The following is a systematic discussion of the status of a woman who claims ma'os alei (he disgusts me) even when it is clear that she is fully justified.
See also Rav Eliashiv Ma'os alei get not required (translation)
See Rav Eliashiv - original teshuva from Piskei Din vol 2 (curtesy of Rav Michael Tzadok)
Serious halachic deterioriation in Weiss Dodelson divorce battle
In the link above to the English translation, R' Elyashiv says that the Rambam is wrong - not that he is a minority opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis, to me, is perhaps the key to maintaining kavod for the current Gedolim who are being attacked. Perhaps they have - or believe they have - the koach to go with the Rambam. Thus, the argument is not that they are making up their own halacha, but that they are following an alternate, but legitimate halachic avenue. There is a distinction between these two descriptions.
The thing is Eddie(and whoever else may care), Rav Eliashiv didn't write these Teshuvot. They were compiled by others(anonymously) and published anonymously without Rav Eliashiv ever reviewing them. What they have done is compiled and creatively edited several of his Teshuvot from Piskei Din(when he sat on the Beit Din HaGadol). So far I have been able to locate two sources for this one:
DeleteA) Piskei Din Vol 7 p 56
B) Piskei Din Vol 2 p. 3
C) Piskei Din Mishpati Shoel Siman 16
D) Piskei Din Mishpati Shoel Siman 17
Anyone who actually cares to look will find that there are several major stirot between what the Rav himself wrote and what is put forth here in his name.
could you please mention what the contradictions are?
DeleteRaMaTz, that is an interesting point you raise. Are there any "genuine" teshuvot that R' Elyashiv wrote in the period after he left the Rabbanut BD? i.e. is there any collection of his Sh'uT that he did write later, or are they all from his Piskei Din in the Rabbanut?
DeleteOne good example is that the Kovetz Teshuvot brings in the name of the Rashba that if a woman claims מאיס עלי even with אמתלא מבוררת that the husband isn't Chayev a Get.
DeleteHowever the Rav says that this is only the case if it is an אמתלא אינו מבוררת, the exclusion of the one word from the Piskei to the Kovetz completely changes the meaning of what Rav Eliashiv ZTzUK"L said/wrote.
Further they take the Teshuva from Piskei Din Vol 2 p.3 which is a case of a woman who ran off with the child(a daughter) and is wanting and is claiming inordinate child support from her husband and also is a מאיס עלי that cannot give אמתלא. The B"D with the Rav ruled that she is a moredet, even if she will come to claim מאיס עלי and thus(not because of the מאיס עלי but because she is a moredet) he cannot be forced (לכוף לגרש) to divorce her, because she is moredet.
Then it goes on to say that he must pay child support,and remarkably the child(because it is a daughter) remains with the mother.
The Kovetz Teshuvot conveniently leaves all of this out.
So aside from jumbling two compeletely different cases together and making them seem as one(and that is only on the first two pages) they have also left out some key details that significantly alter the meaning.
Eddie,
DeleteAll of Kovetz Teshuvot(the fourth volume published after his petirah) are all from Piskei Din in the Rabbanut. There are occaisions where careful research will show that his was the minority opinion, but most of the time they are Teshuvot where there was a unanimous decision.
Are there any Shu"T that he wrote later? Not to my knowledge, and nothing that he himself actually wrote.
Michael,
DeleteThe way you are quoting the teshovos from the Piskei, allegedly authored by Rav Eliashev, was your paraphrasing of the Piskei exactly what Rav Eliashev wrote or was it some kind of joint beis din rabbabut decision authored possibly by another dayan on that court?
Also another point... Regarding Rav Eliashev's "minority opinion" when he sat on Piskei Din in the Rabbanut... his opinion was only a "minority" of a Rabbanut court. But it reflects Rav Eliashev's opinion. So it rightfully is considered Rav Eliashev's psak and published as such.
DeleteBen,
DeleteIn any case where it was a unanimous decision it is impossible to know exactly how much imput Rav Eliashiv had, to be completely honest. Which, in my opinion makes his minority opinions more likely to be his own.
Look there are times when he was a minority to Rav S.S. Karelitz and Rav Nechemiah Goldberg... Which should make even Ashkenazim take pause. However you can be sure that those opinions were entirely his own.
The others, which make up the vast majority of Kovetz Teshuvot... no one can say, especially considering the Rav didn't write, edit, or apparently review the Kovetz Teshuvot.
For instance the Rav supported a case of מאיס עלי עם אמתלא in which a man cheated on his wife and fathered a child out of wedlock. If he was so adamently against it, why didn't he write a minority opinion? Are we to believe his actions(and actual signature) or a book written by others who admittedly only picked form Piskei Din?
However when I quote Piskei Din, aside from the specific Teshuvot that were written by him when Dayyanim after he left wrote to him for advice(C and D that I mentioned above) they are joint decisions. However, it is from those decisions that the editors of Kovetz Teshuvot(without imput from the Rav) compiled his Teshuvot.
In other words, the beis din teshuvos of the rabbunut b"d with Rav Eliashev are not really Rav Eliashev writing (necessarily). It could easily have been one of the other concurring dayanim.
DeleteIf what R' Tzaddok is saying is accurate, then it exposes a scam, where askanim are falsifying halacha, picking and mixing, and then churning it out to be daas Torah of the Posek HaDor.
DeleteNone of the Teshuvot in Piskei Din were written, pen to paper, by any of the Dayyanim. They were recorded by, well essentially, a court reporter. So it is impossible to know what is his or not. Thus much of Kovetz Teshuvot could in fact be someone else's. In fact if you were to look through the Teshuvot of say Rav Ovadia Yosef or Rav Ovadiah Hedayya(using those because I know them) you will find the same basic cases and Teshuvot copied over in their respective Teshuvot. Rav Ovadiah Yosef's tend to be more fleshed out than the Piskei Din, and Rav Ovadiah Hedayya tend to essentially be the Piskei Din with the names of the other Dayyanim addended to them.
DeleteThe Kovetz Teshuvot simply sources the Piskei Din as it's sole source for the material it publishes in Rav Eliashiv's name.
Eddie,
DeleteAll of Piskei Din can be found at Hebrewbooks.org for free. The first 15 volumes can also be searched on the Bar Ilan Responsa program. Further the same has essentially been documented in two other places:
http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2009/08/repackaged-rulings-responsa-of-r.html
and
http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2013/discovering-rav-elyashiv-2/
So, then this Kovetz Teshuvot is essentially geneiva - fraud. It is not even clear if they are actually R' Elyashiv's own piskei halacha! It could be any of the other Dayanim.
Deletewhere does Rav Elyashiv talk or deal with Rabbeyno Tam in this teshuva?
ReplyDeleteThanks RMT - I have been saying this for a while. Rav Elyashiv DID NOT write these teshuvot. Moreover, as you mention, there are times in which the teshuva being published was actually REJECTED by the beis din and was not the law.
ReplyDeleteAfter leaving the Rabbanut, Rav elyashiv lived off of his pension and dedicated his life to his one real passion - learning Torah. He never sought to be a posek and only answered questions that were sent to him - meaning, only if you accepted his authority would he rule. He wasnt interested in being a leader or imposing his view on others.
I heard him answer a few questions (nothing "major") posed to him in person and then, subsequently, heard things said in his name that were directly opposite what I heard him say. You can not pasken based on the Kovetz Teshuvot.
can we please see the so much talked about psak from all the roshei yeshivas with all the rabbis on it? it's never been posted in its entirety. thank you
ReplyDeleteDear Daas Torah and R' D E,
ReplyDeleteI read with great interest your comments in recent posts about Mous Alai - that when a woman says Mous Alai we don’t force the husband to give a get. I just don’t understand how that is at all relevant to the majority of cases dealt with by Ora. What is the case of Mous Alai? A woman says that she finds her husband disgusting and therefore wants a get. Her husband says that he wants to remain married. Then the halachah is that the husband has a right to keep his wife – he is not forced to give a get. However, in all of the Ora cases discussed on this blog – not once did the husband ever say he wants to remain married! In all these cases, they are in complete agreement about one thing – they want to get divorced in every sense of the word – he doesn’t want to live with her, doesn’t want to bring up a family with her, doesn’t want to have anything to do with her – and the feelings are mutual! He just doesn’t want to give her the paper that says the formal declaration of a get – because he wants to ruin her or to pressure her into a better deal. This has nothing to do with the case of Mous Alai! As a side point, why do you keep on bringing up Mous Alai, as if the woman is the one who first decided to end the marriage?? Based on probabilities, 50% of the time the husband is the one who came up with the brilliant idea of divorce. Regardless of who came up with the brilliant idea first, in all these cases they are now in complete agreement that they don’t want to have anything to do with each other. I never read in any of these kinds of Ora cases that the husband wants to remain married.
Therefore the real question that must be answered by Daas Torah and R’ D E is what is the halacha if a husband comes to you and says that he no longer wants to have anything to do with his wife, but doesn’t want to give his wife a get - are we allowed to pressure him (of course only kinds of pressure that are legal per U.S.A law) to give a get?
That seems to be the question that fits most of the Ora cases discussed on this blog. The husband is not responding as in the classic case of Mous Alai that “he wants to remain married to her”, instead in all the Ora cases – if you ask the husband he will clearly tell you that he doesn’t want to have anything to do with her, he hates her, and hopes never to see her again – he just doesn’t want to give her the paper with the formal divorce.
I would be very interested in hearing Daas Torah’s and R’ D E opinion on this matter. Thank you for providing this forum to discuss these topics.
Kol tuv,
AZ
In many cases, in fact, the wife wants a divorce but the husband wants to continue the marriage.
DeleteThose are the cases where he needn't give her a divorce.
Its time to expose the lies, propaganda, and duplicity of ORA trolls like AZ.
ReplyDeleteMost of the Jewish husbands being targeted by the YU based feminist ORA organization are in a fight for their lives while their wives, assisted by the ORA goons, systematically destroy them in non-Jewish family courts.
"not once did the husband ever say he wants to remain married" - ORA and the feminist goons overrunning "Orthodoxy" have no interest in and never bother to ask the Jewish husbands whether they want to remain married instead of being financially destroyed in non-Jewish courts, while their relationship with their children is severed by Orders of Protection and parenting schedules allowing them to see their children (if they're lucky) twice a month.
It is well known that most divorces in the US are initiated by the wife. For ORA trolls to claim otherwise is sheer intellectual dishonesty and fraud.
The ORA trolls attempt to limit the discussion to falsified application of MOUS ALI halachos, while disconnecting the discussion from other overriding halachic issues. For example, Jewish women operating in non-Jewish courts have no halachic rights to ask Bais Din for anything.
The only issues that matter to ORA and their feminist fellow travelers are total support for all the wife's demands, including granting the wife a forced and PASUL GET on demand, while the husband's halachic rights are brutally crushed by ORA's thugs.
It is well known that most divorces in the US are initiated by the wife.
DeleteThis is very true. Taken from WIKI:
According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women have filed slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the United States.[79] There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper. Evidence is given that among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.
R. Tzadok, I'm glad we agree on one point - women initiate most of the divorces in the US. This point is clear as the sun if one examines the divorce cases in the Orthodox community, unless one is an ORA troll with his head in the sand.
DeleteBut that fact raises another critical question: Based on Choshen Mishpat 26 and other halachic sources, a Jewish wife initiating a divorce in non-Jewish family court has no rights to demand a GET or anything else in Bais Din.
So how can you possibly claim that the halachos of MA'OS ALEI (even with AMASLAH MEVURERES) have any relevance in the numerous cases where Jewish women initiated a divorce in non-Jewish courts?
But that fact raises another critical question: Based on Choshen Mishpat 26 and other halachic sources, a Jewish wife initiating a divorce in non-Jewish family court has no rights to demand a GET or anything else in Bais Din.
DeleteSo how can you possibly claim that the halachos of MA'OS ALEI (even with AMASLAH MEVURERES) have any relevance in the numerous cases where Jewish women initiated a divorce in non-Jewish courts?
Because both Rav Elaishiv and Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu said that what you are saying is not true. If you want I can point you to the exact place in the Piskei Din.
A husband can only withhold a get if the wife is demanding more than her halakhic rights for support of the child.
Also they have equally ruled(amongst many others) that it would depend on the אמתלא. For instance if the husband is clearly abusing the wife, or molesting the children. Such a case the woman is required by halakha to go to secular court.
Now if the wife simply files for a no-fault divorce in which the court leaves it to the couple to divide their assests amicably, it really doesn't matter who filed for a divorce decree. Once again devil is in the details. It is not just about who filed.
Now if the wife is asking for more than her halakhic rights in a secular court, assuming they are Ashkenazi, the husband has absolutely no obligation to give her a Get until she drops her non-halakhic secular claims and submits to a B"D.
In a nation,such as the US, where there is such a thing a no-fault civil divorce a Dayyan needs to seriously look into the court documents to see if the wife is asking for anything other than a judgement of no-fault amicable divorce. If that is all she filed for... L'fi halakha that is nothing, and will not on it's own affect whether the husband is obligated or not to give a Get.
For instance, based on the very Piskei HaDin we see above we can say a couple of things about cases that have been talked about on this blog previously(with some caveats):
1) Epstein case: If the wife has no אמתלא and in fairness none has been laid out publicly yet, according to this very Teshuva of Rav Eliashiv, she may keep the child with her, the husband has no halakhic right to take her(especially as it is a daughter). However her actions would give her the status of מאיס עלי בלי אמתלא and thus a מורדת and so the husband would have no halakhic obligation to give a divorce.
2)Doddelson: If Meir Weiss did not have a heter from a Beit Din to take Doddelson to court, he would have done it against halakha. That would have given her the right to defend herself and any loss would according to the Shulchan Arukh be his to bear. Then when Doddelson asked for a divorce decree If she only asked for the previous judgement to be upheld and a divorce granted. If she has some valid אמתלא then Weiss would still be obligated to give a Get.
However in either case there are a lot of "if"s that have not been adequately clarified in the public sphere to my current knowledge. Therefore it is impossible to say anything publicly either way about those two cases.
Tzadok, you are a true master of obfuscation.
DeleteRav Mordechai Eliyahu? Again you're imposing Sephardi halacha on Ashkenazi Jews, while you've attempted to deny doing this in a previous comment.
"halakhic rights for support of the child"? No US family court can recognize such rights without violating the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
"it really doesn't matter who filed for a divorce decree"? US family courts routinely impose on the fathers debtor's prison, imputed income, alimony, robbery of assets, denial of parenting rights, etc. all in violation of the father's Torah rights.
Show us any authentic tshuvah by Rav Eliashiv zt"l stating that a Jewish wife (in the US) can sue her husband in family court, asking the non-Jewish court to adjudicate all issues, and then make a valid demand only for a GET in a kosher Bais Din? This is ORA's methodology that you claim to reject.
Your arguments simply open the door to wholesale violations of Torah law, brutal injustices against Jewish fathers, and mass destruction of Jewish families.
Rav Mordechai Eliyahu? Again you're imposing Sephardi halacha on Ashkenazi Jews, while you've attempted to deny doing this in a previous comment.
DeleteNo. Again you misrepresent what I said. I said:
Because both Rav Elaishiv and Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu said that what you are saying is not true. If you want I can point you to the exact place in the Piskei Din.
To be clear I am referencing a specific Teshuva in Piskei Din that both Rav Eliyahu and Rav Eliashiv signed. Since Rav Eliashiv agreed I am consider it neither Ashkenazi or Sephardi, but simply Halakha.
"halakhic rights for support of the child"? No US family court can recognize such rights without violating the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
Please again read what I actually said: A husband can only withhold a get if the wife is demanding more than her halakhic rights for support of the child.
But since you don't seem to quite get it let me spell it out for you. There is a ruling in Piskei Din(again signed by Rav Eliashiv and Rav Eliyahu) that dealt with a case where the wife was demanding the equivalent of $40/day in support. In their response that Rabbanim said that she could only ask for $20/day. If she continued to demand $40/day he would not be Chayyev a Get, if she reduced it to $20 he would be.
Much like the case cited above in Piskei Din. The problem(at least in Piskei Din) is not that hte wife was asking the huband to support the child, but that she was trying to take too much.
Now admittedly I don't know what current halakhic values are because of inflation and such. But let's say that a woman went to a court and asked the court to enter a judgement that the husband pay $20/day. That would not be so much of a problem(as the one cited and one referenced Teshuva point out). However if she were to ask for $21/day, suddenly that is a problem.
Further there would be none of your claimed violation of the Constitution. It is in the hands of the Plaintiff to make a claim or not.
Show us any authentic tshuvah by Rav Eliashiv zt"l stating that a Jewish wife (in the US) can sue her husband in family court, asking the non-Jewish court to adjudicate all issues, and then make a valid demand only for a GET in a kosher Bais Din?
DeleteNow you are actually lying about what I said. Once again to quote myself:
Now if the wife simply files for a no-fault divorce in which the court leaves it to the couple to divide their assests amicably, it really doesn't matter who filed for a divorce decree. Once again devil is in the details. It is not just about who filed.
To spell it out in very simple English for you, this means that if the wife only asked for a judgement of divorce, which means that Civil Govt will not longer view them as married according to Civil law, but any and all distribution of assets is not made by the courts but amicably by the couple(in the case of a Jewish couple in a B"D). Then, and only under these circumstances it does not matter who filed.
I NEVER said, nor would I, that ANY Posek, Ashkenazi or Sephardi, would allow a woman to sue her husband in Court and then seek a Kosher Get(Well Rav Ovadia Yosef might so long as the wife would release him of those obligations upon his giving a Get as that is the ruling of the Beit Yosef in EH"E 134, however as Rav Eliyahu points out in his sefer Maamar Mordekhai the Rema sides with the Rashb"a[seif 4] and the tradition of Sephardim is to be Choshesh on the Rema, however that is beside the point).
"it really doesn't matter who filed for a divorce decree"? US family courts routinely impose on the fathers debtor's prison, imputed income, alimony, robbery of assets, denial of parenting rights, etc. all in violation of the father's Torah rights.
Mostly true, BUT ONLY when the wife wants more than a simple divorce decree. As I have said, more than once, that opens a different can of worms.
Your arguments simply open the door to wholesale violations of Torah law, brutal injustices against Jewish fathers, and mass destruction of Jewish families.
Utter rubbish. Your misconstrual of my arguments may do that. But my arguments on their own do not.
@R. Tzadok, you are spreading SHEKER and disinformation, and misleading the Jewish olam, in regard to Rav Elyashev's halachic opinions on GITTIN.
ReplyDeleteI just spoke to a senior dayan about the issue of the Kovetz Teshuvos. The dayan told me that its absolute nonsense to claim that those halachic responsa do not represent Rav Eliashiv's zt"l authentic opinions. The KT were published for many years when Rav Eliashiv zt"l was still alive, and he did not protest against them. Furthermore, rabbanim who knew Rav Eliashiv zt"l and were learned in GITTIN laws were well aware that Rav Eliashiv was very strict about prohibiting pressure to force GITTIN, especially in MAUS ALEI cases.
R. Tzadok, you are a Sephardi rabbi, and no one is forcing you to accept normative Ashkenazi halacha. But you have no right whatsoever to grossly distort and falsify normative Ashkenazi GITTIN halacha, whether you accept it or not.
Wow, an anonymous blogger posts a comment supposedly made by an anonymous Dayyan. Nevermind the sources posted, including the title page of Kovetz Teshuvot that says that Rav Eliashiv did not take part in them.
DeleteThere are 42 cases in Piskei Din concerning מאיס עלי that he signed off on, and six teshuvot bearing his signature that contradict what is written in Kovetz Teshuvot(two of them listed above) when you can explain why a sefer that does not bear his signature or even his haskama should be taken as more authoritative than the Teshuvot that bear his signature I would like to hear it.
Wow, Tzadok claims there are 48 contradictions between the Piskei Din and Kovetz Teshuvot, apparently based on the claims of an anonymous Dayyan.
DeletePlease cite a widely recognized Ashkenazi Chareidi posek who has publicly confirmed your claim of 48 true contradictions between the Piskei Din and Kovetz Teshuvot, where all the cited Piskei Din were known to be Rav Eliashiv's opinion, and where in all alleged contradictions the same halachic circumstances occurred.
Michael Tzadok: "the Teshuvot that bear his signature"
Michael Tzadok: "None of the Teshuvot in Piskei Din were written, pen to paper, by any of the Dayyanim. They were recorded by, well essentially, a court reporter. So it is impossible to know what is his or not"
You've just contradicted yourself again, for the umpteenth time.
If you are going to quote me please do so in entirety:
DeleteHowever when I quote Piskei Din, aside from the specific Teshuvot that were written by him when Dayyanim after he left wrote to him for advice(C and D that I mentioned above) they are joint decisions.
As I have said, I believe three times so far in discussing this, there are six Teshuvot which Rav Eliashiv himself wrote to Dayyanim that were sitting the B"D after he left. They wrote to him for his advice. Those Teshuvot are not included in the אוסף פסקי דין itself but in supplementary volumes entitled, פסקי דין משפטי שואל. As I stated on the previous post, which lead to this one, those Teshuvot and the minority opinions that he authored are the only ones that we can know for certain are fully his opinion.
Please cite a widely recognized Ashkenazi Chareidi posek who has publicly confirmed your claim of 48 true contradictions between the Piskei Din and Kovetz Teshuvot,
Now you are intentionally misrepresenting my words. First I did not say that there were 48 contradictions. I said:
There are 42 cases in Piskei Din concerning מאיס עלי that he signed off on, and six teshuvot bearing his signature that contradict what is written in Kovetz Teshuvot
Meaning that as a body of literature on the subject of מאיס עלי in all of its forms, they(as a body) contradict what was written in this one. This one, as I have already pointed out, is a mash of two(possibly three, unless there were editorial additions, which would be even worse) of two cases that had widely differing circumstances. I have also pointed out how the actual language of the Teshuva has been substantially changed in the Kovetz. Please explain how that happened when the editors of the Kovetz make it clear on the title page that the Rav had nothing to do with it's compilation.
Please cite a widely recognized Ashkenazi Chareidi posek
Rav Avigdor Neventzal Shlit"a. He can be found in the Ramban every morning when he will usually address the questions of strangers. I sat his Kollel Dayyanim for a number of years until personal circumstances made me transfer to a place closer to home.
Let's put a finer point on it. In all of Piskei DIn, Rav Eliashiv only quotes the חוט המשולש five times(can be confirmed by a simple search on Bar Ilan Responsa). He only quotes the particular חוט המשולש quoted here once, and that is in the Piskei Din that the blog owner linked above. You will note that Rav Eliashiv never quotes the Rashba in that Piskei Din. However the bit about the Rashba and מאיס עלי is tacked on to the front of the Teshuva in Kovetz Teshuvot. Now the editors of Piskei Din, admit on the title page that that Rav Eliashiv had nothing to do with the sefer. So from where did they get the authority to append something onto the front of his Teshuva? Either they mashed together two Teshuvot(which is what I choose to believe) or they simply added their own thoughts in the name of the Rav(which would be seriously seriously fraudulent).
ReplyDeleteEmesLeYaacovOctober 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM said:
The KT were published for many years when Rav Eliashiv zt"l was still alive, and he did not protest against them.
A good and valid question. The thing is he did. He said many times over the years, and can be heard in several of his Kol HaLashon shiurim as saying that one should not trust the things that are being written in his name unless they bear his signature(which they don't) or one heard them directly from his own mouth. If memory serves me correctly the blog owner has reported that himself on this blog, and Rafi G. at Life In Israel at one point reported it and one of the places it may be found on Kol HaLashon for those wanting to hear it.
So Rav Eliashiv has protested in his own humble way.
"The thing is he did. He said many times over the years, and can be heard in several of his Kol HaLashon shiurim as saying that one should not trust the things that are being written in his name unless they bear his signature(which they don't)"
DeleteThat was never a reference to the seforim like Kovetz Tshuvos. That was a clear reference to pashkevals plastered on walls or ads published in papers or blog news.
That was never a reference to the seforim like Kovetz Tshuvos. That was a clear reference to pashkevals plastered on walls or ads published in papers or blog news.
DeleteHow do you know? How can you say that with any certainty?
M.T.: how do YOU know otherwise to make your earlier assertions?
DeleteM.T.: how do YOU know otherwise to make your earlier assertions?
DeleteFirst because Rav Eliashiv, in the multiple times that he said to trust nothing that does not bear his signature never qualified that statement to include certain books. He said, nothing that does not bear his signature.
Secondly, as I said before, I can read. The first volume of Kovetz Teshuvot is kind enough to actually source Piskei Din for where it is pulling it's rulings from. It is also kind enough to say that the Rav did not review the book. Therefore any additions that are not found in Piseki Din have to be the inventions of the anonymous editors. They are thus worthless. They are not the words of the Rav and we do not know who the "editors" are so as to be able to judge their merit or authority.
Michael: Your assumption, and it certainly is an assumption on your part, does not jive. Rav Eliashev statement seems like it only applies to newspaper-type or poster announcements allegedly in his name. Not more than that, as you want to imply.
DeleteRav Eliashev statement seems like it only applies to newspaper-type or poster announcements allegedly in his name. Not more than that, as you want to imply.
DeleteFist you are making qualification that the Rav never made. Further you have yet to explain why the Teshuva brought in Kovetz Teshuvot, which clearly indicates that it was taken from Piskei Din Vol 2 pg 3, contains obvious additions in the Rav's name, when the Rav himself had nothing to do with the sefer.
Then in light of that, you want to make a claim that the Rav's statement was somehow limited and did not include such a sefer that fraudulently says things in his name.
Michael: Your assumption, and it is an assumption on your part, does not jive as being correct. Contextually it is clear Rav Eliashev is essentially referring to the posters plastered on the wall and the like, not to be believed in his name. He is not referring to Seforim.
Delete@David S., Tzadok is using clever techniques of inventing sevarose and spreading confusion to try to invalidate Rav Elyashiv's PSAK. It seems that Rav Elyashiv zt"l himself had protested against the type of sevarose being exploited by Tzadok.
ReplyDeleteMichael Tzadok (in earlier post): "no one has put forth a good argument why public embarrassment would be any different than R"T""
Rav Dovid Eidensohn, http://www.getamarriage.com/ :
"I spoke at length with the late Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l about the laws of coerced Gittin. The halacha forbids forcing a GET with physical beating, humiliation, or fiscal pressures. And yet there are Rabbis that beat or humiliate husbands publicly until they give an invalid GET. They invent sevorose to permit this.
Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l told me that any Beth Din that forces a GET with these inventions, loses their Chezkas Beth Din."
David S., Tzadok is using clever techniques of inventing sevarose and spreading confusion to try to invalidate Rav Elyashiv's PSAK.
DeleteNot true. I am actually defending Rav Eliashiv ZTzUK"L's actual teshuvot that he actually wrote. According to this fraudulent teshuva a clear justification אמתלא מבוררת does not suffice to make a husband required to give a get so let's look at this:
1) If a husband were cheating on his wife, according the fraudulent teshuva he would not be required to give a get, even though it is a clear justification.
However in Piskei Din Vol 1 p. 140 Rav Eliashiv ruled with the B"D that this was an clear justification that requires the husband to give a get.
2) According the fraudulent teshuva if a woman was forced to marry a man against her will, despite this clear justification, this would not require him to give a Get.
While in Piskei Din Vol 1 p193 Rav Eliashiv ruled that again it was a מאיס עלי עם אמתלא מבוררת and that we could actuall be כופין לגרש.
3) According the fraudulent teshuva if a husband beats his wife, this would not make him chayev to give a get.
However according to Rav Eliashiv's actual ruling in Piskei Din Vol 2 p. 353 this justification does permit us to not only require a get but to force one through כופין and financial pressures.
Those are just three cases that bear Rav Eliashiv's actual signature that directly contradict what is written in this fraudulent teshuva.
You have yet to give a single compelling reason why we should follow a book, in which it is written on the title page that Rav Eliashiv had nothing to do with the book, that bears neither a signature or haskama from the Rav, that contradicts his actual halakhic rulings.
The publication "kovetz shekkerim" is interesting because it shows that the haredi machinery simply nominates and elderly Gadol as their mascot, whilst falsifying what he wrote when he was an active Dayan. The rulings are falsifications of halacha, which suit a particular extreme ideology of unknown and unqualified askanim.
DeleteSecond, I mentioned a few months ago that R' Elyashiv during his time as a Dayan was a very creative posek, and that his views of then would not necessarily be accepted today. In contrast, the authors of this book of lises, are also being very creative, but in a negative way.
Perhaps in a few hundred years, historians will be debating whether the Kovetz was genuine or pseudodepigraphic. A future Prof Scholem will argue that it was all a reconstruction by other authors. They may even mention R' Tzaddok as having written a letter (on this blog) showing that it is not the original halacha.
Tzadok, with your discussion of husbands cheating on their wives, or beating their wives, you're again attempting to confuse and distract the OLAM from the fundamental subject being addressed on this blog.
ReplyDeleteIn most of the high profile divorce conflicts discussed on this blog (such as the Weiss and Friedman postings), the Jewish husbands were NOT accused of beating up their wives, NOR were these husbands accused of cheating on their wives, NOR were the wives forced to marry these husbands. Yet when the wives demand a GET based on MAOS ALI claims, the ORA biryonim and their supporters use all manner of public humiliation, harassment, and financial damages to coerce GITTIN from these husbands.
These GITTIN forced by ORA and its supporters are clearly PASUL according to the majority of Ashkenazi authorities, regardless of how much confusion and obfuscation you manage to generate on this blog.
Tzadok, with your discussion of husbands cheating on their wives, or beating their wives, you're again attempting to confuse and distract the OLAM from the fundamental subject being addressed on this blog.
DeleteNo. I am focusing on the halakha being discussed on this blog, and this post in general. There is a fraudulent teshuva that says precisely that child molesters, wife beaters, and whore mongers cannot be made chayev for a get or pressured into one.
You, and others, are trying to use an unpleasant and unfortunate situation to foist a fraud on the Olam.
In most of the high profile divorce conflicts discussed on this blog
This post is discussing none of those, it is discussing a fraudulent teshuva.
(such as the Weiss and Friedman postings) which lacking all relevant details we are patently incapable of discussing in an intelegent halakhic manner.
the Jewish husbands were NOT accused of beating up their wives, NOR were these husbands accused of cheating on their wives, NOR were the wives forced to marry these husbands.
We actually do not know what the wives claimed or proved in Beit Din one way or another. Lacking solid evidence(recordings transcripts ect) we cannot speak about such matters. All that has ever been presented is partial evidence and partial documentation.
Yet when the wives demand a GET based on MAOS ALI claims and we do not know if it is עם אמתלא מבוררת or not. So again, no point in discussing it.
the ORA biryonim and their supporters use all manner of public humiliation, harassment, and financial damages to coerce GITTIN from these husbands.
None of which is the point of this particular post or any relevant discussion to it so stop being a Troll and discuss the relevant issues.
These GITTIN forced by ORA and its supporters are clearly PASUL according to the majority of Ashkenazi authorities, regardless of how much confusion and obfuscation you manage to generate on this blog.
Never mind that you haven't actually proven that, even by Ashkenazi authoriies, however again this is not the discussion at hand, so stop trolling and either discuss what is at hand or move on to a thread that is about the topic that you seem so keen to speak to.
This may come as a surprise but not every thread on this blog is about ORA and what they do. For instance this one is about bringing clarity regarding an alleged teshuva of Rav Eliashiv.
ELY - please stick to the solid points you have made and stop attacking Rabbi Tzadok. He has said repeatedly he is not talking about specific cases. He is raising some valid points. Your personal attacks are an unfortunate distraction from the important issues being presented.
Delete@DaasTorah, please consider the following:
ReplyDelete- Tzadok has repeatedly accused you right here of posting a "fraudulent teshuva" from Rav Eliashiv.
- Tzadok has also claimed (in another posting) that "Rav Eliashiv ruled that a wife has exactly that right", ie abduct the couple's child and move far away from the father.
- Tzadok has also claimed that according to Rav Eliashiv a Jewish wife may sue her husband in non-Jewish courts, and then appear in Bais Din solely to demand a GET. (This is the exact methodology of the ORA MO radical feminist family destroyers).
- Tzadok's claims about Rav Eliashiv's opinions amount to accusing your brother Rav Dovid Eidenshon of being a liar, based on what your brother claims to have learned from Rav Eliashiv.
- Eddie has referred to the sefer you linked to above as "kovetz shekkerim", ie a collection of lies.
After all this, I haven't heard any dissent from you against Tzadok. Perhaps its time that you start responding to these outrageous charges by Tzadok & Eddie, instead of giving these two a free pass to spew pro-feminist, anti-Torah falsehoods on this allegedly Chareidi blog.
- Tzadok has repeatedly accused you right here of posting a "fraudulent teshuva" from Rav Eliashiv.
DeleteActually Rav Daniel Eidensohn and I had already discussed this somewhat via email, which is the reason for this post. To discuss it openly.
- Tzadok has also claimed (in another posting) that "Rav Eliashiv ruled that a wife has exactly that right", ie abduct the couple's child and move far away from the father.
Read the above posted Piskei Din which is the source for the Kovetz Teshuva, and you will see that is what he says. He also says it makes the wife a moredet and he husband therefore is not required to give her a get.
- Tzadok has also claimed that according to Rav Eliashiv a Jewish wife may sue her husband in non-Jewish courts, and then appear in Bais Din solely to demand a GET. (This is the exact methodology of the ORA MO radical feminist family destroyers).
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem because I said no such thing. You accused me of this several times, and each time I have spelled out how I have not said that. In fact in our last discussion on this I said, I NEVER said, nor would I, that ANY Posek, Ashkenazi or Sephardi, would allow a woman to sue her husband in Court and then seek a Kosher Get
- Tzadok's claims about Rav Eliashiv's opinions amount to accusing your brother Rav Dovid Eidenshon of being a liar, based on what your brother claims to have learned from Rav Eliashiv.
Once again with the personal attacks while lacking actual evidence. Rav Dovid has never claimed to have learned directly from Rav Eliashiv. He clarified that when someone else asked him. He was a Talmid of the former Rav Kotler. He has spoken with Rav Eliashiv and heard from him that a B"D that doesn't follow halakha is not a B"D... I have no dispute with that. Further despite your best attempts I have no dispute with Rav Dovid. He may actually have all of the facts, I have no way of knowing. However, they have not been shared here so it is impossible to judge. If the cases that Rav Dovid has discussed are מאיס עלי בלי אמתלא then he is 100% correct in what he is saying. However that does not change the problems at hand.
instead of giving these two a free pass to spew pro-feminist, anti-Torah falsehoods on this allegedly Chareidi blog.
I am not a feminist, I am actually anti-feminist. However one does not have to be a misogynist(hate women) to be an anti-feminist. As far as being anti-Torah that is a laugh. Trying to clarify what was a Posek Hador's positions based on his actual written and signed Teshuvot is anti-Torah in your book?
Falsehoods I assume you can read Hebrew correct? I have given sources for my statements which are readily available free online. So please show me where I have been wrong.
allegedly Chareidi blog. What about discussing Rav Eliashiv's actual writings and his actual Teshuvot over against something that is claimed in his name is not Chareidi? Chareidim have never been required to simply follow what they heard in someone's name. Further when their writings disagree, as I have shown in several cases that you have refused to actually deal with, we must ask why.
Tzadok claims that the Bais Din (recorded in the Piskei Din link) ruled that the husband cannot be forced to divorce his wife. I have reviewed the Piskei Din Vol 2 p.3 cited by Tzadok and I cannot find any mention of a GET whatsoever! The Piskei Din ruling on that page seem to be only referring to financial matters.
ReplyDeletePiskei Din:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9120&st=&pgnum=3
Rabbi Michael Tzadok October 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM:
"Further they take the Teshuva from Piskei Din Vol 2 p.3 which is a case of a woman who ran off with the child(a daughter) and is wanting and is claiming inordinate child support from her husband and also is a מאיס עלי that cannot give אמתלא. The B"D with the Rav ruled that she is a moredet, even if she will come to claim מאיס עלי and thus(not because of the מאיס עלי but because she is a moredet) he cannot be forced (לכוף לגרש) to divorce her, because she is moredet..."
You would have to read all the way through to page 8. If you cannot find any mention of a Get whatsoever you only prove my point that the Kovetz Teshuvot that sources this Piskei Din is completely fraudulent.
DeleteHonestly you are in a lose lose situation. First it is clear in the psak that the wife took the daughter, and that the B"D ruled that she did not have to return, but that he also had to pay support.
Further it rules her a moredet(see pg 6 ot alef). Which by nature would mean that the husband has no chiyuv to give a get.
You have not yet justified how the Kovetz Teshuva splices on a piece from the Rashba at the front in the name of Rav Eliashiv. It clearly is not in this Piskei Din, which it claims is the source. Please I eagerly await your explanation for that.
Rabbi Michael Tzadok October 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM:
ReplyDelete"...Rav Dovid has never claimed to have learned directly from Rav Eliashiv."
Rav Dovid Eidensohn, http://getamarriage.com/?p=88
"I spoke at length with the late Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l about the laws of coerced Gittin. The halacha forbids forcing a GET with physical beating, humiliation, or fiscal pressures. And yet there are Rabbis that beat or humiliate husbands publicly until they give an invalid GET. They invent sevorose to permit this.
Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l told me that any Beth Din that forces a GET with these inventions, loses their Chezkas Beth Din."
Again he never said he learned from him. Speaking to a person once, even at length doesn't mean that one has learned from them.
DeleteFurther how does this at all relate to the discussion at hand? You are trying(quite poorly I might add) to obfuscate and invent personal attacks rather than dealing with the very real issue of fraudulent teshuvot.