Monday, October 7, 2013

Serious halachic deterioration in the Weiss-Dodelson divorce battle

[my brother just updated his letter below 10/07/13] I recently received the following letter regarding new developments in the Weiss Dodelson divorce battle. It first notes a significant deterioration in regards to the elementary halachic issues that in a case of ma'os alei - the husband can not be pressured to give a get.

The second item is that the Dodelson family has finally organized their defense and is apparently no longer relying on nonsense fluff pieces in the Jewish Week as they have in the past.see commentary on the Jewish Week article

If beis din has determined that the wife has clear justification for wanting a divorce - such as abuse - then pressure such as embarrassment can be applied according to some poskim. Apparently in this case there has not been a ruling of beis din that  this is more than a case of ma'os alei.

See the following links for background

kol_koreh_-_april_30 against Weiss

2012/06/ora-rally-against-weiss-chareidi  
2013/03/weiss-dodelson-case-rejection-of-rosh.
2013/02/weiss-dodelson-response-to-attack-from
2012/07/weiss-family-statement-supporting
2012/06/r-avrahom-meir-weiss-bitul-seruv

==Ma'os alei - if wife simply doesn't want  to remain married - no pressure is allowed====
 Rav Eliashiv Ma'os Alei Kovetz teshuvos 1 174

See Rav Eliashiv - original teshuva from Piskei Din vol 2 (curtesy of Rav Michael Tzadok)


Rav Eliashiv  maos alei  - get not required (translation)
Rav Ovadia Yosef maus alei forced only if disgusting
Rav Ovadia Yosef - ma'os alei without factors such as abuse - is not forced
Rabbeinu Yonah-maus-alei-mitzva and Rav Ovadia Yosef - additional factors
Rav Sternbuch  - ma'os alei without factors such as abuse - is not forced
Rav Sternbuch moredes without clear reason plus went to secular court
=============================================
R Daniel,
2 things.

1) a friend who lives in that area tells me that the Dodelson's neighbors and shul community, apparently tired that there is still no movement on the Get front, staged an impromptu protest when Weiss came to pick up his child on Yom Tov. I'm told that Although there was no violence, Weiss fled, having apparently never had to face this kind of reception head on. This seems to have energized the protesters who are now thinking of different ways to apparently accost Weiss in public, making him more uncomfortable- seeing that just yelling at him in front of other people absolutely has an effect. My friend says that one of the members of the shul, while not especially close to the Dodelson's, having tagged along to this protest, said that he now sees as his mission making sure Weiss can not walk in the street with any menucha.
2) He forwards me this link: http://www.setgitalfree.com/refuting-the-weiss-statement.html as the Dodelson's response to the Weiss statement. While he has no answer why they hadn't shared this information earlier, the content seems very compelling.
In response to the above letter my brother has written the following. [letter updated 10/8/13]
===================================

213 comments :

  1. I learned by Reb Aharon Kotler zt"l, and never thought the day would come when his progeny would produce mamzerim to satisfy a rich relative. But the time has some when we must face the facts. This outrageous violation of halacha, to coerce a GET with MOUS OLEI, something forbidden by all of the poskim, as the Gro says in EH 73:5, is now being promoted by the Roshei Yeshiva of Lakewood Yeshiva and the Agudah. People are picking up on it and Botei Dinim are forcing a GET with public humiliations even with MOUS OLEI. What does this mean?
    It means in the next generation, the children born from invalid Gittin are mamzerim, and those of us who believe in the Shulchan Aruch and the Gro and not relatives and money, will not be able to marry many children. This is the ultimate child abuse.
    If this woman ever marries because of the pressure of humiliation and other forbidden coercians, her children are mamzerim. And those rabbonim who encouraged it will have a nice reception in a very warm locality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear R' Dovid,
      I do not dispute your sources, nor do I take sides on this case.
      One point I wish to raise - is that you make frequent mention of Gedolei HaDor, of previous generations, none of whom are living today. Yet, the Rabbis who you are attacking, are currently the Gedolei HaDor, whether we like it or not.
      Thus, I presume you should ask Rabbis K,K,P,W for their Daas Torah on the issue. This is how I understand the legal/power structure of Haredi Gedolim.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand what the problem is. We have a Shulchan Aruch and it clearly states that what these Rosh Yeshivas are doing is producing invalid Gittin. What Rosh Yeshiva of today can read the Gro, the Vilna Gaon' statement that all authorities forbid coercing a GET in MOUS OLEI, and yet sign a paper that everyone must humiliate the husband and coerce a GET? Only a Rosho Gomur could do that. And I am not in the habit of asking a Rosho Gamur why he disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch and its poskim and the Vilna Gaon, etc. The children produced from such a forced GET are mamzerim, and they are helpless and we can only cry at their condition. But those who produced these mamzerim, we do not ask them their opinions, we recognize them for what they are, falsifiers of the Torah WHO HAVE NO SOURCE WHATSOVER to back their opinions. I have stated my opinions. Now, why do they not state their opinion and its source? Because THEY HAVE NO SOURCE. Let them prove me wrong, I am waiting.

      Delete
    3. Eddie,
      Let me answer your question another way. I learned by Gadol HaDor Reb Aharon Kotler zt"l, and had intensive shimush from him. I spent hours privately with Posek HaDor Reb Moshe Feinstein zt"l and he graced my seforim in halacha with very strong haskomose. He wrote about me, "The Rav and Gaon is known to me for many years as one who reaches to great depth to clarify complex halochose..." Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l gave me not only permission to be a Rosh Beth Din in Gittin but gave me his name as well, which is incredibly rare. This is pure bragging perhaps but if you think a person like me who has paid his dues ( mean that they really mashed my mind but that is why I came to them) with these and many other Gedolei HaDor, wants to ask the opinions of these talmud teaches who have no strong background in halacha, you must understand why I don't do it. I know some of them personally and one of them once asked me where it says in Shulchan Aruch about the names of people and I told him the place in the laws of Gittin. Now this person has made great pronouncements about forcing a GET and he doesn't know what he is talking about. I would rather talk to a Rosho than a Rosh Yeshiva who makes mamzerim because somebody is related to somebody rich. THOSE WHO PROMOTE FORCED GITTIN IN MOUS OLEI PRODUCE MAMZERIM. If you read my sources the smart thing for you to do is to approach any rabbi who wants coercion and ask him what his source is. THEY HAVE NONE! After you ask them, please get back to me with the answer. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. Eddie

      You are touching on a very sore, but sadly true subject...

      In all earlier generations there was plenty of power and sway in the hands of the Halachic Poskim. Originally because the Yeshivos were founded and led by Rabbonim/Poskim. Even when that practice ended, not everyone went to Yeshiva!!

      Today everyone went to yeshiva, and you don't become a Rosh Yeshiva by being a great Halachist. You don't even have to be a Talmud Chachom, Glatt, or a Mench for that matter.

      The result of that, is that everyone "HAS TO" listen their whole life to the particular "Lamdan" that he decided to study under when he was 18!!!!

      Delete
    5. Eddie,
      You are braver than I am. I was afraid to go into that direction, but you are right. There is actually a very sad beginning of that tale.It began in the time of Reb Shraga Feival Mendlowitz, the great founder of Torah in America. He approached many rabbis of communities and inquired about making a day school, because then many Jews were still Orthodox. The parents would have been happy to send to a Day School, but many rabbis refused. They were aware that the people who paid their salary did not want more expenses. So they refused to help and their own children were lost. Reb Shraga Feival founded a newspaper with Chazan Rosenblat to fight the rabbis and encourage building Yeshivas and Day Schools. But he did not succeed and the Chazan went bankrupt as did the newspaper. Only after the war when Gedolim such as Reb Aharon came to America did things change. And when they did, the Rosh Yeshivas remembered bitterly the role of the rabbis in the destruction of a generation. From now on, they were determined that only Yeshivas would rule, and that is what happened.

      Delete
    6. Eddie,
      Let me finish my previous comment. I heard this incredible story from a close talmid of Reb Aharon who got semicha from him. It seems that Reb Aharon came to America and asked the rabbis for help in building Yeshivas. A meeting was arranged with some senior rabbis. Reb Aharon made his presentation. Then the senior rabbi replied, "Rabbi Kotler, we are in charge here. We don't want you and your Yeshivas." That was the end, because without rabbis backing him how could Reb Aharon raise money when he could not speak English? But the rabbi suddenly died on the spot. And after that, Reb Aharon was safe from the rabbis.

      Delete
    7. This was one question I posed, with quite a few replies, so it seems to a relevant question.
      I am not based in USA, and I don't really have access to the Rabbis mentioned. otherwise i would ask them. Also, i don't know the current atmosphere in Agudas Yisroel. 20 years ago , they were very self-confident, but not sure how it is today.

      Delete
  2. Eddie what is, there to ask the current purported gedolim if these issues about a get meuseh have long ago been ruled upon unanimously except why these fakes reject the holy words of their predessors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, the issue is about the Posek HaDor. Unless you are breslov or habad, then you go by the Judge of your day, and do not indulge in consulting the dead.
      For example, how many Cherid gedolim today permit chalav akum? they will not, and does this mean they are fakes because they reject the holy words of R' Moshe Feinstein?

      Delete
    2. Eddie,
      All issues are rooted in halacha. What you are talking about is a Rashbo in a teshuva about the authority of the rabbinate. It seems that it depends on the community. If a community selects a rabbi then it is a mitsvah of kovode haTorah to follow his opinions, even if there are greater rabbis. There is a story about that. A lady brought some food to the rabbi of Vilna and asked if it was kosher and he permitted it. She then went to the Vilna Gaon who forbade it. The rabbi of Vilna then came to the Vilna Gaon and demanded that he, the Vilna Gaon, eat the disputed food because of the mitsvah to honor the rabbi of the community. The Vilna Gaon then reached out to get the food but suddenly the tallow candle dripped onto it, and since the tallow candle was made of not kosher animal fats, the Vilna Gaon did not have to eat the food.

      Delete
    3. Before I would rush to call significant Roshei yeshiva "roshaim", I would need to eliminate every other alternative.
      There is a statement in Bava Batra, where it says that "he acted improperly; so the Rabbis act improperly with him". this was in the context of annulling a Kiddushin. However, it does show that the rabbis have sanction, in extreme cases, to bend the letter of the Law. I am not suggesting that this should or should not be done, but a situation has arisen where you are saying the rabbis are bending the Halacha, and perhaps there is some justification, in their judgement to do so.

      Delete
    4. Eddie you raise an interesting point. The cases, however are significantly different. In a monetary case the beis din has the power of hefker beis din and thus if they feel something is being done inappropriately in a monetary case then they have the theoretical power to act "to bend the letter of the law".

      In this case it is clear from the Talmud , Rishonim, Achronim and up to consensus of contemporary authorities that the husband is not required to give a get in a case of ma'os alei and that in the case of eishis eish - force can produce an invalid get. Thus the rabbis don't have the power to "bend the letter of the law"

      Perhaps even more troubling is your statement "perhaps there is some justification, in their judgment to do so" - when halachic authorities disagree it is imperative for both sides to give a halachic explanation of their actions. As Rav Sternbuch told me, if the other side believes there is justification for a new approach then the time honored path is to write teshuvos and let poskim have an opportunity to evaluate the reasoning.

      This is a battle which is being fought through bluff , newspaper articles by relatives and blog posts. We would all welcome a reasoned teshuva by the rabbis that support Dodelson

      Delete
    5. I agree fully, i.e. they should provide a teshuva or some kind of halachic justification for their position. I also find it odd that at times, they say it is below their dignity to respond. Again, I am not advocating any side in this matter, but in other controversies, e.g building an Eruv, both sides would bring their arguments based on halacha.

      Delete
  3. When one relies on the misinformation coming out of the rabbanut to falsely besmirch rav gestetner then one's hypocrisy knows no limits.

    these fake gedolim should also rely on the rabbanut for hetter mechirah, maaser. Kashrus etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stan,
    You are the man.
    Exactly. Is a Shulchan Aruch with its major commentators including the Vilna Gaon something that the Talmud teachers who have no strong training in halacha should disagree with? Unless they are either ignorant or for sale. Any other suggestions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Dovid Eidensohn - "Unless they are either ignorant or for sale. Any other suggestions?" - Yes, I have another suggestion.

    The fake "rabbis" forcing GITTIN today, regardless of whether they call themselves "centrist" or "yeshivish", are fully aware of the rulings of the great rabbis of the past that forbid forced GITTIN when a Jewish wife claims MOUS OLEI. These imposter "rabbis" despise and discard the pro-family Torah values of the past that only allowed families to be dissolved for substantial reasons, such as demonstrated evil behavior by either spouse.

    While pretending to respect HALACHA, the imposter "rabbis" privately embrace the modern feminist ideologies that a woman should be able to leave a marriage for any reason she claims, regardless of the damage caused to her husband and children by divorce. These "rabbis" sympathize with any women demanding a GET for any reason, they believe women can only be victims of cruel husbands and never perpetrators, and they will ruthlessly persecute the husbands until a GET is forced from them.

    These imposter "rabbis" are a great danger to KLAL YISRAEL and should be driven out of the KEHILLAS before many more Jewish families are destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EmesLeYaacov,
      I wish I could agree with you, and assume that rabbis know the laws of Gittin, but they don't. I don't mean the congregational rabbis. I have spoken to rabbis who are poskim and some who give Gittin and they don't know the halacha properly. Maybe they forgot or maybe something else, but when I spoke to them one of them mumbled, "I am not familiar with that topic."

      This is something that often comes up with Kesubose, written at the wedding ceremony under the direction of the rabbi, who is often a Rosh Yeshiva who does now know the laws of Gittin. But the laws of names are in Gittin. We thus have names that may be wrong, as I found out, even though the person who wrote it was considered etc and etc.

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn,

      I understand your point if you're referring to rabbis not knowing the broad mass of GITTIN and KESUBAH laws. But do you mean to say the rabbis you're referring to don't even know the prohibition of forcing a GET on the claim of MOUS OLEI?

      Delete
    3. EMesLeYaacov,
      I think I made it clear that I was talking about established poskim and dayanim. Don't believe me, maybe it will give you some relief. But I talked to major poskim, the big names, and was disappointed and even shocked. They surely know how to make a GET and surely know many other things, but this particular halacha of MOUS OLEI which is not in the laws of Gittin but in the laws of KESUBOSE, because a divorce is not advised in MOUS OLEI, I found ignorance from the big ones.

      The KESUBOSE problem is very serious because the Rosh Yeshivas who make it are talmudists and are not trained in Gittin laws, and names are in the laws of Gittin. Incidentally, names today are a very great problem, because today people have many names and they change, it is a big problem.

      Delete
  6. Eddie you are so mistaken. If something is clearcut in the shulchan oruch this is not consulting the dead. I am utterly bewildered where you obtain this nonsense from. Bringing in cholv stam has nothing to do with it and you are only showing yourself up with such preposterous arguments. Stick to the topics at hand, there have been rulings on these matters ad nauseum. Yet Kotler who only is a godol because he is a Kotler and he is certainly no posek involves himself in matters which are beyond his purview.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Has there been a discussion here before of WHY a woman with a claim of ma'us alai is required to stay in the marriage? Why CAN'T we force the husband to give a get (i.e., why is the halacha like that)? Wouldn't that match up better with our Jewish values of compassion, care for the individual and the oppressed, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, many such discussions here. Search this site.

      Delete
    2. Raffi,
      A woman with MOUS OLEI is not required to stay in the marriage and can leave, but she cannot force a GET on the husband. First of all, you can discuss all day long if the Shulchan Aruch is compassionate or cruel, but it is the one Shulchan Aruch we have. Violating it without a halacha source is not just a sin, it is a rebellion against the entire system of halacha. Having said that, I wonder why a child in a marriage where the woman wants out, a child who is going to be devastated by the divorce, is not figured into the equation. A woman married, had a child or children, and now changes her mind. People in the field told me that the vast majority of divorces in the Torah world could be resolved if the emphasis was on Shalom, but when the emphasis is on the rights of one of the couple, the children are not being heard. And who says the husband has to lose his wife and his youth because the wife wants out? In my experience, with the worst Agunah cases in Monsey, when the community organizes properly, not with terror as with Dodelson v Weiss, but with sensible presentations made by experienced people, we can solve things as I saw, with no hate, and nothing approaching terror. There are those today who want terror instead, and they are going to produce mamzerim.

      Delete
    3. You are circumventing the question - "you can discuss all day long if the Shulchan Aruch is compassionate or cruel, but it is the one Shulchan Aruch we have" - one can imagine people saying the same thing about mesira, lashon hara, etc. I am not saying we should change the shulchan aruch. But in fact there ARE other halachic works (the discussion on the Chofetz Chaim and lashon hara provides a good comparison), and as I understand, a minority of them have other opinions on the matter of divorce. And there are other cases where we we follow minority opinions. So frum society currently holds by this one. Are there no grounds for discussing whether it's time to give a second look at the other ones?

      Bringing children into this discussion is just confounding things. What if there are no children? What if they're long grown up? I am wondering about the simplest possible case, wherein a woman discovers she is living with a complete jerk, albeit not one who has clearly crossed into abuse. Society today is not what it was centuries ago. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate those other approaches?

      Joseph - are you able to point me to any of those discussions? With all the material on gittin that's been written, I am not succeeding in finding anything on this question, only on the halachic evaluations of current events.

      Delete
    4. Raffi,

      Even if you earth up some minority opinion we don't pasken by, we can't just "switch over" to it since it may be more popular an attuned to modern politically correct sensibilities about gender "equality".

      Furthermore, the husband can never be forced to accept some other opinion. He can always cite "Kim Li" that he holds by the standard halachic opinion that he isn't required to give a GET under the circumstances. And his stance has halachic legs to stand on and this no one can halachicly compel him otherwise.

      Delete
    5. "we can't just "switch over" to it since it may be more popular"

      I'm not saying we should switch over because it's more popular. I am suggesting we consider those opinions because they are more in line with the needs and attributes of society today. There are plenty of examples of "halachic evolution."


      He can always cite "Kim Li" that he holds by the standard halachic opinion that he isn't required to give a GET under the circumstances.

      That's fine. He can hold all his life that the get they beat out of him is coerced. As long as the rest of the world accepts it, it doesn't matter.

      Delete
    6. Raffi your question was raised by Rav Gartner in this RJJ Journal article

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/maus-alei-accept-rambams-psak.html

      Delete
    7. Thanks for pointing that out. The practical point is real - how would we get everyone to agree (on anything)? - but his "logical" point is just a reflection of his own already-decided position. I regret that we have no leaders in this day and age who can authoritatively evaluate and act on the generation's needs.

      Delete
    8. Our leaders have considered and decided. They decided that there is no reason to change the halachas on gittin for our generation.

      Live with it.

      Delete
    9. Dan, may you never have to live with the consequences of this unconsidered non-decision.

      Delete
    10. This is a very much considered and conscious decision.

      Delete
    11. What evidence do you have for that position?

      Delete
  8. Once again, I will repeat that Rav Gestetner does not follow basic procedure as dictated by the Shulchan Aruch. When I pointed this out, I got two responses:
    1. RDE asked what OTHER instances I could find of improper procedure conceding the point.
    2. Stan claims to have asked Rav Gestetner who said he relies on "other rishonim". If that is the case, maybe the shulchan aruch doesnt matter and maybe these rabanim are following "other rishonim" e.g. the Rambam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,
      I agree with you that those who defy the Shulchan Arudch have defied the Shulchan Aruch. That should really be the end of the discussion. Because what kind of world would it be if every rabbi who has a rich relative who needs a change in the halacha would violate the Shulchan Aruch?

      Delete
    2. James,
      Regarding Rabbi Gestetner, I know him personally and have read his material, and he knows a lot of halacha and has written learned papers on dozens and dozens of questions. I actually asked many heads of Beth Din for Gittin what they thought about him, or rather, why there is such a strong negative attitude towards him in some places, and the answers I received did not change my opinion of him one bit. The fact is that he is at war with the world, and has attacked many prominent rabbonim and botei dinim. That explains a lot, in my opinion. It is understandable that when his name is put forward to be part of a Beth Din that some people may refuse to participate. They are going to sit with a lion, and this lion will argue with them with a great background of learning and writing responsum. But being a lion is not a sin and we should understand that. I certainly respect him. I don't say I would do everything that he does, but I would certainly not say that I know of something that disqualifies him from being a dayan.

      Delete
    3. . It is understandable that when his name is put forward to be part of a Beth Din that some people may refuse to participate. They are going to sit with a lion, and this lion will argue with them with a great background of learning and writing responsum

      Or it could be that the likes of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Shlomo Amar have said that anyone who sits with him on a Beis Din is thus possul dayyanus.

      Delete
    4. you still have failed to give a justification. Should be easy right?

      Delete
    5. Just Saying: Rav Ovadia Yosef never said any such thing. Check the letter again. It was only current Zionist Rabbunut.

      Delete
  9. The bottom line is, if the marriage fell apart, for whatever reason, it is unfair to keep her chained. see a most strongly worded letter from the steipler, (vol. 2 no. 467) that since the marriage isn't going to be repaired that he should give a get. he also discusses that according to the ramba"m and others "mois alei" is grounds for a get. (I recall another letter as well where he admonishes someone for not giving a get.)
    another point that makes me wonder, aren't there abundent tshuvos about kofin ad sherotzeh. many beus din's over the years had varios methods of forcing someone to give a get. I"m sure you are aware that before issuing any get, the beis din makes him state that he is doing it out of his own free will. so actuall mamzerus is doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. observer,
      So you have decided that there are no mamzerim today because when the Beth Din coerces they make the husband say that he is doing this with his own free will. But if the coercion and such a statement is produced in violation of halacha, this is called "coercion shelo kadin" or illegal coercion and the major poskim hold that the GET given, even after the husband says he does it of his own free will, is invalid by the Torah meaning the child born form it is a mamzer diorayso. In my above letter there are sources for this.

      One source I did not give, but can give here, is the opinion of Chasam Sofer and Shaare Hamelech, based upon a Mahari HaLevi, that if there is an argument among the authorities whether the husband may be coerced, and the Beth Din coerced a GET, it is definitely invalid by the Torah and the children are mamzerim by the Torah. This is because the only reason a forced GET works is because we assume that the husband respects the Beth Din forcing him and so he says to himself, "It is a mitsvah to lisiten to the rabbis" But if the husband's rabbis tell him not to listen to the wife's rabbis, such as the case with Dodelson and Weiss, or if there is a doubt because of a machlokess, the husband says it is a doubt if I must be coerced, and so I will do what the lenient side says. He therefore does not give a GET willingly and it is invalid by the Torah DIORAYSO.

      Delete
  10. You have come into this long running discussion of countless hours - without being aware that the issues you raise have already been dealt with. Please look into the archives with the search engine for ma'os alei, friedman, weiss etc

    The Steipler's letter does not deal with the situation of using the get as leverage. While he does mention the Rambam - that is clearly not the halacha. In short he is giving mussar - not poskening. He seems to be saying that he strongly condemns a husband withholding a get for spite.

    Regarding your other issues - you seem unaware that there are some marriages where a get can be forced while others can not. This is discussed in Shulchan Aruch. this is the critical issue underlying the discussion of ma'os alei and if you don't know anything about it - then your comments are not relevant.

    In sum, while I share with you the concern for human suffering - but there are two sides of the story and the halacha in this case is clearly with the husband.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As someone who is orthodox but not hareidi, I find it amusing how the ideas of rabbinic authority / daat-torah / gedolim are alternately embraced or rejected depending on the needs of the moment.

    I have also learned in life, that when one disagrees with someone (especially in the absence of any face-to-face discussion), it is all to easy to assume that the "other guy" must simply be an idiot. Generally, when two intelligent and reasonably well informed people disagree, they are simply working based on two very different sets of data or assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You make an important observation - which applies also to the Modern Orthodox world - but to a lesser degree. The attitude towards Rav Soleveitchik or Rav Kook is illuminating.

    Yes you are correct that when one side yells and screams and offers only proclamations and screaming demonstrations - instead of clearly written halachic teshuvos - it does convey an unflattering impression to the other side.

    However this is not an issue that can simply be categorized as eilu v'eilu and then both sides get on with their lives. The wife is stuck without a kosher get and the get can not be kosher if it is the result of public humilations of the husband. The harder they work to get an unkosher get the stronger is the resistance of the husband.

    So while the solution to this mess is not obvious - the wife and her rabbinical supporters demanding the husband give a get under threat of public disgrace is clearly the wrong path.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In all fairness you haven't exactly demonstrated that public embarrassment is equivalent to kofin, and thus would produce a Get Meusa.

      Similarly you haven't proven conclusively that Maos Alei isn't Chayev Get. Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu(Mamar Mordekhai 2 Even HaEzer 11) clearly states that so long as she can demonstrate a tangible reason in the eyes of the B"D the man is Chayev Get.

      Further there in Siman 17 he writes(and brings a proof from Rav Moshe Feinstein Iggrot Moshe Even HaEzer 1:137) that even if if the woman were to go to secular court and impose a fine upon the husband of $40/day until he gives her a Get, it would not be a Get Meusa.
      Though further in Siman 18, he addressed the Machloket between the Maharik and the Rashba that the Beit Yosef brings in Even HaEzer 134, and rules that the husband has to the right to refuse until she drops her case, out of a choshesh on the Rashba(point in note that the Beit Yosef rules like the Mahrik and it is the Rema who rules like the Rashba, unlike what you have presented several times so far). However, he notes that even according to the Rema who states that L'chatchila we should follow the Rashba out of Choshesh, if the man had already given the Get the Get is kosher(Rema seif 4).

      So in all honesty I'm not sure which camp you are accusing of only offering proclamations and not Teshuvot. There seem to be a good number of Teshuvot that say directly the opposite of what you, and more your brother have been positing as the situation.

      Delete
    2. I think I missed something - where are the teshuvos of the rabbis supporting Dodelson? Perhaps they should hire you! I am not saying that it is inconceivalbe that someone could write a teshuva - but no one has - nor have they done it in the Friedman-Epstein case.

      Delete
    3. "In all fairness you haven't exactly demonstrated that public embarrassment is equivalent to kofin, and thus would produce a Get Meusa. "

      Not sure what you mean - Rabbeinu Tam says to only use passive techniques such as not giving an aliya. Please read Rav Sternbuch's teshuva again and see how careful he is to avoid positive pressure. What ever is done needs to be escapable from - which is impossible in the modern arge of communication. and even the passive techniques of Rabbeinu Tam were not used for many years because of the concern for get me'usa.

      Regarding chiyav get - please explain how Dodelson's awareness that she didn't want to spend the rest of her life with Weiss is 1) a case where beis din would rule that there is a chiyav get and 2) what measures are permitted to be used?

      Regarding your points in general - you have not shown that the mainstream of halachic authority for a hundreds of years would not have simply declared in the present case that there is no obligation of the husband to give a divorce. My brother and I are simply arguing the approach which has been accepted for hundreds of years. If you want to arguen that the world has changed - as it did between the Talmud and the Geonim and between the Geonim and the Rishonim etc - simply have one of the gedolim supporting Dodelson to write a teshuva to that effect

      Delete
    4. Please read Rav Sternbuch's teshuva again and see how careful he is to avoid positive pressure. What ever is done needs to be escapable from - which is impossible in the modern arge of communication.
      I'm not sure that this is the case. I found a teshuva from Rav Ovadia(admittedly on another matter) where he very clearly states that public embarrassment is not cosidered kofin. So if it not kofin, then how is it a meusa. Further even in the modern age of communication it would seem that public embarassment can be escaped. I mean in a case like this, he gives her the Get and the embarrassment ends... Is that not escapable?

      Regarding chiyav get - please explain how Dodelson's awareness that she didn't want to spend the rest of her life with Weiss is 1) a case where beis din would rule that there is a chiyav
      Honestly I wasn't broaching this specific case, and personally I would prefer to refrain from talking about a specific case, especially one where essential details are missing. Quite honestly, and with all due respect, if you don't have in your possession all of the court documents and everything else(which so far no one has been able to demonstrate that they do) and unless you were there in the the Beit Din, you(or I) really are only guessing about what was said and what has happened.

      However the assertion has repeatedly been made that Maous Alei NEVER is mechuyav a Get. Such as in point 6 in the main post. My contention is that you have not sufficiently established that the weight of halakhic literature supports that assertion.

      you have not shown that the mainstream of halachic authority for a hundreds of years would not have simply declared in the present case
      Again I wasn't talking about the present case. However the reason you are getting such negative feedback is because you have not adequately shown how the present case diverges from a case of Meous Alei where there is tangible evidence(מאיס עלי עם אמתלא). Further(assuming you and your brother did not hear and have not actually seen the evidence that she actually submitted to the B"D and are only going on second hand accounts) how do you know that she is not one. Further since there is this in the hands of the B"D as Rav Eliyahu states, to decide if she has an אמתלא why should they need to write a Teshuva to that effect?

      My brother and I are simply arguing the approach which has been accepted for hundreds of years.
      I'm sorry but I don't see that. When you say that מאיס עלי is never Mechuyav a get, that isn't the position that has been taken for hundreds of years. That is very much a Chiddush, at least according to the verious Teshuvot that I have seen, and which I have enumerated above.

      Delete
    5. found a teshuva from Rav Ovadia(admittedly on another matter) where he very clearly states that public embarrassment is not cosidered kofin. So if it not kofin, then how is it a meusa.


      I gather you have a question as to what was bothering Rabbeinu Tam. Do you agree that Rabbeinu Tam was concerned about pressure that would produce a get me'usa? Do you agree that even the level of pressure ok'd by Rabbeinu Tam was not used in many communities because of the fear of get me'usa? So now you claim that if pressure is not viewed as illicit in a non get situation it must be ok for a get. But it is obvious the degree that poskim were afraid of causing a get me'usa and therefore the standards were set very high. All of a sudden ORA announces we aren't concerned with this old time religion anymore and the old time rabbis were just chicken!
      If you could find a place where a posek explicity permits public demonstrations that would be helpful. Inferences from other subjects is not.

      Delete
    6. I gather you have a question as to what was bothering Rabbeinu Tam.

      I'm just not sure that R"T's measures weren't also public humiliation. Being denied an Aliyah can be very publicly humiliating, having lived through it when someone falsely accused my wife of being a convert(and me being a Kohen), I was denied an Aliyah until we could prove she wasn't a convert(not as easy as it sounds). Horribly humiliating and in full view of the Kahal, especially when you are the only Kohen.

      Look I am in no means saying that ORA's methods are correct, personally I don't believe that they are. I'm just saying that you haven't, to my mind sufficiently proven that humiliation is off the table, especially since that is what R"T was essentially, in my mind, recomending.

      Delete
  13. RDE, your brother describes himself as: Musmach as Rosh Beth Din in Gittin by Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l

    Can you please explain this interesting title?

    Is there a Beis Din which he heads, or has he been appointed by the late Rav Elyashiv, z"tl as the foremost authority on Gittin whom the rest of the world rabbinate needs to answer to?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David T,
      I am happy to explain my "title." I am 71 years old and it is some years ago that I was active in a Beth Din that worked with Russians who needed a GET and this was expanded to give free Gittin to anyone who refused to pay a Beth Din. I received permission from the Rov as I mention for my Beth Din, but it has been some years now when I don't do this.

      Delete
  14. "Once again, I will repeat that Rav Gestetner does not follow basic procedure as dictated by the Shulchan Aruch. When I pointed this out, I got two responses:
    1. RDE asked what OTHER instances I could find of improper procedure conceding the point.
    2. Stan claims to have asked Rav Gestetner who said he relies on "other rishonim". If that is the case, maybe the shulchan aruch doesnt matter and maybe these rabanim are following "other rishonim" e.g. the Rambam."

    DT I find it very upsetting that James false remarks are repubished. He is an apologist for ORA and the MO whose approach to gittin is leading to mamzerim, men destroyed and robbed of their children and livelihoods on an almost daily basis. james did ANSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING AS SHOW THAT RAV GESTETNER VIOLATED A SINGLE HALOCHO. I challenge to search the archives and show us a halocho that he violated.

    Please don't misquote what I said James. Furthermore i repeatedly challenged you to explain the repeated violations of the MO and you hid behind the cloack of piety claiming it was elul and you couldn't answer.

    Now some facts James. What kind of twisted and perverted bais din says that the only toanim we will let in are those corrupt divorce lawyers because they have ethics? All they are capable of is teaching their clients to lie, nothing more.

    What kind of twisted bais din James says we offer a track of using secular law for deciding upon alimony and equitable distrubution when the Rashbo and the bais yosef say clearly that any use of this is not dina d'malchusa dina but rishus which leads to the uprooting of kol hatorah kula? Their words not mine. Do those "dayonim" explain to the man that in halocho their is no such thing as equitable distribution and alimony and that they are stealing his money from him to distribute it to his wife at their own whim and that they are completely abusing the concept of peshoro which is not a mechanism for grand theft.

    What kind of bais din does not issue a single siruv on a woman in secular court for decades but the minute a man demands his rights that the woman issues siruvim, brings in the biryonim from ORA etc?

    lastly what kind of community has an alleged godol hador who is chief honcho of the biryonim at ORA and who issues fake siruvim on men whose wives have initiated arko'oys?

    James, people in glass houses don't throw stones.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Its Very Very Simple for anyone to understand . Public humiliation is not called ," Force which invalidates a Transaction".

    This is a clear Halacha in all Choshen Mishpat and is recomended by Rabbeinu Tam and the Gra for use in Gittin as pressure which does NOT invalidate the Get.

    Please stop misleading the public with your grandiose statements and address the real Halachick point in these cases .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. avf you are wrong and you are the one misleading the public. I assume you feel that the Chazon Ish, Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch etc don't know the halacha as well as you. As mentioned many times Rabbeinu Tam allows passive pressure -he does not say that one can publicly embarrass a person to give a get.

      Since you disagree with normative halacha - perhaps you will inform us your alternative basis of halacha? Perhaps you have ruach hakodesh?!

      Delete
    2. Exactly in which cases did these poskim you mention prohibit the use of the pressure of R"Tam. Even with a Beis Din? or by the command of a Dayan? or did they only prohibit it by Hedyoites . When they prohibited it was it saying that its M`Doraisa not a Get, or were they afraid that applying such pressure would lead to applying a real threat of harm which is passul M`Doraisa. Or was it that they did not accept Maus Alei as a reason to get involved it getting her a get from him.

      R"Tam actually says you can publicly embarrass him by Maus Alei and he says you can make him lose his job- because he can go to another city, state (change his name ).
      What is your definition of passive pressure and were is your source of it from?
      If one says that he sold a property because of public embarrassment can he really annul the sale with such a complaint ???!!!

      In conclusion, some Poskim forbidding its use in certain cases does not at all show that its usage causes a real Pasul M`Doraisa and definitely does not show that its the normative Halacha that other Poskim therefor can not disagree with their conclusion and application of public embarrassment in obtaining a Get.

      Delete
    3. Please tell me where Rabbeinu Tam says you can hold a public demonstration to humiliate the husband or at lest show me where he says you can you can do more than passively deny the husband things like getting an aliyah?

      Your arguments ignore the teshuvos and psakim over hundreds of years where the concerns of get me'usa caused them not even to used the techniques approved by Rabbeinu Tam. You are ignoring teshuovs in the last 50 years which clearly indicate a fear of causing get me'usa by pressure - a number of them have been translated and posted on this blog.


      You clearly haven't learned the teshuvos regarding Rabbeinu Tam. I am not going to repeat the large amount of material on this blog which has already dealt with your "objections".

      In conclusion - you are arguing from obvious ignorance of the halachic literature for the last few hundred years . The actual teshuvos written show that the fear of get me'usa is viewed as real by the main stream poskim and they act accordingly. They don't attempt to trivialize the issue as you do.

      Delete
  16. I looked thru the documents on the site. It seems to me, that the Rabonim are saying that Weiss is not listening to beis din, and he has a din to be put in cherem because of that and that he went to court suing the wife's side. The fact that he went to another beis din to stop the siriv, doesn't mean anything, at least to the many Roshei hayeshivos and Gedolim and poskim who signed on it. Many poskim also signed on, so just looking what we have here, is one person on a blog against our Gedolim and poskim. I'll admit, I'm biased, I will follow what they wrote and assume the one writing for this blog either misinterpreted what they wrote, or has an ax to grind with them . In any case according to the documents,he didn't listen to beis din and the Rabonim are trying to get him to listen to beis din. So far,I have only seen poskim on the side of the wife. Why can't Weiss at least line up some Rabonim that agree with him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you please provide the halachic sources that public embarrassment to give a get is called for in this case?

      Delete
    2. Sam,
      I agree with you that it is very funny that major Rosh Yeshivas and rabbonim call for humiliating the husband and other things, and my brother and I are about the only ones around who present the Shulchan Aruch, Gro, Chazon Ish, etc., that this produces mamzerim and an invalid GET. But although I am one person and with my brother we are two people, we have quoted the sources in Shulchan Aruch, the pesak of Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt'l that it is not an obligation for the husband to divorce with MOUS OLEI, and certain coercing a GET is wrong, and the Vilna Gaon says that all major authorities agree to this. So my brother and I are together with the Shulchan Aruch, the Gro and the many sources I quote here, including the teshuva of the Rashbo quoted many times on this blog that it is forbidden to humiliate a husband to force a GET even if the Talmud commands him to give a GET, unless it says clearly in the Talmud that he must be coeced, and certainly this applies to MOUS OLEI. And we mention that the Rashbo is supported by Radvaz, Beis Yosef author of Shulchan Aruch and Chazon Ish. Yes, we are alone, in a world like this, where for a rich relative you take the Rashbo, the Shulchan Aruch, etc. and sell it, just like the Reformers. And these are the major Rosh Yeshivas. Phooey. If Reb Aharon was alive today, whoever did this would stop right away. Such people should be put in Cherem.

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry, I never said to embarrass him in order to give the get. The way I'm reading the documents, and correct if I'm wrong, is he didn't follow and listen to beis din, and instead went to court, and therefore the Rabonim are against him. I have not found in any of the documents what you claim the Rabonnim are doing. To me it seems that you are misinterpreting what they wrote. This has nothing to do with forcing a get . Please quote any of the above Gedolim that said to.

      Delete
    4. There was an Ora demonstration with participation of a Lakewood contingent. Regarding rabbinic support see the following links

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/ora-rally-against-weiss-chareidi.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/weiss-dodelson-case-rejection-of-rosh.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/weiss-dodelson-response-to-attack-from.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/weiss-family-statement-supporting.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/r-avrahom-meir-weiss-bitul-seruv.html

      Delete
  17. Wasn't there a talmud chachom from Isreal that also felt that the "powers that be" in Isreal were siding with his wealthy/well connected in-laws?....

    He felt he wasn't getting a fair shake and fled to America...

    If I can remember correctly the Eidenson's promoted real terrorization to extract a get...

    I'm not very familiar with either case but is there a difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a very creative memory - remembering events that never happened. You are 100% wrong that either my brother or myself "promoted real terrization to extract a get..."

      so you it is true you are not familiar with either case or any of the facts involved!

      Delete
    2. Concerned, and to my dear brother,
      I want to explain concerns lies that I had anything to do with forcing a GET ever. Concerned is an honest person, but since he learned from the Rosh Yeshivas to lie about halacha, and defile the process of halacha, so he does it to. These Rosh Yeshivas are producing a generation of people running in the opposite direction of the Shulchan Aruch, and they are reshoim gemurim. Nobody should learn Torah from them, because "from their mouths come lies."

      Delete
    3. What case is "concerned" referring to?

      Delete
    4. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

      Delete
    5. I asked a innocent question and I got name calling!!

      The only thing decent you could come up with is "Concerned is an honest person"?!?

      You know better then us which case I'm referring to, and for everyone else just look in the archives!!

      Delete
    6. BTW I'm not disagreeing with your position on the current case. I'm also not diminishing the righteousness of sticking up for what seems like the under dog להציל העשוק מיד עושקו.

      I just requested a clarification...

      And I got...

      Delete
    7. Concerned you were not simply asking for a clarification. Your comment strongly implied hypocrisy as the result of supporting a husband being tortured. The "fact" that you based your question on is simply an outrageous falsehood.

      If you want more gentle response - then please ask nicely next time and stick to the facts.

      Delete
    8. Oh it doesn't have to be gentle, but it should stick to the issue, and clarify the difference.

      Name calling can't substitute substance, if you like to flavor the substance with a little name calling, 'tis fine with me!!

      Still waiting....

      Delete
  18. I may have missed the day when Nota Greenblatt became a Rosh Yeshiva who doesn't know halocho. It must have been the same day R' Shmuel Kamenetzky had his Smicha from R Ahron Kotler revoked, Right Eidenson brothers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oopsie - So where are the halachic sources?

      Delete
    2. OOPSIE daisy and my dear brother;
      Asking OOPSIE for halacha sources is not fair. He is a student of the new "gedolim" who are so great they invent a new Shulchan Aruch whenever someone has a rich relative who doesn't like the old one.

      Delete
  19. When Avrohom Meir came to pick up his son , was his son witness to this public event ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. freddie,
      Are you concerned about a son watching people screaming at his father? This goes on all of the time when ORA gathers outside of the home of a husband's parents and relative and terrorizes the elderly people there and the little children. There are elderly and sick people who can have great medical problems from such things. But nobody talks about it and nobody cares because the new "Gedolim" have ruled that the Shulchan Aruch is outmoded and the only law in the new Shulchan Aruch is to terrorize husbands of rich relatives.

      Delete
    2. Sounded like it happened in the street not in the house.

      Delete
    3. Yes, my concern was the son being affected by the whole situation at the house/street.

      Delete
  20. Dear Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn shlita,

    You wrote: "A woman with MOUS OLEI is not required to stay in the marriage and can leave, but she cannot force a GET on the husband."

    How can you say that? If a woman can be denied a GET al pi halacha, then she remains his wife. If she remains his wife, she is required to perform all the halachic duties a wife must perform for her husband. That would preclude her being allowed to leave her husband. She would be required to remain in his home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben Torah,
      You have an interesting idea but the halacha is not that way. See teshuvas Marshal 41 she may leave the husband and live with her father. Ramo Even Hoezer 77:3 says "We do not coerce the husband to divorce her with MOUS OLEI nor do we make her stay with him." Thus she may leave the husband and find her own arrangements and not serve the husband. This would require a Beth Din to listen to her complaints and find that they are real and then she is free to leave him. But there is no coercion in the majority of cases unless the husband really crossed the red line, and a Beth Din would have to decide this.

      Delete
    2. Dear Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn shlita,

      Thank you for the response. If I understand you correctly if she is denied a GET (correctly al pi halacha) and remains his wife, she may only leave his home and stop performing her halachicly obligated wifely duties for him IF and only if she satisfactorily demonstrated to a Beis Din that she has a sincere MOUS OLEI complaint.

      If she cannot satisfactorily demonstrate to Beis Din that she has a substantive MOUS OLEI complaint, if her husband chooses not to GET her, then she is required to remain in his home and perform all her halachicly obligated wifely duties for him even if she doesn't want to remain with him.

      Am I understanding the halacha correctly?

      Delete
    3. No. She can not be forced to remain with him. She is a moredes and he doesn't have to divorce her. If the beis din feels there is substantive complaint such as abuse - then they apply various types of pressure

      כתובות סג:

      היכי דמיא מורדת? אמר אמימר: דאמרה בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה, אבל אמרה מאיס עלי - לא כייפינן לה. מר זוטרא אמר: כייפינן לה. הוה עובדא ואכפה מר זוטרא, ונפק מיניה רבי חנינא מסורא. ולא היא, התם סייעתא דשמיא הוה.

      Delete
    4. no!
      she is not a prisoner, so she may leave his house. and she may forgo food, roof and clothing, then she has no wifely duties, except nursing her children...

      Delete
    5. Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn shlita,

      Isn't the halacha that beis din can force a moredes to stop engaging in the activity making her a moredes? Thus if a wife ran away from her husbands home, thus becoming a moredes, beis din can require she return to him home. (Obviously considering there was no abuse involved by him.)

      Delete
    6. nyme: See Rambam perek 21 for a list of some of the duties a wife is halachicly obligated to perform for her husband. They include making his bed, pouring his drinks and generally serving him. Halachicly obligated to the point, says the Rambam, that if she consistently neglects them beis din can utilize corporal punishment until she agrees to perform her wifely duties for her husband.

      Delete
    7. Ben Torah - if the wife wants out of the marriage - she is not forced to remain with him - but neither is he automatically required to give her a get.
      The issue of beis din punishing her is in a case where she want to remain married but doesn't want to fulfill her obligations.

      Delete
    8. If he justifiably under halacha denies her a GET and thus she remains married to him and his wife, what source can you show me that there is any basis under halacha that she is not forced to perform her wifely duties as described under said Rambam?

      Delete
    9. i really don't understanding where you are coming from. The gemora in Kesubos is clear that she is not forced to be with him. You apparently are reading it - while she is not forced to have sexual relations she is beaten by beis din if she doesn't live with him and make his bed etc etc.

      I could not find anyone saying this or even hinting this understanding - so why do you require more proof than an explicit gemora?

      Rashi says רש"י מסכת כתובות דף סג עמוד ב

      לא כייפינן לה - להשהותה אלא נותן לה גט ויוצאה בלא כתובתה.

      Delete
    10. what source can you show me that there is any basis under halacha that she is not forced to perform her wifely duties as described under said Rambam?

      Rav Eliashiv Piskei Din Vol 3 pg 102.

      Delete
  21. People should organize protests in front of Dodelson's home and business protesting their kidnapping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the HALACHA regarding which parent gets CUSTODY of a child after a divorce?

      Delete
    2. http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/rav-sternbuch-divorcewho-gets-custody.html

      search blog archives with word "custody" the issue has been discussed before

      Delete
  22. The Charedi rabbonim at dinonline disagree with the Eidehnson brothers:
    http://www.din.org.il/2012/05/06/חשש-כפיה-בהרחקות-דרת/
    http://www.din.org.il/2012/04/08/חיוב-לגרש-בטענת-מאיס-עלי/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is dinonline and specifically which rabbis are these "Chareidi rabbonim"?

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you would like to translate this article they wrote

      http://www.din.org.il/2012/05/13/%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%A9-%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9A/

      Delete
    3. Why bother? It speaks for itself. There is no stira between the two.

      Delete
    4. In all honesty this seems to say the same as the two above. That מאיס עלי does warrant the Harchachot of R"T. Now it it would seem to me that this one sides more with Rav Eliyahu that there has to be אמתלא however, that would still be in stark contrast to what Rav Dovid Eidensohn has been putting forth, to quote, if a wife claims “MOUS OLEI”, the husband has no obligation to divorce her

      Delete
    5. I don't see how it differs from the one's above. The only variation is that it seems to say, like Rav Eliyahu that there has to be אמתלא as they sayטענה זו היא רק באופן שנראה לבי"ד שיש אמת בדבריה However, even with that modification it stands in stark contrast to what Rav Dovid Eidensohn has been saying, to quote, if a wife claims “MOUS OLEI”, the husband has no obligation to divorce her.

      Delete
    6. J,
      I just checked with your website and it says clearly that coercion is forbidden with MOUS OLEI. What it does say is that if the marriage is over the husband must divorce his wife, but without coercion. From this you deduce that coercion is permitted with MOUS OLEI. This is very common. People find some statement somewhere that is only remotely connected to the issue of coercion and they trumpet it as if it permits coercion. This is not honest.
      Incidentally, Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt"l has ruled that the husband has no obligation to divorce with MOUS OLEI.

      Delete
    7. http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rav-eliashivmaos-alei-get-not-required.html

      Delete
    8. If we follow the above point - "What it does say is that if the marriage is over the husband must divorce his wife, but without coercion"

      Isn't this chiyuv - obligation, a form of coercion itself? I am just being pdenatic, but I wonder if it has halachic ramifications?

      Delete
    9. Rav Ovadia Yosef - ma'os alei without factors such as abuse - is not forced

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/rav-yosef-320-forcing-only-sometimes.html

      Delete
    10. Rav Sternbuch - if there is clear justification than pressure can be applied - however saying she doesn't want to remain marriage is not justification

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rav-sternbuchforcing-husband-to-divorce.html

      Delete
    11. Rabbeinu Yonah and Rav Ovadiah Yosef - additional factors

      http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/rabbeinu-yonah-maus-alei-mitzva-to.html

      Delete
    12. Rav Sternbuch moredes without clear reason plus went to secular court

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/rav-sternbuchmoredes-went-to-civil.html

      Delete
    13. Incidentally, Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt"l has ruled that the husband has no obligation to divorce with MOUS OLEI.

      That is if you trust the Kovetz Teshuvot to be the actual opinions of Rav Eliashiv. Personally I do not for two primary reasons.
      1) Rav Eliashiv himself did not write the Kovetz Teshuvot, it was compiled by another.
      2) It was compiled from Piskei HaDin, which at times he was writing minority opinion, and at times his opinions have(if one takes the time to do the research in Piskei HaDin) been heavily edited.

      If you have an actual letter or something from Rav Eliashiv or a speach that he gave where he said that under no circumstances in a מאיס עלי whether with אמתלא or not we do not pressure the husband even through the harchakot of R"T, that I would take into consideration.

      However I perosnally think that Kovetz Teshuvot is about as much Rav Eliashiv's opinions as the Yalkut Yosef is Rav Ovadia Yosef's opinions(sometimes, but not always and it is impossible to know when not). So for me that is an ultimately unreliable source.

      Delete
    14. Michael T.:

      What a convenient way for you to disregard the Halachic Rulings of Posek HaDor HaRav Shalom Yosef Elyashev zt"l. You have lost all credibility.

      P.S. They were published during his lifetime and he reviewed them all.

      Delete
    15. What a convenient way for you to disregard the Halachic Rulings of Posek HaDor HaRav Shalom Yosef Elyashev zt"l.
      Yeah I get that when I don't accept the Yalkut Yosef as the word of Rav Ovadia Yosef too... However truth is truth.

      P.S. They were published during his lifetime and he reviewed them all.
      I will agree with you that they were published during his lifetime however that he reviewed them, that is not how the Seforim Blog or Jewish Action wrote it up. Further they were published anonymously and without haskama. So unless you have done the work to see what he really wrote in Piskei Din, it is impossible to say that what is written in Kovetz Teshuvot is what he intended.

      Delete
    16. Wow. You find some blogger on the internet and cite him as your source? Please link to that "Seforim Blog" and "Jewish Action" article. Not that they are the most credible sources.

      Delete
    17. Why don't you simply read what is written on the title page:
      קובץ זה נאסף ונלקט מספרים קובצים וכו'. וזאת למודעי כי ברוב התשובות לא היה גוף כתה"י לנגד עינינו, וסמכנו על הנדפס ויש מהם שבאו בחסר ושינויי לשון, כך שאין מקום כלל לקבוע דבר מהם. התשובות נלקטו ונסדרו ע"ד בלבד ואם שגינו אתנו תלין משוגתנו, ואנו תפלה להשי"ת שלא יצא דבר תקלה

      That pretty much explains that Rav Eliashiv ZTzUK"L had nothing to do with the sefer.

      However, let us consider. The claim is being made(and the way it appears in the translation of the Teshuva from Kovetz Teshuvot) that Rav Eliashiv holds that even if there is אמתלא we do not even use R"T to apply indirect pressure. This is taken from(and I would claim edited heavily) one of the 42 cases and five Teshuvot that he signed off on personally and are found in Piskei Din(which the Kovetz Teshuvot clearly claims is it's source).

      My claim is that Rav Eliashiv's ZTzUK"L words are presented in a way that is easily misunderstood, and directly contradict some of his rulings. For instance in Piskei Din Vol 1 pg 140 he has a Psak that he signed off on(unanimous descision) that if the husband comitted adultery and the wife claims מאיס עלי on account of this we are כופין him to give a get. Not just harchakot R"T, but actual כפייה. Then in a later decision Piskei Din Vol 1 p 931, he clarifies and states quite clearly, that if a husband had been previously divorced on account of this, and his second wife was aware of it when she married him and then wants to claim מאיס עלי when it happens to her, we are not כופין and further we do not even apply harchakot(essentially she made her choice).
      That accounts for only two of his 40 teshuvot... Hopefully now you understand why myself and others do not necessarily find the Kovetz Teshuvot on it's own reliable.

      Delete
  23. Looking for halachic sourcesSeptember 30, 2013 at 10:42 PM

    On the subject of forced Gittin, I have presented Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn's teachings to men who are learned and can reseach the sources. No one I've encountered has refuted his sources.

    An advanced Yeshiva student who at first opposed Rabbi Eidensohn based on the student's initial research, was told by a friend to watch one of Rabbi Eidensohn's videos on the topic of Gittin. After more study, this student is a strong supporter of Rabbi Eidensohn.

    I sent out an email from Rabbi Eidensohn about Gittin on a local listserv with over a thousand readers. One reader sent back an email with sources that seemed to contradict Rabbi Eidensohn's sources. In a back and forth discussion by email, Rabbi Eidensohn showed how the sources were not contradictory.

    Rabbi Eidensohn consults with the heads of many prominent Batei Dinim who tell him they agree with him that a forced Get in a case of Ma'us Ah'ly is an invalid Get. He has convinced scholars to agree with him through his presentation of Halachic sources, and as I said above, I know this firsthand.

    I am hungry to hear a response based on Halachic sources from those who call for a forced Get in cases of Ma'us Ah'ly, allowing shaming the husband, causing him financial harm, and/or beating him, as well as threatening to harm him emotionally, financially, or physically: all activities that in general are forbidden by Halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have just a quick question for Rabbi Eidensohn. Does the matter of מאוס עלי include cases where the husband is physically or emotionally (granted that can sometimes be subjective) abusive or where he willfully neglects his husbandly duties such as work or conjugal duties? This is a topic that I am lacking in knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She has to PROVE to beis din -- PROVE -- that there was real systematic abuse. She can't merely allege it. Otherwise she has no claim.

      Delete
    2. If he neglects his husbandly duties beis din can force him to perform his duties but cannot force him to divorce unless he repeatedly neglects them after multiple warnings from beis din.

      Delete
    3. you are referring to the cases where the poskim say that beis din determines that there is just cause. In those cases poskim say that various types of force are permitted to convince the husband to divorce his wife - depeneding upon what they think is appropriate. The normal case of ma'os alei is simply that the wife declares she can't stand him.

      Ben Torah I am not sure what your point is. She doesn't have to prove anything. Beis din investigates her claim to see if it true and as serious as she says. Not sure where you get the term systematic. If she was once beaten up and she fears for her life - that is not real systematic abuse - but it sure is grounds for beis din to pressure the husband to divorce his wife. The rabbis of beis din are mature intelligent adults who are asked to evaluate her claim.

      Delete
    4. But if she claims she was beaten and he denies it, and she has no proof and it is a he-said/she-said situation, the beis din cannot pressure him,to grant a divorce in the absence of said proof. The beis din then can place a witness in the home to see if he indeed beats her. If the inspector sees abuse beis din can then act.

      Delete
    5. That is not what the halkhic books say. It is in the hands of the B"D to determine if it seems as though she is telling the truth.

      Delete
    6. Micharl T.:

      Incorrect. Beis Din cannot pressure a "Get" based on what it "seems" on her word alone. They need something more concrete.

      Delete
    7. the issue is whether they need objective proof such as 2 witnesses or medical reports. The answer no - they just need to be convinced - which can also come from believing what she claims or disbelieving the husband's denials

      Delete
    8. Abe- See the above link that "J" provided specifically where they say, טענה זו היא רק באופן שנראה לבי"ד שיש אמת בדבריה

      Posek HaDor Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu also said the same thing in the Teshuvot that I referenced. So I would like to see your sources to the contrary.

      Delete
    9. DT: You have some old posts on this site citing teshuvos saying that beis din needs witnesses to any alleged abuse or beating.

      Delete
    10. would appreciate you showing them to me.

      Delete
    11. Abe see this teshuva of Rav Yosef - doesn't mention witnesses just that the judges have to investigate and clarify.

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/maus-alei-forced-only-if-disgusting.html

      Delete
  25. Just a quick question for Rav Eidensohn. Does the matter of מאוס עלי also apply in cases where the husband has been found to be abusive whether physically or emotionally? Also would it apply if he has been found to be ignoring his husbandly duties such as; refusing to find gainful employment (couch potato) or neglecting his wife's physical (does not sleep with her) needs? I mean when it has been determined by the beit din that this is the case. The נפקא מיניה being whether or not the husband can be coerced or not to give a get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He must be given several opportunities by beis din -- after the wife files a complaint with them -- to correct his misbehavior before beis din can consider forcing a GET.

      Delete
    2. bartley,
      That is a very good question, namely, if the husband can be coerced in MOUS OLEI if there are other factors such as a husband who is violent, etc. There are discussions about this in the poskim. For instance, there is a disagreement if we can force a husband to divorce who beats his wife. Some say that although the woman suffers from the beating, it is possible that she remains with him because he at times makes her happy, and the alternative to him may be worse than the beating. Of course, these things depend on the exact circumstances and time and country where they take place, and only a competent Beth Din can decide it.But there is a very important ingredient in this matter, the teaching of the Chasam Sofer that if a Beth Din had a case where there is a machlokess if the husband deserve coercion, and they made coercion, that the GET is definitely invalid and the children born from it are mamzerim by the Torah. Therefore, when we start with arguments in mouse olei, we are on very dangerous ground.

      Delete
  26. The Kotlers and Lakewood Establishment are going around telling everyone to vote for Toms river Police Chief Micheal G. Mastronardy as Ocean County Sherrif, in a Recent Lakewood Shopper Interview Chief Mastronardy said That He Feels Orthodox Jewish Woman are Repressed in The Orthodox Community and He Plans To Reach out and Help Them

    ReplyDelete
  27. Moshe,
    The Lakewood "Gedolim" in the past years have urged people to vote for Corzine as governor in New Jersey, even after he promised to bring gay marriage as law, although his opponent was against gay marriage. Why? Corzine gave Lakewood money. Money talks. For this reason another Rosh Yeshiva from the Agudah who is urging coercion with MOUS OLEI told me that it is forbidden to fight gay rights because "we are against hate." They are against losing the support of liberals who are pro-gay. They have a treifeh Torah with mouse olei, and it is a close relative to the treifeh Torah they espouse with gay rights. They are "Gedolim" in their war against the Torah as it was once practiced before the "Gedolim" came along. Phooey on them.

    ReplyDelete
  28. well, a husband can be forced to give a get if his wife committed adultery.

    so the wife should commit adultery, the husband will be forced to give a get - problem solved....

    Or the wife should not get married to begin with.

    Or she should marry a goy, so the problem of gittin is not pertinent.

    Which shows: a man who refuses a get is over "lifney iver al tasim michshol".

    isn't this reason enough to force him to give a get?

    Did the rabbonim who paskened that a man may withhold a get indefinitely after the marriage is over consider this problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nyme: And the wife will be executed by strangulation for committing adultery.

      Delete
    2. Yeah... If There is a Sanhedrin(which there isn't). And if there are two kosher witnesses who saw the entire event, gave warning as to the consequences and tried to prevent the sin... In other words you are trolling with a comment like that.

      Delete
    3. You missed the point. The point was to point out the severity of adultery is that it is a capital offense. It could not be more serious or a more worse sin,

      Delete
    4. Daas Torah- Is there a way we can read these Teshuvot in the original Hebrew. I think the language used is of paramount importance. For instance Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu both state that מאיס עלי עם אמתלא that we can actually use כפיה to force the divorce, and we have the Teshuva above that "J" posted that makes a clear distinction between הרחקות ר"ת and כפיה and even seems to insinuate that some form of public embarassment fits within the realm of הרחקות ר"ת

      Delete
    5. but in our day and age where there is no BD strangulation, what would you say?

      Delete
    6. "Daas Torah- Is there a way we can read these Teshuvot in the original Hebrew. "

      some of the translations are linked to the original Hebrew. I could post the Hebrew - not sure it is worth the effort. I think most readers have access to the orginal Hebrew if they are interested

      Delete
    7. nyme,
      You say that a woman who does not get a GET may be lost to Torah, and therefore, we might consider forcing the husband to divorce even if the halacha ordinarily forbids coercion. The gemora does discuss this and says that we do not commit a sin to save somebody from becoming a sinner. This is called "הלעטהו לרשע ויומות" that if a person threatens to be wicked to make others do a sin, we tell the person we will not do a sin to prevent him from sinning. There are various discussions about that, but in this case, to torture and humiliate somebody because the wife threatens to be wicked, we do not torture and humiliate for such a reason.

      And yet, the poskim say that this is a major consideration, and that any man or woman who is unmarried is a threat to themselves and to the entire community. The question is this: If a husband has the legal or halachic right to refuse a GET, does he have a legal and halacha right to remain alone without a functioning marriage? Who has freed him from the need to have a functioning marriage and to save him from constant temptation? Who has exempted him from the command to have children, even many children? Or we can ask another question. The gemora in Pesachim 113b tells of a man who could not divorce his wife because he had children from her. The gemora in Pesachim 87b tells of a holy man who had a wicked wife but could not divorce her because he had children from her. Therefore, the wife who breaks the marriage damages the children and the man who refuses the GET sins by not having more children and by being in danger in holiness issues. Therefore, the focus today on freedom for women is wrong. What about the children? Why is that not on the first page? And the sad answer to this is that once people start with hating, and once the families kick in and the friends kick in, only hate is available, and children are destroyed, and things can go on fighting and fighting for years or forever.
      When I first started my involvement in fighting forced divorces with the Dodelson and Weiss case, I had a dream. My rebbe Reb Aharon Kotler zt"l came to me in what was clearly not a plain dream, and told me these words, "I am going to test you on the book of Tamid" part of the Talmud. When I woke up I knew that this was not just a wild dream, but I had no idea about this Tamid test. I realized that Tamid means "forever." Reb Aharon was telling me that this would go on forever. And it is going on forever. Meaning, I should fight and bang away to get people to settle and end it. The misery of the husband and wife must end, and the child suffers also. Where is everybody? Why don't they pressure the two sides to settle? I believe that the only way to settle this is for the two sides to go to a Beth Din that has no fear of anyone, and follow exactly what that Beth Din says. Otherwise...

      Delete
  29. Dodelson has only herself to blame. When these rashantas start restricting the father's access which she admitted she did claiming their garbage that kid was only 4 months and hence couldnt sleep over at his father as if a 4 month old baby doesn't sleep during the day let her live with the consequences. As I heard one judge say, you chose to have a child with that man now unless you can prove inappropriate behavior, he has the rights also to his child and live with your decision. You made your bed now lie in it.

    As for tsaddok, I see the only criterion for chief rabbi is nepotism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan, I find myself agreeing with you on this one.

      Delete
  30. Why was my post about tsaddok not posted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan,

      Tzadok has many tricks up his sleeve, and we should aggressively expose them all:
      - Attempting to impose the psak of Sefardi poskim (such as ROY) onto Ashkenazi Jews such as Weiss-Dodelson
      - Attempting to invalidate Rav Elyashev's psak in Kovetz Teshuvot, despite the fact that R. Dovid Eidensohn is a talmid of Rav Elyashev z"tl.
      - Ignoring the fact that Dodelson was the Plaintiff in a full divorce lawsuit against Weiss (Weiss had earlier filed a parenting time action after he was apparently denied access to his child).
      - Ignoring Dodelson's apparent disregard for Weiss's halachic right to substantial parenting time with his child
      - Attempting to find invalid loopholes in Ashkenazi halacha that can be exploited to either justify ORA's harassment of Weiss, or else dilute its halachic violations

      (maybe a miracle will happen and this post will get through)

      Delete
    2. - Attempting to impose the psak of Sefardi poskim (such as ROY) onto Ashkenazi Jews such as Weiss-Dodelson
      Not true. Unless I am very much mistaken the links that "J" posted are from Ashkenazi Rabbis who run a non-governmental Beit Din and a Kollel Dayyanim.

      - Attempting to invalidate Rav Elyashev's psak in Kovetz Teshuvot, despite the fact that R. Dovid Eidensohn is a talmid of Rav Elyashev z"tl.
      Invalidate the psak of the Rav no. Saying that it needs to be placed back into it's context(which actually happens to be a very long and well fleshed out Teshuva in the 9th volume of Piskei Din) yes. Edited as it is it is incomprehensible and barely resembles the original. As far as Rav Dovid Eidensohn being a student of Rav Eliashiv he claimed no such thing, see above where he explains.
      - Ignoring the fact that Dodelson was the Plaintiff in a full divorce lawsuit against Weiss (Weiss had earlier filed a parenting time action after he was apparently denied access to his child).
      Actually I am largely ignoring the Doddelson-Weiss case altogether and simply seek to talk about the meta-halakha. However, to your specific point, there have been a lot of claims about who was the Plaintiff, and no one has yet put forth court documents one way or another. So until that happens, none of us know and we are only guessing and picking the side we like better.
      - Ignoring Dodelson's apparent disregard for Weiss's halachic right to substantial parenting time with his child
      Again I am ignoring the Doddleson-Weiss case altogether, because none of us know all of the details.
      - Attempting to find invalid loopholes in Ashkenazi halacha that can be exploited to either justify ORA's harassment of Weiss, or else dilute its halachic violations
      Wow... That's a stretch and simply not true. I do want to talk about and rationally debate the halakhot. To date, to my mind, no one has put forth a good argument why public embarrassment would be any different than R"T, and the above Teshuva which I will link again(written by Haredi Ashkenazi Rabbanim) seems to say that it is the same as R"T:
      http://www.din.org.il/2012/05/06/חשש-כפיה-בהרחקות-דרת/

      That being said, it would appear to me that some of ORA's actions such as trying to get a man fired from his job, clearly violate halakha.

      Delete
    3. - Attempting to impose the psak of Sefardi poskim (such as ROY) onto Ashkenazi Jews such as Weiss-Dodelson
      Not true. Unless I am very much mistaken the links that "J" posted are from Ashkenazi Rabbis who run a non-governmental Beit Din and a Kollel Dayyanim.

      - Attempting to invalidate Rav Elyashev's psak in Kovetz Teshuvot, despite the fact that R. Dovid Eidensohn is a talmid of Rav Elyashev z"tl.
      Invalidate the psak of the Rav no. Saying that it needs to be placed back into it's context(which actually happens to be a very long and well fleshed out Teshuva in the 9th volume of Piskei Din) yes. Edited as it is it is incomprehensible and barely resembles the original. As far as Rav Dovid Eidensohn being a student of Rav Eliashiv he claimed no such thing, see above where he explains.
      - Ignoring the fact that Dodelson was the Plaintiff in a full divorce lawsuit against Weiss (Weiss had earlier filed a parenting time action after he was apparently denied access to his child).
      Actually I am largely ignoring the Doddelson-Weiss case altogether and simply seek to talk about the meta-halakha. However, to your specific point, there have been a lot of claims about who was the Plaintiff, and no one has yet put forth court documents one way or another. So until that happens, none of us know and we are only guessing and picking the side we like better.
      - Ignoring Dodelson's apparent disregard for Weiss's halachic right to substantial parenting time with his child
      Again I am ignoring the Doddleson-Weiss case altogether, because none of us know all of the details.
      - Attempting to find invalid loopholes in Ashkenazi halacha that can be exploited to either justify ORA's harassment of Weiss, or else dilute its halachic violations
      Wow... That's a stretch and simply not true. I do want to talk about and rationally debate the halakhot. To date, to my mind, no one has put forth a good argument why public embarrassment would be any different than R"T, and the above Teshuva which I will link again(written by Haredi Ashkenazi Rabbanim) seems to say that it is the same as R"T:
      http://www.din.org.il/2012/05/06/חשש-כפיה-בהרחקות-דרת/

      That being said, it would appear to me that some of ORA's actions such as trying to get a man fired from his job, clearly violate halakha.

      Delete
    4. "That being said, it would appear to me that some of ORA's actions such as trying to get a man fired from his job, clearly violate halakha."

      Michael Tzadok:

      So you then agree that ORA's action that you describe in the above quote results in a GET ME'USA if he gives a GET as a result of that unhalachic pressure. And future children mamzeirim.

      Delete
    5. So you then agree that ORA's action that you describe in the above quote results in a GET ME'USA if he gives a GET as a result of that unhalachic pressure. And future children mamzeirim.

      Yes and I have stated that repeatedly in these discussions.

      Delete
    6. Tzadok, you're back to your old disinformation tricks again when you claim "no one has yet put forth court documents one way or another".

      P. 8 - Weiss claims his son was abducted by wife, causing him to file a court action for custody:
      http://www.setgitalfree.com/uploads/2/3/0/0/23001734/attachments_part_1.pdf

      Dodelson is in fact the Plaintiff in the divorce lawsuit:
      P. 8 - "Plaintiff Dodelson filed complaint for divorce":
      http://www.setgitalfree.com/uploads/2/3/0/0/23001734/attachments_part_2.pdf

      (I suggest the readers save these PDF files before they are deleted, and the facts denied).

      Delete
    7. Tzadok, you're back to your old disinformation tricks again when you claim "no one has yet put forth court documents one way or another".
      The second set of documents had not to my knowledge been released on this blog.
      That does not however change the fact that I am(intentionally) not talking about the Weiss-Doddelson case.

      Delete
    8. As an add on, even those court docs are far from complete(which is why I refuse to talk about the Doddelson-Weis case, or any other where I don't have all the details). We are missing the transcripts of the case and the various judgements by the court and why they ruled the way that they did.
      We don't know whether Weiss consulted with a Beit Din(as halakha requires) before going to court, likewise we don't know if Doddelson had a heter from a B"D or not. Devil is in the details.

      Likewise with being said I just want to make fully and completely clear that without such full and complete disclosure by the Doddelson side any sort of action that they ask the public to take against Weiss is in my opinion against Halakha, because they are asking people to take sides based on emotion and not clear halakhic evidence.

      However there is far too much left unknown to take sides in the case.

      Delete
  31. stan,
    I think you misunderstand the new halacha of the "gedolim." Not only does a wife have the right to leave and terrorize her husband, but she has the right to trash her children, because this is the new "daas torah" from the "gedolim." Of course, backing gay rights may be a bigger mitsvah in order to get money for Yeshivas, but leaving a husband is surely one of the great mitsvahs as well, because maybe rich man has a relative lady who needs a GET. Of course, this is not an authoritative rendering of the new "daas Torah" because actually it changes according to the flow of the dollar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "gay rights" argument is really not relevant. If you vote for democrats, who are pro- gay rights, that doesn't mean you support that issue.

      Delete
    2. Eddie,
      I am not talking about voting Democratic, I am talking about saying clearly that we must back someone, the governor of New Jersey Corzine, who said if he was re-elected he would enact gay marriage and the other candidate Cristie, said he was against gay marriage. Lakewood Yeshiva issued a call to vote for Corzine. It seems he gave money to the Yeshiva.
      The case of the Agudah is even worse. They were the only major religion to openly back the gays in congress over a bill appended to a defense spending bill that gave federal protection and punishment for anyone who hits a gay. Meaning, if you go to the Mikva and see someone doing something wrong, and you separate them, because of the Agudah you can go to jail for up to ten years in a federal penitentiary. I called up R Perlo when I was fighting gay rights as the true Gedolim Reb Moshe Reb Yaacov etc held and asked the Agudah to help out. I was told, "It is forbidden to fight gay rights." I asked the reason and he said, "We are against hate." I asked then another major Rosh Yeshiva and he said the exact same words. "We are against hate." It seems there was a major meeting of Rosh Yeshivas about that, although I am not positive about that. They are against hate, but the gemora in Pesadchim 113b says clearly that it is right and obligation to hate the wicked. What do they do with that gemora, which they probably don't know, but if they did know it, they probably define wicked as somebody who fights gays as this damages the funding for Yeshivas because politicians today don't like people who oppose gay rights. Yes, in Lakewood and the Agudah, they are not only "Gedolim" but they have replaced the Talmud along with the Shulchan Aruch. Incidentally, while the Agudah was out backing gay rights and protecting them, Reb Moshe and Reb Yaacov and all of the great rabbonim of the past generation were fighting gays. But why do these Rosh Yeshivas not ask Reb Moshe and Reb Yaacov? They just have to ask how much money is involved and that is Daas Torah, and in this, they are the major experts.

      Delete
  32. Reb dovid trust me I dont misunderstand this. We dont have any gedolim today. Even the 'gedolim' in eretz yisroel are complicit. They keep quiet claiming its an American problem and dont want to get involved. Kin went to the bnei brak godol explaining his wife was in arko"oys but a siruv was put on him. He got a brocho and was told to get lost. Nicha lhu exactly with kamta bar kamtza. But when it comes to the internet in the us they get involved. A rov who wont take a stand should be a plumber and not live off the tsibbur.

    I am close to someone whose wife had severe mental issues and was hospitalized for this. She wouldnt allow overnights and it cost husband over 150 k including forensics and everyone else on the arko"oys food chain. Yet other than rav gestetner not a single rov would condemn this behavior. After rav elyashiv s death we are orphans.

    We chose leaders who claim that since they live in boro park, molestation in flatbush is not undwr their purview.

    ReplyDelete
  33. stan,
    You are upset about people who you claim don't fight certain battles. Do you have time to talk about that? I only have time to talk about the "gedolim" who fight for gay rights. We had such a case in Monsey, believe it or not, and big rabbis were involved. I put out a letter that they wer chayav miso based on a Rambam quoted by Reb Elchonon Wasserman. The general community approved of my letter as they know exactly who they have as "gedolim." And the rabbonim generally approved. But somebody asked me, "Why are you the only one to write such a letter?"

    ReplyDelete
  34. stan,
    I have a troubling fantasy. I come to the other world, and see a lot of people from my generation. I go to the manager there and announce, I don't want to be in the same world as these people who did nothing to fight against mamzeruth. Now, I am sure that my request not to be in the same room or world with them will be granted. Why should I suffer more from them? But when the room is empty, who will I talk to? Well, I could be with my family and of course my brother, but do they want to be alone? And if I go to another world where Gedolim were not so flawed, what a boosho for me to be there. This troubles me very much.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Not to worry you will have rav gestetner rav abraham and a few others. Quality over quantity

    ReplyDelete
  36. Abe.
    You write, "People should organize protests in front of Dodelson's home and business protesting their kidnapping." First of all, who was kidnapped? Do you know the facts of the cased that somebody was kidnapped? Secondly, who is at fault here? The Dodelson's obviously have major Rosh Yeshivas calling for torturing the husband and even his family. Why not protest against them? I am sure that if the Rosh Yeshivas who are trumpeting the mitsvah of torturing the husband would urge Mr. Dodelson to settle at a Beth Din and forget all of the past that really messed everyone up, he would listen. No, this is the fault of the rosh yeshivas and whoever urged people to terrorize innocent people. And the way to fight rosh yeshivas is to show their wickedness and stupidity in black and white, just as we are doing here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reb Dovid,

      There is no chance of success in protesting in front of the Rosh Yeshivas homes or yeshovos. The world and vast majority of layman will rise against the protesters. They wont understand the issues and wont even care to understand. They'll just see it as an attack "against the gedolim". It has no chance of succeeding.

      You have to answer fire with fire. They are making public protests and embarasements by the father and his family. We have to do the exact same plus at the wife and her family.

      Delete
    2. By kidnapping I am referring to her taking away their child from him.

      Delete
    3. A wife has no right to unilaterally take a child and move out of the marital home of her husband and the children's father.

      Delete
    4. Rabbi Eidensohn,

      You wrote: "And the way to fight rosh yeshivas is to show their wickedness and stupidity in black and white, just as we are doingu here."

      Would it be worthwhile to write a letter to the Rosh Yeshivas you are opposing? If yes, please provide us with the name of one Rosh Yeshiva, the name of his Yeshiva, and an address if you have it.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    5. A wife has no right to unilaterally take a child and move out of the marital home of her husband and the children's father.
      I hope you mean without clear justification. If the father is abusing his children, or molesting them the wife has every right to do so.

      Delete
    6. Rabbi Tzadok,
      And if the there is no justification, do you believe a wife has the right to move out and take the children tens of miles or more away?

      Delete
    7. Yes, Michael T. That's what I mean. And I was specifically referring to the Weiss situation. No one has ever even accused him of abuse.

      So what right did she have to take the child and leave his home?

      NONE. She is a kidnapper and child abductor.

      And so with the vast majority of standard routine divorce cases where the was no child abuse yet the wife leaves his home WITH THEIR CHILDREN.

      Delete
    8. Well Bob and Abe Rav Eliashiv ruled that a wife has exactly that right. See Piskei Din Vol 2 p3. What is more he also ruled that the mother cannot be forced to give the child back and the father should pay the halakhic sum of child support.
      It was a unanimous decision with Rav Hertzog, Rav Ovadia Hedayya(a former Rosh Yeshiva of my own Yeshiva) and Rav Eliashiv. So who am I to disagree?

      Delete
    9. Michael T.,

      Please don't misquote or paraphrase Rav Eliashev. Provide a FULL translation of any alleged psak he issued stating a wife is allowed to one day get up and unilaterally walk out of the marriage and unilaterally TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY with her.

      He made no such psak. Ever.

      I eagerly await.

      Delete
    10. Abe
      If you can't read the sources than really I'm not in a mood to overly discuss this with you. I cited the source, but you seem unable to look it up. So here you go(even though D"T linked it in his new post):
      http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9120&st=&pgnum=3

      Delete
  37. Abe,
    If what you fear is true, that people would never accept criticism of the Rosh Yeshivas, why is it when I put out many letters attacking them that people not only did not disapprove, but they approved, and even called me to offer their help. Do not think that people are not aware of the problem? Precisely the opposite is true. I used to go on the radio and attack them, and anyone could call in. There were very few people who did and criticized, but there were some who had questions and wanted to learn more about the complaints. Recently somebody came over to me and said that he had read the article on the Internet, here, and was shocked. But he did not deny it nor did he in any way hint at disapproval.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what is accomplished? The people you are working against are not stopping or even slowing down what they are doing.

      Delete
    2. Dear Rabbi E.,
      After reading all the posts, let see summarize what's going on.
      There are two issues here, 1. That according to the documents provided on that website, that Weiss was put by a beis din chashuv into cherem for being לא ציית דונא and for going to court. The documents clearly show that all the Rabonim involved except Rav G, agrees to this. They therefore fell protesting until he goes to beis din is correct. Your answer and his answer seems to say, the dayanim are all corrupt and are going against Halacha ,but you have not proved it .
      2. Can one make a protest according to RT or is that called forcing a get.
      You have proven that we don't force a get as it says in Halacha, but I am not convinced that demonstrations are not allowed. On the contrary, some hold they are ok. Also, in a case of maus Ali ,many hold there is a chiyav to give a get, but we don't force. You can look at din.org.il for more. Now you explained your position that we don't allow demonstrations in such a case and others disagree with you. Hardly a reason to speak so harshly against such great poskim. By saying such things against them, you degrade yourself.
      3. My third point,I don't see Weiss giving a get anyways. He wants conditions which he knows he won't get in beis din, otherwise he would have settled a long time ago. If he does give, it will probably because he realizes that for him to remarry, he will have to divorce, which you agree I hope is not a forced get.
      4. In your defense of Rav G, it's a waste of time.

      Delete
    3. Sam,
      I appreciate your putting in time to organize the many comments here as you see them. I am happy to reply to your comments, because I am sure many other agree with you but did not organize their thoughts as you did.
      I will present your material and then comment, although it will make a long post.

      "Dear Rabbi E.,
      After reading all the posts, let see summarize what's going on.
      There are two issues here, 1. That according to the documents provided on that website, that Weiss was put by a beis din chashuv into cherem for being לא ציית דונא and for going to court. The documents clearly show that all the Rabonim involved except Rav G, agrees to this. They therefore fell protesting until he goes to beis din is correct. Your answer and his answer seems to say, the dayanim are all corrupt and are going against Halacha ,but you have not proved it "
      I don't know where you read in my article anything about the Beth Din that pronounced the siruv. I have written articles elsewhere about it, but not here. You may have read my brother's introduction that was involved with the fights about the court and the siruv, but I stayed away from this here. Here I had one goal, to show that we may not coerce with MOUS OLEI. In general, I stay away from fights between two people as I don't know who is right. My fights are with people I know are wrong, because I have a source to prove they are wrong. In this article, I did not say that all of the dayanim are corrupt, although some do feel this way. And by the way, if you go on this site and elsewhere, you can find an article from a Weiss backer that claims to prove that they did respond to the Beth Din's demand to go to a Din Torah. I know somebody who is very smart and streetwise who studied the issue and is convinced that Weiss is right and that he did answer the demand. He claimed that he showed it to the family of Dodelson and offered to recant his position if they could refute the evidence he was given. He told me they never got back to him. At any rate, you cannot sum up my article talking about this because here I did not talk about it.
      You write, ".
      2. Can one make a protest according to RT or is that called forcing a get.
      You have proven that we don't force a get as it says in Halacha, but I am not convinced that demonstrations are not allowed. On the contrary, some hold they are ok." It is obvious that you did not see the many articles I have written on this blog and elsewhere quoting Rashbo Teshuva VII:412 that in MOUS OLEI no coercion at all is permitted, and that when the Talmud does demand a GET from the husband, perhaps because he is not able to be a husband, then if the Talmud does not demand forcing the GET, it is forbidden to force a GET, but only permitted to call the husband wicked. The Rashbo clearly says there that in this case where the Talmud demands a GET and allows a minor coercion to call the husband a ROSHO, we "may not put the husband in nidui, or humiliate him, or harm him physically." This opinion is accepted by the major authorities Radvaz, Beis Yosef (who wrote the Shulchan Aruch" and Chazon Ish. Although it is possible that somebody may permit humiliations when the Talmud demands a GET, nobody says it is permitted in MOUS OLEI. I wrote a teshuva on this and sent it to the major Beth Din in Israel of Rav Nissim Karelitz and they published my findings throughout Israel, that it is forbidden to humiliate a husband with MOUS OLEI and if done the GET is invalid. This is on my brother's blog, that is, their paper along with my papers on this subject.
      I have run out of room, and hope to continue in another reply box.

      Delete
    4. Sam,
      You ask if the pirud of Rabbeinu Tam is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch in the laws of KESUBOSE and MOUS OLEI does not permit any coercion, see paragraphs 2 and 3 especially the Gro number 5 that all major poskim forbid coercion with MOUS OLEI. Rabbeinu Tam is only mentioned in Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer much later in chapter 154 in the laws of Gittin. And it is only permitted in a case where the Talmud demands a GET, not with MOUS OLEI where the Talmud does not demand a GET. Rav Elyashev zt"l brings proofs such as the Rashbo I mentioned above that in MOUS OLEI the husband can do what he want, divorce or not, and is not obligated to divorce.

      I attack "great poskim" that I never knew were great posekim until you said they were, as these are Talmud teachers and not halacha masters. They have no business paskening Gittin as they obviously, as I have pointed out in many letters published on this blog, including this one, do things against halacha, even some very famous ones. They are producing mamzerim, and I say, SHOW A SOURCE OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

      What you say about Weiss giving a GET is not fair. How do you know anything about him or his thoughts?

      As far as wasting my time with my defense of Rabbi G maybe with you I wasted my time but a lot of people take my opinions seriously. I have a very strong haskomo to pasken difficult halochose from Posek HaDor Reb Moshe Feinstein zt'l, who spent many hours training me personally. Other gedolim have also given me the highest standard of haskomose. Before I was twenty I had studied under Gadol HaDor Reb Aharon Kotler zt"l who, after mashing my mind for many months. indicated that I was on the right path in understanding the Brisker Derech of Lomduse. If you have better credentials than that, you can ignore my opinions.

      Delete
    5. Dear Reb Dovid,
      Thank you for answering me. I have spoken to big poskim on this specific case who agree with what the family Dodelson is doing. I won't mention his name here because I didn't ask him permission. Suffice to say, I trust the one I asked completely.
      I guess we will agree to disagree on this matter.
      I stick to what I said, in this case, Weiss isn't giving a get for whatever reason he feels and he isn't going to a beis din either. To claim all batei dinim are corrupt except Rabbi G, is pure lies. If and that's a big if, he eventually gives a get, it won't be because of the pressure of Ora or anyone else, otherwise he would have done so. Either his grandfather will be tired of this whole affair and stop supporting him or he will want to remarry. When he does give a get he will say he's doing it because he wants to and the get will be kosher.
      Why you seem to support him is beyond me. He should go to beis din and anyone who can convince should. It's a pity such a story is on the net and it should have been taken care in private.
      I do thank you for your contribution to your brothers blog

      Delete
  38. Abe,
    You write, "And what is accomplished? The people you are working against are not stopping or even slowing down what they are doing."
    I don't know how you know this. This site has received in two or so days 1698 hits, and ranks number one in the last seven days. It is number three of all sites in the past thirty days. That means something. The Rosh Yeshivas do what they want safe in their knowledge that they are "gedolim" and can literally do whatever they want and nobody will challenge them. But I challenge them. That is something. And when thousands of people read what I have to say, some are going to ask the question I want them to ask, What are the sources of the Rosh Yeshivas? And when they get no answer, it is going to make an impression, on them, and on the Rosh Yeshivas. No longer can they produce baloney and destroy people without getting it back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.din.org.il/2012/05/06/חשש-כפיה
      Here is some sources. You can argue ,but I don't believe they deserve the mud slinging you are giving them. If you have a different interpertation, that doesn"t mean that they are wrong, and since they are poskim and talmidei chachamin who are involved with gitten, I can only assume they also know what they are talking about.

      Delete
    2. Other opinions may consider the coercien invalid, the get invalid and children mamzeirim.

      Do you want to have children that some opinions hold are mamzeirim mdoraysa? I sure wouldn't marry them even if there are "other opinions".

      Delete
  39. If Meir Weiis Gives Dodelson a Get, than Reb Malkiel Kotler will have his Uncle Gavriel Finkel give her a Heter Arkous To Go To Ocean County Court and Get a Restraining order against weiss and she will have him locked up in Jail Just like every other Frum woman in Lakewood Does with The Psak and Endorsement of R Gavriel Finkel

    ReplyDelete
  40. Abe,
    I just don't understand why you refuse to ask your posek for a source to force the GET. Is it so hard to ask for a source? Maybe you can print out the above sheet of mine with all of its sources and ask him one if these are true source and two what his sources are. Please let me know what he says.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Chochom,
    I don't live in Lakewood and don't know anything about your complaints or the people involved. But I want to say something. Here are people like you who make very strong accusations against specific people. There are also husbands whose lives have been shattered by the forced GET etc. These husbands have friends and supporters. But yet, who is making the big noise? It is the side of hurting men, while the men are not fighting back. I encourage any man who is suffering or anyone who supports the right of the Shulchan Aruch and men not to be destroyed, and wants to do something about it, to contact me at 845-578-1917. I am not pro man or pro women. I am pro halacha. But please, let's see a balanced playing field. These men being destroyed along with their children deserve some help.

    ReplyDelete
  42. To Both Rabbi Eidensohns:

    Is there EVER a case TODAY where beis din IS permitted to FORCE a man to give a Get?

    If there is I would assume if he is consistently and unrepentant physically abusive to her would qualify as such a case. What OTHER cases would qualify to allow force of a Get?

    And HOW can beis din today actually use compulsion to force a Get?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ben,
    There are open mishnehs in the Talmud that permit under certain circumstances coercion of the husband, even by beating with a stick, to force a GET. There are situations where we cannot beat the husband but may apply minor pressure, such as telling him that he is wicked for not giving a GET, when the Talmud demands a GET. That is not the issue. The issue is when a woman wants out, without proving that the husband is one of those who can be coerced, because that is rare. The majority of cases of women wanting out are MOUS OLEI, the woman just gets fed up. MOUS OLEI is not even brought down in the laws of Gittin because we do not encourage a GET. It is in the laws of KESUBOSE, regarding how the couple gets along, And it makes it clear that MOUS OLEI is not grounds for coercion, and there are no exceptions listed. What happens then in some Beth Dins is to search if maybe there is something to hang a coercion on, but that is not an easy thing to find, as it must be proved, as Marshal says. I don't see any solution to the great marital difficulties by terror or coercions. I have other ideas, as I have mentioned here, and hope to develop another time. But the terror package produces more mamzerim and that we don't need. Making a mamzer is the ultimate child abuse and it is a shame that major Rosh Yeshivas are working hard to make mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if a husband beats his wife every day and doesn't stop, how can a beis din TODAY coerce a Get? What are the most extreme methods, in such a case, that a modern beis din can utilize?

      Delete
  44. Ben,
    I don't know if the issue of a beating is something for Beth Din to deal with. It sounds like a criminal act and if somebody needs protection there are people who can take care of it. In Monsey I spoke to somebody who has a shelter for such women. Of course, if the woman wants a GET the Beth Din may decide that this is the proper thing, but what can a Beth Din do about it? In Israel, the Beth Din has powers of jailing a husband, but in America Beth Din is limited in cases of criminal acts. And even violence is not automatically a ticket for coercion even in earlier times when Beth Din had complete power to coerce. There are great discussions about this in the poskim. It is not so simple to be beaten and it is not so simple to be alone and it is not so simple for the children. If in America we rise up and foam at the mouth when we hear about violence to a wife, this is not necessarily good for the woman. I recall a case where a woman was divorced several times, and remarried. The two had a fight and she really insulted him. He threw something at her and it missed, but she called the police and the judge put him away. She begged the judge to let her cancel her complaint because now she may never marry again, and the husband did not hurt her, and the husband only responded to a terrible insult she hurled at him. The judge refused. He said, "I want to send a message." He sent a message, and her life was destroyed. I don't think that Beth Din should destroy women to send a message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What were valid reasons for coercion of a Get by beis din in earlier times, when beis din would beat him to give a Get?

      Are those reasons still valid today? What ARE the reasons today that a modern beis din CAN use coercion?

      And HOW can a modern beis din implement coercion today?

      Delete
  45. my father is a lot like you ; a real ben halacha. a lone voice if u will. i respect it but youre fighting a losing battler. losid mitzvos nisbatlos but who thought it would come like this. the children dont want any side in this. we will forge forward a new path; a new judaism is arising in which love and happiness is all one needs and the voice of God emanates in and from each of us. goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. goodbye,
      A lot of people are leaving the fold and a lot of lost people are joining the fold. It is a two way street and it was always this way in recent generations. Studies show that Orthodox is increasing is numbers in Israel and America, and people are often moving to the right, but yes, there are Orthodox people who are going in the other direction. But just to get up and say goodbye, not to me, but to Orthodoxy, is fantasy, fortunately. I have great grandchildren with a lot of relatives may they increase, and we don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
  46. rabbi eidelson i just read your "fantasy". seriously? get over yourself; the manager will find a place for you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The Ocean County Family Court is Staffed by a Bunch of Bitter Divorced Middle aged woman who blame all their Personal Problems and the worlds problems on Males, if you are a Male You Dot stand a chance in Family Court especially an Orthodox Jewish Male whom they see as Backwards, Chauvenistic and Controlling of Their woman, as they do not allow Their woman to Pursue Carrers and Go To Movies and Clubs and Socialise with other Men

    ReplyDelete
  48. im talking about the jewish establishment. theres a medrish the medrish says when moshiach comes God will ask the gedolim why were you more concerned with building your own name than building my kingdom. the current institutions dont represent God anymore and thats fine too because judaism in an anti institutional relegion like moshe says "i am God" thats his message finding within the empowerment of the individual and. to me it seems the train got away from you all but thats already been scripted. the future already looks different. youve all prepared the way, good job now we will take over and will live in peace and harmony each man under his tree happilly while you all fight nicely about a rabeinu tam until rabeinu tam bwalks into the room and says i wish it was only my chidush that youre fighting about. we're not walking away from the tora we're picking it up.

    ReplyDelete
  49. goodbye,
    You have restored my self-confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rabbi Dovid Eidenson suggested to me that

    (1) I should print out copies of his letter (above) and

    (2) Quietly distribute the letter to people I think will be receptive to it.

    I started this evening.

    Rabbi Eidensohn explained that publicizing the letter, through this blog and through other ways like handing it out, is an effective way to attempt to stop Rosh Yeshivas from signing letters which permit the use of force to bring a husband to give a Get in cases such as where the sole claim of the wife is that the husband is repulsive to her.

    Rabbi Eidensohn's layout of the sources is convincing as noted in my comment titled "Looking for halachic sources". Each of us who aligns with Rabbi Eidensohn and become his student in the Halachos of Gittin and publicize his work becomes another builder of a Halachic firewall that will stop the spread Chas V'shalom of invalid Gets and their potential for producing Mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
  51. spread the word,
    There is a story about a king who went to war with his army, and things didn't go so well. Finally, a series of declines hit, and the king was getting a smaller and smaller army to fight. Finally, he regained his mastery of the situation and defeated his enemies. In one of the early battles, a soldier deserted, and in one of the later and last battles, before the king reversed his decline and won, a soldier also deserted. The two soldiers were brought to trail before the king. The first soldier he did not scold or punish severely, but he scolded and punished the second soldier. He explained, "When I was not in terrible trouble and somebody deserted, so what. But at the end, when I was in danger of losing the battle and somebody deserts, and there is nothing left to protect me, such a person deserves a big punishment."
    When we live in a world where major Rosh Yeshivas ignore open teachings in Shulchan Aruch and poskim and encourage the production of mamzerim, we are at the end. The one who sticks it out now will get great reward. This is "light from darkness which is greater than light from light." The Rosh Yeshivas defying the Vilna Gaon who says that all poskim agree that one may not coerce in MOUS OLEI, and the Shulchan Aruch and its poskim, etc. agree with this, and there is nobody who disagrees until the Rosh Yeshivas came along, this is the greatest darkness. But think of the great reward you get, when all is dark, and one person turns on a light, how great that light is.

    ReplyDelete
  52. spread the word,
    In a practical sense, the article on the blog made a great impression. Thousands of people read it and close to 200 comments came in. Another site linked to it and hundreds of people came to the site to read the article. Now when I talk to people I can show them we can make a dent in the darkness. My great dream, frustrated for years, has been for a group of people who would work as an army to fight the darkness. Now you are working and somebody else told me he would work, and maybe things will improve. It certainly gives me a lift and for this I thank you and bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. spread the word,
    A gemora says that when HaShem decreed destruction on the Jews and the Beis HaMikdash, there was a discussion in heaven what to do with people who were perfectly righteous. At first, it was decided to spare them. But then somebody said, why did they not protest and teach people not to sin? And HaShem answered, that nobody would listen to them anyway. But the accuser responded, You know, but did they know that nobody would listen to them? Immediately the decree was made, the perfectly righteous who did not protest and teach others the right way must die, even though nobody would listen to them, because they were not sure of that.
    When we have a situation where Rosh Yeshivas teach people to make mamzerim, and nobody protests, except for a tiny handful, what does that mean? And consequently, people like yourself have great reward.

    ReplyDelete
  54. spread the word,
    Once a man died, and a woman was seen wailing and crying for him. It was discovered that the woman was an angel who was really the Talmud volume of Chagiga. It seemed that the dead man studied Chagiga at a time when others did not study Chagiga, becaue they feared to learn it because it taught mystical things that could be dangerous. But this man studied it and because of that the angel of Chagiga came to cry for his departure. Surely in the other world this man is rewarded by Chagiga.
    And so the few of us who believe in these things, and are ready to fight the pitch darkness of those wicked Rosh Yeshivas, we have great and special reward, and we must believe this and be happy with it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Please post the p'sak from all the rosh yeshivos it's never been posted in it's entirety, why won't you post it?????? isn't it the topic of your discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.setgitalfree.com/uploads/2/3/0/0/23001734/kol_koreh_-_april_30.pdf

      Delete
  56. missing info;
    My brother posted this today on my article: It clearly shows that the major Rosh Yeshivas signed a letter demanding humiliation and coercion in the Weiss case, contrary to all of the sources I posted. Incidentally, I spoke to several of the signers there, and with one I had a long conversation, and they had no sources to contradict my sources, nor did they deny my sources. Why did they sign? It has nothing to do with Torah. I know of a major Rov who agrees with me and called up one of the signers and had lengthy discussions with him. That major Rov did not deny our claims that he was defying the Shulchan Aruch, but he would not publicly recant. These are the new "gedolim" rachmono litslon. This of course requires a more serious discussion, because the entire Torah is trembling if these are the "gedolim" rachmono litslon.

    I will tell you a story. I married off a child to a very prominent Rosh Yeshiva family in Israel. A mechuton was a major rebbe who sat next to me at the wedding. He asked me how I had such good children. I told him that we don't do a certain thing that is encouraged by the Rosh Yeshivas. My mechuton nodded his head in firm agreement. What goes on in the Torah world today under the guidance of these "gedolim" is treifeh. Of course, this deserves another letter, bli neder.


    בס"ד
    קול קורא
    בדבר האברך אברהם מאיר בן ר' יוסף אשר ווייס שהלך לערכאות וסירב לבוא
    לדין וכבר יצא כתב סירוב נגדו מבית דין מכון להוראה. וגם כבר יותר משלש
    שנים שמעגן את אשתו.
    דינו של אברהם מאיר ווייס הנ"ל מבואר בש"ע חו"מ סימן י"א סעיף א' וסימן
    כ"ו סעיף א' ויו"ד סימן של"ד דחייבין לנהוג בו כמי שהוא בנידוי דאין נכנסין בד'
    אמותיו ואין אוכלין ושותין עמו ואין מזמנין עליו ואין כוללין אותו לכל דבר שצריך
    עשרה וכו' וכו' ע"ש.
    ואנו פונים להנהלת הישיבה דסטאטען אילאנד שהוא לומד בה שימחו בו ויוציאו
    אותו מהכולל.
    וגם אנו פונים בזה לחברת "ארטסקרול" [ששם עובדים אביו ודודו התומכים בו]
    שימחו במשפחתו ויסלקם מן העבודה שאינו מן הראוי שתמסר תורה על ידיהם.
    ונשאלנו ממשפחת העגונה תחי'ה ומהרוצים להצילה מכבלי העיגון איזהו הדרך
    המותר על פי דין תורה האם מותר למחות נגד האברך הנ"ל ואם ניתן להתאסף
    יחד באסיפת מחאה והאם מותר לפרסם ברבים ובעיתונים.
    הרי אנו מורים שעל פי דין תורה מותר ומצוה למחות נגד האברך הנ"ל ולהתאסף
    יחד באסיפת מחאה מול ביתו וגם בשאר מקומות ולפרסם ברבים ובעיתונים כדי
    להציל עשוקה מעושקה ועגונה מכבלי העיגון.
    וחובה מוטלת על כל מי שיש בידו, שישפיע על אברהם מאיר ווייס הנ"ל שיציית
    לדינא ושיתן גט.
    וע"ז באנו על החתום ביום כ"ב שבט תשע"ג

    יעקב פרלוב שמואל קמנצקי אהרן משה שכטר אהרן פלדמן

    שמחה בונם עהרענפעלד נטע צבי גרינבלט צבי שכטר משה היינעמאן

    אלי' דב וכטפוגל יעקב האפפער

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I told him that we don't do a certain thing that is encouraged by the Rosh Yeshivas. "

      Rav Eidensohn, can you kindly elaborate on what that particular thing is?

      Delete
    2. It has to do with the idea that learning and not earning is the goal, and that without parnoso you find some way to survive with government programs, etc.

      Delete
    3. I want to thank someone who saw my request on the blog here that anyone interested in this cause should contact me. He contacted me and gave me invaluable insights, including the fact that he personally was at several events and saw what he saw. He told me valuable contacts. It took but a few minutes, and it really helped. If anyone wants to get involved with a little of their time, or if they want to get involved with a lot of their time, please call me at 845-578-1917. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. I have heard from those who did not see it but heard from others about the claim that Rabbi Weiss was surrounded by people shouting at him for blocks when he went to return his child in Lakewood. But I did not hear it from anyone who saw it. If anybody saw it please let me know. I did hear from people who are not impartial witnesses, so if somebody has no axe to grind and can tell me what happened I would appreciate it.

      Delete

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