I received this letter from someone who works with the Beth Din in Bnei Braq of Reb Nosson Karelitz, and their Dayamim signed this paper that humiliating husbands invalidates the GET. They bring a Rashbo. This Rashbo is also quoted halacha limaaseh by the author of Shulchan Aruch Reb Yosef Karo in Beis Yosef EH 154, Radvaz and Chazin Ish, among others. It is halacha limaaseh that anyone who humiliates a husband and forces the husband to give a GET that the GET is invalid and the childern born in the second mareriage by the divorced wife may be mamzerim. I want to make a point. There are humiliations and there are serious humiliations. Rabbeinu Yona says that a true humiliation is worse than murder. If so, it surely invalidates a GET. There are humiliations that drive people to suicide. The kind of humiliations that ORA specializes in bring people to consider suicide, as I heard from a reliable source. They not only humiliate the husband, they humiliate his relatives, his old mother and father who may have medical conditions and may suffer a stroke because of ORA and Rabbi Schachter's idealism. ORA humiliates the father in front of his children, who are possibly emotionally damaged from this horrible experience. And for what? To make a GET that is invalid! This is Rabbi Herschel Schachter in action, forcing a GET that normative Judaism considers invalid! And the rabbis in Washington and elsewhere who support him are guilty of torturing people against the DIN and if they succeed in forcing a GET, they will be guilty of promoting an invalid GET and possibly mamzeruth. The recent letter of the major American Rosh Yeshivas to demand humiliation and loss of earnings for Rabbi Weiss is just an example of how bad things are that even Rosh Yeshivas have no idea of the laws of Gittin. And even if they don't know the laws of Gittin, don't they know that a cousin pf the wife cannot be part of a BEth Din to force someone to give a GET? We should never forget what these Rosh Yeshivas did, and we should never forget what Rabbi Herschel Schachter through ORA and its terrorists are doing. And we must fight back by educating the public that these people deal with invalid Gittin and they may produce mamzerim. Thank you for publishing this letter.
Thank you Rabbi Eidensohn for being that pillar of truth who is not afraid to expose rabbinic corruption. Lets be clear here; These roshe yeshiva know how to learn Gemore and poskim but choose to look away for political reasons. May Hashem make them see the light and do Teshuva.
Dear Reb Dovid, Have you ever called him up for his side? Did you speak to the Rosh yeshivas and the original Beis din as to why they did pasken as they did? If someone follows her daas Torah and not yours, is it the woman's fault or Beis din? All this blaming on the women by Stan is wrong completely. They are following whom they think is daas Torah. If someone has a problem with it, take it up with Beis din. Also, how do you explain the letter R Gestetner put out against Reb Shlomo? Are there any recognized poskim that recognize his Beis din? Check out the thread about the story with a seven times married yungerman who they married off to a geyores only to divorce a few months later.
I think it important to point out that this comment is complete and utter nonsense. It is misleading and against halacha.
No major normative Gadol has openly stated that ORA's protests constitute coercion to invalidate a GET. The frum world has been publishing seruvim for decades.
ORA only works in cases with seruvim issued by Batei Din. If a BD has ordered a GET, the Beis Yosef you cited states that the GET is only pasul m'draabanan. Talk of mamzerus is completely irresponsible.
You may believe that ORA constitutes invalid coercion. No one else agrees. The three people listed above carry no weight in the frum world.
....ORA has protested both against the husband and his family without a Seruv. From the Washington Jewish Week in reference to an ORA rally in 2010 "Complicatinrallyg matters, however, is that no beit din, or religious court, has ordered Friedman to issue Epstein a get"...
James, Your words are in quotation marks and then I reply. I quote you here making two statements. One, "No major normative Gadol has openly stated that ORA's protests constitute coercion to invalidate a GET. The frum world has been publishing seruvim for decades.' It is obvious that you did not see the letter published by the senior Beth Din in Israel and perhaps the world, that of Reb Nosson Karelitz in Bnei Braq, that any GET achieved with humiliation is invalid. It was published very recently on this blog. I have spoken to heads of Gittin Beth Dins and they agree. Your statement about Siruvim is an error. A Siruv has one purpose, to force a person to accept a process of going to Beth Din. It has nothing to do with the GET. If it did force a GET, it would create a coerced and thus invalid GET. Therefore, again, a Siruv does not ask for a GET, at all.
You also said, "ORA only works in cases with seruvim issued by Batei Din. If a BD has ordered a GET, the Beis Yosef you cited states that the GET is only pasul m'draabanan. Talk of mamzerus is completely irresponsible." Again, a Siruv does NOT give permission to force a GET. If a Beth Din issued a pesak to force a GET and they were in error, some hold that the GET is invalid only dirabonon, but the latter poskim Beth Shmuel EH 134:10 and Chazon Ish EH Gittin 99 1 and 2 hold that the GET is invalid by the Torah and the children born from it are mamzerim diorayso. Beis Shmuel quotes many Rishonim who old that the GET is invalid from the Torah.
Rav Schachter is an enormous Talmid Chacham who knows exactly what he is doing, and Paskens al pi Torah. He is as straight as they come. I have absolute faith in his Psakim across the board. I don't know whether ORA does everything they do according to his Psakim, but calling them "terrorists" is really demeaning and paints YOU in an exceedingly poor light. How dare you call these Yidden by such a term?
If you really cared about Rav Schachter's views, find a trusted Talmid Chacham friend of yours in the States and get them to respectfully put your views to him, and hear the response. It's not as if he's not going to engage you. Rav Schachter is charming and only interested in Torah LiShma
Do you mind quoting the actual Beis Yosef that you are citing? Since you have been shown to be wrong in your understanding of the Beis Yosef in the past?
This is a much stronger article than all of Stan's arguments.
I agree with R' Dovid that mamzerus must be prevented. I don't see in any of these sources anything suggesting the woman can marry who she likes, and is considered as outside of Judaism.
What did Rambam mean when he spoke about beating a person until he agreed to give a get -- because that's what a person really wants once we get the yetzer harah out of the way?
Did no Batei Din in Europe ever embarrass anyone to the point where they gave a get?
Isn't putting someone in cherem pretty serious embarrassment? Isn't that done all the time to husbands who refuse to give gittin?
Why is ORA any different?
I'm honestly looking for answers, and I promise I'm not trying to fight or anything.
Avrumi G. these issues have been discussed at great length in the past on this blog. In addition I have translated a number of relevant teshuva. I would suggest you use the search engine on the phrase get me'usa.
There is no question that in some cases a get can be forced. However we are talking about a case where the woman says her husband digusts her and she wants a divorce. This is talked about in Kesubos 63b " What is to be understood by ‘a rebellious woman’? — Amemar said: [One] who says. ‘I like him but wish to torment him’. If she said, however, ‘He is repulsive to me’, no pressure is to be brought to bear upon her."
The Rambam poskens here that even in a case where she says he disgusts her - the husband is forced to divorced her. However the accepted halacha is not like the Rambam. Therefore if the husband is pressured the get is invalid. There is a procedure of passive isolation called the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam that some poskim allow. In general these passive procedures were not commonly done for 500 years because of the concern that perhaps the wrong pressure would be applied and then it would be an invalid get and thus a question of sofek mamzerus. See the teshuvos of Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch and others. Others such as the Tzitz Eliezar and Rav Ovadiya Yosef felt that times have changed and that it would be appropriate to use the passive procedure of Rabbeinu Tam.
The procedures of Rabbeinu Tam do not involve public demonstrations to embarrass the husband. It does not involve calling for firing the husband from his job. It does not involve directly embarrassing the husband's family. See the description give my Judge Menachom Elon of Rabbeinu Tam.
Rav Hershcel Schachter has made a variety of statements about a case where the wife doesn't want to stay married. In some he claims that the demonstrations are less pressure than Rabbeinu Tam and other times he said it is the same as Rabbeinu Tam. He has cited no precedent ORA's public demonstrations against the husband. (For some reason ORA has never demonstrated against wives who go to civil court or refuse to accept a get.)
I spoke to a Rav who has been involved in the case from the beginning and said that Rav Schachter and Rav Belsky are wrong on the halachic level and have no jurisdiction or authority to issue a demand for a get and surely have no right to authorize pressure of either embarrassment or financial loss.
Avrumi G, I put your three questions in quotation marks and try to answer them one at a time. You write, "What did Rambam mean when he spoke about beating a person until he agreed to give a get -- because that's what a person really wants once we get the yetzer harah out of the way?" Rambam and even the Geonim before him did beat a husband if the wife claimed he was disgusting to her. But Rabbeinu Tam objected that this ruling gave every woman the opportunity to escape a marriage which is against the Talmud. The final decision of the great rabbis of Israel by the time of the Rashbo and Rosh was not to force a GET with the woman's claim that the husband was disgusting, and we fear the opinions of those who maintain that any coerced GET based only on the wife's demand is invalid and the children from the next marriage may be mamzerim.
'Did no Batei Din in Europe ever embarrass anyone to the point where they gave a get?" Since the Rashbo, Radvaz, Beis Yosef and Chazon Ish forbid humiliating a husband to coerce a GET, I have no reason to suspect that a Beth Din violated this.
"Isn't putting someone in cherem pretty serious embarrassment? Isn't that done all the time to husbands who refuse to give gittin? It is forbidden to put a husband into Cherem for not giving a GET, and if the woman claims her husband is disgusting to her and the husband is put in Cherem by mistake, even if he gives a GET it is probably invalid, because the GET was not given of free will but to escape the ONES of Cherem.
"Why is ORA any different?" ORA terrifies old ladies whose sons don't give a GET, it terrifies little children, and its leader Rabbi Herschel Schachter openly teaches in his audio tapes and video tapes that a husband who does not divorce his wife with a GET when the marriage is over may be coerced even with beatings and even if they lead to death. A GET given with such a coercion is definitely invalid. And the children born from a GET forced by threats to one's income or humiliations is invalid.
What if a husband beats his wife repeatedly and doesn't stop after being warned and he does not want to divorce his wife. Does his wife have no recourse in beis din to require him to give a Get even though he wishes to remain married to her?
The question I would raise here is that since the Rambam and Geonim would allow to beat a husband, then you cannot claim that it is a reform or non-orthodox thing to do. That is a false allegation , since it is suggesting CH'VShalom that Rambam was not "orthodox" although orthodoxy did not exist in those days. It also destroys the allegation that a woman with such a get will have children who are mamzerim if she relies on the get.
You see, you have entered a logical fallacy here. On the one hand, you claim that halacha does not change, on the other you are saying it did change, and it changed irreversibly.
You can say that you are machmir and you go by the Chazon Ish, but not everyone follows him in halacha, and the CI is not the universal default of halacha.
Eddie sometimes you get so wrapped up in your rhetoric you lose sight of what you are saying.
Whenever there is a dispute amongst rishonim but the halacha is poskened like one of them - you can't say that you can pick which ever view you want. When we reject the Rambam as normative halacha that is not because of being machmir. It wasn't just the Chazon Ish. Rav Schachter is not claiming he is going by the Rambam. So your statement about logical fallacy is total nonsense. The halacha was never like the Rambam. The dispute here has nothing to do with the Rambam - both sides agree we don't posken like him. Rav Schachter claims that ORA is just following the dictates of Rabbeinu Tam and claims that embarrassment is included.
Very well - if you claim that "The halacha was never like the Rambam.", do you mean the Rambam paskened one way but practiced another?
My point is that since the Rambam, whether rejected by others or not, made a ruling, then it is not apikorsus to act in that way. Perhaps I am wrong. Is the halachic process irreversible, in terms of going according to one rishon vs another? Thsi certainly wasn't the case when the shoe was on the other foot, ie when Rambam accused corporeality as heretics and Raavad objected. Since then it can go either way.
I accept your point about RHS and Rabbeinu Tam. I am looking at the larger question of the halachic process, which you have elaborated.
Or, perhaps the difference between the mroe rigid haredi worldview and the modernist approach is that Halacha can change direction of the circumstances require, as long as you find a good source.
There were debates in the gemora and each side followed there own view until the Sanhedrin or majority agreed to the halacha. From that point on it was prohibited to follow the alternatives. In fact once Sanhedrin poskened then if a rav poskened against it - even if he claimed a clear mesora back to Moshe Rabbeinu - he was executed as a zakein mamre. why do you think the Torah is so intolerant of plurality in halacha?
The Rambam (Mamrim 2:1) says that a later beis din can reverse the psak. But as long as a particular view is the accepted halacha then we are required to keep it רמב"ם ממרים ב
הלכה א ב"ד גדול שדרשו באחת מן המדות כפי מה שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין, ועמד אחריהם ב"ד אחר ונראה לו טעם אחר לסתור אותו הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה שנראה בעיניו, שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין שבדורך.
So yes the Rambam did posken that force can be used and so did the Gaonim. However once it became clear that the consensus from the Rishonim and Achronim was to reject that approach - then it became inoperable.
Ramban specifically notes that the conditions of his day were different than that of the Gaonim and so therefore the halacha was also different.
הרמב"ן (כתובות סג:): ובמקצת תשובות לרב שרירא ז"ל נמי ראיתי שפי' דמדינא אין כופין וכשאמרנו משהינן לה תריסר ירחי אגיטא תקנתא אחריתי הות לומר דאח"כ כופין את הבעל בגט, ואין לדברים הללו עיקר כלום ודבר ברור הוא שאין כאן תקנה חדשה לכוף ומעולם לא עלתה על דעת חכמי התלמוד כפייה זו לעולם, וח"ו שלא הייתי חולק על תקנת הגאונים כי מי אנכי לחלוק ולשנות במה שנהגו בו גאוני הישיבות שנים מרובות ולא עוד אלא שאני קורא תגר על שאומרים שאינו ראוי לילך אחר תקנתם אלא בדין התלמוד, אלא ראוי היו לשמוע להם ולעשות כתקנתם והמחמיר בכגון זה לא הפסיד אבל לענין דין התלמוד אמרתי שאין כופין והדבר גלוי ומפורסם, ועכשיו ראוי לחוש בדבר הרבה שלא לנהוג בתקנה זו כלל שכבר בטלה מפני פריצות הדורות, ואי קשיא לך אמאי דאמרינן דכל היכי דאמור רבנן יוציא ויתן כתובה אין כופין להוציא הא דאמרינן בשלהי המדיר (ע"ז א') האומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס יוציא ויתן כתובה ואמר שמואל עד שכופין אותו להוציא יכפוהו לזון אלמא יוציא ויתן כתובה כופין משמע, איכא למימר כופין אותו לאו דוקא אלא עד שכופין אותו ליתן כתובה וכמו שכופין אותו ליתן גט יכפוהו לזון, ואני צריך לכותבה עוד במקומה בארוכה.
If the gedolim today collectively pasken that for the need of the day we need to switch to the Rambam - then the halacha could change.
But until there is consensus then a rav who independently decides to go with the Rambam - is creating a huge halachic problem of sofek mamzerus. So on a theoretical level halacha can change. But it requires consensus of gedolim first.
As I pointed out ORA and its posek Rav Schachter have never claiimed they are following the Rambam. According to your logic why not? Bottom line - the key phrase is change happens only with the consensus of gedolim.
The discussion is important because of the issue of Halachic change. The difference between the case you bring from the Gemara and that of the Rishonim is that in the earlier case there was a Sanhedrin, but 1000 years after the Hurban Bayit Sheni, there was no Sanhedrin, and no consensus of rishonim or gedolim.
What we accept today,e g the Shulchan Aruch, was in it's time very controversial, and faced opposition.
I am not supporting ORA and I have no connection with them. My working assumption is that RHS is one of the greatest Gedolim in America today, such that he is approached even by Haredi rabbis. Again, I have no personal connection with him, and cannot speak for him.
But there is an additional point - in very general terms. The Rambam's halacha has been kept by Yemenite Jewry in an unbroken tradition. Thus, presumably this would be a valid approach for anyone who follows their system of halacha.
I am not offering advice to ORA, or to RHS. I am interested in the discussion of how halacha develops.
Not sure of your question - that has been the source of authorities for change for 2000 years.
gedolim are those people who are peceived as gedolim by many other rabbis. In other words a change can come about if it is perceived that it is universally recognized that a change is needed and has widespread approval.
You can't have one or two rabbis that are no one respects as authoritative i.e., gedolim - announcing change in an issue that impacts marriage and mamzerus. Without the sense that other communities will accept it the change it has no significance.
Eddie wrote: I am not supporting ORA and I have no connection with them. My working assumption is that RHS is one of the greatest Gedolim in America today, such that he is approached even by Haredi rabbis. =============== that is not my understanding of the situation. And from what I have heard in regards to his connection with this case and particularly ORA - no one I have talked with is impressed by his involvement nor do they view him as a gadol
Eddie wrote: But there is an additional point - in very general terms. The Rambam's halacha has been kept by Yemenite Jewry in an unbroken tradition. Thus, presumably this would be a valid approach for anyone who follows their system of halacha.
Rav Ovadia Yosef doesn't accept your argument. He acknowledges that a Yeminite who grew up in a community that accepts the Rambam can rely on it when there are other factors involved.
Bottom line halacha is not a supermarket that you pick and chose whatever you like. There are guidelines.
Of course certain people don't accept him as a Gadol, but that is ideological. And I suppose they don't consider Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky as a gadol either? That is a bit more difficult stunt to pull off.
Now an interesting argument you present is that his connection with ORA is somehow besmirching his respectability. However, throughout the entire Tropper debacle, EJF which was backed by the kind of Gedolim who you would accept, yet you still accept them! This is the "elasticity" again - or bias, which we are all prone to.
Eddie you are too quick to toss out explanation such as "but that is ideological" without bothering to present a single scrap of evidence. You simply assert that it is self-evident. it isn't!
Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is clearly making a mistake in connection with this case. That is the view of a number of poskim that I have talked with.
Again you are make pronouncements without a scrap of evidence. In fact I hold that the gedolim who were associated with Tropper were in fact besmirched by it. If you took the trouble of reading my posts you will clearly see that.
You are making prouncements based on false premises. Your claiming that I am being "elastic" is another example of this nonsense. I do acknowledge obviously that I am not infallible. But your assertions in this matter that lead to your conclusions are simple sloppy thinking.
In other words you are producing "when did you stop beating your wife" arguments. You assume those premises necessary to produce your mistaken conclusions are true - but they aren't.
D"T you are contradicting yourself. Above you stated: gedolim are those people who are peceived as gedolim by many other rabbis. So that would definitely define RHS as a Gadol, since hundreds if not thousands of Rabbis look to him as a Gadol. Therefore it would have to strictly ideological to say that he is not.
Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is clearly making a mistake in connection with this case. That is the view of a number of poskim that I have talked with. Interesting would you say the same about Rav Kotler and those who signed on the Weiss Doddleson siruv?
Nemo you have a reading comprehension problem. Where is the contradiction. I repeatedly said that "a consensus of gedolim is needed"
So assuming that RHS is a gadol - his view does not constitute a consensus of gedolim. Furthermore if you assume that YU views Rav Schachter as their gadol and do whatever he says - which simply isn't true - that doesn't mean that anyone outside of YU gives him that status.
When dealing with divorce issues it is necessary to have the gedolim in different communities reach consensus that there is no problem of mamzerus and that the get is kosher. That is elementary.
Again Rav Schachter is not claiming that he is switching the halacha to the Rambam - but rather is interpreting what Rabbeinu Tam means.
OK, so regardless of the "who is a Gadol" issue, we can agree that some Gedolim have taken a path you disagree with, and so do poskin you have talked to. It is not clear whether there is a significant number who follow this path, but several Gedolim who support sanctions against husbands to give a Get are acting in the USA. I would suggest RHS is at the bottom of the "food chain" since he is at YU. In the other case, the problem was that Gedolim in Israel, who are at the "top" of the Yeshive Welt, were not attacked directly, since it was easier to pick on the weakest link, in America.
I can only suggest that your claim becomes more difficult when there are a number of Gedolim that you disagree with. It then seems to me to be a case of a Machlokes poskim. I cannot accept the claim of Stanley that all the Gedolim in USA are corrupt , with the sole exception of a hitherto unheard of Rav who has not footprint other than on this and R' Dovid's blogs.
Eddie you keep trying to make sweeping conclusions when the facts don't support them
You wrote: "It is not clear whether there is a significant number who follow this path, but several Gedolim who support sanctions against husbands to give a Get are acting in the USA. I would suggest RHS is at the bottom of the "food chain" since he is at YU. "
The above is not accurate. At this point we only have the clear declaration of Rav Herschel Schachter that he supports ORA's actions and in fact is officially their posek.
While Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Rav Belsky have stated that they would like to see a Get in this case - they do not state what means are permitted to obtain one. Rabbi Ralbag who was also part of the proceedings said that public protests had not been approved by the group.
So you would like to make a public assertion by Rav Schachter into a machlokes haposkim. You need to at least 2 people to have a machlokes. At the present time only Rav Schachter has publicly stated his approval for ORA's tactics.
Nemo your last comment was such a tangled mess of accusations I simply deleted it. If you want to write a more reasonable comment that doesn't have the apparently assumption that I am either stupid or a liar - than we have what to talk about
If you are stating that the 2 RSKs (Kamenetsky - Kotler) are making mistakes, and they have not accepted this claim, then the party is bigger than RHS alone. Furthermore, R' Dovid's letter was addressed to unnamed Roshei Yeshiva - I presume there is more than just RHS?
"Daas TorahMarch 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM Nemo you have a reading comprehension problem. Where is the contradiction. I repeatedly said that "a consensus of gedolim is needed""
Trying once again. This is an interesting assertion considering that I did not deal with whether it was a valid position at all. I was simply discussing whether, by your earlier definition RHS was a Gadol.
Please, if you insist that I have a reading comprehension problem, show where I said that a consensus wasn't needed, or that the halacha actually differs from the position that you put forth?
"Daas TorahMarch 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM Nemo you have a reading comprehension problem. Where is the contradiction. I repeatedly said that "a consensus of gedolim is needed""
You didn't seem to be overly worried about the consensus opinion regarding EJF's work in your various postings regarding them. There you backed Rav Shternbuch's opinion and insisted that the other Gedolim had to prove that they were correct.
So can you enlighten us as to when a consensus Gedolim carries the day, and when it can be challenged?
Nemo in the case of EJF - they were the ones making the change in the way gerus of intermarried couples was dealt with. Rav Sternbuch told me when someone wants to change things they need to write a teshuva so that the issue can be properly discussed and rabbis decide. The consensus of gedolim was needed - and they didn't have it. The Bedatz was simply protesting the change of the status quo. In addition Rav Reuven Feinstein who was the halachic advisor was recorded - transcript was published on this blog - clearly saying that the halacha was not to convert intermarried couples - exactly as Rav Sternbuch and the Bedatz said. It thus seems that the rabbis of the EJF were not aware of what was going on - or they looked the other way.
No not really. Because right after that recording and transcript became common knowledge Rav Feinstein issued a letter of clarification: http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/rav-reuven-feinstein-haskama-to-ejf.html Where he clearly states that all of the activities of EJF were under the direct supervision of the leading decisors of halacha of the generation. Couple with the list of 70+ Gedolim that EJF published that supported them. That seems to me to be quite clear that Rav Feinstein was saying that there they were aware of what EJF was doing, and that there was a consensus among the Gedolim concerning it. So it seems that a consensus isn't necessarily always needed, or heeded.
It seems that your concern, R Dovid, is that forcing a GET makes it possul. But, isnt it true that once a legitimate Bes Din approves of use of force then acts as you described do NOT make it Me'Usah? After all, we even have a concept of Kofin Oso Ad Sheyomer Rotzeh Ani where the GET is completely kosher. So if I understand correctly, these actions only make the GET possul if there was not a finding by a Bes Din approving the GET and methods to make the husband give one, but if the Bes Din did approve, then these actions do not create a Me'usah.
A beis din does not have the right to authorize force in a case where the wife says that her husband disgusts her. At most the passive sanctions of Rabbeinu Tam are permitted. So if a beis din authorizes direct force that simply shows they are not competent. See my comments above that we don't posken like the Rambam who does permit using force in a case of ma'os alei.
Your confusion comes simply because you apparently weren't aware that a husband can not be actively forced according to normative halacha in the case of "he disgusts me"
TO SAM: Your argument about speaking to the other side is moot. This is because its a repeating STATEMENT THAT I HEAR over and over. Rabbi gestetner repeatedly published halachic responsa to why Herschel Schachter or any other rabbi that supports ORA or their tactics are creating future mamzeirim and the issur of marrying a married woman as her GET is invalid.BUT HERE IS THE CLENCHER: IN ALL THE CASES, THE OTHER SIDE NEVER BACKS UP THEIR RULINGS WITH ACCEPTED POSKIM RATHER ALL WE HEAR IS RHETORIC THAT SAYS " THE RABBANUT DOESNT ACCEPT RABBI GESTETNER OR RABBI KARELITZ'S BAIS DIN IN BENE BRAK"!!! This argument does not stand up in jewish law. So please stop with this nonsense "did you speak to the other side". These corrupted rabbis should know that before you issue a ruling to humiliate a man and his family in public which is like murder, you must refer to the Shulchan Oruch or accepted poskim that clearly state that it is allowed and quote your sources. Additionally any halachic ruling that considers a man recalcitrant and liable to sanctions is ONLY IF THE WOMAN IS TOTALLY INNOCENT AND HAS NOT COMMITTED HALACHIC INFRACTIONS in the process.WE ALL KNOW THAT IN MOST CASES THE WOMEN HAVE VIOLATED BASIC PRINCIPLES IN HALACHA DURING THEIR QUEST FOR DIVORCE. i dont consider any modern day rabbi an accepted posek that his psak CAN overrule RASHI, RASHBAM, RASHBO, ETC.. I ALREADY QUOTED A RASHBAM IN BAVA BASRA 48A THAT CLEARLY STATES AN EXAMPLE OF A WOMAN WHO MARRIED WITH AN INVALID GET DUE TO COERCION BY A SECULAR COURT,THAT SHE NEEDED NOW 2 GETS.Last but not least, we have stooped so low in this generation that we make a big deal about insects in our vegetables , but are not equally prudent to preserve our geneological lineage and allow for invalid gittin to be issued by being super lenient on those halochot. when all this comes to light in the near future you will find an ever growing single(divorced) population that will not be able to remarry because the public will be aware of the halachic implications. tHIS IS ALL HAPPENNING BECAUSE OF MONEY, MONEY AND MONEY!!
Firstly we do NOT pasken like this Rambam al pi halocho. As to kofin oso that only applies when there is a mitzvah to give a Get not when the modern day woman is in arko'oys shelo k'din and no valid bais din on earth can pasken that it's a mitzvah to give her a get.
you can only beat someone if he is mechuyav to give a get e.g. if he became a mukas shchin. there are very few and far between cases where this applies.
TQMshirt, You ask if a Beth Din that demands that a husband divorce or be forced if such a GET is kosher. The Chazon Ish discusses this (Gittin 99:2) and says that if a Beth Din decreed on a husband that he must divorce, even if they did nothing to force him, the fact of their ruling creates its own ONESS or coercion, and the GET is invalid. Also, says the Chazon Ish, not only is the GET invalid because it was forced by the command of the Beth Din, but it is also invalid because the husband mistakenly thought that the Beth Din was telling him what the Torah says, to divorce, and the Beth Din erred as the Torah did not require the husband to divorce. Thus, says the Chazon Ish, the GET is also invalid because it was given through a mistake. Briefly, if Beth Din commands a husband to give a GET and he does, even if no coercion is applied, the command itself is illegal coercion and it makes ONESS or coercion that invalidates the GET. Also, the husband gave the GET because he thought the Beth Din was teaching what the TOrah required of him, but this was a mistake, and a GET given because of a mistake is invalid. Of course, if the Beth Din really forced him, in addition to their ruling falsely, that surely invalidates the GET.
Relevant parts of the Kol Koreh that the previous generation's gedolim signed regarding WOMEN in arko'oys:
8) Women who turn to a non-Jewish court to force their husbands to divorce them, or to receive money not in accordance with the halacha, such a get is invalid and the money is stolen, and it is forbidden to marry these women. If the woman remarried with this get, children born from the marriage are mamzeirim. 9) Women who summon their husbands to a non-Jewish court, it is forbidden to marry them, for they are considered wicked ("reshaim") who descend to Gehenom and forfeit their share in Olam Haba, and therefore they should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives. Regarding one who does marry such a woman, our Rabbis tell us that the first husband removed a rasha'a from his house and now a second man takes her into his home! If the second husband is worthy, he will divorce her, otherwise, she will become a widow and bury him . . . 10) It is a mitzva to publicize the "rabbis" who advise men and women to go to non-Jewish court, without following the procedure as described above (paragraph 2), for they are responsible for the terrible chilul Hashem and abandonment of the Torah. Their ways are repulsive and their halachic decisions are invalid, since they are considered from those who cause the public to sin, which is from the twenty four items that prevent one from repenting. The Rambam (Hil. Teshuva 4:1) explains: twenty four items prevent repentance, and four of those items are great sins that Hashem does not give one the opportunity to repent according to the severity of the sin. Those items are: 1) one who causes the public to sin, 2) one who influences his friend away from the proper path to a lifestyle of evil, such as a meisis u'madiach, 3) whoever can protest the wrong ways of others, whether an individual or a group, and doesn't do so but allows them to remain in their wrong ways etc. And these three items are all found by these advisors who convince men and women to go to non-Jewish court. We are awakening everyone to restrain themselves and their families from this evil way of emulating the goyim, chas v'sholom. Whoever knows of these transgressors should supply us with their name and address and we will be on the lookout. Amongst signatories: Rav Shmuel Birenbaum of Mir zt"l, Rav Efraim Oschry, Rav Laizer Ginsberg of Mir, Rav Pam of Torah vodaas, Rav Yosef Rosenblum, Mishne halochos, Beirach Moshe, Skulene Rebbe, Bobove rebbe, Viener Rov etc.
This does not justify a man not giving a get when the wife is tzias dina and bais din paskens that he should. but the times when bais din can force a get are extremely limited. But all these contentious cases involving Friedman, Weiss, Kin etc involve women breaking halochos left and right and yet we have biryonim demanding gittin in this case k'neged the Torah and creating mamzeirus left and right.
So Eddie and James, I guess these gedolim were talking rubbish also.
Rabbi Schachter, ORA, Eddie, James, Rabbi Gedalia Schwartz, rabbi Yonah Reisss, Rabbi M Willig, Rabbi Michael Rroyde, other rabbis of the RCA, rabbi Malkiel Kotler, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminitsky
Please explain when you have ever applied any of these important halochos from the gemorah brough down l'halocho in the rishonim unanimously including the Shulchan Oruch and re-emphasized in the Kol Koreh against women who went to arko'oys but only involve yourselves in very contentious cases where women are involved in extreme parental alienation and you side with either for ideological reasons or because they are your first cousins but ignore hundereds of appeals to prevent the abuse of men by their estranged wives.
4) A Jew or Jewess who says that they will take a fellow Jew to the non-Jewish courts, and they were warned of their sin and didn't listen, mitzva laha'rog otam, and whoever acts first is worthy, as is the case of a rodeif (one who chasing a person to kill him). (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat ibid.) 5) A Jewish man or woman who calls the police on the other, is included in the classification of moser. This is also true if they were quarreling, chas v'sholom, unless there was a life threatening situation when it is permitted if no other means are available to save oneself. However, afterwards one should go to Beis Din. 6) Whoever is awarded money by a non-Jewish court, whether it be from business dealings, or alimony or child support, in an instance when it is not entitled by the laws of the Torah, such money is considered stolen ("gezel"). If we have the opportunity to help the one whose money was taken through the non-Jewish court, we should do so. If the moser repents, he must return all improperly acquired monies and related expenses, and must beg forgiveness of the one from whom he extracted money for all the suffering that he caused him. 7) It is a mitzva to publicize the names and addresses of Jewish mosrim and their supporters, in order for Jews to know from whom to stay away. Whoever knows of a moser that hasn't repented, it is forbidden to assist him in any way until he repents.
Amongst signatories: Rav Shmuel Birenbaum of Mir zt"l, Rav Efraim Oschry, Rav Laizer Ginsberg of Mir, Rav Pam of Torah vodaas, Rav Yosef Rosenblum, Mishne halochos, Beirach Moshe, Skulene Rebbe, Bobove rebbe, Viener Rov etc.
Again James are the gedolim talking rubbish.
PS: Before you consider being moser on me to the DA, Eddie or James, I never called for them to be muttar le'hargom and in no way are suggesting that anyone does this today. Just quoting the message.
firstly it is an honour to be counted amongst such Talmidei hachamim, but I must remove myself from this list as I am not a rav or Dayan, and hold no qualifications in Halacha.
next, it is interesting that you quote a halacha where it is a mitzvah to kill a moser, since when R' Shachter applied the same about a PM who is moser yerushalayim or is moser Jews to PLO/Hamas terrorists, by bringing back the 50,000 PLO murderers that Arik Sharon expel from Lebanon - and arming them, (results are the Oslo massacres and camp david intifada that killed thousands of Jews), then he was attacked by R' Dovid.
next, would you also suggest that it is a mitzvah, according to this letter, to call and attack "mosrim" those who permit going to the police (secular, goyim, zionists), where a case of sexual abuse has occurred?
This is somewhat problematic, since amongst those who permit this are several gedolim, who you rely on in other matters for halacha. And sexual abuse is not murder or qa threat to life, I mean according to this you have quoted, (and as rav Padwa and his son both poskened) it is assur to go to police for such matters.
Rabbi Eidensohn: You did not respond to the question posed by "Saver" above. Are you saying in short, that a women has no options with respect to obtaining a get, when her husband states publicly that he not give a get under any circumstances, yet viciously and constantly beats her, unless she claims "Maos Ulei" (he is revolting)??
A husband who beats his wife is forced to divorce her - even if she doesn't find him revolting.
Gra (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife.
Ohr Zarua (Bava Kama #161): … It is prohibited for a man to beat his wife and furthermore if he does he must be for all the damage if she was hurt. If he regularly beats her and embarrasses her in public we force him to divorce her…
Rabbeinu Simcha (Beis Yosef E.H 154:3): (2) It is an accepted view that when a husband beats his wife it is a more severe crime then when he beats his fellow man. That is because there is no obligation to honor his fellow man while concerning his wife he is commanded to honor her more than he honors himself (Yevamos 62b). A person who beats his wife is to be placed in cherem and ostracized as well as flogged and punished with all manner of punished even to the point of cutting off his hand if he constantly beats her (Sanhedrin 58b). If she wants to get out of the marriage he should give her a divorce and she receives her kesuba. An attempt should be made to make peace between them but if he doesn’t comply and continues to beat her and degrade her he should be excommunicated and forced by the secular government to divorce her or be forced to comply with whatever the Jewish authorities tell him (Gittin 88b)…
Rema (E.H. 154:3): And similarly a man who habitually angry and frequently sends his wife out of the house. In such a case he is forced to divorce her because since he sometimes doesn’t feed her and he does not fulfill his obligation to provide sexual relations – he is a rebel (mored) concerning both food and sex (Rashba 693). A man who hits his wife has committed a sin just as if he had hit any other Jew. If he habitually hits her, the court should punish him, ostracize him and to beat him with all types of force as well as to make him take an oath that he will not do it anymore. If he doesn’t obey the court – some say that he should be forced to divorce her. However this is only if he is first warned once or twice. That is because it is not normal for Jews to hit their wives – it is what the idolaters do. However this is only when he attacks her. However if she curses him without cause or ridicules his parents and he chastises her and she refuses to stop – some say that it is permitted to hit her while others says that even a bad wife can not be hit. The halacha is accord with the first opinion that she can be hit. If it is known who started the fight, the husband is not believed to say that she initiated. That is because all women are presumed to be righteous. Therefore observers need to be placed with them to see who is the cause of the problem. If she in fact cursed him without cause – she is to be divorced and not receive her kesuba. It seems to me that this is only if she habitually curses him without cause and only after she has been warned as we explained in 115. If she leaves his house and borrows money to eat – if she left because of constant beatings – he is obligated to pay for her expenses…
"Gra (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife. "
Is this to be understood in its literal sense, or as an allegory for some form or compensation or other punitive measure?
What if he raises his hands toward her on a daily basis, but stops short of actual beatings? What if he screams at her at the top of his lungs, e.g. "I'll kill you"! and constantly shouts vile obscenities at her on a daily basis? Must she endure this?
Stop making anonymous comments. It is very difficult to keep track of people who have the same name "anonymous" it also is a waste of my time correcting the problem
The reason I asked this, is that in Rambam's commentary to the MIshna (intro), he brings a verse from the Torah, where it it is written 2an that hand shall be cut off". He points out that according to the oral law, this is not to be understood in its plain meaning, but refers to some compensation or legal punishment. Similarly, an eye for an eye etc is also not understood literally. Yet I am trying to figure out why this real case of mutilation is allowed, and is it d'rabbanan? (of course we wouldn't want ti to occur in the democratic countries we live in).
that is dealing with the meaning of a Torah verse. However there were times in Jewish history where mutilization was permitted as punishment. Clearly it was not claimed that the Torah called for it but it was decided it was needed for the times and that apparently is the case of the gemora in Sanhedrin.
What if he raises his hands toward her on a daily basis, but stops short of actual beatings? What if he screams at her at the top of his lungs, e.g. "I'll kill you"! and constantly shouts vile obscenities at her on a daily basis? Must she endure this?
Thank You for you response =====================
I am not sure. The Rema (E.H. 154.3) could be read as support for forcing a divorce - but he could also mean that only if there is physical violence. In any case she doen't have to continue living with him. your question I assume is whether he will be forced to divorce her because he is verbally abuse.
What if he raises his hands toward her on a daily basis, but stops short of actual beatings? What if he screams at her at the top of his lungs, e.g. "I'll kill you"! and constantly shouts vile obscenities at her on a daily basis? Must she endure this?
"that is dealing with the meaning of a Torah verse. However there were times in Jewish history where mutilization was permitted as punishment. "
I shall ask a risky question now - is it possible that in earlier times, eg Tenach/first temple era, Hachamim could have interpreted such verses more literally, to suit the times?
I don't think so. Mutilaton was an acceptable punishment in the time of the Rishonim -and that was also what the non-Jewish society did. The case cited in Sanhedrin was clearly not a Torah punishment. The gemora in Bava Kamma goes out of its way to assert that the Torah does not call for mutilation as punshment.
Its more than mere verbal abuse. You can go to jail for making threats of bodily harm. ================== Going to jail be secular law doesn't necessarily mean that the Torah views it that way. The Torah clearly prohibits verbal abuse - Vayikra 25:17. but the commentaries say that there is no punishment given by beis din for it because there was not physical act. They do say that there were be severe Divine punishment for it.
you were asking what does beis din do. Aside from the Rema I cited I don't recall an example where the husband was forced to give his wife a divorce because he was verbally abusive but not physically abusive.
If someone knows of such a case - please let us know.
Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 134): Question: We are dealing with a case in which it apparently has been shown that the wife hates her husband – heart and soul – because of his behavior which is simply abnormal. The woman therefore has the claim of ma’us alei with a clear basis. This couple has lived separately for over 6 years. The question is whether the beis din will comply with the request of the wife and require him to give her a get. Answer: Even if you grant that this woman has the status of one who says ma’us alei with a clear justification, that in itself does not require that the husband give her a get. Look at Shut HaRashba (# 135 - attributed to Ramban), Question: When a woman claims ma’us alei... is the husband obligated to divorce her....? Answer: ... You should know that she is not able to force her husband to divorce her since a woman goes out of the marriage sometimes according to her desires and sometimes not according to her desires. On the other hand the man only leaves the marriage only when he want to leave it... From all these you see that when a woman claims ma’us alei we do not force the husband to give a divorce... Even though the Rambam writes that when a woman says ma’us alei the husband is forced to divorce her – the Rambam is not correct in this matter... Concerning the kesuba and dowry that she brought him – according to the din she does not lose anything unless she insists on being a moredes for 12 months and all these 12 months she is not forced... However if she remains a moredes for 12 months and her husband wants to divorce her – she loses everything.... That is her din when her husband divorces her according to his wishes after 12 months. But if the desire to divorce comes from her – as we said before – he is not forced to divorce her. The words of the Rashba imply not only is the husband not forced to divorce her when she claims ma’us alei but that he has no obligation to give her a get! This is also apparent from the words of Tosfos(Kesubos 63).... Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2): If she says that he disgusts me and I can not have relations with him – if the husband wants to divorce her she does not get any money from the Kesuba at all. Rema (E.H. 77:2)... All of this is only when she doesn’t give a reason and justification for her words as to why she finds him repulsive. But if she does give a reason for her words... And we don’t force him to divorce her nor do we force her to remain with him. And if you want to claim that he must divorce her – it is obvious that since we don’t force her to remain with him then of necessity that there can’t be an obligation of the husband to give her a get. It is the same thing.
Other than physical violence against a wife, are there other circumstances that the poskim rule that halacha l'maaisa bzman hazeh where the husband is forced against his will to divorce his wife?
Or is physically beating her the only such circumstance he is forced to divorce her?
this issue is discussed in Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154.
If the husband develops disgusting health conditions, if he in impotent or is not interested in sexual relations, if he becomes epileptic, if there are halachich prohibitions involved in their marriage or if he has mental problem or he was mentally ill before marriage and he concealed that fact, some say if he became blind or double amputee, if he refuses to support her, or he has a disgusting job such a collecting dog excrement, or a tanner or copper miner
"Gra (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife. "
Is this to be understood in its literal sense, or as an allegory for some form or compensation or other punitive measure?
================ According to the En Talmudis most understood this literally though some say it means financial.
אנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך יב, חובל [טור תרעט]
: רב הונא קצץ ידו של אדם אחד שהיה רגיל להכות את חברו - ויש מפרשים שהעניש כך את מי שהגביה ידו על חברו ולא היכהו - לפי שבית דין מכים ועונשים שלא מן התורה לעשות סייג וגדר לדבר, או שדינו של מכה חברו בכך, שכן דרש רב הונא: וזרוע רמה תשבר, הרגיל להרים ידו על חברו תיקצץ ידו. ומתוך כך יש שכתבו שיכול לעשות על ידי נכרים שיקצצו ידו של הרגיל להכות, ויש חולקים וסוברים שאסור למסרו לנכרים, ולא אמרו תיקצץ ידו אלא בדיני ישראל. ויש מהראשונים מפרשים שלא קצץ רב הונא את ידו, אלא שהענישו וקנסו לשלם דמי ידו [181].ומעשה שהיה באחד שהיכה לזקן על ראשו והיה הדם שותת מראשו, והורו שילקה בבית הכנסת בין מנחה למעריב לפני שיאמרו והוא רחום, וגם יתן למוכה כסף לפי המנהג באותו מקום אם הוא עני, ואם הוא עשיר יתן לעמילי תורה, ויבקש מחילה מהמוכה. וכל זה אינו אלא הוראת שעה לפי ראות עיני בית דין שחטא החובל. ויש שכתבו שנוהגים לפסוק על המכה או חובל את חברו שיפדה את המלקות בארבעים זהובים או חצאי זהובים וכיוצא, ולא מן הדין, שמאחר שמשלם אינו לוקה, אלא בדרך קנס לביישו. =====================================
181. יד רמ"ה שם בשם י"א; מאירי שם בשם יש שפירשו. ועי' יד רמ"ה שם שדחה.
So, in summary, when would a Beis Din force a man to give a Get? If we do not hold like the Rambam, the only time would be when he habitually beats the woman or he has mukas shchin?
First Eddie accused me of being ridiculous and expounding ridiculous positions. Then when he is shown that these are views of many of the gedolim in the USA he suddenly starts lobfuscating, ignores the hakochoh and starts ranting about the halochohs of a rodef which he knows full well can't be applied today unless you want to spend the rest of your days in jail which the Torah is not nechayev you to do even though they are in fact rodfim and deserve the punishment the torah says they should get.
Eddie the facts are the vast majority of cases today of fake agunahs involve women in arko'oys. so he suddenly changes topics to what about if a husband repeatedly beats his wife inspite of being warned not to do so by bais din.
he still refuses to let us know what bais din let alone botei din he approves of.
Eddie, ever heard ogf the rishon Shta Lo Noday LeMi. According to Eddie's logic he would not be a godol because he is unknown. what about rashi who hid his identity until he was discovered. The argument against Rav Gestetner that he is unknown is so laughable that it belongs on April fools day which is in 4 weeks Eddie. what about the Lamed vov nikim eddie also not tzaddikim because their identities are not known.
Eddie rav gestetner takes exactly the same position as Rav Elyashiv, the Brisker Rov and the Chazon Ish. Are they also unknown? According tov your logic the head of the reform arthur schindler could be a godol because he is knwon. Eddie - pathetic!
it was you mentioned mosrim, not me. I responded with the fact that R' Dovid on this blog has several times attacked RHS for advocating dealing with a Moser al pi halacha. The differnece was that in once case, you are quoting those who considered someone going to goyishe court as mosrim, in another RHS considered giving weapons and money to Arafat yemach shmo , so he can kill more jews in tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I was drawing in reb Dovid to the "minefield" here.
Speaking of Mosrim, your friend Yehuda levin is pals with Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is one of the biggest anti- semites in America. Now, do u consider Levin as moiser? Or yoru Nk buddies for that matter?
As for arkoyos, I never suggested it is a godo thing for women to go to non jewish court at the expense of a beth in, nor did i give my support to the ORA, which you accuse me of being a member/founder/funder/director and advisor. You must be mistakingme for someone else, I live in UK, and have no negius with ORA.
R Elyashiv and r Shternbuch have given psak of permitting going to police in a case of sexual abuse. According to your Kol Koreh, if still valid, it would make these gedolim also violating halacha.
Brisker rav said famously that anyone who enters Heichal Shlomo (Rababnut) is an idolater. Thus his accusation was also including R Elyashiv, altho he did claim that he was immune from this - an unconvincing claim.
Stanley: "so he suddenly changes topics to what about if a husband repeatedly beats his wife inspite of being warned not to do so by bais din" I didnt change the subject, RDE did , responding to someone else. i discussed a certain aspect of this, because it is a fascinating halachic and Torah discussion. The power of the Sanhedrin to institute the punishment of cutting of a hand - when according to the oral LAw, such cruelty was not actually practiced in the Torah, but it meant something else (eg eye for an eye).
Eddie your claims that RHS is one of the gedolim in America and is not accepted because of his hashkofohs. One does not need to get to his hashkofohs but his serious violations of halochoh as poointed out repeatedly on this blog by Rabbi Dovid E. I don't even need to get onto what he knows and whether in the oylom hayeshivohs he is considered a lamdan or not because never mind his hashkofohs being krum, he does not hold of the laws of gittin according to the mesorah.
To the author of the blog, There are many cases where we find in Halacha that we force a get. Many times it can be a מקח טעות. What is the Halacha if someone were to be on certain types of medicines which inhibit normal relationships. An example where to be if one of the sides was taking medication for depression and he can not function even with these pills as normal? Or because of the side effects he can't perform as a man should. Is that a reason to force a get? And if one is hiding that information, and the person is engaged, can one or should one tell the other side knowing it will cause the shidduch to break? I do know many Gedolim allow one to hide when one is on medication, is there a basis in Halacha for this? Thanks
If a husband repeatedly beats his wife (a fact he does not dispute), even after being warned to stop by beis din to stop, and his wife goes to beis din to demand a divorce does -- does beis din have no right to order the husband to divorce her even though the husband does not want to divorce her as he wants to remain married to her?
That is how I am understanding your comments.
What about the famous story with Rav Akiva Eiger who ordered a husband to divorce his wife and the husband refused, so Rav Akiva Eiger told the husband that his wife will either become free by him giving a divorce or by him dying. The husband laughed in his face and left. As he was walking down the steps he fell down and died.
How was Rav Akiva Eiger able to order the husband to give a Get?
Oh, sorry. I just noticed that DT answered by original question about beating a wife and forced divorce.
"Rema (E.H. 154:3): ... However if she curses him without cause or ridicules his parents and he chastises her and she refuses to stop – some say that it is permitted to hit her while others says that even a bad wife can not be hit. The halacha is accord with the first opinion that she can be hit. ..."
Does the Rema pasken (as it seems) that it is permissible to hit your wife under certain circumstances?
Eddie continues his obfuscation. Eddie you accused me of having ridiculous positions. Now eat humble pie Eddie. Those positions are not mine they are the positions of many of the gedolim. Now just admit that it is you who is ridiculous claiming that my positions are ridiculous.
Eddie invents facts that I accuse him of being a leader of ORA. Where did I make such an accusation Eddie? you clearly support them or many of their positions but that does not necessarily make you a leader. I can support Margaret Thatcher Eddie but that does not make me Nigel Lawson or John Major Eddie. So stop the stupidity already Eddie.
No Stanley invents facts that i support them etc, that I am connected to them, that I am YU, etc etc. These are all falsifications by Stan, which shos that he would nto make a good dayan, as he makes up his evidence to suit him.
Saver, save your misinterpretation for a modernishe blog. The same rabbi akiva eiger paskened that if you take what is npot yours through arko'oys, you are oyver genaivah and if you mekadesh a woman with this money the kiddushin is not chal. He certainly was not referring to a fake agunah like tamar epstein or dodelson.
my pal Yehuda levin is a friend of pat buchanan. Firstly i don't have to believe your motzi sheym ra without a proof. even if it were true and let's assume it is for a moment, levin can be spot on about gittin and spot off about politics. just like RHS who is spot on about being anti reform and spot off about following normative halochoh about fake agunahs. so according to eddie's krum logic there is an equivalence relationship between RHS and yehuda levin
"As for arkoyos, I never suggested it is a good thing for women to go to non jewish court at the expense of a beth in," Eddie it's not a good thing to overeat, its not a good thing to forget your lunch at home or to forget to brush your teeth. Its potentially several issurie d'oraisah to be oyver arko'oys including mishpotim, including genaivaoh, including avoda zoro, including mesirah including lo sachmod etc. You get my drift Eddie? An issur arko'oys is a modern day meyaker elilim Eddie and slapping the torah in the fsace. Eddie obviously is so mufkah from understanding the issuer, he admits he doesn't know halochoh that I am the fool for paying attention to anything he says.
Get is for a beth Din to deal with. however, a secular court is necessary for secular divorce papers, otherwise both parties would be committing bigamy in the local legal system.
Eddie, there was an argument between the Chazon ish and the brisker rov about whetehr someone had to give up his parnoso in order to remove himself from the corruption of the rabbanut. rav elyashiv felt he was on a high enough madreigah that he would not be affected by the krumkeir and kefirah of the rabbanut. you have no proof that he rav elyuashiv certainly did not hold that for someone not on his madreigah who learns lishmo 18 hours a day that it would be muttar to go into the rabanut and kal vcho,mer work for them. In the end even the rabbanut was too krum for rav elyashiv. hje was forced to resign because of the hetter of allowing mazerim into klal yisroel. so Eddie get the facts right. and till this day some of the briskers have not forgiven him and claim -see we proved you wrong.
As for your focusing on the issue of rodef which today cannot be applied in golus, this just proves your obfuscation.
Now please inform us which botei din in the US you hold of Eddie. is it the BBA since you hold RHS to be a godol here?
"In the end even the rabbanut was too krum for rav elyashiv. hje was forced to resign because of the hetter of allowing mazerim into klal yisroel. so Eddie get the facts right. and till this day some of the briskers have not forgiven him and claim -see we proved you wrong."
Yes, and through the agency of R' Atias and Dayan Sherman, hundreds or thousands of potential mamzerim were allowed to enter Clal Yisrael. If the claim agasint r Goren was valid, then same annulments of geirus committed by Sherman and Atias are creating mamzerim on a whoelsale scale.
There was another Machlokes with Brisk and R' Shach, as well as Kotler junior. To this day they also have not been forgiven.
Now, if you are using historical evidence to show "we proved you wrong", then do you accept that Satmar and Brisker (to a lesser extent) were wrong about State of Israel. You seem to be selective in which parts of the torah you accept. "Don't stand idly by the blood of your brother is a Torah command"
Satmar, Lubavitch, belz etc were all guilty of this. Do you also oppose R Aaron Kotler saving Jewish lives by being mechalel shabbes, as satmar and Lubavitch did?
As for beth Din in America, shoudl I ever need one, hopefully not, I would go to Sephardic bet Din, such as Marc Angel, R' Ben Chaim.
As for beth Din in America, shoudl I ever need one, hopefully not, I would go to Sephardic bet Din, such as Marc Angel, R' Ben Chaim.
Then really this entire discussion does not apply to you. Sephardim, as has been demonstrated on this blog, have very different interpretations of these halakhot.
Eddie's obfuscation continues. "Get is for a beth Din to deal with. however, a secular court is necessary for secular divorce papers, otherwise both parties would be committing bigamy in the local legal system".
Eddie you can just register a divorce like you register buying and selling a property. Dealing with all the issues is NOT ALLOWED IN SECULAR COURT EDDIE! Don't you get it already! The excuse that you can go to arko'oys to litigate, if this is your position Eddie, makes you even worse than ORA, Eddie. Your true colors are coming out.
I want to get a "divorce" from Stan because he is such an idiot. In English Law, a secular divorce is a lengthy legal process, which requires all kinds of proof, lawyers, judges etc. you cannot get a one -stop divorce in a supermarket or on the internet. What planet are you on?
Again, you falsify evidence, and then accuse me to be worse than ORA etc. Seems that you are totally lying about law, which you appear to have a disdain for anyhow.
But you are now entering serious halachic issues Stanley, since you are making false eidus agasint me. I have simply stated fact that u need to go to a judge and present legal evidence etc to get a divorce. There is no issur in this.
Again Eddie shows he knows not what he talks about. Eddie this blog is US centric with regards to the cases of tamar epstein and dodelson. so please eddie stop making a fool of yourself. in the UK, the moslems are allowed in many instances to use sharia law. let me assure you eddie that there is a big taayna in shomayim that the yidden run to arko'oys while their yishmoelim cousins don't.
Eddie in the US you can a divorce on no fault grounds in all states now. stop putting your foot in your mouth all the time eddie. eddie you mean to tell me every time one gets divorced in the UK one has to oyver the issur of arko'oys. given the large number of frum yidden their i think, its you who is being very economical with the truth.
I told you in English Law. hence you make a fool of yourself stanley. Thsi blog is is halacha centric, and you have to take into account the law of the land. In England, you need to prove to a Judge , in a court, that the marriage has broken down, and it is a long process. remember, we English had courts of law when the Americans were firing arrows at buffalo. Like i said, u need to go to court, whether for this formal procedure is a heter, that is a qn to ask. Why do u bring shaaria law into it? Do think jews here dont get married in a civil ceremony? Goodbye stanley,I have nothing further to say to you.
The extent of Eddie's inability to hold kop is breathtaking. Eddie says that in order to obtain a divorce in the UK, you have jump through all sorts of legal hurdles. i am not a UK qualified judge so he may be right. Nonetheless there has to be a way of doing this according to halocho because otherwise rabbonim would force people who believe in halochoh (something very foreign to Eddie)to get divorced somewhere else. now Eddie retorts Do think jews here dont get married in a civil ceremony? what has that got to do with the issur of arko'oys Eddie if al pi halocho you are just registering the marriage and not making claims in arko'oys eddie? Nothing, absolutely nothing, Eddie. Then Eddie complains why I bring up the issue of Sharia law in the UK. The reason is so basic Eddie. The Yidden want to run away from halochoh while the moslems wish to embrace their religion. Isn't that pathetic Eddie? Then Eddie decides to insult Americans. Well sorry Eddie I am not a real American! Again Eddie the cases on this blog are American whether you like it or not. So English law is utterly irrelevant even if "we English had courts of law when the Americans were firing arrows at buffalo. " Glad to see the back of you Eddie. keep it up.
Yes, i wish to see the end of stanley's egregious errors and foolish words, but since he falsifies and misleads, i am forced to respond.
"Nonetheless there has to be a way of doing this according to halocho because otherwise rabbonim would force people who believe in halochoh (something very foreign to Eddie)to get divorced somewhere else. "
because of stanley's limited knowledge, he thinks it is either or, so Rabbis must therefore send people to Haiti for a quickie divorce. what a fool.
The issue of "arkaot" is a serious one, but there are ways around the issur, presumably. There are competent Dayanim in UK, and perhaps they know a little more than Stan the man. If you do a real estate deal, you are still using the goyishe legal system. So what is any different from getting a secular divorce, since it is not a get and is required by the law of the land (something stan does no care much about) In any case, R Elyashiv went to Arkoyos , or rather employed it to sue somebody he disagreed with. Furthermroe, Haredi members of the Knesset ar MKs, and the Knesset is a non halachic legal ssytem, they are known as lawmakers. hence, you could also call this arkaoyos
In this article, note 5 it mentions there is possibility of heter arkayot http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/divorcebeit.html#4
5. As a general rule, in order for a person to be permitted to go to secular court, he/she must obtain a heter arkaot [written permission to go to secular court] from a respected beit din or other rabbinic authority. Examples of cases where such a heter may be issued are: (a) where the other party refuses to submit to beit din, or (b) if the case is deemed by a competent halachic authority to be a type of case which beit din is incapable of handling (see Choshen Mishpat 26, Kol Kitvei HaRav Henkin 2:174-177). Some authorities are of the opinion that there is no need for a heter arkaot when the defendant is a secular Jew who would clearly not submit to beit din. In any individual case, a competent rabbi should be consulted. 1:18; Sefer Meirat Eynaim, Choshen Mishpat 12:8.
Wow Eddie, you now accuse rav Elyashiv of being in arko'oys. I don't know how you are allowed to post such nonsence. "n any case, R Elyashiv went to Arkoyos , or rather employed it to sue somebody he disagreed with." So according to eddie rav elyashiv was mechalel sheym shomayim. what baloney. " Furthermroe, Haredi members of the Knesset ar MKs, and the Knesset is a non halachic legal ssytem, they are known as lawmakers. hence, you could also call this arkaoyos" how do you call this arko'oys eddie? you are inventing facts from your chalomos eddie.
Tsvi Weinman is a haredi historian He says that R' Elyashiv told Borokowski to sue Goren in the secular court system. Since RYE considered Borokowski to be a jew, then he employed the legal system as a way of embarrasing Goren. that is arkoyos, like it or not.
Even assuming you are correct about the facts, which who knows, ein sheliach lidvar averroh so rav elyashiv was not in arko'oys. i have yet to meet someone like eddie who is so persistent yet so ignorant.
Once again Eddie invents facts and distorts what I said. yes of course it is an avairoh assuming it is true which we have no proof of other than eddie's hearsay evidence. But it is still not the same aveiroh as the perpetrator. is that just too subtle for you Eddie. if you don't get it ask RHS who any way mattirs arko'oys by supporting fake agunahs.
I didnt invent facts. it was published in Yated neeman, whilst r' Elyashiv was the leader and controller of that paper. R' Elyashiv gave instructions to Weinman to advise Borokovskty in going to secular/Zionist arkoyos, and they managed to sue R Goren. It wasn't an "agency" as you claim, he was not suing R Goren himslef, but gave a heter for the Jew/Goy Borokovsky to go to arkoyos.
So a)there probably were valid grounds al pi halocho to do so so I am not sure what your point is. Again even if there weren't which seems hard to believe, Rav Elyashiv personally was not in arko'oys. I don't believe what it says in the yated anyway.
eddie it's not fine. Please bring proof that I accused RHS of being in arko'oys? he is accused of being mevayesh people be'rabim, of issuing fake siruvim (Meir Kin) without even being mazmin the person to a din torah once, of being machzik lonna Kin in arko'oys which itself is worthy of a cheirem etc. So please Eddie if you want the last stupid word have it but stop inventing false claims against me.
Thanks To Dr Love My heart was broken i never believe i will get back my ex again until Dr LOVE brought back my ex within 24 hours with a powerful love spell. He is reliable for positive result contact the spell caster for love spell on email: {DRODOGBO34@GMAIL.COM } or whatsapp on + 1 443 281 3404
I received this letter from someone who works with the Beth Din in Bnei Braq of Reb Nosson Karelitz, and their Dayamim signed this paper that humiliating husbands invalidates the GET. They bring a Rashbo. This Rashbo is also quoted halacha limaaseh by the author of Shulchan Aruch Reb Yosef Karo in Beis Yosef EH 154, Radvaz and Chazin Ish, among others. It is halacha limaaseh that anyone who humiliates a husband and forces the husband to give a GET that the GET is invalid and the childern born in the second mareriage by the divorced wife may be mamzerim.
ReplyDeleteI want to make a point. There are humiliations and there are serious humiliations. Rabbeinu Yona says that a true humiliation is worse than murder. If so, it surely invalidates a GET. There are humiliations that drive people to suicide. The kind of humiliations that ORA specializes in bring people to consider suicide, as I heard from a reliable source. They not only humiliate the husband, they humiliate his relatives, his old mother and father who may have medical conditions and may suffer a stroke because of ORA and Rabbi Schachter's idealism. ORA humiliates the father in front of his children, who are possibly emotionally damaged from this horrible experience. And for what? To make a GET that is invalid! This is Rabbi Herschel Schachter in action, forcing a GET that normative Judaism considers invalid! And the rabbis in Washington and elsewhere who support him are guilty of torturing people against the DIN and if they succeed in forcing a GET, they will be guilty of promoting an invalid GET and possibly mamzeruth.
The recent letter of the major American Rosh Yeshivas to demand humiliation and loss of earnings for Rabbi Weiss is just an example of how bad things are that even Rosh Yeshivas have no idea of the laws of Gittin. And even if they don't know the laws of Gittin, don't they know that a cousin pf the wife cannot be part of a BEth Din to force someone to give a GET?
We should never forget what these Rosh Yeshivas did, and we should never forget what Rabbi Herschel Schachter through ORA and its terrorists are doing. And we must fight back by educating the public that these people deal with invalid Gittin and they may produce mamzerim.
Thank you for publishing this letter.
Thank you Rabbi Eidensohn for being that pillar of truth who is not afraid to expose rabbinic corruption. Lets be clear here; These roshe yeshiva know how to learn Gemore and poskim but choose to look away for political reasons. May Hashem make them see the light and do Teshuva.
DeleteDear Reb Dovid,
DeleteHave you ever called him up for his side? Did you speak to the Rosh yeshivas and the original Beis din as to why they did pasken as they did? If someone follows her daas Torah and not yours, is it the woman's fault or Beis din?
All this blaming on the women by Stan is wrong completely. They are following whom they think is daas Torah. If someone has a problem with it, take it up with Beis din.
Also, how do you explain the letter R Gestetner put out against Reb Shlomo? Are there any recognized poskim that recognize his Beis din? Check out the thread about the story with a seven times married yungerman who they married off to a geyores only to divorce a few months later.
I think it important to point out that this comment is complete and utter nonsense. It is misleading and against halacha.
DeleteNo major normative Gadol has openly stated that ORA's protests constitute coercion to invalidate a GET. The frum world has been publishing seruvim for decades.
ORA only works in cases with seruvim issued by Batei Din. If a BD has ordered a GET, the Beis Yosef you cited states that the GET is only pasul m'draabanan. Talk of mamzerus is completely irresponsible.
You may believe that ORA constitutes invalid coercion. No one else agrees. The three people listed above carry no weight in the frum world.
Delete....ORA has protested both against the husband and his family without a Seruv. From the Washington Jewish Week in reference to an ORA rally in 2010 "Complicatinrallyg matters, however, is that no beit din, or religious court, has ordered Friedman to issue Epstein a get"...
James,
DeleteYour words are in quotation marks and then I reply. I quote you here making two statements.
One, "No major normative Gadol has openly stated that ORA's protests constitute coercion to invalidate a GET. The frum world has been publishing seruvim for decades.'
It is obvious that you did not see the letter published by the senior Beth Din in Israel and perhaps the world, that of Reb Nosson Karelitz in Bnei Braq, that any GET achieved with humiliation is invalid. It was published very recently on this blog. I have spoken to heads of Gittin Beth Dins and they agree.
Your statement about Siruvim is an error. A Siruv has one purpose, to force a person to accept a process of going to Beth Din. It has nothing to do with the GET. If it did force a GET, it would create a coerced and thus invalid GET. Therefore, again, a Siruv does not ask for a GET, at all.
You also said, "ORA only works in cases with seruvim issued by Batei Din. If a BD has ordered a GET, the Beis Yosef you cited states that the GET is only pasul m'draabanan. Talk of mamzerus is completely irresponsible."
Again, a Siruv does NOT give permission to force a GET. If a Beth Din issued a pesak to force a GET and they were in error, some hold that the GET is invalid only dirabonon, but the latter poskim Beth Shmuel EH 134:10 and Chazon Ish EH Gittin 99 1 and 2 hold that the GET is invalid by the Torah and the children born from it are mamzerim diorayso. Beis Shmuel quotes many Rishonim who old that the GET is invalid from the Torah.
Rav Schachter is an enormous Talmid Chacham who knows exactly what he is doing, and Paskens al pi Torah. He is as straight as they come. I have absolute faith in his Psakim across the board. I don't know whether ORA does everything they do according to his Psakim, but calling them "terrorists" is really demeaning and paints YOU in an exceedingly poor light. How dare you call these Yidden by such a term?
DeleteIf you really cared about Rav Schachter's views, find a trusted Talmid Chacham friend of yours in the States and get them to respectfully put your views to him, and hear the response. It's not as if he's not going to engage you. Rav Schachter is charming and only interested in Torah LiShma
Do you mind quoting the actual Beis Yosef that you are citing? Since you have been shown to be wrong in your understanding of the Beis Yosef in the past?
Deletehttp://torahtimes.com/ggetamarriage/
ReplyDeleteThis is a much stronger article than all of Stan's arguments.
I agree with R' Dovid that mamzerus must be prevented. I don't see in any of these sources anything suggesting the woman can marry who she likes, and is considered as outside of Judaism.
With all due respect, RDE, I'm just confused.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Rambam mean when he spoke about beating a person until he agreed to give a get -- because that's what a person really wants once we get the yetzer harah out of the way?
Did no Batei Din in Europe ever embarrass anyone to the point where they gave a get?
Isn't putting someone in cherem pretty serious embarrassment? Isn't that done all the time to husbands who refuse to give gittin?
Why is ORA any different?
I'm honestly looking for answers, and I promise I'm not trying to fight or anything.
Thanks.
Avrumi G. these issues have been discussed at great length in the past on this blog. In addition I have translated a number of relevant teshuva. I would suggest you use the search engine on the phrase get me'usa.
DeleteThere is no question that in some cases a get can be forced. However we are talking about a case where the woman says her husband digusts her and she wants a divorce. This is talked about in Kesubos 63b " What is to be understood by ‘a rebellious woman’? — Amemar said: [One] who says. ‘I like him but wish to torment him’. If she said, however, ‘He is repulsive to me’, no pressure is to be brought to bear upon her."
The Rambam poskens here that even in a case where she says he disgusts her - the husband is forced to divorced her. However the accepted halacha is not like the Rambam. Therefore if the husband is pressured the get is invalid. There is a procedure of passive isolation called the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam that some poskim allow. In general these passive procedures were not commonly done for 500 years because of the concern that perhaps the wrong pressure would be applied and then it would be an invalid get and thus a question of sofek mamzerus. See the teshuvos of Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch and others. Others such as the Tzitz Eliezar and Rav Ovadiya Yosef felt that times have changed and that it would be appropriate to use the passive procedure of Rabbeinu Tam.
The procedures of Rabbeinu Tam do not involve public demonstrations to embarrass the husband. It does not involve calling for firing the husband from his job. It does not involve directly embarrassing the husband's family. See the description give my Judge Menachom Elon of Rabbeinu Tam.
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/judge-m-elon-harchakos-are-passive.html
Rav Hershcel Schachter has made a variety of statements about a case where the wife doesn't want to stay married. In some he claims that the demonstrations are less pressure than Rabbeinu Tam and other times he said it is the same as Rabbeinu Tam. He has cited no precedent ORA's public demonstrations against the husband. (For some reason ORA has never demonstrated against wives who go to civil court or refuse to accept a get.)
I spoke to a Rav who has been involved in the case from the beginning and said that Rav Schachter and Rav Belsky are wrong on the halachic level and have no jurisdiction or authority to issue a demand for a get and surely have no right to authorize pressure of either embarrassment or financial loss.
Avrumi G,
DeleteI put your three questions in quotation marks and try to answer them one at a time.
You write, "What did Rambam mean when he spoke about beating a person until he agreed to give a get -- because that's what a person really wants once we get the yetzer harah out of the way?"
Rambam and even the Geonim before him did beat a husband if the wife claimed he was disgusting to her. But Rabbeinu Tam objected that this ruling gave every woman the opportunity to escape a marriage which is against the Talmud. The final decision of the great rabbis of Israel by the time of the Rashbo and Rosh was not to force a GET with the woman's claim that the husband was disgusting, and we fear the opinions of those who maintain that any coerced GET based only on the wife's demand is invalid and the children from the next marriage may be mamzerim.
'Did no Batei Din in Europe ever embarrass anyone to the point where they gave a get?"
Since the Rashbo, Radvaz, Beis Yosef and Chazon Ish forbid humiliating a husband to coerce a GET, I have no reason to suspect that a Beth Din violated this.
"Isn't putting someone in cherem pretty serious embarrassment? Isn't that done all the time to husbands who refuse to give gittin?
It is forbidden to put a husband into Cherem for not giving a GET, and if the woman claims her husband is disgusting to her and the husband is put in Cherem by mistake, even if he gives a GET it is probably invalid, because the GET was not given of free will but to escape the ONES of Cherem.
"Why is ORA any different?"
ORA terrifies old ladies whose sons don't give a GET, it terrifies little children, and its leader Rabbi Herschel Schachter openly teaches in his audio tapes and video tapes that a husband who does not divorce his wife with a GET when the marriage is over may be coerced even with beatings and even if they lead to death. A GET given with such a coercion is definitely invalid. And the children born from a GET forced by threats to one's income or humiliations is invalid.
Rabbi Eidensohn,
DeleteWhat if a husband beats his wife repeatedly and doesn't stop after being warned and he does not want to divorce his wife. Does his wife have no recourse in beis din to require him to give a Get even though he wishes to remain married to her?
The question I would raise here is that since the Rambam and Geonim would allow to beat a husband, then you cannot claim that it is a reform or non-orthodox thing to do. That is a false allegation , since it is suggesting CH'VShalom that Rambam was not "orthodox" although orthodoxy did not exist in those days.
DeleteIt also destroys the allegation that a woman with such a get will have children who are mamzerim if she relies on the get.
You see, you have entered a logical fallacy here. On the one hand, you claim that halacha does not change, on the other you are saying it did change, and it changed irreversibly.
You can say that you are machmir and you go by the Chazon Ish, but not everyone follows him in halacha, and the CI is not the universal default of halacha.
Eddie sometimes you get so wrapped up in your rhetoric you lose sight of what you are saying.
DeleteWhenever there is a dispute amongst rishonim but the halacha is poskened like one of them - you can't say that you can pick which ever view you want. When we reject the Rambam as normative halacha that is not because of being machmir. It wasn't just the Chazon Ish. Rav Schachter is not claiming he is going by the Rambam. So your statement about logical fallacy is total nonsense. The halacha was never like the Rambam. The dispute here has nothing to do with the Rambam - both sides agree we don't posken like him. Rav Schachter claims that ORA is just following the dictates of Rabbeinu Tam and claims that embarrassment is included.
With respect, Rabbi Eidensohn: your Rav who spoke against Rav Belsky and Rav Schachter needs a name. He doesn't exist without one.
DeleteVery well - if you claim that "The halacha was never like the Rambam.", do you mean the Rambam paskened one way but practiced another?
DeleteMy point is that since the Rambam, whether rejected by others or not, made a ruling, then it is not apikorsus to act in that way. Perhaps I am wrong. Is the halachic process irreversible, in terms of going according to one rishon vs another? Thsi certainly wasn't the case when the shoe was on the other foot, ie when Rambam accused corporeality as heretics and Raavad objected. Since then it can go either way.
I accept your point about RHS and Rabbeinu Tam. I am looking at the larger question of the halachic process, which you have elaborated.
Or, perhaps the difference between the mroe rigid haredi worldview and the modernist approach is that Halacha can change direction of the circumstances require, as long as you find a good source.
This issue is off topic but it is valuable.
DeleteThere were debates in the gemora and each side followed there own view until the Sanhedrin or majority agreed to the halacha. From that point on it was prohibited to follow the alternatives. In fact once Sanhedrin poskened then if a rav poskened against it - even if he claimed a clear mesora back to Moshe Rabbeinu - he was executed as a zakein mamre. why do you think the Torah is so intolerant of plurality in halacha?
The Rambam (Mamrim 2:1) says that a later beis din can reverse the psak. But as long as a particular view is the accepted halacha then we are required to keep it
רמב"ם ממרים ב
הלכה א
ב"ד גדול שדרשו באחת מן המדות כפי מה שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין, ועמד אחריהם ב"ד אחר ונראה לו טעם אחר לסתור אותו הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה שנראה בעיניו, שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין שבדורך.
So yes the Rambam did posken that force can be used and so did the Gaonim. However once it became clear that the consensus from the Rishonim and Achronim was to reject that approach - then it became inoperable.
Ramban specifically notes that the conditions of his day were different than that of the Gaonim and so therefore the halacha was also different.
הרמב"ן (כתובות סג:): ובמקצת תשובות לרב שרירא ז"ל נמי ראיתי שפי' דמדינא אין כופין וכשאמרנו משהינן לה תריסר ירחי אגיטא תקנתא אחריתי הות לומר דאח"כ כופין את הבעל בגט, ואין לדברים הללו עיקר כלום ודבר ברור הוא שאין כאן תקנה חדשה לכוף ומעולם לא עלתה על דעת חכמי התלמוד כפייה זו לעולם, וח"ו שלא הייתי חולק על תקנת הגאונים כי מי אנכי לחלוק ולשנות במה שנהגו בו גאוני הישיבות שנים מרובות ולא עוד אלא שאני קורא תגר על שאומרים שאינו ראוי לילך אחר תקנתם אלא בדין התלמוד, אלא ראוי היו לשמוע להם ולעשות כתקנתם והמחמיר בכגון זה לא הפסיד אבל לענין דין התלמוד אמרתי שאין כופין והדבר גלוי ומפורסם, ועכשיו ראוי לחוש בדבר הרבה שלא לנהוג בתקנה זו כלל שכבר בטלה מפני פריצות הדורות, ואי קשיא לך אמאי דאמרינן דכל היכי דאמור רבנן יוציא ויתן כתובה אין כופין להוציא הא דאמרינן בשלהי המדיר (ע"ז א') האומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס יוציא ויתן כתובה ואמר שמואל עד שכופין אותו להוציא יכפוהו לזון אלמא יוציא ויתן כתובה כופין משמע, איכא למימר כופין אותו לאו דוקא אלא עד שכופין אותו ליתן כתובה וכמו שכופין אותו ליתן גט יכפוהו לזון, ואני צריך לכותבה עוד במקומה בארוכה.
If the gedolim today collectively pasken that for the need of the day we need to switch to the Rambam - then the halacha could change.
But until there is consensus then a rav who independently decides to go with the Rambam - is creating a huge halachic problem of sofek mamzerus. So on a theoretical level halacha can change. But it requires consensus of gedolim first.
As I pointed out ORA and its posek Rav Schachter have never claiimed they are following the Rambam. According to your logic why not? Bottom line - the key phrase is change happens only with the consensus of gedolim.
If the gedolim today collectively pasken
DeleteHow do you determine who is and isn't a Gadol? Is there Gadol test? Is there some minimum standard that needs to be met?
The discussion is important because of the issue of Halachic change. The difference between the case you bring from the Gemara and that of the Rishonim is that in the earlier case there was a Sanhedrin, but 1000 years after the Hurban Bayit Sheni, there was no Sanhedrin, and no consensus of rishonim or gedolim.
DeleteWhat we accept today,e g the Shulchan Aruch, was in it's time very controversial, and faced opposition.
I am not supporting ORA and I have no connection with them. My working assumption is that RHS is one of the greatest Gedolim in America today, such that he is approached even by Haredi rabbis. Again, I have no personal connection with him, and cannot speak for him.
But there is an additional point - in very general terms. The Rambam's halacha has been kept by Yemenite Jewry in an unbroken tradition. Thus, presumably this would be a valid approach for anyone who follows their system of halacha.
I am not offering advice to ORA, or to RHS. I am interested in the discussion of how halacha develops.
DeleteNot sure of your question - that has been the source of authorities for change for 2000 years.
gedolim are those people who are peceived as gedolim by many other rabbis. In other words a change can come about if it is perceived that it is universally recognized that a change is needed and has widespread approval.
You can't have one or two rabbis that are no one respects as authoritative i.e., gedolim - announcing change in an issue that impacts marriage and mamzerus. Without the sense that other communities will accept it the change it has no significance.
Eddie wrote:
DeleteI am not supporting ORA and I have no connection with them. My working assumption is that RHS is one of the greatest Gedolim in America today, such that he is approached even by Haredi rabbis.
===============
that is not my understanding of the situation. And from what I have heard in regards to his connection with this case and particularly ORA - no one I have talked with is impressed by his involvement nor do they view him as a gadol
Eddie wrote:
DeleteBut there is an additional point - in very general terms. The Rambam's halacha has been kept by Yemenite Jewry in an unbroken tradition. Thus, presumably this would be a valid approach for anyone who follows their system of halacha.
Rav Ovadia Yosef doesn't accept your argument. He acknowledges that a Yeminite who grew up in a community that accepts the Rambam can rely on it when there are other factors involved.
Bottom line halacha is not a supermarket that you pick and chose whatever you like. There are guidelines.
Of course certain people don't accept him as a Gadol, but that is ideological.
DeleteAnd I suppose they don't consider Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky as a gadol either? That is a bit more difficult stunt to pull off.
Now an interesting argument you present is that his connection with ORA is somehow besmirching his respectability. However, throughout the entire Tropper debacle, EJF which was backed by the kind of Gedolim who you would accept, yet you still accept them! This is the "elasticity" again - or bias, which we are all prone to.
Eddie you are too quick to toss out explanation such as "but that is ideological" without bothering to present a single scrap of evidence. You simply assert that it is self-evident. it isn't!
DeleteRav Shmuel Kaminetsky is clearly making a mistake in connection with this case. That is the view of a number of poskim that I have talked with.
Again you are make pronouncements without a scrap of evidence. In fact I hold that the gedolim who were associated with Tropper were in fact besmirched by it. If you took the trouble of reading my posts you will clearly see that.
You are making prouncements based on false premises. Your claiming that I am being "elastic" is another example of this nonsense. I do acknowledge obviously that I am not infallible. But your assertions in this matter that lead to your conclusions are simple sloppy thinking.
In other words you are producing "when did you stop beating your wife" arguments. You assume those premises necessary to produce your mistaken conclusions are true - but they aren't.
D"T you are contradicting yourself. Above you stated:
Deletegedolim are those people who are peceived as gedolim by many other rabbis.
So that would definitely define RHS as a Gadol, since hundreds if not thousands of Rabbis look to him as a Gadol. Therefore it would have to strictly ideological to say that he is not.
Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is clearly making a mistake in connection with this case. That is the view of a number of poskim that I have talked with.
Interesting would you say the same about Rav Kotler and those who signed on the Weiss Doddleson siruv?
Nemo you have a reading comprehension problem. Where is the contradiction. I repeatedly said that "a consensus of gedolim is needed"
DeleteSo assuming that RHS is a gadol - his view does not constitute a consensus of gedolim. Furthermore if you assume that YU views Rav Schachter as their gadol and do whatever he says - which simply isn't true - that doesn't mean that anyone outside of YU gives him that status.
When dealing with divorce issues it is necessary to have the gedolim in different communities reach consensus that there is no problem of mamzerus and that the get is kosher. That is elementary.
Again Rav Schachter is not claiming that he is switching the halacha to the Rambam - but rather is interpreting what Rabbeinu Tam means.
where does ideology come in?
Regarding the last question the answer is yes
OK, so regardless of the "who is a Gadol" issue, we can agree that some Gedolim have taken a path you disagree with, and so do poskin you have talked to. It is not clear whether there is a significant number who follow this path, but several Gedolim who support sanctions against husbands to give a Get are acting in the USA. I would suggest RHS is at the bottom of the "food chain" since he is at YU.
DeleteIn the other case, the problem was that Gedolim in Israel, who are at the "top" of the Yeshive Welt, were not attacked directly, since it was easier to pick on the weakest link, in America.
I can only suggest that your claim becomes more difficult when there are a number of Gedolim that you disagree with. It then seems to me to be a case of a Machlokes poskim.
I cannot accept the claim of Stanley that all the Gedolim in USA are corrupt , with the sole exception of a hitherto unheard of Rav who has not footprint other than on this and R' Dovid's blogs.
Eddie you keep trying to make sweeping conclusions when the facts don't support them
DeleteYou wrote:
"It is not clear whether there is a significant number who follow this path, but several Gedolim who support sanctions against husbands to give a Get are acting in the USA. I would suggest RHS is at the bottom of the "food chain" since he is at YU. "
The above is not accurate. At this point we only have the clear declaration of Rav Herschel Schachter that he supports ORA's actions and in fact is officially their posek.
While Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Rav Belsky have stated that they would like to see a Get in this case - they do not state what means are permitted to obtain one. Rabbi Ralbag who was also part of the proceedings said that public protests had not been approved by the group.
So you would like to make a public assertion by Rav Schachter into a machlokes haposkim. You need to at least 2 people to have a machlokes. At the present time only Rav Schachter has publicly stated his approval for ORA's tactics.
Nemo your last comment was such a tangled mess of accusations I simply deleted it. If you want to write a more reasonable comment that doesn't have the apparently assumption that I am either stupid or a liar - than we have what to talk about
DeleteIf you are stating that the 2 RSKs (Kamenetsky - Kotler) are making mistakes, and they have not accepted this claim, then the party is bigger than RHS alone. Furthermore, R' Dovid's letter was addressed to unnamed Roshei Yeshiva - I presume there is more than just RHS?
DeleteThis is a summary of the case that R' Josh Yuter has written.
Deletehttp://joshyuter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Current-Jewish-Questions-10-Solutions-to-the-Agunah-Problem.pdf
Incidentally, Yuter has written a scathing critique of RHS.
"Daas TorahMarch 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM
DeleteNemo you have a reading comprehension problem. Where is the contradiction. I repeatedly said that "a consensus of gedolim is needed""
Trying once again. This is an interesting assertion considering that I did not deal with whether it was a valid position at all. I was simply discussing whether, by your earlier definition RHS was a Gadol.
Please, if you insist that I have a reading comprehension problem, show where I said that a consensus wasn't needed, or that the halacha actually differs from the position that you put forth?
"Daas TorahMarch 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM
DeleteNemo you have a reading comprehension problem. Where is the contradiction. I repeatedly said that "a consensus of gedolim is needed""
You didn't seem to be overly worried about the consensus opinion regarding EJF's work in your various postings regarding them. There you backed Rav Shternbuch's opinion and insisted that the other Gedolim had to prove that they were correct.
So can you enlighten us as to when a consensus Gedolim carries the day, and when it can be challenged?
Nemo in the case of EJF - they were the ones making the change in the way gerus of intermarried couples was dealt with. Rav Sternbuch told me when someone wants to change things they need to write a teshuva so that the issue can be properly discussed and rabbis decide. The consensus of gedolim was needed - and they didn't have it. The Bedatz was simply protesting the change of the status quo. In addition Rav Reuven Feinstein who was the halachic advisor was recorded - transcript was published on this blog - clearly saying that the halacha was not to convert intermarried couples - exactly as Rav Sternbuch and the Bedatz said. It thus seems that the rabbis of the EJF were not aware of what was going on - or they looked the other way.
DeleteIs that clear enough for you?
No not really. Because right after that recording and transcript became common knowledge Rav Feinstein issued a letter of clarification:
Deletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/rav-reuven-feinstein-haskama-to-ejf.html
Where he clearly states that all of the activities of EJF were under the direct supervision of the leading decisors of halacha of the generation.
Couple with the list of 70+ Gedolim that EJF published that supported them. That seems to me to be quite clear that Rav Feinstein was saying that there they were aware of what EJF was doing, and that there was a consensus among the Gedolim concerning it.
So it seems that a consensus isn't necessarily always needed, or heeded.
problem is that Rav Reuven's transcript contradicted what EJF was doing. So stating at the same time that he supports or others support is a problem.
DeleteFurthermore most of the rabbis who attended EJF conferences weren't poskim and therefore their opinion - which they never stated - is not relevant.
Bottom line I disagree with your assesment of the situation
I am very confused here, so please help me out.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that your concern, R Dovid, is that forcing a GET makes it possul. But, isnt it true that once a legitimate Bes Din approves of use of force then acts as you described do NOT make it Me'Usah? After all, we even have a concept of Kofin Oso Ad Sheyomer Rotzeh Ani where the GET is completely kosher. So if I understand correctly, these actions only make the GET possul if there was not a finding by a Bes Din approving the GET and methods to make the husband give one, but if the Bes Din did approve, then these actions do not create a Me'usah.
Am I missing something?
A beis din does not have the right to authorize force in a case where the wife says that her husband disgusts her. At most the passive sanctions of Rabbeinu Tam are permitted. So if a beis din authorizes direct force that simply shows they are not competent. See my comments above that we don't posken like the Rambam who does permit using force in a case of ma'os alei.
DeleteYour confusion comes simply because you apparently weren't aware that a husband can not be actively forced according to normative halacha in the case of "he disgusts me"
TO SAM: Your argument about speaking to the other side is moot. This is because its a repeating STATEMENT THAT I HEAR over and over. Rabbi gestetner repeatedly published halachic responsa to why Herschel Schachter or any other rabbi that supports ORA or their tactics are creating future mamzeirim and the issur of marrying a married woman as her GET is invalid.BUT HERE IS THE CLENCHER: IN ALL THE CASES, THE OTHER SIDE NEVER BACKS UP THEIR RULINGS WITH ACCEPTED POSKIM RATHER ALL WE HEAR IS RHETORIC THAT SAYS " THE RABBANUT DOESNT ACCEPT RABBI GESTETNER OR RABBI KARELITZ'S BAIS DIN IN BENE BRAK"!!! This argument does not stand up in jewish law. So please stop with this nonsense "did you speak to the other side". These corrupted rabbis should know that before you issue a ruling to humiliate a man and his family in public which is like murder, you must refer to the Shulchan Oruch or accepted poskim that clearly state that it is allowed and quote your sources. Additionally any halachic ruling that considers a man recalcitrant and liable to sanctions is ONLY IF THE WOMAN IS TOTALLY INNOCENT AND HAS NOT COMMITTED HALACHIC INFRACTIONS in the process.WE ALL KNOW THAT IN MOST CASES THE WOMEN HAVE VIOLATED BASIC PRINCIPLES IN HALACHA DURING THEIR QUEST FOR DIVORCE. i dont consider any modern day rabbi an accepted posek that his psak CAN overrule RASHI, RASHBAM, RASHBO, ETC.. I ALREADY QUOTED A RASHBAM IN BAVA BASRA 48A THAT CLEARLY STATES AN EXAMPLE OF A WOMAN WHO MARRIED WITH AN INVALID GET DUE TO COERCION BY A SECULAR COURT,THAT SHE NEEDED NOW 2 GETS.Last but not least, we have stooped so low in this generation that we make a big deal about insects in our vegetables , but are not equally prudent to preserve our geneological lineage and allow for invalid gittin to be issued by being super lenient on those halochot. when all this comes to light in the near future you will find an ever growing single(divorced) population that will not be able to remarry because the public will be aware of the halachic implications. tHIS IS ALL HAPPENNING BECAUSE OF MONEY, MONEY AND MONEY!!
ReplyDeleteFirstly we do NOT pasken like this Rambam al pi halocho. As to kofin oso that only applies when there is a mitzvah to give a Get not when the modern day woman is in arko'oys shelo k'din and no valid bais din on earth can pasken that it's a mitzvah to give her a get.
ReplyDeleteyou can only beat someone if he is mechuyav to give a get e.g. if he became a mukas shchin. there are very few and far between cases where this applies.
by the way its Rav NISSIM Karelitz
ReplyDeleteTQMshirt,
ReplyDeleteYou ask if a Beth Din that demands that a husband divorce or be forced if such a GET is kosher. The Chazon Ish discusses this (Gittin 99:2) and says that if a Beth Din decreed on a husband that he must divorce, even if they did nothing to force him, the fact of their ruling creates its own ONESS or coercion, and the GET is invalid. Also, says the Chazon Ish, not only is the GET invalid because it was forced by the command of the Beth Din, but it is also invalid because the husband mistakenly thought that the Beth Din was telling him what the Torah says, to divorce, and the Beth Din erred as the Torah did not require the husband to divorce. Thus, says the Chazon Ish, the GET is also invalid because it was given through a mistake. Briefly, if Beth Din commands a husband to give a GET and he does, even if no coercion is applied, the command itself is illegal coercion and it makes ONESS or coercion that invalidates the GET. Also, the husband gave the GET because he thought the Beth Din was teaching what the TOrah required of him, but this was a mistake, and a GET given because of a mistake is invalid.
Of course, if the Beth Din really forced him, in addition to their ruling falsely, that surely invalidates the GET.
Relevant parts of the Kol Koreh that the previous generation's gedolim signed regarding WOMEN in arko'oys:
ReplyDelete8) Women who turn to a non-Jewish court to force their husbands to divorce them, or to receive money not in accordance with the halacha, such a get is invalid and the money is stolen, and it is forbidden to marry these women. If the woman remarried with this get, children born from the marriage are mamzeirim.
9) Women who summon their husbands to a non-Jewish court, it is forbidden to marry them, for they are considered wicked ("reshaim") who descend to Gehenom and forfeit their share in Olam Haba, and therefore they should remain unmarried for the rest of their lives. Regarding one who does marry such a woman, our Rabbis tell us that the first husband removed a rasha'a from his house and now a second man takes her into his home! If the second husband is worthy, he will divorce her, otherwise, she will become a widow and bury him . . .
10) It is a mitzva to publicize the "rabbis" who advise men and women to go to non-Jewish court, without following the procedure as described above (paragraph 2), for they are responsible for the terrible chilul Hashem and abandonment of the Torah. Their ways are repulsive and their halachic decisions are invalid, since they are considered from those who cause the public to sin, which is from the twenty four items that prevent one from repenting. The Rambam (Hil. Teshuva 4:1) explains: twenty four items prevent repentance, and four of those items are great sins that Hashem does not give one the opportunity to repent according to the severity of the sin. Those items are: 1) one who causes the public to sin, 2) one who influences his friend away from the proper path to a lifestyle of evil, such as a meisis u'madiach, 3) whoever can protest the wrong ways of others, whether an individual or a group, and doesn't do so but allows them to remain in their wrong ways etc. And these three items are all found by these advisors who convince men and women to go to non-Jewish court.
We are awakening everyone to restrain themselves and their families from this evil way of emulating the goyim, chas v'sholom. Whoever knows of these transgressors should supply us with their name and address and we will be on the lookout.
Amongst signatories: Rav Shmuel Birenbaum of Mir zt"l, Rav Efraim Oschry, Rav Laizer Ginsberg of Mir, Rav Pam of Torah vodaas, Rav Yosef Rosenblum, Mishne halochos, Beirach Moshe, Skulene Rebbe, Bobove rebbe, Viener Rov etc.
This does not justify a man not giving a get when the wife is tzias dina and bais din paskens that he should. but the times when bais din can force a get are extremely limited. But all these contentious cases involving Friedman, Weiss, Kin etc involve women breaking halochos left and right and yet we have biryonim demanding gittin in this case k'neged the Torah and creating mamzeirus left and right.
So Eddie and James, I guess these gedolim were talking rubbish also.
Rabbi Schachter, ORA, Eddie, James, Rabbi Gedalia Schwartz, rabbi Yonah Reisss, Rabbi M Willig, Rabbi Michael Rroyde, other rabbis of the RCA, rabbi Malkiel Kotler, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminitsky
ReplyDeletePlease explain when you have ever applied any of these important halochos from the gemorah brough down l'halocho in the rishonim unanimously including the Shulchan Oruch and re-emphasized in the Kol Koreh against women who went to arko'oys but only involve yourselves in very contentious cases where women are involved in extreme parental alienation and you side with either for ideological reasons or because they are your first cousins but ignore hundereds of appeals to prevent the abuse of men by their estranged wives.
4) A Jew or Jewess who says that they will take a fellow Jew to the non-Jewish courts, and they were warned of their sin and didn't listen, mitzva laha'rog otam, and whoever acts first is worthy, as is the case of a rodeif (one who chasing a person to kill him). (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat ibid.)
5) A Jewish man or woman who calls the police on the other, is included in the classification of moser. This is also true if they were quarreling, chas v'sholom, unless there was a life threatening situation when it is permitted if no other means are available to save oneself. However, afterwards one should go to Beis Din.
6) Whoever is awarded money by a non-Jewish court, whether it be from business dealings, or alimony or child support, in an instance when it is not entitled by the laws of the Torah, such money is considered stolen ("gezel"). If we have the opportunity to help the one whose money was taken through the non-Jewish court, we should do so. If the moser repents, he must return all improperly acquired monies and related expenses, and must beg forgiveness of the one from whom he extracted money for all the suffering that he caused him.
7) It is a mitzva to publicize the names and addresses of Jewish mosrim and their supporters, in order for Jews to know from whom to stay away. Whoever knows of a moser that hasn't repented, it is forbidden to assist him in any way until he repents.
Amongst signatories: Rav Shmuel Birenbaum of Mir zt"l, Rav Efraim Oschry, Rav Laizer Ginsberg of Mir, Rav Pam of Torah vodaas, Rav Yosef Rosenblum, Mishne halochos, Beirach Moshe, Skulene Rebbe, Bobove rebbe, Viener Rov etc.
Again James are the gedolim talking rubbish.
PS: Before you consider being moser on me to the DA, Eddie or James, I never called for them to be muttar le'hargom and in no way are suggesting that anyone does this today. Just quoting the message.
Stan,
Deletefirstly it is an honour to be counted amongst such Talmidei hachamim, but I must remove myself from this list as I am not a rav or Dayan, and hold no qualifications in Halacha.
next, it is interesting that you quote a halacha where it is a mitzvah to kill a moser, since when R' Shachter applied the same about a PM who is moser yerushalayim or is moser Jews to PLO/Hamas terrorists, by bringing back the 50,000 PLO murderers that Arik Sharon expel from Lebanon - and arming them, (results are the Oslo massacres and camp david intifada that killed thousands of Jews), then he was attacked by R' Dovid.
next, would you also suggest that it is a mitzvah, according to this letter, to call and attack "mosrim" those who permit going to the police (secular, goyim, zionists), where a case of sexual abuse has occurred?
DeleteThis is somewhat problematic, since amongst those who permit this are several gedolim, who you rely on in other matters for halacha. And sexual abuse is not murder or qa threat to life, I mean according to this you have quoted, (and as rav Padwa and his son both poskened) it is assur to go to police for such matters.
Rabbi Eidensohn:
ReplyDeleteYou did not respond to the question posed by "Saver" above. Are you saying in short, that a women has no options with respect to obtaining a get, when her husband states publicly that he not give a get under any circumstances, yet viciously and constantly beats her, unless she claims "Maos Ulei" (he is revolting)??
A husband who beats his wife is forced to divorce her - even if she doesn't find him revolting.
ReplyDeleteGra (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife.
Ohr Zarua (Bava Kama #161): … It is prohibited for a man to beat his wife and furthermore if he does he must be for all the damage if she was hurt. If he regularly beats her and embarrasses her in public we force him to divorce her…
Rabbeinu Simcha (Beis Yosef E.H 154:3): (2) It is an accepted view that when a husband beats his wife it is a more severe crime then when he beats his fellow man. That is because there is no obligation to honor his fellow man while concerning his wife he is commanded to honor her more than he honors himself (Yevamos 62b). A person who beats his wife is to be placed in cherem and ostracized as well as flogged and punished with all manner of punished even to the point of cutting off his hand if he constantly beats her (Sanhedrin 58b). If she wants to get out of the marriage he should give her a divorce and she receives her kesuba. An attempt should be made to make peace between them but if he doesn’t comply and continues to beat her and degrade her he should be excommunicated and forced by the secular government to divorce her or be forced to comply with whatever the Jewish authorities tell him (Gittin 88b)…
Rema (E.H. 154:3): And similarly a man who habitually angry and frequently sends his wife out of the house. In such a case he is forced to divorce her because since he sometimes doesn’t feed her and he does not fulfill his obligation to provide sexual relations – he is a rebel (mored) concerning both food and sex (Rashba 693). A man who hits his wife has committed a sin just as if he had hit any other Jew. If he habitually hits her, the court should punish him, ostracize him and to beat him with all types of force as well as to make him take an oath that he will not do it anymore. If he doesn’t obey the court – some say that he should be forced to divorce her. However this is only if he is first warned once or twice. That is because it is not normal for Jews to hit their wives – it is what the idolaters do. However this is only when he attacks her. However if she curses him without cause or ridicules his parents and he chastises her and she refuses to stop – some say that it is permitted to hit her while others says that even a bad wife can not be hit. The halacha is accord with the first opinion that she can be hit. If it is known who started the fight, the husband is not believed to say that she initiated. That is because all women are presumed to be righteous. Therefore observers need to be placed with them to see who is the cause of the problem. If she in fact cursed him without cause – she is to be divorced and not receive her kesuba. It seems to me that this is only if she habitually curses him without cause and only after she has been warned as we explained in 115. If she leaves his house and borrows money to eat – if she left because of constant beatings – he is obligated to pay for her expenses…
"Gra (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife. "
DeleteIs this to be understood in its literal sense, or as an allegory for some form or compensation or other punitive measure?
What if he raises his hands toward her on a daily basis, but stops short of actual beatings? What if he screams at her at the top of his lungs, e.g. "I'll kill you"! and constantly shouts vile obscenities at her on a daily basis? Must she endure this?
DeleteThank You for you response
Stop making anonymous comments. It is very difficult to keep track of people who have the same name "anonymous" it also is a waste of my time correcting the problem
DeleteEddie as far as I can tell it was meant literally. But obviously is not done where it violates secular law
DeleteThe reason I asked this, is that in Rambam's commentary to the MIshna (intro), he brings a verse from the Torah, where it it is written 2an that hand shall be cut off". He points out that according to the oral law, this is not to be understood in its plain meaning, but refers to some compensation or legal punishment. Similarly, an eye for an eye etc is also not understood literally. Yet I am trying to figure out why this real case of mutilation is allowed, and is it d'rabbanan? (of course we wouldn't want ti to occur in the democratic countries we live in).
Deletethat is dealing with the meaning of a Torah verse. However there were times in Jewish history where mutilization was permitted as punishment. Clearly it was not claimed that the Torah called for it but it was decided it was needed for the times and that apparently is the case of the gemora in Sanhedrin.
DeleteWhat if he raises his hands toward her on a daily basis, but stops short of actual beatings? What if he screams at her at the top of his lungs, e.g. "I'll kill you"! and constantly shouts vile obscenities at her on a daily basis? Must she endure this?
DeleteThank You for you response
=====================
I am not sure. The Rema (E.H. 154.3) could be read as support for forcing a divorce - but he could also mean that only if there is physical violence. In any case she doen't have to continue living with him. your question I assume is whether he will be forced to divorce her because he is verbally abuse.
What if he raises his hands toward her on a daily basis, but stops short of actual beatings? What if he screams at her at the top of his lungs, e.g. "I'll kill you"! and constantly shouts vile obscenities at her on a daily basis? Must she endure this?
DeleteThank You for you response
Its more than mere verbal abuse. You can go to jail for making threats of bodily harm.
Delete"that is dealing with the meaning of a Torah verse. However there were times in Jewish history where mutilization was permitted as punishment. "
DeleteI shall ask a risky question now -
is it possible that in earlier times, eg Tenach/first temple era, Hachamim could have interpreted such verses more literally, to suit the times?
I don't think so. Mutilaton was an acceptable punishment in the time of the Rishonim -and that was also what the non-Jewish society did. The case cited in Sanhedrin was clearly not a Torah punishment. The gemora in Bava Kamma goes out of its way to assert that the Torah does not call for mutilation as punshment.
Deletebendok5March 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM
DeleteIts more than mere verbal abuse. You can go to jail for making threats of bodily harm.
==================
Going to jail be secular law doesn't necessarily mean that the Torah views it that way. The Torah clearly prohibits verbal abuse - Vayikra 25:17. but the commentaries say that there is no punishment given by beis din for it because there was not physical act. They do say that there were be severe Divine punishment for it.
you were asking what does beis din do. Aside from the Rema I cited I don't recall an example where the husband was forced to give his wife a divorce because he was verbally abusive but not physically abusive.
If someone knows of such a case - please let us know.
Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 134): Question: We are dealing with a case in which it apparently has been shown that the wife hates her husband – heart and soul – because of his behavior which is simply abnormal. The woman therefore has the claim of ma’us alei with a clear basis. This couple has lived separately for over 6 years. The question is whether the beis din will comply with the request of the wife and require him to give her a get. Answer: Even if you grant that this woman has the status of one who says ma’us alei with a clear justification, that in itself does not require that the husband give her a get. Look at Shut HaRashba (# 135 - attributed to Ramban), Question: When a woman claims ma’us alei... is the husband obligated to divorce her....? Answer: ... You should know that she is not able to force her husband to divorce her since a woman goes out of the marriage sometimes according to her desires and sometimes not according to her desires. On the other hand the man only leaves the marriage only when he want to leave it... From all these you see that when a woman claims ma’us alei we do not force the husband to give a divorce... Even though the Rambam writes that when a woman says ma’us alei the husband is forced to divorce her – the Rambam is not correct in this matter... Concerning the kesuba and dowry that she brought him – according to the din she does not lose anything unless she insists on being a moredes for 12 months and all these 12 months she is not forced... However if she remains a moredes for 12 months and her husband wants to divorce her – she loses everything.... That is her din when her husband divorces her according to his wishes after 12 months. But if the desire to divorce comes from her – as we said before – he is not forced to divorce her. The words of the Rashba imply not only is the husband not forced to divorce her when she claims ma’us alei but that he has no obligation to give her a get! This is also apparent from the words of Tosfos(Kesubos 63).... Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2): If she says that he disgusts me and I can not have relations with him – if the husband wants to divorce her she does not get any money from the Kesuba at all. Rema (E.H. 77:2)... All of this is only when she doesn’t give a reason and justification for her words as to why she finds him repulsive. But if she does give a reason for her words... And we don’t force him to divorce her nor do we force her to remain with him. And if you want to claim that he must divorce her – it is obvious that since we don’t force her to remain with him then of necessity that there can’t be an obligation of the husband to give her a get. It is the same thing.
DeleteRDE:
DeleteOther than physical violence against a wife, are there other circumstances that the poskim rule that halacha l'maaisa bzman hazeh where the husband is forced against his will to divorce his wife?
Or is physically beating her the only such circumstance he is forced to divorce her?
this issue is discussed in Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154.
DeleteIf the husband develops disgusting health conditions, if he in impotent or is not interested in sexual relations, if he becomes epileptic, if there are halachich prohibitions involved in their marriage or if he has mental problem or he was mentally ill before marriage and he concealed that fact, some say if he became blind or double amputee, if he refuses to support her, or he has a disgusting job such a collecting dog excrement, or a tanner or copper miner
EddieMarch 3, 2013 at 7:31 PM
Delete"Gra (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife. "
Is this to be understood in its literal sense, or as an allegory for some form or compensation or other punitive measure?
================
According to the En Talmudis most understood this literally though some say it means financial.
אנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך יב, חובל [טור תרעט]
: רב הונא קצץ ידו של אדם אחד שהיה רגיל להכות את חברו - ויש מפרשים שהעניש כך את מי שהגביה ידו על חברו ולא היכהו - לפי שבית דין מכים ועונשים שלא מן התורה לעשות סייג וגדר לדבר, או שדינו של מכה חברו בכך, שכן דרש רב הונא: וזרוע רמה תשבר, הרגיל להרים ידו על חברו תיקצץ ידו. ומתוך כך יש שכתבו שיכול לעשות על ידי נכרים שיקצצו ידו של הרגיל להכות, ויש חולקים וסוברים שאסור למסרו לנכרים, ולא אמרו תיקצץ ידו אלא בדיני ישראל. ויש מהראשונים מפרשים שלא קצץ רב הונא את ידו, אלא שהענישו וקנסו לשלם דמי ידו [181].ומעשה שהיה באחד שהיכה לזקן על ראשו והיה הדם שותת מראשו, והורו שילקה בבית הכנסת בין מנחה למעריב לפני שיאמרו והוא רחום, וגם יתן למוכה כסף לפי המנהג באותו מקום אם הוא עני, ואם הוא עשיר יתן לעמילי תורה, ויבקש מחילה מהמוכה. וכל זה אינו אלא הוראת שעה לפי ראות עיני בית דין שחטא החובל. ויש שכתבו שנוהגים לפסוק על המכה או חובל את חברו שיפדה את המלקות בארבעים זהובים או חצאי זהובים וכיוצא, ולא מן הדין, שמאחר שמשלם אינו לוקה, אלא בדרך קנס לביישו.
=====================================
181. יד רמ"ה שם בשם י"א; מאירי שם בשם יש שפירשו. ועי' יד רמ"ה שם שדחה.
So, in summary, when would a Beis Din force a man to give a Get? If we do not hold like the Rambam, the only time would be when he habitually beats the woman or he has mukas shchin?
ReplyDeletesee my answer immediately above
DeleteFirst Eddie accused me of being ridiculous and expounding ridiculous positions. Then when he is shown that these are views of many of the gedolim in the USA he suddenly starts lobfuscating, ignores the hakochoh and starts ranting about the halochohs of a rodef which he knows full well can't be applied today unless you want to spend the rest of your days in jail which the Torah is not nechayev you to do even though they are in fact rodfim and deserve the punishment the torah says they should get.
ReplyDeleteEddie the facts are the vast majority of cases today of fake agunahs involve women in arko'oys. so he suddenly changes topics to what about if a husband repeatedly beats his wife inspite of being warned not to do so by bais din.
he still refuses to let us know what bais din let alone botei din he approves of.
Eddie, ever heard ogf the rishon Shta Lo Noday LeMi. According to Eddie's logic he would not be a godol because he is unknown. what about rashi who hid his identity until he was discovered. The argument against Rav Gestetner that he is unknown is so laughable that it belongs on April fools day which is in 4 weeks Eddie.
what about the Lamed vov nikim eddie also not tzaddikim because their identities are not known.
Eddie rav gestetner takes exactly the same position as Rav Elyashiv, the Brisker Rov and the Chazon Ish. Are they also unknown? According tov your logic the head of the reform arthur schindler could be a godol because he is knwon. Eddie - pathetic!
Stan,
Deleteyou missed the point I made about rodef.
it was you mentioned mosrim, not me. I responded with the fact that R' Dovid on this blog has several times attacked RHS for advocating dealing with a Moser al pi halacha. The differnece was that in once case, you are quoting those who considered someone going to goyishe court as mosrim, in another RHS considered giving weapons and money to Arafat yemach shmo , so he can kill more jews in tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I was drawing in reb Dovid to the "minefield" here.
Speaking of Mosrim, your friend Yehuda levin is pals with Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is one of the biggest anti- semites in America. Now, do u consider Levin as moiser? Or yoru Nk buddies for that matter?
As for arkoyos, I never suggested it is a godo thing for women to go to non jewish court at the expense of a beth in, nor did i give my support to the ORA, which you accuse me of being a member/founder/funder/director and advisor. You must be mistakingme for someone else, I live in UK, and have no negius with ORA.
R Elyashiv and r Shternbuch have given psak of permitting going to police in a case of sexual abuse. According to your Kol Koreh, if still valid, it would make these gedolim also violating halacha.
Brisker rav said famously that anyone who enters Heichal Shlomo (Rababnut) is an idolater. Thus his accusation was also including R Elyashiv, altho he did claim that he was immune from this - an unconvincing claim.
Stanley: "so he suddenly changes topics to what about if a husband repeatedly beats his wife inspite of being warned not to do so by bais din"
DeleteI didnt change the subject, RDE did , responding to someone else. i discussed a certain aspect of this, because it is a fascinating halachic and Torah discussion. The power of the Sanhedrin to institute the punishment of cutting of a hand - when according to the oral LAw, such cruelty was not actually practiced in the Torah, but it meant something else (eg eye for an eye).
Eddie your claims that RHS is one of the gedolim in America and is not accepted because of his hashkofohs. One does not need to get to his hashkofohs but his serious violations of halochoh as poointed out repeatedly on this blog by Rabbi Dovid E. I don't even need to get onto what he knows and whether in the oylom hayeshivohs he is considered a lamdan or not because never mind his hashkofohs being krum, he does not hold of the laws of gittin according to the mesorah.
ReplyDeleteTo the author of the blog,
ReplyDeleteThere are many cases where we find in Halacha that we force a get. Many times it can be a מקח טעות. What is the Halacha if someone were to be on certain types of medicines which inhibit normal relationships. An example where to be if one of the sides was taking medication for depression and he can not function even with these pills as normal? Or because of the side effects he can't perform as a man should. Is that a reason to force a get? And if one is hiding that information, and the person is engaged, can one or should one tell the other side knowing it will cause the shidduch to break? I do know many Gedolim allow one to hide when one is on medication, is there a basis in Halacha for this?
Thanks
A מקח טעות does not require a Get. The marriage is invalid retroactively.
DeleteThe medicine scenario does not entitle one to a mandatory Get.
Dear Rabbis Daniel and Dovid Eidensohn:
ReplyDeleteIf a husband repeatedly beats his wife (a fact he does not dispute), even after being warned to stop by beis din to stop, and his wife goes to beis din to demand a divorce does -- does beis din have no right to order the husband to divorce her even though the husband does not want to divorce her as he wants to remain married to her?
That is how I am understanding your comments.
What about the famous story with Rav Akiva Eiger who ordered a husband to divorce his wife and the husband refused, so Rav Akiva Eiger told the husband that his wife will either become free by him giving a divorce or by him dying. The husband laughed in his face and left. As he was walking down the steps he fell down and died.
How was Rav Akiva Eiger able to order the husband to give a Get?
Oh, sorry. I just noticed that DT answered by original question about beating a wife and forced divorce.
ReplyDelete"Rema (E.H. 154:3): ... However if she curses him without cause or ridicules his parents and he chastises her and she refuses to stop – some say that it is permitted to hit her while others says that even a bad wife can not be hit. The halacha is accord with the first opinion that she can be hit. ..."
Does the Rema pasken (as it seems) that it is permissible to hit your wife under certain circumstances?
.
ReplyDeleteEddie continues his obfuscation. Eddie you accused me of having ridiculous positions. Now eat humble pie Eddie. Those positions are not mine they are the positions of many of the gedolim. Now just admit that it is you who is ridiculous claiming that my positions are ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteEddie invents facts that I accuse him of being a leader of ORA. Where did I make such an accusation Eddie? you clearly support them or many of their positions but that does not necessarily make you a leader. I can support Margaret Thatcher Eddie but that does not make me Nigel Lawson or John Major Eddie. So stop the stupidity already Eddie.
No Stanley invents facts that i support them etc, that I am connected to them, that I am YU, etc etc. These are all falsifications by Stan, which shos that he would nto make a good dayan, as he makes up his evidence to suit him.
DeleteSaver, save your misinterpretation for a modernishe blog. The same rabbi akiva eiger paskened that if you take what is npot yours through arko'oys, you are oyver genaivah and if you mekadesh a woman with this money the kiddushin is not chal. He certainly was not referring to a fake agunah like tamar epstein or dodelson.
ReplyDeletemy pal Yehuda levin is a friend of pat buchanan. Firstly i don't have to believe your motzi sheym ra without a proof. even if it were true and let's assume it is for a moment, levin can be spot on about gittin and spot off about politics. just like RHS who is spot on about being anti reform and spot off about following normative halochoh about fake agunahs. so according to eddie's krum logic there is an equivalence relationship between RHS and yehuda levin
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Levin
Deleteit gives citations
I am not familair with the term "krum" can you translate it into English please?
The point I am making is that that this association makes levin an unreliable source.
"As for arkoyos, I never suggested it is a good thing for women to go to non jewish court at the expense of a beth in,"
ReplyDeleteEddie it's not a good thing to overeat, its not a good thing to forget your lunch at home or to forget to brush your teeth.
Its potentially several issurie d'oraisah to be oyver arko'oys including mishpotim, including genaivaoh, including avoda zoro, including mesirah including lo sachmod etc.
You get my drift Eddie?
An issur arko'oys is a modern day meyaker elilim Eddie and slapping the torah in the fsace. Eddie obviously is so mufkah from understanding the issuer, he admits he doesn't know halochoh that I am the fool for paying attention to anything he says.
Get is for a beth Din to deal with. however, a secular court is necessary for secular divorce papers, otherwise both parties would be committing bigamy in the local legal system.
DeleteEddie, there was an argument between the Chazon ish and the brisker rov about whetehr someone had to give up his parnoso in order to remove himself from the corruption of the rabbanut. rav elyashiv felt he was on a high enough madreigah that he would not be affected by the krumkeir and kefirah of the rabbanut. you have no proof that he rav elyuashiv certainly did not hold that for someone not on his madreigah who learns lishmo 18 hours a day that it would be muttar to go into the rabanut and kal vcho,mer work for them.
ReplyDeleteIn the end even the rabbanut was too krum for rav elyashiv. hje was forced to resign because of the hetter of allowing mazerim into klal yisroel. so Eddie get the facts right. and till this day some of the briskers have not forgiven him and claim -see we proved you wrong.
As for your focusing on the issue of rodef which today cannot be applied in golus, this just proves your obfuscation.
Now please inform us which botei din in the US you hold of Eddie. is it the BBA since you hold RHS to be a godol here?
"In the end even the rabbanut was too krum for rav elyashiv. hje was forced to resign because of the hetter of allowing mazerim into klal yisroel. so Eddie get the facts right. and till this day some of the briskers have not forgiven him and claim -see we proved you wrong."
DeleteYes, and through the agency of R' Atias and Dayan Sherman, hundreds or thousands of potential mamzerim were allowed to enter Clal Yisrael. If the claim agasint r Goren was valid, then same annulments of geirus committed by Sherman and Atias are creating mamzerim on a whoelsale scale.
There was another Machlokes with Brisk and R' Shach, as well as Kotler junior. To this day they also have not been forgiven.
Now, if you are using historical evidence to show "we proved you wrong", then do you accept that Satmar and Brisker (to a lesser extent) were wrong about State of Israel. You seem to be selective in which parts of the torah you accept. "Don't stand idly by the blood of your brother is a Torah command"
Satmar, Lubavitch, belz etc were all guilty of this. Do you also oppose R Aaron Kotler saving Jewish lives by being mechalel shabbes, as satmar and Lubavitch did?
As for beth Din in America, shoudl I ever need one, hopefully not, I would go to Sephardic bet Din, such as Marc Angel, R' Ben Chaim.
As for beth Din in America, shoudl I ever need one, hopefully not, I would go to Sephardic bet Din, such as Marc Angel, R' Ben Chaim.
DeleteThen really this entire discussion does not apply to you. Sephardim, as has been demonstrated on this blog, have very different interpretations of these halakhot.
Absolutely!
DeletePerhaps that explains why my perception of these issues is not the same as my Ashkenazu brethren.
Eddie's obfuscation continues. "Get is for a beth Din to deal with. however, a secular court is necessary for secular divorce papers, otherwise both parties would be committing bigamy in the local legal system".
ReplyDeleteEddie you can just register a divorce like you register buying and selling a property. Dealing with all the issues is NOT ALLOWED IN SECULAR COURT EDDIE!
Don't you get it already! The excuse that you can go to arko'oys to litigate, if this is your position Eddie, makes you even worse than ORA, Eddie. Your true colors are coming out.
I want to get a "divorce" from Stan because he is such an idiot.
DeleteIn English Law, a secular divorce is a lengthy legal process, which requires all kinds of proof, lawyers, judges etc. you cannot get a one -stop divorce in a supermarket or on the internet. What planet are you on?
Again, you falsify evidence, and then accuse me to be worse than ORA etc. Seems that you are totally lying about law, which you appear to have a disdain for anyhow.
But you are now entering serious halachic issues Stanley, since you are making false eidus agasint me. I have simply stated fact that u need to go to a judge and present legal evidence etc to get a divorce. There is no issur in this.
"Eddie you can just register a divorce like you register buying and selling a property."
DeleteThat varies by State.
Again Eddie shows he knows not what he talks about. Eddie this blog is US centric with regards to the cases of tamar epstein and dodelson. so please eddie stop making a fool of yourself.
ReplyDeletein the UK, the moslems are allowed in many instances to use sharia law. let me assure you eddie that there is a big taayna in shomayim that the yidden run to arko'oys while their yishmoelim cousins don't.
Eddie in the US you can a divorce on no fault grounds in all states now. stop putting your foot in your mouth all the time eddie. eddie you mean to tell me every time one gets divorced in the UK one has to oyver the issur of arko'oys. given the large number of frum yidden their i think, its you who is being very economical with the truth.
I told you in English Law. hence you make a fool of yourself stanley. Thsi blog is is halacha centric, and you have to take into account the law of the land. In England, you need to prove to a Judge , in a court, that the marriage has broken down, and it is a long process. remember, we English had courts of law when the Americans were firing arrows at buffalo.
DeleteLike i said, u need to go to court, whether for this formal procedure is a heter, that is a qn to ask.
Why do u bring shaaria law into it? Do think jews here dont get married in a civil ceremony?
Goodbye stanley,I have nothing further to say to you.
The extent of Eddie's inability to hold kop is breathtaking. Eddie says that in order to obtain a divorce in the UK, you have jump through all sorts of legal hurdles. i am not a UK qualified judge so he may be right. Nonetheless there has to be a way of doing this according to halocho because otherwise rabbonim would force people who believe in halochoh (something very foreign to Eddie)to get divorced somewhere else.
ReplyDeletenow Eddie retorts Do think jews here dont get married in a civil ceremony? what has that got to do with the issur of arko'oys Eddie if al pi halocho you are just registering the marriage and not making claims in arko'oys eddie? Nothing, absolutely nothing, Eddie.
Then Eddie complains why I bring up the issue of Sharia law in the UK. The reason is so basic Eddie. The Yidden want to run away from halochoh while the moslems wish to embrace their religion. Isn't that pathetic Eddie?
Then Eddie decides to insult Americans. Well sorry Eddie I am not a real American! Again Eddie the cases on this blog are American whether you like it or not. So English law is utterly irrelevant even if "we English had courts of law when the Americans were firing arrows at buffalo. "
Glad to see the back of you Eddie. keep it up.
Yes, i wish to see the end of stanley's egregious errors and foolish words, but since he falsifies and misleads, i am forced to respond.
Delete"Nonetheless there has to be a way of doing this according to halocho because otherwise rabbonim would force people who believe in halochoh (something very foreign to Eddie)to get divorced somewhere else. "
because of stanley's limited knowledge, he thinks it is either or, so Rabbis must therefore send people to Haiti for a quickie divorce. what a fool.
The issue of "arkaot" is a serious one, but there are ways around the issur, presumably. There are competent Dayanim in UK, and perhaps they know a little more than Stan the man.
If you do a real estate deal, you are still using the goyishe legal system. So what is any different from getting a secular divorce, since it is not a get and is required by the law of the land (something stan does no care much about)
In any case, R Elyashiv went to Arkoyos , or rather employed it to sue somebody he disagreed with. Furthermroe, Haredi members of the Knesset ar MKs, and the Knesset is a non halachic legal ssytem, they are known as lawmakers. hence, you could also call this arkaoyos
In this article, note 5 it mentions there is possibility of heter arkayot
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jlaw.com/Articles/divorcebeit.html#4
5. As a general rule, in order for a person to be permitted to go to secular court, he/she must obtain a heter arkaot [written permission to go to secular court] from a respected beit din or other rabbinic authority. Examples of cases where such a heter may be issued are: (a) where the other party refuses to submit to beit din, or (b) if the case is deemed by a competent halachic authority to be a type of case which beit din is incapable of handling (see Choshen Mishpat 26, Kol Kitvei HaRav Henkin 2:174-177). Some authorities are of the opinion that there is no need for a heter arkaot when the defendant is a secular Jew who would clearly not submit to beit din. In any individual case, a competent rabbi should be consulted. 1:18; Sefer Meirat Eynaim, Choshen Mishpat 12:8.
Wow Eddie, you now accuse rav Elyashiv of being in arko'oys. I don't know how you are allowed to post such nonsence.
ReplyDelete"n any case, R Elyashiv went to Arkoyos , or rather employed it to sue somebody he disagreed with."
So according to eddie rav elyashiv was mechalel sheym shomayim. what baloney.
" Furthermroe, Haredi members of the Knesset ar MKs, and the Knesset is a non halachic legal ssytem, they are known as lawmakers. hence, you could also call this arkaoyos" how do you call this arko'oys eddie? you are inventing facts from your chalomos eddie.
Tsvi Weinman is a haredi historian
ReplyDeleteHe says that R' Elyashiv told Borokowski to sue Goren in the secular court system. Since RYE considered Borokowski to be a jew, then he employed the legal system as a way of embarrasing Goren. that is arkoyos, like it or not.
Even assuming you are correct about the facts, which who knows, ein sheliach lidvar averroh so rav elyashiv was not in arko'oys. i have yet to meet someone like eddie who is so persistent yet so ignorant.
ReplyDeleteso Stan, if I hire shaliach to throw a rotten apple at you, is that not an aveirah?
DeleteOr more poignantly - if R' Shachter advises ORA to do things u disapprove of, Stanley, does that mean he is exempt from your criticism?
If he is not exempt, then your comment above is meaningless
If he is exempt, then please stop harrassing him, and tell this to DT as well.
Once again Eddie invents facts and distorts what I said. yes of course it is an avairoh assuming it is true which we have no proof of other than eddie's hearsay evidence. But it is still not the same aveiroh as the perpetrator. is that just too subtle for you Eddie. if you don't get it ask RHS who any way mattirs arko'oys by supporting fake agunahs.
ReplyDeleteI didnt invent facts. it was published in Yated neeman, whilst r' Elyashiv was the leader and controller of that paper.
DeleteR' Elyashiv gave instructions to Weinman to advise Borokovskty in going to secular/Zionist arkoyos, and they managed to sue R Goren.
It wasn't an "agency" as you claim, he was not suing R Goren himslef, but gave a heter for the Jew/Goy Borokovsky to go to arkoyos.
So a)there probably were valid grounds al pi halocho to do so so I am not sure what your point is. Again even if there weren't which seems hard to believe, Rav Elyashiv personally was not in arko'oys. I don't believe what it says in the yated anyway.
ReplyDeleteFine, so R Shachter isn't personally in arkoyos either, so go home.
Deleteeddie it's not fine. Please bring proof that I accused RHS of being in arko'oys? he is accused of being mevayesh people be'rabim, of issuing fake siruvim (Meir Kin) without even being mazmin the person to a din torah once, of being machzik lonna Kin in arko'oys which itself is worthy of a cheirem etc. So please Eddie if you want the last stupid word have it but stop inventing false claims against me.
ReplyDeleteThanks To Dr Love My heart was broken i never believe i will get back my ex again until Dr LOVE brought back my ex within 24 hours with a powerful love spell. He is reliable for positive result contact the spell caster for love spell on email: {DRODOGBO34@GMAIL.COM } or whatsapp on + 1 443 281 3404
ReplyDelete