act as if he is somehow inferior to Rav Shach is quite insulting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >The reason he ordered Shas to abstain from the vote, instead of voting for Oslo as Aryeh Deri wanted, was that it wasn't certain that it would save lives. In the end it didn't.

      However lacking certainty means that אל תעמוד דם רעך does not apply.<

      Poppycock. It was CLEAR AS DAY to anyone with eyes that Oslo would result in wholesale salughter of innocent Jews and, sure enough, it did. I will never FORGIVE OR FORGET those who supported it in ANY way!

      Delete
    2. >Rav Auerbach was also posek land for peace, a position that I had from two of his talmidim Rav Neurwith and Rav Ostroff that he rescinded before his death. He did not order Rav Ovadia and the Shas party not to join the govt. Nor were his relations with Rav Ovadia at all strained by the Shas party being a part of the govt.<

      Based on the little I know of RSZA, it is VERY hard to imagine that he was for land for peace. A sensible person, when faced with a tough call, will often look at who supports each side. If many wicked people support one side, they know the other side is probably right. Has worked for me ever since I was an MO teen!

      Delete
    3. Dovy,

      Aside from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, there wasn't a Hareidi Gadol at the time who was against land for peace, and everyone stopped listening to him after the Sinai withdraw didn't end in the war he predicted.

      The only argument going on was what party they wanted to have get credit for whole thing. Especially after they were all proven right in the Sinai withdraw.

      The only reason that UTJ didn't vote for Oslo is because they didn't want Labor-Meretz to get credit for it. So no it wasn't clear to everyone. If it was clear to everyone they wouldn't have done it.

      Even as late as the Gaza withdraw it still wasn't clear to everyone. Hence UTJ supported and so did 45% of the Likud party.

      Hindsight is 20/20, but no one then saw Oslo as being the failure that it would be. Nor has UTJ ever admitted that it was a failed plan. Hence they supported the Sharon-Kadima govt even in the face of dividing Jerusalem.

      Today the only parties that are staunchly anti-land for peace are the Daati Leumi/Nationalist parties and Shas.

      Delete
  29. i know nothing about gang rape and have not a clue about your rants about this.

    Right and I know nothing about volvos except for the one every MK gets whether they are part of the govt or the opposition.

    However you can refresh your memory of your disgusting comment here:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/bare-bones-jewish-marriage.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. "To be over אל תעמוד דם רעך there has to be a definite and known danger."

    giving guns to arabs is a definite and known danger.

    thanks a agin for the long rant.

    no further questions dude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arming the Palestinians was Oslo 2, and he later agreements. Shas voted against them all.

      Delete
  31. "However you can refresh your memory of your disgusting comment here:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/bare-bones-jewish-marriage.html"

    you clearly have completely misinterpreted my comment as to somehow I approve of rape or gang rape. I said absolutely nothing of the kind. How you have misconstrued my remark only you know because I never said anything of the kind.

    I just disputed your claims of being commited to yiddishkeit given your past history on this blog. Get some english lessons dude.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stan: Do you know how juvenile it sounds to keep using the word, "dude"?

    (Actually, even my young kids wouldn't overuse it.)

    ReplyDelete
  33. dovy when someone misrepresent all the time and thinks he can get away with it he is the juvenile here.

    "Arming the Palestinians was Oslo 2, and he later agreements. Shas voted against them all." really. what gave the Palestinians sovereignty ? oslo 1. just some more misinformation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords


    contradicts again your claims dude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sovereignty did not include weapons and training. That was Oslo 2.

      Delete
  34. "still waiting for shas to repay the cost of the volvo"

    S.T.A.N.- The world does not run on yeshivishe hock. We can discuss R Shach's mizrochnik son, the mishaneh halachos or the civil war between the mechablim and soniim over at R Shach's yeshiva too, but it won't make any difference.

    This is supposed to be the daas torah blog, not meah shearim shteeblach.

    ReplyDelete
  35. shaul shapira never knew this was your blog.

    thought it was torah musings or the catholic church blogs or anything similar.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "anyone who joins a govt. in defiance of rav shach who was the godol hador in order to get perks is a thug."

    STAN- Monotheism is the belief in one God NOT one Gadol.

    Was R Shach a mizrochnik? Because the only person saying kaddish at his levaya wore a kippah srugah.

    http://msc.walla.co.il/archive/833229-5.jpg

    "shaul shapira never knew this was your blog."

    Weren't you the one lecturing Rabbi E for not posting your screeds? I would have thought it was yours.

    "thought it was torah musings"

    Couldn't be. The people there are literate, and act their age.

    "or the catholic church blogs"

    Now now. That's no way to talk abouth the me-shaneh halachos.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "STAN- Monotheism is the belief in one God NOT one Gadol. "

    yup explain why in the yu world the rov refers to only one world.

    I am entitled to complain against censorship.

    "thought it was torah musings"

    Couldn't be. The people there are literate, and act their age.

    Yup goibng around screaming and shouting like meshugoyim. and they are really literate, jeremy stern doesn't know the basics of halochoh and could not care about it. not that they are so educated anyway. I have attended more prestigous yeshivahs and colleges than broyde for example.

    "or the catholic church blogs"

    Now now. That's no way to talk abouth the me-shaneh halachos.

    actually it is the BDA who is enamoured by goyshe law and applies it in its death bin nov rav klein zt"l.

    ReplyDelete

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