Monday, March 11, 2013

Halachic authority requires being committed to the Torah system

A kollel member sent me a question today regarding a scholarly Conservative Jew who has traditional sources justifying selectively not keeping Torah mitzvos. He said he couldn't find any errors in the reasoning of the Conservative Jew - and he wanted to know how to answer him.

I replied, in part, that first a person has to be committed to the same religious system as you before he has a vote on altering it - even if the alterations seem to be in agreement with halachic rules. That is why gedolim are entrusted to make statements that the run of the mill yeshiva student learning the same issues - is not. Would the same question arise if a Christian scholar who knew Shas and Poskim made a pronouncement?

Today's email also brought a related issue - regarding the Modern Orthodox. As you are aware, I have spent considerable time concerning the question of pressuring a husband to give a Get in a case where the wife claims she doesn't want to be married to him anymore. In particular I have devoted much effort on this blog discussing the issues of the Friedman-Epstein divorce case and why ORA which is supported by Rabbi Herschel Schachter has no basis in halacha for pressuring the husband through either embarrassment or financial loss. On the other hand Rabbi Schachter, who clearly is aware of the problem of get me'usa, feels that the demonstrations don't produce one. This post is not about whether I view Rabbi Schachter as a halachic authority - I definitely do.

Recently ORA conducted another demonstration against Aharon Friedman in Washington to apply the prohibited pressure for him to give a Get. Amongst those demonstrating were members of the Berman Hebrew Academy - a co-ed Modern Orthodox school in the Washington area. The headmaster of the school - who helped organized the protests writes about why it was necessary to protest - and mentions that ORA gave the students a seminar to persuade students to demonstrate. This is the focus of this post.

Berman Hebrew Acadamy Headmaster clearly does not understand the halachic problem of Get me'usa and simply feels the issue is one of social justice when he wrote:
We have spoken in school about the plight of agunot a number of times, so I was caught by surprise when several of our students expressed reluctance to go to the rally.  For some, it was merely a question of strategy (are rallies effective, might they backfire, etc.)  These are reasonable questions and reasonable people may differ.  Other concerns revolved around a concern that we were hearing only one side and that we should not protest until we hear from Aharon Friedman as well.

Here’s where I was a little more taken aback.  On the surface, this concern also seems reasonable, but in the context of agunot, I don’t believe that one need to hear both sides…and clearly, our education on the topic did not resolve these questions for the students.

My response to the students would be as follows: We are not taking sides in a divorce proceedings or whether one is a better spouse/parent than the other.  There should be NO EXCUSE for using a halakhic loophole to blackmail or extort the other side.  This is a distortion of the nature of halakhah and its purposes, and it makes no difference if he has legitimate claims against her. [...]
Our Judaism is supposed to elevate us, bring us closer to Hashem, make us better citizens of the world, and more responsible to each other.  When religion is used to bring pain, it detracts from all of us.  This is an unintended consequence of a legal system in which loopholes necessarily exist, but it is not a result that we should accept.
In the end, I had no need to speak directly with the students, because we ran a program this morning directly from ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot).  The program was excellent and helped to scope out the whole range of issues involved.  Kol ha-kavod to ORA’s executive director Rabbi Jeremy Stern and to David Marks (Class of 2007) who helped to organize and run the program.  And kol ha-kavod to our seniors, who took the time to consider their important messages carefully and thoughtfully.

Update: March 7 -  Just received this comment

 Hebrew Academy's connection to the Epstein family

Daattorah recently posted a blog entry by Dr. Joshua Levisohn, headmaster of the Berman Hebrew Academy, who argues that the facts (other than that the parties are civilly divorced and no get was given) in the Epstein-Friedman matter are irrelevant and that therefore getting Aharon Friedman's point of view would be pointless.  Unfortunately, he lacks the integrity to disclose his school's connection to one of the parties in this matter.  Tamar Epstein's sister, Yael Cortell, has taught at his school for many years [ www.linkedin.com/pub/cortell-yael/46/498/298; http://www.mjbha.org/About_Us/Users_Guide_to_MJBHAs_Admin/Users_Guide_to_MJBHAs_Administration.cfm].   
Dr. Levisohn's assertion that custody is a matter for the courts rejects the halacha that such matters be decided by a beis din, but then again perhaps that should not be surprising, for as Rabbi Eidensohn previously noted, it does not appear that Dr. Levisohn necessarily accepts halacha.  Dr. Levisohn's assertion is also ironic, given that Tamar successfully argued that Aharon could not challenge her unilateral relocation of the child in court specifically because he had agreed to cancel an earlier court trial to bring the matter to beis din [whose orders regarding dismissing the civil case Tamar violated]. 

Update: March 11
Rabbi Eidensohn,
My previous email may not have been clear.

On Daatorah, Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn and Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn have expressed concern that various prominent rabbonim are acting contrary to halacha with regard to the circumstances under which a husband may be subject to different degrees of coercion to give a get.  These rabbonim seem to be changing halacha in this area without providing any explanation for this change.  
It seems to me that some of these rabbonim are clearly setting out new generally applicable principles that they explicitly say would apply all cases.  Other rabbonim just appear to be applying new rules in very specific cases without purporting to pronounce new principles that would be broadly applicable to other cases.  

ORA’s leaders, Rabbi Jeremy Stern and Rabbi Hershel Schachter, are clearly setting out new generally applicable principles regarding when coercion may be used.  They are not just applying these principles to specific individual cases.  Rabbi Schachter has given several speeches on this point that are on YU's website and that have been analyzed on Daatorah.  

But the more right wing rabbonim have only intervened in specific cases.  So far as I know, they have not made general statements about what degree of coercion may be used regarding a get in which types of cases.  It also seems that they have gotten involved in cases in which they have close family connections to one side in the disputes.  Rabbi Malkiel Kotler is a first cousin to Ms. Dodelson's mother.  Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky has longstanding close relationships with the Epstein family [For example 
See Dr. Dovid Epstein, z’l, Yated Ne’eman, May 4, 21012 (attached, noting how close Dr. Epstein was to Rabbi Kamenetsky and featuring a picture of the two, and Dr. Epstein’s involvement in the Philadelphia Orthodox community); http://articles.philly.com/2010-04-20/news/25213049_1_family-physician-geriatric-medicine-future-wife “Dr. Epstein [Tamar’s father] was an active supporter of Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia [of which Rabbi Kamenetsky is founder and rosh yeshiva], a religious school for Orthodox Jewish boys and young men in Overbrook. He volunteered his medical services to the school and was on call to care for the students 24/7, said a close friend, Rick Goldfein [Tamar’s Rabbinical Court lawyer and press spokesman].”  

96 comments :

  1. > a scholarly Conservative Jew who has traditional sources justifying selectively not keeping Torah mitzvos

    Well at least he's honest about it, as opposed to Orthodox Jews who selective ignore certain mitzvos but try to justify it by mangling the traditional sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. generalizing is always dangerousMarch 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM

      generalizing is always a dangerous proposition, my friend. Remember, no one is perfect...different people have different issues in different areas...but there are certain issues that most if not all have problems [large or small] in.

      perhaps it is not as selectively ignorning certain mitzvot as you say? Perhaps one is simply overcome by a spirit of 'folly'? Or societal issues cause it to be tough for one to do the right thing?

      Are you meticulously obsercant in all areas, including meticulously 'perfecting' your middot?

      Delete
    2. don't make comments anonymously!

      Delete
  2. I would be interested in what the Conservative guy was arguing, and which mitzvot he was referring to.

    And then, what kind of conservative he is, ie a denier of the Torah, or one who believes in it, but wants to change the balance of practices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The original statement is the following

      They [Conservative scholars] claim that there are 4 ways a d'oraisa can be changed.

      1) Shev v'al Taaseh

      2) Hefker beis din Hefker

      3) Eis La'asos

      4) An idea which they take from a Tosfos Nozir 43b d.h. v'Hai, near the end, which as far as I can understand it seems to be matir chazal to break a kum v'asei, not just in an eis la'asos, Torah depends on it, situation, but even when there is just ponim, v'taam b'dovor.

      Delete
    2. Here are some sources from Bar Ilan

      1. תוספות מסכת נזיר דף מג עמוד ב ד"ה והאי מת
      ואינו חושש ליטפל חשיב מת מצוה ואר"י דודאי מן הדין לאו מת מצוה התם רק לפי שקרוביה מתרשלים ממנה שויוה רבנן כמת מצוה ואף כי אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בקום ועשה במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכ"ע יש כח לעקור תדע דבכולי סוגיא דהתם (לא) מייתי מאשה שנאמנת לומר מת בעלי דהרי עוקרה דבר תורה בקום ועשה אלמא ודאי במקום שיש פנים

      2. כסף משנה הלכות נדרים פרק ג הלכה ט ד"ה ולענין נשבע
      באחד מדבריהם אתו לזלזולי בכלהו הילכך כל מידי דהוי חיזוק לדבריהם הוי כמו מיגדר מילתא. ועי"ל שכתבו התוס' בפ' ג' מינים אף כי אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בקום עשה במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכ"ע יש כח לעקור והכא מאחר שדברי חכמים צריכין חיזוק שפיר יש פנים וטעם בדבר:

      3. דרך המלך (רפפורט) הלכות שבת פרק ב הלכה א ד"ה הג"ה. אך
      ועשה ועתוס' נזיר (דף מ"ג) ד"ה והאי מת מצוה הוא שכ' ואור"י דודאי לאו מת מצוה התם רק לפי שקרוביה מתרשלים ממנה שויוה רבנן כמת מצוה ואף כי אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מה"ת כו' במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכ"ע יש כח לעקור תדע דבכולא סוגיא דהתם לא מייתי מאשה שנאמנת לומר מת בעלי דהרי עוקרה ד"ת בקום ועשה אלמא ודאי במקום שיש פנים וטעם יש

      4. ידי אליהו הלכות עדות פרק ג הלכה ד ד"ה אמנם אני
      הקלו בה להימניה לשליח, וכל הני הוי עקירת דבר תורה בקום עשה אלא שכתבו התוס' בפ' שלשה מינים דף מ"ג בד"ה והאי מת מצוה הוא דיש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר תורה בקום עשה במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר. וטעם עד אחד וגוי ועבד וכו' משום דלא משקרי במלתא דעביד לאגלויי וטעם נאמנות האשה שאמרה מת בעלי משום דלא מקלקלה עצמה וטעם נאמנות השליח דמוקמינן

      5. שו"ת הרדב"ז (ללשונות הרמב"ם) הלכות ברכות פרק ב הלכה יג ד"ה אי נמי
      אדעתיה שלא יחול עליהם הנדר ולפיכך הוו כנדרי טעות. אי נמי איכא לתרוצי בעיקר קושיין כאשר כתבו התוספות בפ' ג' מינין וז"ל אף כי אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בקום עשה במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכו"ע יש כח לעקור ע"כ והכא איכא טעמא שעשו חיזוק לדבריהם. וא"ת בכל גזרות דרבנן נאמר שעשו חיזוק לדבריהם ויעקרו כל דבר תורה אפי' בקום עשה וי"ל דבשני

      6. בית יוסף אורח חיים סימן תיח אות ד (ב) ד"ה ודע שרבינו
      הילכך כל דבר שהוא חיזוק לדבריהם הוי כמו מיגדר מילתא ועוד יש לומר כמו שכתבו התוס' בפרק ג' מינין (נזיר מג: ד"ה והאי מת) אף כי אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בקום עשה במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכ"ע יש כח לעקור והכא מאחר שדברי חכמים צריכין חיזוק שפיר יש פנים וטעם בדבר:

      7. שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ה סימן פח ד"ה תשובה דעת
      אסיק אדעתיה שלא יחול עליהם הנדר ולפיכך הוו כנדרי טעות א"נ איכא לתרוצי בעיקר קושיין כאשר כתבו התוספות בפ' ג' מינין וז"ל אף כי אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בקום עשה במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכ"ע יש כח לעקור ע"כ והכא איכא טעמא שעשו חיזוק לדבריהם. וא"ת בכל גזרות דרבנן נאמר שעשו חיזוק לדבריהם ויעקרו כל דבר תורה אפי' בקום עשה וי"ל

      8. שו"ת בית שערים חלק אורח חיים סימן רפה ד"ה וכ"מ כתב
      מתוך ושם כתבו ואין זה עקירת דבר מה"ת כיון שדומה הדבר הגון להאמין כמו שאפרש לקמן בפרקין שבדבר שיש קצת טעם וסמך לא חשיב עוקר דבר מה"ת ובתוס' נזיר מ"ג ע"ב כתבו בזה"ל במקום שיש פנים וטעם בדבר ודאי לכ"ע יש כח לעקור ובע"ז י"ג ד"ה אמר אביי זה לשונם דודאי שיש בידם לעקור היכי דנראה טעם קצת לעקור כדמוכח פרק האשה רבה פ"ט גבי משיאין האשה עפ"י

      9. יד מלאכי כללי התלמוד כלל קג
      ב"ד מתנין לעקור דבר מן התורה ואפילו בקום עשה במקום שיש פנים, וטעם בדבר תוס' פרק האשה רבה דף פ"ח ע"א ד"ה מתוך חומר ובנזיר דף מ"ג ב' ד"ה והאי ובע"ז דף י"ג א' ד"ה אמר וכ"כ הב"י בא"ח סוף סי' תי"א ובפ"ג בהלכות נדרים ד"ה ולענין, וכן מצאתי עוד בשו"ת תמים דעים סי' ר"ג ובשו"ת בית יעקב סי' קנ"ט וברדב"ז ח"ב בלשונות הרמב"ם סוף סי' פ"ח וע"ש שכתב

      Delete
    3. Rav Millevsky z'tl gave a shiur on the issue of halachic change, and he points out in the shiur that some changes can take place within frum halacha, eg omitting reading certain extra portions of shacharit. But when either conservative or reform wanted to omit Bameh Madlikim, it was opposed by Gedolim. The reason is not the change itself, but the intent , and where it is coming from. Thus there may be valid reasons for change or leniencies. But where reform was coming from was to totally reinvent the mitzvot , and create a European Judaism.

      Now, these principles may work on specific occasions, but what is the reason they wish to implement them? Is it just a "do as you feel" halacha, where you always have such justifications?

      Incidentally, I once asked a question of both and MO Rav , and a haredi one, as to whether there is any value to such movements as Conservative. I must say I was unimpressed by the MO Gadol's response - which was basically "no". Whilst the strict Haredi response was "yes" , that at least they are continuing Klal Yisrael and have some basic (but mistaken) acceptance of the Torah.

      Delete
    4. The issue of the value of Conservative and Reform also depends on whether they are making secular Jews more observant or taking observant Jews and giving them an excuse for being less observant.

      It would see from the Rambam that no religion is better than a mistaken one. Mistaken religious believes can cause a loss in Olam Habah while a person with no religious believes could still get Olam HaBah

      Delete
    5. Which Rambam are you quoting? I recall that he said that both Islam and Xtianity have some "value" even if we don't fully understand it. Whilst, he probably wouldn't say anything so positive about the atheist movement.

      And I am not sure that there is such an influx of Ortho into Conservative nowadays, it is perhaps the other way round.
      Reform is different , in that it is basically apikorsus, I mean denial of everything, whereas C is somewhat traditional, "we believe ... but".

      Delete
    6. Eddie it the well known Rambam in his commentary to Sanhedrin where he lists the 13 principles of faith.

      Rambam (Sanhedrin 10:1): When a person believes fully and genuinely in all these 13 principles of faith, he is considered part of the Jewish people and it is obligatory to love him, to have mercy on him and to relate to according to all the mitzvos that G d has commanded concerning interpersonal relationships of love and brotherhood. Moreover, even if he is a sinner because of lust and lack of self control - he will be punished according to his sins - nevertheless he still has Olam HaBah. However, if he questions or doubts any of these principles he is outside the Jewish people and is a denier of the foundation of Judaism. He is labeled a heretic (min, apikorus or cut off at the roots). It is obligatory to hate him and destroy him as it says in Tehilim (139:21) “I hate those who hate G d.”

      Delete
    7. Yes, but you are saying "no religion" is better, but that doesn't help. perhaps it means atheism, or secualrism, which denies everything, whereas at best , Conservative might just want more flexible halacha.

      Delete
    8. The Conservatives say that they believe in the 13 ikkarim, but really from a traditional perspective they don't, since they deny the authority of the Oral Torah. They believe that it did not originate at Sinai, but rather with the rabbis. So if there is something they don't like, they get rid of it. For example, they say it's not necessary to count 7 days before going to mikvah (and in practice, few Conservative Jews go to the mikvah at all.)

      But they don't confine themselves to changing rabbinic mitzvos -- they also have "overruled" the restrictions on Kohanim marrying. So according to them, Kohanim can marry divorcees (contrary to Leviticus 21:7).

      In reality, what the Conservative movement does is give millions of American Jews the false but very strong belief that one can be a 100% fine Torah Jew while observing only a tiny proportion of the mitzvos (not eating pork, going to shul on Shabbat sometimes and on most major holidays, having a bar mitzvah, "being a good person") and ignoring or violating all of the rest (including melachos on Shabbat, Torah study, tzedakah/maaser, taharat mishpachah, davening on weekdays, tefilin, etc.)

      I would say that Rambam's advice to hate and destroy heretics would be counterproductive today. Chabad's approach of not critiquing other movements and accepting everyone works very well to mekarev some people, but really we need to directly address and argue against Conservative ideology, so that people understand and know that it is not legitimate. I mention this because action, not the theoretical point of whether it's better for Conservatives to exist or not, is more relevant.

      Delete
  3. I guess this person would have a prolem with many mitzvos that do not appear 'just' what would be his 'view' on someone who was born as a mamzair or mamzeres who could not marry. what does he say about the concept of eved ivri living with a shifcha and producing little slaves for the master. what about an eved kenaani. and why ca'y I get to enjoy a cheeseberger. torah is torah =. u dont like some odf it too bad

    ReplyDelete
  4. Presumably, the headmaster is relying on his rebbe, who in turn is relying on RHS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on "James" ... that's a cheap shot. You surely don't come anywhere near RHS in learning or middos.

      Delete
  5. I find it laughable and insulting of the intelligence of people at large when feminists like ORA state that holding back a GET is a form of extortion. YET THEY FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WOMAN IN MANY INSTANCES IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE EXTORTION SCHEME, BY FORCING THE MANS HAND IN SECULAR COURT WHICH IS AGAINST THE TORAH, AND AFTER OBTRAINING THEIR GAINS THEY CRY WOLF TO THE WORLD WHEN THE MAN DOESNT HAND THEM THEIR GET UPON REQUEST!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hand the Get when you are a man, and accept the Get when you are a woman. Stop using the Torah as some weapon. It applies to both.

      Delete
  6. Regarding the Headmaster who was disturbed that students should want to hear two sides of the story: The Friedman case has two sides. One side is that of the Headmaster that does not quote any Torah authorities regarding the laws of Gittin, only social justice inventions. And the other side is supported by the Shulchan Aruch and generations of the greatest authorities of the Torah. I know a YU scholar who studied my sources (see torahtimes.com and videos about this in various places including youtube.com/mons5555). I am the rabbi who told Aharon Friedman he must not give a GET as long as ORA threatens him as the GET would be a coerced GET. He decided I was right, and called up a friend of mine to state this. Anyone who studies the sources could not agree with ORA, an organization that has made many invalid Gittin and the women who remarry produce possible mamzerim. And there is no source for this other than Rabbi Schachter's "social justice" stretched here and there. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt'l clearly says that it is forbidden to coerce a husband even when the wife has left the house, because we never heard of such a thing in the poskim. (Marshal says clearly that even if the wife leaves the house we may not coerce the husband, even if he has many terrible faults. See Teshuvas Marshal number 41. He says the wife can leave her husband and live with her father but it is forbidden to coerce him even if he did evil things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am the rabbi who told Aharon Friedman he must not give a GET"

      Shame on you!

      Delete
    2. Shame on you! Please have something intelligent to say in your comments

      Delete
  7. the headmaster is correct that if a couple decides to divorce, the husband should give the get. they can then settle the other issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would agree if there were no other issues. But in this case there are.

      There is also the problem of inserting himself in the process without regards or not bothering to determmine whether there are harmful halachic consequences.

      Delete
    2. there are almost always other issues. that is the whole point - settle them outside of the context of the get.

      Delete
    3. Do you mean when the "couple" decides to divorce, or do you mean when one spouse decides to do so?

      Delete
    4. i meant that if the couple has decided to divorce, then give the get and settle the other matters outside of the get context. if one side wants a reconciliation, that is a different story.

      Delete
    5. The headmaster says that if there is a civil divorce (which is automatic upon the unilateral request of one spouse) than a get must be given in absolutely all circumstances without any exceptions and no matter the behavior of either party. That encompasses far more situations than a situation in which the couple decides to divorce. Even Jeremy Stern states that there are certain exceptions to his rule that a get must always be given; the exception he accepts is if the wife runs away with a million dollars belonging to the husband.

      Delete
    6. i'm willing to bet that cases of a wife running away with a million dollars belonging to the husband are few and far between.

      Delete
    7. To say that a get must be given when a couple decides to divorce is a very different point than to say that a get must be given when one spouse decides to divorce.

      Delete
    8. Unfortunately, cases in which the wife runs away and unilaterally relocates the children are not rare. Is running away with a million dollars somehow a more serious issue?

      Delete
    9. Bob,
      You quote Jeremy Stern that if a wife runs away with a million dollars ORA would not force a GET. What if she runs away with his child, as happened in the Aharon Friedman case? What person considers a million dollars more important than a child?

      Delete
    10. Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn,
      The relative value that Jeremy Stern places on stealing one million dollars versus a child raises profoundly disturbing. questions about Jeremy Stern.

      Delete
    11. a get must be given when one spouse decides to divorce.
      correct, and i never said the latter.

      Delete
    12. "a get must be given when one spouse decides to divorce."
      But that is the position of the head of the school.

      Delete
    13. a get must be given when one spouse decides to divorce - that is correct - nys law as well as many other states - just stay apart for 6 or 12 months and you are entitled to divorce. the law of the land - also apikorsus - neged halacha. if you say that once a civil divore is granted the husband must give a get - then you are saying a woman has a right to a get on demand - by waiting six months. which posek ever paskened that way - except rabbi jeremy stern

      Delete
    14. Tamar did not steal anything. Aharon signed a custody agreement and by now, all custody issues have been settled by civil court - and in case you were wondering - Aharon was the plaintiff in each of those court cases.

      Delete
    15. James,
      Your contention that Aharon was the plaintiff in each of the custody cases is an outright lie. If Tamar's supporters want to take the position that a get must be given because the parties are civilly divorced, that is one thing. But they also seem to find it necessary to repeatedly lie about the case.

      Delete
    16. Tamar unilaterally relocated the child to another State. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which has been adapted by every State except Massachusetts, refers to individuals such as Tamar as an "abducting parent" whose actions are "reprehensible" and "unjustified." That Act was adapted by almost every State in response to the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.

      Delete
    17. The only custody agreement the parties signed covered a period of two months. It is indisputable that Tamar flagrantly violated that agreement.

      Delete
    18. Bob,
      Please post a copy of the lawsuit in which Tamar was the plaintiff.

      Delete
    19. Tamar was the plaintiff in the following actions:
      Tamar filed for limited divorce on August 12, 2008.
      Tamar filed for absolute divorce on June 1, 2009, which was not granted by the court, despite Tamar's taking Aharon to trial on the issue.
      Tamar filed for absolute divorce again on April 12, 2010, which was granted under Maryland's no-fault divorce law.
      Tamar filed a contempt motion on November 10, 2010, demanding that the child's relationship with Aharon be limited to "supervised visits." This motion was denied.

      Delete
  8. A similar example of this problem is not-yet-frum politicians in Eretz Yisrael (never mind, lehavdil, goyim) making declarations on religious matters such as Mihu Yehudi/geirus and the like, and quoting supposed Torah sources to back up their arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. critically important point. Perhaps someone would like to write a guest post about this point.

      Delete
    2. They don't. They define who is an Israeli Citizen. And Rabbi Oliver, it's Medinas Yisrael. I hope it's not too hard for you to say those words, even though the last LR could not.

      Delete
  9. http://mjbhaheadmaster.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/to-rally-in-support-of-agunot/

    I replied as follows:


    Someone sent me this exchange about Aharon Friedman. I am the rabbi who heard about the situation and contacted Aharon and told him that it was forbidden for him to give a GET if there is such humiliation and pressure, as the GET would be invalid. The sources for this are the Rashbo VII:414 and it is quoted in the great poskim, Radvaz:118, Beis Yosef (Rabbi Yosef Caro author of Shulchan Aruch in his commentary to Tur 154, and the Chazon Ish Even Hoezer 118:12. I sent my teshuva on this question to the senior Beth Din in Israel in Bnei Braq and then sent out a flyer saying that any coercion of a GET with humiliation or fiscal loss makes an invalid GET.
    I am a student of the leading Posek in the world, HaGadol Reb Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l, who gave me semicha to be a Rosh Beth Din for Gittin, and I am a disciple of HaGadol Reb Moshe Feinstein zt'l whose approbations about me include the praise that "I know Rav Eidensohn for many years as one who goes into great depth to clarify complex halochose." All of the heads of Gittin Beth Dins that I spoke to in three different countries agree with me that coercing a GET when the wife demands one even if she left the house and got a civil divorce is wrong and produces an invalid GET. If the woman remarries with a GET that you and ORA coerced, be assured that I will inform the world that her children are mamzerim. People like you are producing the ultimate child abuse, a mamzer. ANd as Dr Chaim Soloveitchik says, the modern Orthodox must be aware that in the coming years many of them and their children will drift over to the ultra-Orthodox way. And what will happen when they want to marry? All I ask is that the people who want a GET talk to me instead of engaging in terror that has not worked and will not work. My phone number is 845-578-1917. I can get a GET from Aharon Friedman, not the terrorists. with their "new Torah."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R' Dovid, Shlita,

      I have looked at your website, where you show a link to to Jewish Week, to prove R' Shachter's "limitations". This was his statement that one "shoots the PM" if he decides to surrender Jerusalem.

      As I have pointed out several times, this statement is consistent with Hilchot Rotzeach _ Rodef, where we are commanded to kill a rodef before he kills us or other Jews.
      The evidence is clearly on the side of those who opposed Oslo - the terror attacks and murders have increased and not decreased as a result of the phoney peace with Amalek PLO. So please explain why it is wrong halachically, to speak of a rodef?

      Delete
    2. "I am the rabbi who heard about the situation and contacted Aharon and told him that it was forbidden for him to give a GET"

      Shame on you!

      Delete
    3. Shame on you! Please have something intelligent to say in your comments.

      Delete
    4. I am utterly shocked that Dovid Eidensohn now outs himself as the person who convinced Ahron Friedman not to give a get. Now many comments he made before make perfect sense. Now I know what kind of person he is.

      I think that anyone who convinces a civilly divorced husband not to give a get should be ashamed of himself. It runs contrary to many mitzwot in the torah. e.g. lifney iver al tasim machshol. I think that such a person is a disgrace to am israel, and even worse if they call themselves "Rabbi".

      Delete
    5. Remark please stop making ignorant comments about Judaism and halacha. Your understanding of Judaism seems largely from a secular humanist viewpoint and you are not competent to judge who deserves to be called a rabbi.

      Delete
    6. I'm not sure why your Semicha gives you the ability to abnegate Rav Schachter. Rav Schachter has thousands of Shiurim onine, and he is revered at YU and elsewhere. Please put your shiurim online Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn, not your approbations or degrees. You don't win arguments by saying my certificate is worth more than yours, so I have authority. Rav Schachter is a Gadol, by any stretch of the imagination.

      Delete
  10. Eddie,
    Why don't you practice what you preach? Take a knife (make sure it is not milchiks) and stab everyone who disagrees with you about making peace by giving up property. But why stop there? Who is a Rodafe? By your standards I am sure there are many of them. Anyone who votes for somebody who wants to give up territory to make peace should be murdered, right? So go do it. And, if that is how you think, maybe a lot of people will consider you a rodafe. What kind of world would it be if everyone went around killing everybody else? That is a world of Rabbi Schechters. Only he only talks about it, and the idiot who listens to him and kills someone pays the price. The man is dangerous and has a twisted sense of Torah. I spoke to senior people at YU about him and they are very unhappy with his big mouth. I am not the only one to complain about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why don't you practice what you preach? Take a knife (make sure it is not milchiks) and stab everyone who disagrees with you about making peace by giving up property"

      I am surprised at the lack of depth in your analysis - in halachic terms, if someone arms an enemy who is coming to kill you, then that someone is complicit in redifah. Arafat and his goons were in Tunis, until Peres and Rabin brought them to Gaza and West Bank, and gave them arms, which they used against Israelis. If you claim to be a Dayan Musmach then you must look at the facts of the case, rather than the personalities of myself and R' Shachter.
      In warfare, it is legitimate to attack a weapons base or disable arms suppliers of your enemy. In Israel's case it was the governemnt of Rabin that was supplying arms to Arafat.

      Now, I am not making a case in secular law, but in halacha. Is it the case that you hold the laws of rodef are no binding today, because of 3 oaths or something like that?

      A few years ago, there was a tractor attack in Jerusalem, where an arab drove a tractor into a bus, and some cars, killing several people, including R Unterman's grandson's wife. The "idiot" in this case was a policewoman who shot once, but didnt finish the job because of her idiotic servitude to supposed Police policy. An off duty soldier acted l'fi halacha and killed the rodef.


      Delete
    2. Eddie,
      You may be right that some people do the wrong thing. We know that Sharon tried and gave back Gaza. He was wrong. But when he did that, should someone treat him like a rodafe? If so, the person who kills those who are right wing will inspire a fear in the left wing that the right wing are Rodafe and when will it end? Add to this that we are not really smart or qualified to pasken dinei nefoshose other than an occasional rare attack on somebody. But to use a political war about something and label tens of thousands of people who believe such and such as Rodfim means that we have civil war. Plain and simple. I ask you, do you disagree with this?

      Delete
    3. I must say I haven't actually heard Rabbi Schachter's statement, but "shooting the prime-minister" is it at all possible that he meant that metaphorically. Like when Sarah Palin and the Tea Party folks were putting out posters of the President and various members of congress with cross-hairs on them and phrases like "Take Aim", and "Firing Line"?

      That aside, just because there is a rodef, does not mean that deadly force must be employed. In fact Rav Daniel Eidensohn has demonstrated time and again on this blog, that less than lethal force(i.e. police) may be employed. I have always learned that the halakha was whatever it takes to stop the rodef.
      In the case of Ariel Sharon, I would have said that would have been elections. The people would have been mad to vote for him again.
      As it is, I think Rav Kaduri's pulsa d'nura did the trick quite nicely as Mr Sharon didn't last 48hrs after he did it and has been in a coma ever since.

      Delete
    4. Rabbi Schachter's advocacy of violence against an Israeli Prime Minister is completely outrageous, especially given that a previous Israeli Prime Minister was actually assassinated. And Rabbi Schachter's assumption that resorting to violence against an Israeli Prime Minister for being too left wing would actually change policy in a more right wing direction reveals his apparent ignorance of Israeli history. The assassination of Prime Minister Rabin immensely helped the Israeli Left . The assassination sanctified the Oslo process, which at that time was coming under increasing doubt in Israel. It was only after Prime Minister Rabin's assassination brought into power an even more radical left wing Israeli Prime MInister, that Israel implemented Oslo II and carried out the first significant withdrawals in Judea and Samaria.

      As Rabbi Eidonsohn notes, Rabbi Schachter seems to have a predilection for advocating violence.

      Delete
    5. R' Dovid,

      No I do not disagree with what you write here.

      R' Shachter was speaking rhetorically, basing himself on good halacha. But many other rabbis who you do accept speak in much stronger terms all the time. Yet criticism is not accepted on that side. A simple example, R Hutner made the error of claiming that the word "Shoah" is not in the Tenach, but a modern hebrew word. This is despite the fact that it appears in Tenach , and in some siddurim at the end of Aleinu. Now, since he made some errors in that article, would you say he is disqualified in every aspect, and should not be relied upon?

      Or, RDE here quoted Rambam, saying that we must hate and destroy those who don't accept the Ikkarim. Now, apart from the fact that on this blog, people pick and choose which ikkarim they do accept (as per my post on Rambam and kabbalah), does it mean that your learned brother is advocating that we "destroy" Conservative as per haRambam haKodesh?

      Now, I was opposed to Oslo, but also against violence or hatred, and the assassination of Rabin was actually of great benefit to Peres and the Labor party, which was losing in the polls.



      Delete
  11. Eddie,
    I forgot one thing. The article you quote is from a secular newspaper that criticizes Rabbi Schachter for his limitations. Even secular people realize that his mouth doesn't belong in Yeshiva University.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Manchester study on Agunah - a very scholarly essay with reference to many sources
    www.mucjs.org/ARUDraftFinalv.2.pdf

    R' Breitowitz, who is a respected Posek, also writes an impresive essay

    http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol51/iss2/4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R Breitowitz - your respected posek - supported Aharon Friedman - until it got too hot. Then he said to him - give a get - I can't support you anymore as I can not fight the world. A new angle in Halach. Lo Saguru Mipnai ish doesn't count

      Delete
    2. Well, this is your personal invention and fictional account of events.
      What he wrote in his letter is that he looked at the evidence, and then stepped in, although anyone who does get involved will get bruised. He is not forcing anyone to give a Get, but is recommending, that's it.

      I am not Haredi, but he teaches in Ohr Sameach and is well respected in those circles. On several occasions I have been referred to him to ask sheilos.

      Delete
    3. well u didn't see his email on the subject(not the public statement but the private one) and i did. if we are talking about the same person - originally from maryland

      Delete
  13. Daattorah recently posted a blog entry by Dr. Joshua Levisohn, headmaster of the Berman Hebrew Academy, who argues that the facts (other than that the parties are civilly divorced and no get was given) in the Epstein-Friedman matter are irrelevant and that therefore getting Aharon Friedman's point of view would be pointless. Unfortunately, he lacks the integrity to disclose his school's connection to one of the parties in this matter. Tamar Epstein's sister, Yael Cortell, has taught at his school for many years [ www.linkedin.com/pub/cortell-yael/46/498/298; http://www.mjbha.org/About_Us/Users_Guide_to_MJBHAs_Admin/Users_Guide_to_MJBHAs_Administration.cfm].

    Dr. Levisohn's assertion that custody is a matter for the courts rejects the halacha that such matters be decided by a beis din, but then again perhaps that should not be surprising, for as Rabbi Eidensohn previously noted, it does not appear that Dr. Levisohn necessarily accepts halacha. Dr. Levisohn's assertion is also ironic, given that Tamar successfully argued that Aharon could not challenge her unilateral relocation of the child in court specifically because he had agreed to cancel an earlier court trial to bring the matter to beis din [whose orders regarding dismissing the civil case Tamar violated].

    ReplyDelete
  14. A Concerned Jew,
    Excellent. I am not amazed what goes on in this school, when we see what goes on with the rabbis in Washington, who when confronted with four major sources in the poskim and the Shulchan Aruch simply shrug and ignore it. This is not a failure of a few rabbis, but rather, it is a new Orthodoxy, or rather, non-Orthodoxy, or maybe neo-Orthodoxy. What we learn from the Washington rabbis is what Posek HaDor HaGadol Reb Elyashev zt"l told me, that when a Beth Din or rabbi twists halacha to help an Agunah, they forfeit their right to be an authority or a Beth Din. Therefore, women divorced with Gittin from the "new" rabbis may not be considered divorced by normative Orthodox standards until the matter is thoroughly investigated, and not by Washington rabbis, unless they are that silent breed that believes in the Shulchan Aruch and not feminism. I called some rabbis but they would not talk to me. If you are confident in your sources, you can talk to anyone. If you have no source by social justice that is against the halacha, how can you argue with a halacha person?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob,
    I agree with your comments about Rabbi Schachter. But we always have to look at two sides. What caused a person who is a brilliant Talmudist to do something that his rebbe Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik zt"l would never have tolerated? And the answer is that after a particular time in YU, a new group took over, and they appointed someone who was not a Torah scholar to be the president of the school, in violation of the past tradition that a president was always a Torah scholar.

    The new element controls the school and the Rabbinical Council of America, which has been staffed with people who make terrible changes in the laws of Gittin, such as Rabbi Gedalyeh Schwartz who permitted a couple to leave without a GET even though they asked for a GET. He simply annulled the marriage. I spoke to him then about it and he explained himself with sad sevorose. So YU is a new world when it comes to the feminist element that controls it.

    YU put in a new Mashgiach, traditionally the most pious person, who showed his piety by staging a program for Orthodox homosexuals. Yes, YU is different, and we may not rely on any GET given by YU, RCA or Washington rabbis until the matter is thoroughly checked out by competent people who are not from this neo-Orthodox rabbinical group. And things are going to get worse, not better. I say to modern Orthodox people: "Do not marry with Torah kiddushin." I once spoke to such a group of "rabbis" and challenged them to be considerate and not to make Kiddushin and then let people leave and not honor marriage or get an invalid GET. I suggested that they make a Kiddushin of a partnership, not a Torah marriage, so if the wife has an invalid GET her children are not mamzerim because she was not married to begin with. This is not good for an Orthodox person. But with all of the sin of marrying without Kiddushin, it is not molesting a child with mamzeruth. Some rabbis agreed with me, and some exploded, but if we factor in the children, it is no contest.

    Again, the next generation will be filled with mamzerim from YU divorces and annulments of marriage that are not accepted by normative Judaism. We must start assembling lists of the mamzerim. And more important, we must fight tooth and nail against the destroyers of our children.

    Women divorced by ORA are in this category, and their GET may be kosher but it is not automatically accepted as a GET normally is. We don't assume that YU rabbis and ORA people do things according to halacha, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why you are obsessing over YU. The problem is clearly not a YU problem but one of Orthodoxy with Chareidi rabbis also doing that which you accuse YU of doing.

      Delete
    2. There is a possible alternative analysis - that it is a halachic machloket. Since, you are stating that R Elyashiv was Posek haDor - perhaps this was not accepted by major yeshivos in USA. Perhaps they see more flexibility and room for heter in halacha than you would want to see.

      let me remind you that in previous generations there were also differences in gittin. A story is told that R Henkin did not approve of RMF's methods, and privately satted that these would create many mamzerim - but he did not publicise them, because the halacha (as heard in shiur by R' Rakkeffet) is to not publicise mamzerut.

      Delete
    3. I would like to know exactly what you are referring to.Was it the dispute as to whether common law marriages are doreissa?

      Before you start with conjecture it is better to know the facts.

      There are two many possibles and maybe's and perhaps in your theory.

      Delete
    4. A hypothesis or suggested explanation is not an accepted theory, and needs to be looked at to develop it to theory.

      My point was that in the case of the dispute between R Henkin and R' Feinstein, as far as I am aware, nobody posuled either of these Geonim - chas v'shalom.

      So you have a 2 tier system, of accepted Gedolim, both are part of the "old" Torah, where one side says these people will be mamzerim, and the other says not.

      That is as diverse a halacha as is possible. So today, the same diversity exists, but we are seeing accusations of reformadox etc. It was not the same case as Meusa, but that doesnt matter, I am arguing "diversity" in halacha.


      Yes, I quote you from last year:

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      "Daas TorahJune 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM

      Don't know why going to the mikveh would make a difference.

      There is a major dispute between Rav Henkin and Rav Feinstein whether common-law marriage is valid or you need the have a formal kiddushin for marriage to come in to existence. According to Rav Henkin there is a huge problem of mamzerim because those who lived together never were divorced before finding other partners - according to Rav Moshe - there is not a problem of adultery since there was no proper kiddushin they are not married.

      This issue is relevant for Reform marriages - according to Rav Henkin they are valid - even if there was not proper kiddushin or witnesses - while Rav Moshe says there is no marriage at all"

      Delete
    5. R' Dovid,
      Doesn't the femoral in kesushin say that we don't advertise mamzeirim, and that even eliyahu who will know the vadai mamzeirim will not publisize who they are.
      Isn't creating a list the antithesis of the spirit of the gemora? (That is even if your mamzeirim were vadai which frequently you say they are not (rather sofeik))

      -G

      Delete
    6. R' Dovid,

      Just to echo your brother...

      I dont know why you keep referring to YU. The rabbis involved in the Weiss case are the leaders of Lakewood and Haredi Jewry in America. The Rabanim who issued the seruv against Friedman were Roshei Yeshiva of Torah V'Daas and Philadelphia. The list of rabbanim you have denigrated include members of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah. What does that have to do with the mashgiach of YU?! We are talking about Kotlers and Kamenetskys.

      I understand if you dont know much about YU politics but including Rav Schachter in the camp with Blau is absurd. Blau is completely marginalized and all of the Roshei Yeshiva came out against the forum (which itself devolved into something the mashgiach never intended)

      Delete
    7. "YU put in a new Mashgiach, traditionally the most pious person, who showed his piety by staging a program for Orthodox homosexuals."

      I strongly disagree with your assesment of his piety. Having attended a summer seminar with him on child abuse - he clearly is pious person who has shown much personal courage and piety -in dealing with the issue of child abuse.

      Regarding his activities regarding the issue of homosexuality -that will be the subject of a later post.

      Delete
    8. GershonMarch 8, 2013 at 5:33 AM

      R' Dovid,
      Doesn't the gemoral in kedushin say that we don't advertise mamzeirim, and that even eliyahu who will know the vadai mamzeirim will not publisize who they are.
      Isn't creating a list the antithesis of the spirit of the gemora? (That is even if your mamzeirim were vadai which frequently you say they are not (rather sofeik))
      ===================
      Important point.However if your read all the major teshuvos on the subject you will keep seeing the prhase that one needs to be very careful not to apply pressure because it will create mamzerim. Rav Sternbuch in fact stated that if the situation doesn't improve that before marrying a divorce it will be necessary to examine the history with her beis din to see whether she got a valid Get.

      Similarly if a certain population has history of problematic gittin or geirus - there is no halachic problem with avoiding marriage with that population.

      Thus even though we avoid publicizing mamzerim because there is no issur marrying the person until it is known that he/she is a mamzer - nobody wants to discover one day that there spouse or parent is a mamzer and therefore will avoid marrying people that might be mamzerim

      Delete
    9. EddieMarch 8, 2013 at 2:22 AM

      A hypothesis or suggested explanation is not an accepted theory, and needs to be looked at to develop it to theory.

      My point was that in the case of the dispute between R Henkin and R' Feinstein, as far as I am aware, nobody posuled either of these Geonim - chas v'shalom.

      So you have a 2 tier system, of accepted Gedolim, both are part of the "old" Torah, where one side says these people will be mamzerim, and the other says not.
      ================
      I think you can go back to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai

      While there was clear dispute involving mamzerus - the issue was decided according to Rav Moshe's view.

      The consensus of poskim is that we avoid situations where it might produce mamzerus - and there is no consensus that public protests don't produce a posul Get. If in fact a consensus develops then your use of the fact that there was a major halachic dispute between Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Henkin is appropriate.

      Delete
    10. "If in fact a consensus develops then your use of the fact that there was a major halachic dispute between Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Henkin is appropriate."

      That is precisely my point - a quiet and significant consensus is developing or already exists in America, across the Haredi- Modern spectrum.

      Delete
    11. This is my point - there is no consensus when the issue is not discussed.Where are the teshuvos - where is the debate(except on this blog). Actions from apparent ignorance or from social pressures doesn't constitute psak. If Rav Schachter wrote a teshuva and other poskim explicity stated that they agree that this is the psak for our times then it would be different. If Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky explained in writing why he is authorizing activities against the majority of poskim - and other poskim explicity agreed then perhaps it would be different.

      The embarrassment is that the halachic process now seems to be determined by diyukim made on wall posters or prounouncments on Youtube. It wasn't too long ago that halachic issues were thrashed out in teshuva seforim or rabbinic journals or personal discussion between gedolim. The process was transparent and the result clear.

      Delete
    12. On this I agree. Why don't they write some teshuvos explaining/ defending their position?

      perhaps someone can write to them. perhaps I will write to RHS...bli neder

      Delete
    13. Totally agree. There need to be Teshuvas written. The question that I have has anyone asked Rav Shachter to produce said Teshuva?
      I know that you asked Rav Shternbuch and he declined saying it was up to American Gedolim. In my experience Teshuvot are typically written in response to written questions. So has anyone posted the question to them?

      Delete
    14. "I strongly disagree with your assesment of his piety. Having attended a summer seminar with him on child abuse - he clearly is pious person who has shown much personal courage and piety -in dealing with the issue of child abuse."

      When was this seminar? After Lanner? He is not pious. He is shamed by his abysmal record on the Lanner Beth Din. Many people suffered because of him. He covered up abuse. That is a fact. Him and Willig.

      Delete
    15. The seminar was conducted by Dr. Alison Feit was two years ago. As far as I have seen he has publicly acknowledged his errors in dealing with the Lanner case as has Rabbi Willig.

      Not sure why you feel that an error of judgment - which clearly represented the ignorance of abuse at that time - means he is not pious? According to you analysis he can never be considered pious! Why?

      Delete
  16. My question was why we would be rushing to create a list, not why we should avoid a problem of creating mamzeirim if we think that's whats happening.
    Not commenting if you should marry into that crowd if you think its prevalent
    Gershon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the answer is simple. In a situation where there is a reasonable chance that the sofek would be revealed it is important to avoid that population. If in fact the information would not likely be discovered than I would agree with you.

      Example - a person is 3 generations ffb - it is the night of his grandaughters wedding. someone at the chasuna remembers that the great grandmother had remarried before becoming frum and she didn't get a get from the first husband. There is now a doubt about all her progeny.

      Delete
    2. The problem with making a list is that the consensus of Gedolim for at least the last 300yrs has been that it is assur to publicize even a known mamzer. Apparently at one point there arose a minhag to give mamzerim funny names, like Kadur, at their Brit, so that their status as mamzerim would be inescapable.
      However, for the last three hundred plus years the Gedolei HaDor have consistently written against this practice and stated that it is assur(See Ezor Eliyahu 158 for a list of sources).
      So this idea of making a list of mamazerim and publicizing it seems to me to be no less an unsupported chiddush than that of ORA publicly embarrassing husbands.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you on making lists. though the other side of the coin are yichus books which implies that anyone not included has a problem of yichus. I am not are of any halachic objections to yichus books.

      However, the real question is whether there are populations that are generally avoided because of the possiblity of mamzerim. For example regarding the status of Ethiopians - if they are Jews but they don't have gittin - they are viewed differently than if they are presumed to be non-Jews who required geirus.The same applies to Marranos.

      As Rav Sternbuch points at - this is the way things are heading regrading frum people whose parents remarried.

      Delete
    4. That's all well and good, however, what is being proposed here is not Yichus books or avoidance of certain communities, both of which have been long standing accepted practices in various communities.

      What is being proposed here are lists of mamzerim. I find it oddly peculiar that someone who so avidly pursues halakhic purity in one area, calling those who disagree with him terrorists and inventors of a new Torah, doesn't feel at all squeamish about proposing something so roundly rejected by our sages for centuries down to today.

      Delete
    5. Is the divorce rate higher amongst US orthodox than in Israel?

      Delete
    6. What is being proposed here are lists of mamzerim. I find it oddly peculiar that someone who so avidly pursues halakhic purity in one area, calling those who disagree with him terrorists and inventors of a new Torah, doesn't feel at all squeamish about proposing something so roundly rejected by our sages for centuries down to today.

      ===============

      Not sure that you are correct. the Rabbinut in Israel maintains a black list of mamzerim. Could you cite some teshuvos to support your contention

      Delete
    7. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/friedmann-to-let-rabbis-renew-marriage-blacklist-1.226604

      Delete
  17. Why would anyone think that "social justice" means supporting and encouraging child abduction, parental alienation, and making a mockery of beis din to manipulate the legal process?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Dr. Levisohn's assertion that custody is a matter for the courts"

    OK, if the ORA feminists want to rely on the civil court system for custody rulings, then they must also rely on that court system for the GET matter. Its clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment for a civil court to be involved in any manner in a religious GET matter.

    Therefore based on the logic of the ORA feminists, no Jewish husband should ever be subjected to any pressure to deliver a GET while his wife is suing him in non-Jewish courts.

    Unless of course the YU based ORA organization is actually a feminist mafia viciously persecuting decent Jewish men using utterly fraudulent "halacha" as a smokescreen ...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Let me ask a question the other way round - on prenups.

    Since, both the western law and the atmosphere is pro feminist and is damaging to the husband's rights in general, could a Prenup be valid to protect the position of the husband, in case his wife wants a divorce and it is imposed by secular courts, or Israeli prison? In other words, the prenup can be a hedge to protect the wealth of the husband in case of divorce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. A friend of mine made sure his prenup did that.

      Delete
    2. I am not sure why you use the term "pro feminist". The pre nup is designed to alleviate a terrible situation that some women face. That is not a bad thing. Lets remember that Rabbeinu Gershom was doing the same thing. Was he "pro feminist" by helping women and conforming to the society around him that had long before done away with polygamy?

      Delete
    3. my prenup puts fines on anyone who refuses the beit din's orders. no pro anything here.

      Delete
    4. That is also a good point - rabbenu Gershom could make a Herem or takkanah, but today we are not allowed to - unless it makes life more miserable for everyone.

      Delete
  20. Is there some reason why people capitalize get as GET?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes it is make clear that we are talking about a divorce document

      Delete

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