ב' מרחשון תשנ"ט
I was asked regarding a get which Rav X from Monsey gave to his wife. We want to emphasize that we only heard from one side i.e., that husband. However in matters of issur it is sufficient regarding assertions which are related with some sort of justification to arouse serious concerns that the Get is invalid as a Get Me’usa (forced get) and that it was given in error. Furthermore we have received letters from roshei yeshiva and gedolei Torah from America that verify the husband’s assertions. In their view there is a serious probability that the Get is invalid as we mentioned. Consequently there is no concern for the Cherem of Rabbeinu Tam that prohibits questioning a get given by a recognized beis din – since this isn’t simply a vague questioning of the validity of the Get as we explain. Therefore we call on the gedolei poskim in American not to get involved in this matter that they have heard about and assumed was correctly decided. There is the presumption that the Jewish people will not commit the crime of permitting the wife to remarry without a thorough clarification of what we mentioned and a true determination made of the din. In the matter which is before us, the husband does not want to leave his wife an agunah. He in fact is prepared to give a Get according to the law of the Torah. He simply is requesting his rights according to the Torah. They demanded from the husband that he falsely sign that he has no reservations regarding the Get and he are giving it whole heartedly. In addition they utilized the fact that the secular law always believes the wife - even when she is make false claims. Furthermore they utilized the fact that the secular law would imprison him based entirely on her false testimony or at least make a harsh judgment against him. It was only out of fear of these possibilities that he gave the get or validated it so that he would be free of improper criminal charges.
You should be aware that this sin of permitting a married women to remarry against the halacha is extremely serious and is worse than what was done by the Generation of the Flood as is explained in Kiddushin (13a). And according what we have heard, America is degenerating to a state where anyone who marries a divorcee will need to clarify first which beis din gave her the Get and whether the husband willingly gave it. There is absolutely no concern to the Cherem [of Rabbeinu Tam] of questioning the validity of a Get – since there is clearly a valid basis to be concerned. This is the ruling of the Nodah BeYehuda (E.H. Madura Kamma 88) and other Achronim. The Nodah BeYehuda concludes there that if the beis din uses nidoi to pressure the husband then the beis din itself is in nidoi. Therefore due to the serious nature of this matter we request from the rabbis of America, who are the guardians of Yiddishkeit there, not to allow such a damaging breach. And this request is also directed to the Orthodox battei din that are known as Chareidim and yet they conduct themselves contrary to halacha due to our many sins. And even by silently acquiescing to this violation of halacha they are perpetuating it – chas v’shalom! For now the above words should be sufficient. Therefore I hope that this letter be productive in improving the situation. It will be my reward that I sanctified the Name of Heaven by not allowing revolt against the marriage laws. Gֿ‑d’s holy Torah will be perpetuated as well as His Will.
It is very important to get a translation of this.
ReplyDeleteRav Eidensohn: Can you do it?
YK
It wasn't on my agenda. there must be someone in the world who knows how to translate Hebrew. If you are stuck - let me know
DeleteThank you for posting the translation. Even an admittedly hasty one is far better than none at all. (Obviously the original Hebrew is what rules.)
DeletePlease enlarge, not possible to read.
ReplyDeleteAnyway there is no such thing as a get Meuseh in America - a get needs to be given on demand as soon as the woman so decrees because the YU crowd and other biryonim decide that we have a new religion which need not follow the Torah and the mesorah.
You should be able to enlarge it yourself in any browser or save the graphics file and enlarge it in any program that reads jpg files.
DeleteWhat year was this letter written? It is hard to read the year. It looks like either Tuf Shin Nun Tes (1999) or Tuf Shin Samech Tes (2009). Can you clarify the year, please?
Deletecould not get further information
DeleteRabbi Eidensohn: Your jpg image of this document cannot be enlarged to see what year it is dated on top?
Deletedate is probably
Deleteב' מרחשון תשנ"ט
or
ד' מרחשון תשנ"ט
Does not the husband's actions constitute a moda'ah on the get he gave. If so, does not the Gemara in Kiddushin 12b say he deserves to be beaten? Also, does Rav Sternbuch really believe that it is an American law that the wife is always believed even if she is lying?
ReplyDeleteThe husband was effectively compelled against his will to give it, thus making the divorce legally invalid. And obviously the law doesn't explicitly state that the wife's false testimony will result in his imprisonment or harsh punishment, but such is the widespread effect in U.S. courtrooms based upon the pervasive unfair actions by judges against husbands in divorce cases.
DeleteYes, but every moda'ah, by definition, is a claim that it was done unwillingly. Nonetheless, the Gemara is quite explicit that one may not do so.
DeleteI have, unfortunately, known couples who have been through contentious divorces. In each case there has been at least one spouse claiming that the judge was unfair. But as far as I know the claims of systematic bias in the courts are unfounded; at least one should have to offer evidence besides disgruntled ex-husbands to make such a claim; there are also plenty of disgruntled ex-wives too.
i can't read the date on the letter. Is this an old letter or knew one?
ReplyDeletedate is probably
Deleteב' מרחשון תשנ"ט
or
ד' מרחשון תשנ"ט
This seems a bit strange to me. The rabbi aknowledges that he heard just one side. How does he know "the women's claims (to criminal charges) were false", without hearing the wife?
ReplyDeleteLet's see what I read out of this letter:
A wife brought criminal charges against her husband (domestic violence? sexual abuse of children? fraud?)
She is happy to obtain a get, and even agrees to drop criminal charges on conditions she receives the get. The get is given. The charges are dropped.
The husband goes and complains with a great rabbi. The rabbi buys his story and declares the get invalid, without hearing the wife. (Did he hear the beith din that was responsible for the get)
Upon the information given in this letter, this seems a quite irresponsible way of wielding rabbinic power!
Brad you didn't understand what the letter said. Please reread the letter - all your objection are clearly answered there
DeleteI read very carefully what the letter said: it is all based on hearsay (rechilut). How should the rabbonim know whether the criminal charges were justified or not? Who investigated the criminal charges?
DeleteOf course, if you go according to the shitta of Rav Gestetener, who says that a husband can do whatever he wants to his wife (or children), there is no reason whatsoever to force him to give a get, this approach might make sense. But then, the idea that a husband will always be allowed to withhold a get, no matter what he does to his wife & family, seems to lack Rachamim...
Furthermore, I am quite worried that it seems to become a fashion among the ultra-right Rabbonim to pass judgement without hearing both sides...
Brad,
DeleteThe hearsay is not a problem because this isnt a psak din. It is a letter to the rabbanim of American and as such, completely useless.
This entire post is unfortunate and demeaning to the great sage. He has no business meddling in the affairs of American Jewry. He is completely ignorant of secular law and has no business making claims as to how it operates.
Does he know this was published? Was the letter intended for public distribution? If so, it is very sloppy. Assertions of fact (women are always believed in secular law) should be footnoted. We need to know from where he gets his facts.
Furthermore, it seems quite irresponsible, in general, to call documents into question bedi eved... Where is the world going when a hechsher is not a hechsher, a giur is no giur, a get is no get, a ktuba is no ktuba, a smicha is no smicha, an ed is not ed, a psak din is no psak din?
DeleteIf every legal document becomes reveriable, the whole system completely loses its credibility, and can as well be abolished. Did rav Sternbuch consider this problem when writing this letter?
Not it is not when you think there is basis for concern - esepcially when it apparent a problem with the system in place not just an individual case. Kashrus problem happen all the time as do the validity of conversion, gitten etc. What is the benefit of sticking your head in the sand and say "the rules of the system are being followed.
DeleteAnd yes Rav Sternbuch is aware of the issue you raised as he noted that there is a cherem of Rabbeinu Tam that address your concern and the Noda B'Yehuda says it doesn't apply in these cases
It is most probably 1999 as Rav Sternbuch's kehilla disintegrated in the aerly 2000's in Johannesburg due to political situation etc.
ReplyDeletedate is probably
Deleteב' מרחשון תשנ"ט
or
ד' מרחשון תשנ"ט
Brad or eddie or James etc please let us know your credentials such as which yeshivas you learned in, the years you were there, whose shiur you attended because despite what you think, you are coming accross as a total baised and ignorant individual. I wonder if you can read the shulchan oruch and as an example here's why.
ReplyDeleteA woman who goes to secular court loses all rights in bais din. frankly I am puzzled as to why R Sternbuch goes to such arichus. if the husband can prove that his wife was in arko'oys, she is not entitled to a get for the simple rule of her being in arko'oys and no bais din can issue such a get. And surprisingly Brad or Eddie or James etc this is notht the view of Rav Gestetner but the universal halocho. of course you will try and hoodwink us to believe that the husband signed an agreement yes he was forced to sign a piece of paper which has no basis in halocho because if he doesn't his wife will continue litigsating for the next thousand years.
no sane human being would give up his rights to repayment of legal fees etc unless he was coerced. so forget about agreements.
so my question remains, where brad did you go to yeshiva ?
This is not the Friedman case. The issues we are dealing with here are not the same. We dont know who (if anyone) went to court first. We dont know who was the mesader get. We dont know anything.
DeleteAll we know is that Rav Shternbuch is meddling in american affairs with no knowledge (at least he doesnt cite any sources) of the secular legal system and without hearing from opposing parties.
Stan, if you tell me where you went to yeshiva, I will respond to your question.
He is indicating that there are widespread problems within the American system and that he is raising questions and alarm about this - not poskening whether the get is valid.
DeleteThe status of Jews who were given a get and considered themselves divorced do have an impact on Jews in Israel While it is true that Rav Sternbuch says he does not want to get involved in American issues - he and the the Bedatz got involved in the Tropper scandal while the American Aguda made no comment at all.
@DT "Rav Sternbuch says he does not want to get involved in American issues - he and the the Bedatz got involved in the Tropper scandal while the American Aguda made no comment at all."
DeleteIf this is good argument against the Aguda, then you neglect to mention that the Degel Leadership also sat by making no comment on the scandal, and still wishing the EJF to continue with the good work.
Ideology aside - the EJF conversions issue is quite separate from the Tropper scandal. Degel backed the EJF in its conversions, and were not too bothered by Tropper being caught in his depravity. On the other hand , The Bedatz were opposed to EJF from the beginning, regardless of whether its founder was a menuval. When the scandal broke, of course it was a victory for the viewpoint that opposed the EJF from the get-go.
I am sorry to underline the problems in your "nimukim". But you are painting the Bedatz as the white knights, the Biblical hero's who are godo and pure, and have no problems in their own camp. nothing can be further from the truth.
In many ways, the Tropper scandal pales into insignificance when compared to the Geula mikve scandal. And that is quite a statement, since the abject depravity of Mr L. Tropper is like something coming out of the Shababetai Zvi/ Frankist movements. But very little space was devoted to discussion of the Geula mikve S'dom reenactments. And very little was done by the Bedatz, especially since it is a major source of $$$ for that bet din.
based on what I know about the Brisker Rov, I believe he would have been up in arms if such a scandal occurred under his watch.
I am simply stating that while not getting involved in cases outside your community is a general rule - there are exception.
DeleteI went to the Mir Yerusholaim amongst other yeshivas
ReplyDeleteMe too! I was there ten years ago.
DeleteStan, how dare you name and attack me on this post to which I have made no comments whatsoever. You are making false allegations against me - contrary to the halacha which you proclaim to be a defender of. perhaps it is part of your education to falsely accuse people, and assume it is fact.
DeletePlus your "qualifications" or claim that one reveal what yeshiva one has studied at determine one's reliability are false. Case in point, Leib Tropper, who had one of the best Resume's , with Semicha from R Shach, R Zholty, and about 5 others.
And furthermroe, you contradict yourself, in that you ask for "credentials", yet when majority of American gedolim with credentials that could fit you and the rest of the bloggers here in their pockets, you call tehm crooks, corrupt etc.
So "credentials" are only useful if they are in agreement with your viewpoint, and when not, they are meaningless. Or, the no-true Scotsman fallacy.
Eddie thou protest too much and in excess. Your views are very similar to James and Brad's and are a joke and come from reform. The fact that the Hareidi rabbis in america are corrupt is a different point from what you and your yu biryonim are, not just corrupt but totally mufkah from the parsha, misse dthe boat entirely. You have completely changed the halocho to syuit your feminist ideology which is frankly kefirah.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone from your "kat" claims that one cannot reverse a ruling of arko'oys as if ke'olu it has status in halocho then this shows such ignorance that it is would be laughable if the implications were not so serious.
The bottom line is that anyone who feels a woman who has gone to arko'oys without a valid hetter is entitled to a get is basically a mumar when it comes to hilchos issus, gittin and momenus so stop the fake protesting and this is not discriminotary, any yid in arko'oys loses his/ her right to litigate in bais din regarding any matter - a basic principle in halocho even if you don't like it. Again rav sternbuch's arichus is not necessary but it confirms what I have said all along even the chareidi botei din in america are totally corrupt and there are only 2 botei din, rav gestetner's and rav abraham's to rely on, so sock it up.
PS: Since Yom Kippur has come and gone, where is the answer to my 5 questions on the utter violation of halocho by the BDA please? No more eexcuses james.
ReplyDelete@blog author:
ReplyDeleteYou still did not answer the question how r. sternbuch determined that the criminal charges were unfounded. this letter cannot be taken seriously, unless there is a satisfying answer to this question.
Furthermore, I am quite a bit surprised that an Rabbi from Israel, were husbands are put into jail on a regular basis to force them to give a get, should criticize an US-get for being a "get meussah".
If this Rabbi thinks (like Rav Gestettener) that any kind of pressure in any situation produces a "get meussa", than he should be much more worried about the validity of the average israeli get.
Brad please [re?]read the letter
Delete"However in matters of issur it is sufficient regarding assertions which are related with some sort of justification to arouse serious concerns that the Get is invalid as a Get Me’usa (forced get) and that it was given in error. Furthermore we have received letters from roshei yeshiva and gedolei Torah from America that verify the husband’s assertions. In their view there is a serious probability that the Get is invalid as we mentioned. "
Could you please supply a source for your claim Israel, "were [sic] husbands are put into jail on a regular basis to force them to give a get"
Please look at my post cited below - where Justice Menachem Elon disagrees with your claim.
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/judge-m-elon-prison-to-force-get.html
Judge Menachem Elon (The Status of Women 2005 page 299-301): [translated by Daniel Eidensohn] In Israel there is a legal procedure which had been ratified by Kenesset in 1953 which is a potential solution [to the case of Aguna where the husband refuses to give a get]. According to section 6 of the law concerning rabbinic courts dealing with marriage and divorce of 1953 – “A rabbinic court can rule that a husband can be forced to give his wife or the wife can be ordered to accept a get from her husband. After 6 months the district secular court has the ability - with the request of the legal adviser of the government - to use imprisonment as a means of getting the husband to comply with the beis din’s ruling.” Without question this seems to be a very powerful tool that the secular government has given to the rabbinic courts in order to solve the problem of a husband refusing to give his wife a get – after the beis din issues a ruling requiring him to do so.
In reality however this almost never happens. [see rest of post] http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/judge-m-elon-prison-to-force-get.html
Let's assume there were criminal charges on child abuse. Let's assume they were founded.
DeleteIn this case, it seems perfectly legitimate to me that the father is denied visiting rights. Therefore, the father has no claim to invalidate his own get because he wants visiting rights.
Therefore, to normal common sense, the question whether the criminal charges were founded or not is crucial.
Isn't the threat to put a husband in jail just because he refuses to give a get a more powerful coercion than the threat to press criminal charges, which might be dismissed and not land him in jail?
Deletetherefore, R. Sternbuch should declare all gittin in Eretz Israel Get Meussa, since the threat of being jailed (or stripped of a driving license) hovers over all the israelis!
And if the criminal charges were unfounded, as R' Sternbuch seems to assume, the threat to press charges is in no way coercion, since there is a trial where the husband can establish his innocence.
DeleteTherefore, the whole declaration of "get meussa" hinges on R' Sterbuch's assumption that the US justice system does not work properly. I don't think that the truth of this assumption can be verified in a genral way, as a rule, the way r' sternbuch does.
therefore, again, I cannot take this letter seriously and would be very happy if you could transmit this to him.
I don't want to waste his time with an anonymous commenter
Deletes psak saying that he can't take his letter seriously. So what?
Might give him an insight of what the "am haaretz" think of his actions, while he is sitting in his ivory tower... Like a little window that could give him a glimpse beyond his ivory tower...
DeleteDid you ask permission to publish this?
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/court-imprisons-haredi-man-for-refusing-wife-a-get-after-he-dated-another-man/2012/10/17/
ReplyDeleteone more case of a get that might be declared "get meussa" by rav sternbuch.
why did it take ten years to take coercive measures?
Why do you think that? Rav Sternbuch's main concern has been in the case of ma'os alei where there are significant restrictions on what type of pressure can be applied. When a husband is discovered to be involved in a homosexual love affair - that is not called ma'os alei. Rav Moshe even has a discussion as to whether the marriage has any validity in the first place. What does a woman saying "My husband irritates me" and "My husband is a gay and actively living that lifestyle" have to do with each other. Please take some time to become acquainted on a minimal level before throwing around halachic pronouncement.
DeleteSo you claim that the circumstances (the acts of the husband) determine whether a get is deemed "forced" or not?
DeleteYou claim that a husband can be forced to give a get, and still it will not be counted a "forced" get in the case that he has a homosexual affair.
When a husband commits crimes against his family (domestic violence? fraud? sexual abuse of children?), is this not a good reason to force him to give a get?
you don't understand the most elementary halachic issues in these matters. why don't you learn through the material - much of which I have posted in translation on this blog - before you make confident assertions about the halacha.
DeleteYou won't convince me that the fact whether the criminal charges were justified or not is irrelevant in the question whether this get can be considered a forced get.
DeleteIf you assert it is irrelevant, it would amount to saying that a husband can do whatever he wants, there is no good reason to force him to give a get.
If it is relevant: why did Rav Sternbuch issue this letter without checking the veracity of the criminal charges?
Brad and the other YU chevra's delusions about how just the secular court system with regards to divorce is only surpassed by their total lack of understanding of halocho.
ReplyDeleteBrad why don't you go down to the Kings court ands ask frum men accross the board how they are faring. Brad, does justice include rewarding the woman for false molestation charges, makinghusbands pay for transportation of the children to the police station because the husband had been assaulted outside his wife's residence when returning the children, rewarding her for failing to bring her children to visitation on several occasions as required by the judge, rewarding the woman for excluding her husband from her son's bris by threatening him that he is not allowed to give his son a name as demanded by Reb Moshe etc etc?
Clearly Brad et al are a bunch of naive feminists so removed from reailty that it is a waste of time even arguing with them