Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Does Rav Malkiel Kotler approve of Gital's NY Post Interview?

One of the rumors that has circulated after Gital gave the NY Post interview was that it was approved by Rav Malkiel Kotler and Rav Aaron Kotler. It is claimed that it also had the approval of the gedolim who signed the Kol Koreh against her husband which states:


We state that, according to the Torah, it is permissible and it is a mitzvah to protest against him, to gather publicly in front of his house and in other places, and to make the matter known publicly and in the newspapers in order to save an oppressed woman from her oppressor and an Agunah from being chained.
Can anyone verify that Gital received permission from Rav Malkiel Kotler to give an interview to the New York Post? If he did give permission did he also approve of the following views she expressed?


1) The dating process is problematic and too short. It leads to disaster because families and friends put pressure on the couple to get married and to ignore their own feelings. Dating should be over a longer period of time before engagement.

2) Time between engagment and marriage is too short without allowing time to determine or develop compatibility. The couple should have more time to get acquainted before marriage.

3). Wife shouldn't have to follow the customs of the husband.

4) Husband should not have control over the finances - especially if she is the breadwinner

5) A wife has the right to demand a Get and thus break up the family - even when she thinks he is not a bad person but simply isn't right for her.

87 comments :

  1. You forgot wife has a right to stop husband seeing his child. Wife has a right to say unverified disgusting things which are at best loshon horo. What a joke our fake gedolim are? If Gital wasnt a relative they wouldnt care 2 hoots or even 1 about her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Stan, you missed a few of a wife's "rights" that the Lakewood "gadolim" don't seem to object to:
      - wife has a right to file a full divorce lawsuit in archaos
      - wife has a right to obtain full custody of children even if HALACHA grants the children to the husband
      - wife has the right to evict husband from house he paid for
      - wife has a right to force a PASUL GET in archaos
      - wife has a right to force a PASUL GET using ORA goons
      - wife has a right to destroy husband's parnassa and reputation using ORA goons
      - wife has a right to declare that any GET delivered by husband to a non-feminist Bais Din is PASUL
      - wife has a right to obtain restraining order against her husband and jail him if he even raises his voice to her

      Delete
    2. I think you meant to say if the wife was not from a very rich and politically powerful family, they would give two hoots about her.

      Delete
  2. LOL, this post has to be the biggest chizzuk for the Dodelson mishpacha since the besura that Artscroll fired the Weiss brothers the same day that Ronnie Greenwald undercut just about every public statement the Weiss's made. It feels like it was just yesterday....

    Wait, it was????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought they resigned?

      Delete
    2. FONCUSED!!! EVERY ONE KNOWS YOU ARE ARYEH DODELSON AND YOU ARE SUPPOSIDLY SITTING IN KOLLEL I LOVE IT ALL DAY ON THE WEB.

      Delete
    3. Yossi,
      I guess because you wrote that in all caps it must be true.
      For the record, I am not Aryeh Dodelson.
      I have not been dishonest about anything on this blog, I ask that you respect that, & if you have issues with the content of my comments, address them, don't try to distract from my good points with silly deflections.

      Delete
  3. Regarding #4:
    כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה איני ניזונית ואיני עושה


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes a woman is entitled to say that.

      The problem with Gital is the fact that she married a good Yeshiva Bochur of a distinct family who is only expected to live a life of old fashion Jew but she seems in total denial of it.

      Delete
    2. אשר פיהם דבר שואNovember 13, 2013 at 12:25 AM

      It is for no reason that we teach our daughters רמב״ן and מהר״ל, and leave them in the dark about איני נזונת ואיני עושה, דיני ירושה, and נכסי מלוג. Every מסדר קדושין should ask the kallah if she wants the תקנה or not, especially that nowadays most women work. There should be no sigma in opting out, as the תקנה was made for her benefit not his. If גיטל would have opted out, AMW wouldn't have been able to be בעל הבית on her money halachically. I am sure other women may feel this way too, especially Kolel women.

      As far as גט prenups, correct me if I am wrong, רב משה פיינשטיין ruled there is no problem with them.
      To make them most effective I would suggest the following.
      Instead of a pre nuptial, a post nuptial גט על תנאי אם לא באתי, which stipulates if they don't live together for 6 months the גט should be חל. In the event that someone wants a get, he/she just needs to go away for 6 months, and she will be automatically divorced. I am not sure of the Halacha of מבטל גט על תנאי, and whether that would cause such a גט to be עוקר the קידושין למפרע or not. I do not believe you can do this until they are married, because you can't be מקדש ודעתו לגרשה.
      The current version is just a legal document with a money grab if the guy refuses a גט.

      Delete
    3. Rav Moshe never mattired the RCA-type of prenups. (Get prenups.) And Rav Eliashev specifically paskened they are assur and if it is signed, if later they divorce it may be a Get Me'usa - and invalid Get if the husband had signed a Get prenup.

      Delete
    4. אשר פיהם דבר שואNovember 13, 2013 at 2:10 AM

      Rabbi E,
      Can you please verify what רב משה held about a גט prenup. Also, even if the standard RCA גט prenup is no good, I can't imagine that a post nuptial גט על תנאי wouldn't work. All who fought in מלכות בית דוד wrote such גיטין, and a גט אם לא באתי was not just standard, it was actually כופין, if someone went away on business hundreds of years ago.
      It also would be a major תקנה for כלל ישראל, it would stop מחלוקת, and it wouldn't bother me at all if this became the standard, as it would avoid all the גיטין מעושין, and all the cattle prod גיטין. This is the direction the liberal rabbis should go, instead of the money grab, which in essence doesn't prevent a thing.

      Delete
    5. A post nuptial גט על תנאי would work unlike a prenup which makes a future get me'usa. But once married it would be very difficult to get widespread compliance in issuing a post nup גט על תנאי

      Delete
  4. Asher pihem diber shavNovember 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

    I personally find it repulsive to drag the Rosh Yeshiva of one of the biggest Yeshivos in the world, unnecessarily into this fight.

    There has been no public statement, or signed document as far as I have seen with his name on it. It is obvious that the NY Post, Newsweek, or the NY Times don't represent his views. If the girl is related to him, he is not responsible for anything or everything she does. Besides being a Rosh Yeshiva, he is a tremendous Talmid Chacham, and there is no Heter to embarras him in any way. Insinuating that he has anything to do with it is at least "avak Motzi Shem ra" on a Talmid Chacham.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disagree with you

      R' Malkiel took part in this fight and cannot stand in the side pretending that this has nothing to do with him. is it for the sake of the Yeshiva, himself and everyone else that he should make his opinion clear!

      Delete
  5. Kind of makes you wonder if either of them will ever find another marital partner ever again...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether they will or won't we won't know until there is a get. In the meantime, this blog is doing a better job then the ny post in bashmutzing as many people involved as he can.

      Delete
    2. He should get a heter meah rabbonim and remarry while she grows old and grey, alone. Of course she can pickup the Get from the heter meah beis din once she gives him what she halachicly owes him.

      Delete
  6. RDE,
    How many of those do you disagree with?
    You typically come across as a balanced person, but here you seem to be condemning reasonable things anyone might do. It almost seems like you have an agenda.
    Please clarify your position on these issues.
    1&2 should women be pressured to marry men they don't know yet?
    3 when a difference in custom of shabbos candles comes up, who i you say to follow?
    4 it sounds like she was being significantly more generous than "aini nizonis veaini ochel"(if you are looking at the pure halachic issues. Feel free to address what you think societal norms are in new York too)?
    5 I imagine in a vacume you would ask this queation, so I have no comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems like several people asked some form of this question. We'd love to hear your answer.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree with the previous posts. You do seem normally to hold a balances position. However, in this case it is obvious that you are prejudiced. Things here are taken completely out of context. In the whole article she described other problems they were having, not that they just weren't compatible. Most women would be very unhappy with a controlling husband (being controlling and emotionally manipulative are actually forms of domestic abuse). Saying, "You are a nice person, we are incompatible" is what many women would say to try to be nice, as they are taught, not what they actually think.

      Delete
    3. SubWife: What other problems did she ever claim in the marriage? Nothing she claimed gives her a halachic justification or right to demand a divorce.

      Delete
    4. subwife and g - I think you are ignoring what she said. Remember she is writing to explain why she ran away with their child and is trying to paint a negative picture of him. At the same time she is justifying why a smart sensitive young woman would marry somebody who had clear mental issues and thus she blames the Orthodox Jewish dating and marriage practices. I am sorry you don't understand what I wrote - but apparently most people did.

      Delete
    5. She claimed that he gave her silent treatments on a regular basis, and mind you, they were married less than a year, that is emotional abuse.

      Delete
    6. I thought I did understand. But you take a one-sided approach to what she claimed.

      First thing I would say is that I don't like what Gital said in the post if they did indeed quoted her corrected and think that going to the post wasn't the best decision on her part. But - her statements could've been taken in different light, and you seem to interpret everything she said in a negative way only, like she's some crazed anti-Jewish values feminist. For example with finances - she doesn't say that she is opposed to husband being in control of finances, at least I didn't read it this way. She found it insulting that her husband would give a large sum of money without consulting her. I think that is a normal human reaction, whether the woman is or isn't a sole breadwinner. She didn't complain about the law, she pointed out to his lack of consideration for her feelings or concerns.

      Delete
    7. SubWife:

      a) The claim of the silent treatment is only a claim of hers that we have no basis of knowing whether her claim is true or false.

      b) Even if it were true that is not a halachic basis that allows her to demand a divorce.

      Delete
    8. So you don't think not knowing the guy and being pushed into it diminish chances of noticing a problem before marriage??

      Even with all her lumdus (as explained by you), this could be the best system. She is as you said explaining how a smart perceptive girl didn't avoid getting into this situation. You can accept what she said and accept your lomdus to explain her points. But why are you coming up with the questions in the post? Also, you didn't answer what your opinion is (for any of 1-4)

      Delete
  7. It is not that clear how much the opinion of R' Malkiel is really worth and whilst the Dodelsons may have many supporters few would trust R’ Malkiel opinion in this matter.
    The fact that the Roshei yeshiva did not denounce this act (NY Post) which is obviously prevocational from the public’s point of view and instead prioritized the interest of an individual who is a relative underlines the fact that they may not be worth much of the trust which they are given.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is not that clear how much the opinion of R' Malkiel is really worth and whilst the Dodelsons may have many supporters few would trust R’ Malkiel opinion in this matter.
    The fact that the Roshei yeshiva did not denounce this act (NY Post) which is obviously prevocational from the public’s point of view and instead prioritized the interest of an individual who is a relative underlines the fact that they may not be worth much of the trust which they are given.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The one thing about the discussion of this sorry saga that really burns me up is the grammatical torture that the Dodelsons (not Dodelson's) have been put through in the comments on this blog. So, as a public service:
    Dodelson's = something that belongs to a person named Dodelson,
    (the) Dodelsons = (the) Dodelson family.

    And, once we are on the subject, for extra credit:
    its = belonging to it,
    It's = it is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Weiss should get a Heter Meah Rabbonim and be done with Dodleson.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Husband should not have control over the finances - especially if she is the breadwinner"

    Well, if she is the breadwinner, the money is hers and she is not even obliged to provide a roof over his head and bread on the table, that's halacha.

    He can only control her finances if she wants him to provide for her. But as soon as she waves her right to provided for, he has no say and no entitlement whatsover on HER finances.

    Seems funny that you should not be aware of that little fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your opinion is a common one but other believe that marriage does not work that way and the husband is largely in charge regardless who is making the money. This is how families supposed to live.

      I do agree that a woman can demand that her husband will bring the money because this is his duty but this is not what she claimed

      Delete
    2. Incorrect, Blatant. Every penny she earned -- that's correct, her salary during marriage -- belongs 100% to him and not to her. The only thing she owns is what she owned before marriage or what he gave to her. (Of course she could tell him don't support me and I'll keep my money; but if she did that setup only starts working after she says that. And since like the vast majority of wives she never requested that, ALL marital assets and money belong to him. Except her pre-marital assets.

      Delete
    3. אשר פיהם דבר שואNovember 13, 2013 at 2:30 AM

      Ben,
      To clarify, although you are right halachically, if she does say it, I don't believe she can change her mind.

      So for example if she is the breadwinner and says איני נזונת ואיני עושה, she is then responsible for her own מזונות, if she later has children and wants to stop working and have her husband support her, I wonder if she can change her mind.

      Delete
    4. I understand she can change her mind any time one way or the other. She can have "I keep what I have" one week and the other week "you provide for me", as she prefers....

      Delete
    5. The discussion is academic because almost no wife actually invokes איני נזונת ואיני עושה in practice. And if she did invoke it once the marriage was in trouble, it would only start from that point forward. The house and bank account up to that point would remain all his.

      Delete
    6. אשר פיהם דבר שואNovember 13, 2013 at 3:29 PM

      There is no reason not to institute it as a לכתחילה in the beginning of many marriages. It is a תקנה for a woman, who nowadays gets little benefit from it. Why force her to accept it ? It should be standard in the beginning of marriages. The only reason it isn't already, is that women are uneducated about these laws, and no one gave them the choice.

      Delete
  12. 1 and 2 the point here is the fact that she took it to Post despite being an internal issue of frum people.. and this has nothing to do with him.

    3 She may have a point but a woman must accept her husband position is this case. This does not mean that he should have insisted on this but part of marriage is that the husband is the boss and of course the husband job is to respect their wives feelings and be tactful to avoid these troubles. is short they are both a fault in this case (based on the story) but she cannot prove here that husband is controlling

    ReplyDelete
  13. A woman is allowed to have her opinions. Just because those opinions don't fit the classic frum philosophy doesn't mean that one is allowed to make her an agunah. Rav Kotler does not have to agree with those opinions but can still support her struggle to be freed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her opinions represent one of a MOREDES and that as profound impact on her entitlement.


      Do you seriously think that this your husband is trying to make money and ruin is own life in the process? f course he fell with an aggressive family that few would manage to divorce without a struggle

      Delete
  14. Rav Malkiel Kotler can give permission for an interview without agreeing with everything that Gital subsequently said. Your characterization of what she wrote was very uncharitable. I doubt Gital herself would agree with your five points as written. The first step of lomdus is to be able to explain a machlokes in a manner that both sides would approve of. I know you’re capable of doing that, and I don’t know why you’re not doing so here. As a fan of your Seforim I’m disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R' Malkiel is considered a leading teacher and here we see how he sees to forget everything in order to help a relative

      Can you imagine a university head using his position to help a relative get a divorce on better terms. If it would be considered corrupt in a secular system we should be no worse.

      Your claim that he is entitled to keep quiet once he became a MECHUTAN in this divorce he cannot longer keep quiet and say that he is not a interfering

      Delete
  15. Do you agree with the following statement? “As long as a man has a Halachic right to have his demands met in return for a Get, his actions cannot be a Chillul Hashem. Even if his actions cause people to abandon Mitzvos and to mock Torah and frum Jews, that is not his concern. As long as he is acting within the confines of his Halachic obligations, nothing he does can possibly be a Chillul Hashem, regardless of the damage it does to Jewish community at large.”

    I can’t imagine you would agree with that statement as written. However if you don’t, why do you continue to insist that all that matters is if Avrom has a right to refuse the Get? Surely you must have met or at least read about those who've left the fold because of Get refusal and extortion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the wife wakes up one morning and decides her husband isn't her type, she would rather have a husband more to her tastes, and demands a divorce, the husband has no obligation to divorce her and can insist the marriage continue. And no beis din will force him to divorce her. And he will be 100% within his halachic, ethical and moral rights.

      Delete
    2. I'm not talking about a man who wants to stay married. I'm talking about a man who agrees to a divorce, and is using the Get to hold his wife hostage until his demands are met. If Lihavdil the Muslims had such a system, what would you say about it?

      Delete
    3. "if the wife wakes up one morning and decides her husband isn't her type, she would rather have a husband more to her tastes,"

      Well, if she elopes with a man who is more to her tastes, that is the case were all poskim agree that the Beith Din will force him by corporal punishment (lashes) to give the get.

      So the idea that the torah gives the tool of refusing a get to husbands who are unfairly cheated upon is absolutely wrong.

      Delete
    4. If a married woman "elopes" with another man she is an adulteress and subject to being executed. She loses everything including her kesuba. And she is forced to separate with the man she eloped with.

      Delete
    5. blatant - I have no idea where you are getting your information from. BD will not force him to give a get, they will just stop them getting back together.

      Delete
  16. Does she need permission? She can't express an opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "5) A wife has the right to demand a Get and thus break up the family - even when she thinks he is not a bad person but simply isn't right for her."

    DT - How is this question relevant? She wants a get, why does her reason for wanting a get need to satisfy you? If her reason isn't good enough for wanting the divorce he is allowed to withhold the get? Where is this halacha written? I'm not being rhetorical, I want to learn something here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She isn't halachicly entitled to a Get just because she wants one. This halacha is written in Shulchan Aruch in black and white. Everyone who looked into SA knows this.

      Delete
    2. BT- Give me a siman or keep quiet.

      Delete
    3. אשר פיהם דבר שואNovember 13, 2013 at 4:37 PM

      After the חרם דרבינו גרשום, a man and a woman are almost on equal footing regarding a גט. It is however set, to minimize it's use. Neither can force the other one. No one is obligated to give one, nor accept one. If a woman doesn't accept one, and he wants out, he may get a Heter Meah, but only if he allows her the get. There is however no Heter Meah for a woman who wants out . In that case where he refuses to give a get, they are both stuck. He cannot remarry, and neither can she.

      Delete
    4. So a man can refuse to give a get whenever he feels like it? That's his right? What if he's tormenting his ex-wife by doing so, as Gital would claim here?

      Delete
    5. See Even Ho'ezer 76. It is one of the most difficult simanim in E'H, so take your time to learn it thoroughly.

      Delete
    6. mistake, it is even ho'ezer 77

      Delete
    7. There must be a halachicly justifiable reason to give her the right to demand a divorce. If she doesn't meet one of the specific reasons halacha gives a wife to demand a divorce for, then she has no right to force him to give a Get through beis din.

      Delete
  18. I have no idea what R. Kotlar thinks. But (regarding #1) I remember 40 years ago Rav Bick also complained that couples were pressured too quickly into marriage. He got a lot of flak from other rabbonim; he said that they reacted that way because they were m'sadrei kiddushin but he [R. Bick] said what he did because he was a mesader gittin. And (#3) Rav Moshe paskened that for the wife's mitzvot she can follow her customs--the specific one he mentioned was how she covered her hair, but I think that would apply to candle lighting as well. As for number 4, if the wife is the breadwinner she may certainly keep her earnings if she forgoes support from the husband; perhaps the girls schools should start teaching this halacha.

    Ben Torah--if the husband wants a valid heter me'ah rabbonim, one of the absolute requirements is that he write a get and deposit it with the Beis din to be delivered when she is able and willing to receive it--see Igros Moshe E.H. 4:3 where R. Moshe paskens that that is the case even where the wife is a moredet who has definitely stolen from the husband.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rav Moshe never said or wrote she can follow her customs. A wife must follow her husbands customs once she marries him.

      He can deposit the Get with the beis din that issued the heter meah and it will give it to her once she meets her halachic demands she owes him. He can remarry immediately even before she meets that.

      Delete
    2. BT,

      Rav Moshe has a published teshuva where he says she doesn't have to comply with his wishes regarding covering hair in style he is used to. Either Rav Moshe was saying she can follow neither custom or that she can follow her custom. He definitely wasn't saying she should follow his customs. (Or perhaps he was saying that you can ignore customs as long as you keep halacha. Its been a while since I saw the teshuva and he definitely alludes to this (in the covering hair context), but I don't think it was his main point)

      Which way did you read the teshuva?

      Delete
    3. Gershon that is not what the teshuva is about. He was not discussing minhag but chumros and maris eiyen

      שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ב סימן יב

      ולכן לדינא אין כתר"ה יכול למחות ביד אשתו הרבנית החשובה מללבש פאה נכרית, שאף אם כתר"ה רוצה להחמיר אינו יכול להטיל חומרותיו עליה שזהו רק דין שלה, וכיון שהיא עושה כדין שהוא כרוב הפוסקים ושגם נראה כמותם, אינו יכול להחמיר עליה אף אם לא תכסה כלל הפאה נכרית, וכ"ש כשרוצה להלביש כובע עליה שיכסה רוב מהפאה נכרית שאין לכתר"ה להקפיד כלל. ואם כתר"ה הוא מהנוהגין להתגלח בסם ומספרים כעין תער ולא חש על עצמו למראית עין שהוא רק מטעמים שבארתי ודאי לא שייך שיחמיר עליה בפאה נכרית שהרי הוא כסותר הנהגת עצמו שאותן הטעמים איכא בזה עוד מכ"ש כדבארתי. ידידו, משה פיינשטיין

      Delete
    4. The teshuva says it is a chumra and it is her choice because its her mitzva. If both choices are halachikly valid, why should the fact that his version is different (minhag as opposed to chumra) make a difference? It's her mitzva, just let her do it...

      Perhaps there is a chiluk someone can share with us.

      Delete
    5. BT: Rav Moshe says explicitly in the tshuvah that he cannot get a valid heter me'ah rabbonim while he is withholding a get over money even "if she definitely stole from him." Not that he can deposit a get which she can get only after meeting his demands.

      Rav Eidensohn: How do you understand

      שזהו רק דין שלה
      in Rav Moshe's tshuvah if not that may follow her customs in her mitzvot?

      Delete
    6. Rav Moshe is only talking about an extra chumra. He is not discussing a minhag, A chumra he wants she doesn't have to do. That's all Rav Moshe is saying. His minhag she does have to do.

      Delete
  19. "Wife shouldn't have to follow the customs of the husband."

    Actual, in Minhogim that are in the wife's provenance, such as candle lighting, SHE DOESN'T. Its in Igros Moshe. But I guess Wiess dosent care about that!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Igros says no such thing. She must follow his minhagim.

      Delete
    2. OK, let's say he made a mistake regarding the halocho of candle lighting. Does that make him an evil character? He thought it was his right to decide minhagim and the truth is that it isn't. A Rav has to set him straight and they can continue on their merry way. This is not grounds for a get.

      Delete
    3. That is also not grounds to give someone silent treatment for the whole day. What normal, balanced adults would do is agree to disagree until they consult a rav and go on their merry way until then.

      Delete
    4. SubWife: Just because she claimed he gave her the silence treatment does not mean that is true. She is in a fight with him and any claims she makes against him cannot be accepted as truth just by her claims.

      Delete
    5. Subwife you have been obviously been blessed with a peaceful existence and have no idea what goes on in many normal marriages.

      I was dealing with a couple - that each of them was intelligent personable, tremendous midos and they had many devoted friends. However they were always fighting with each other - especially on Shabbos. One major fight was over the fact he noticed that the wife wasn't paying attention to his Shabbos derashos but instead was talking with their 3 year old daughter. He ended up screaming at her in front of all the guests. She explained to me that she was in fact talking to their daughter during the drasha but it was in order to keep their daughter quiet so as not to disturb the drasha.

      so yes it is not suprising that there are adjustment issues and learning how to disagree and not taking everything personally. that is what counseling did. They did see a marriage counselor of her choice who told them that there was nothing fatally wrong with their marriage and it could be fixed through therapy. She refused to continue.

      You heard the story of the Steipler and the shtender?

      Delete
    6. R'Eidensohn, I have seen many marriages, normal and not. Husband screaming at his wife in front of all the guests was not one of those things I, thankfully, witnessed and if it did happen, I wouldn't consider it normal. I would say inability to control one's temper in front of guests is a clear sign of a problem. If she refused to continue, I am not going to judge her decision since that woman and not me would have to continue living with this person. And what good would it accomplish by forcing her to stay in a marriage? You see this story as a woman who gave up too easily, am I right? Would that justify refusing a get on husband's part?

      I would love to read the story of Steipler and the shtender.

      Delete
    7. Sally, I don't take everything she claims for granted. However, if we were to believe that she said, "You are a good person, but we are incompatible" why wouldn't you believe that her husband gave her silent treatments?

      Delete
    8. DT you are conceding way too much. She never said he yelled at her. They had a bustup and he did not yet know how to handle it. This is not controlling, just young and inexperienced. The first fight is always hard.
      One wonders if she was taught by a competent kallah teacher. Was she told the words of the Rambam about the דרך בנות ישראל הקדושים הרהורים.
      We should all, men and women, review that Rambam to clean ourselves of the feminist stupidity that could be influencing us. הלכות אישות פרק טו הלכה יח - כ

      Delete
    9. A rabbi once visited the illustrious Rabbi Kanievsky, who was called "the Steipler," and he told him that he was looking for a shidduch for his granddaughter. He asked the Steipler what traits were important to look for in a boy, and the Steipler responded, "Diligence in Torah learning, common sense and good character." The visitor wondered, "If he is immersed in Torah and has achieved greatness in it, won’t he automatically have good character?"

      "Not necessarily," responded the Steipler. "A student leans on his "shtender" [learning stand] learning Torah diligently in yeshiva for many years. A shtender is a convenient creation. It never asks for help with anything, for example, taking out the garbage or buying something at the grocery, and it never gets angry. There was never a shtender in a bad mood, or a shtender that expected someone to speak kind words of encouragement to it. No shtender has ever gotten sick and required medical treatment... And suddenly that same student has to begin living with another person, a wife to whom all the above conditions can occur. The suitor therefore has to have good character."

      Once again the rabbi asked, "Doesn’t the Torah refine a person?"

      "Certainly," responded the Steipler. "There are some who had they not learned Torah would be predatory beasts, yet by virtue of their diligent Torah study have escaped wickedness. Yet that does not suffice for them to have good character. Only if someone works on this, engaging in much study of ethics, constantly examining his spiritual condition, and breaking down his bad traits and lusts, can he become a person of good character" (Mevakshei Torah, Chapter 5, Kovetz 23).

      http://dafyomireview.com/article.php?docid=156

      Delete
    10. SubWife: If she felt he is a good person but they are incompatible, that is not a basis in halacha where she can force him to divorce her.

      Delete
  20. Interesting that after a New York Times article two years ago, even Rabbi Jeremy Stern and ORA felt it necessary to claim (however implausibly as their claim was not credible) that they were against raising these issues in public, and that these issues should be limited to within the Jewish community. Now, not only is ORA openly bringing these issues to the public, but so is Rabbi Kotler. Also of note was that two years ago was the New York Times, while this is the New York Post. Furthermore, the New York Post article is not limited to the get issues, but is a general indictment of the Orthodox (or at least yeshivish Orthodox) system of dating and marriage.
    see previous post on Daas Torah
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/11/ora-use-of-national-media-change-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. Point of InformationNovember 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM

    I communicated with one of the signatories to the Kol Koreh. He told me that he did not intend to give a haskomah to publication of the dispute in goyish newspapers such as the Post.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thank you for that very specific comment. We know you must be telling the truth because it is absolutely possible to verify your claim. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My brother spoke with a number of those who signed - and they also said they didn't mean to approve all the points that were found in the Kol Koreh such as the pressure put on Avraham Meir and is family. As with many Kol Koreh's signature are obtained because other people have signed and not because they have carefully read the contents. This is similar to what Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky admitted when he explained why he signed the ban against Lipa Schmeltzer.

      Delete
  23. Point of InformationNovember 14, 2013 at 12:24 AM

    Friends,

    The Weiss-Dodelson marriage is kaput, over, finito. I have not read that either side alleges any Torah shortcomings in the other. Two people who didn't get along, fought constantly and wanted a divorce. There doesn't have to be a side in this dispute, because Torah and mitzvos are not the bone of contention between them.

    Say she was mean and cranky. Say she deflated his ego by not respecting him. Say she burnt the roast. Say he wanted to stay married, but she wanted no part of him. Whatever. None of that matters.

    Here is the only thing that matters: Does a Jewish man have the right to refuse to give his wife a get unless she pays cash money? All, repreat, all the other stuff is nonsense.

    If you like we can ask: Does a Jewish man have the right to refuse to give his ex-wife a get unless she pays money - if she was a bad, shrewish, mean wife?

    What if the wife let herself grow fat, wouldn't dress nice or wear makeup, refused to give his family her money, told him he was a jerk and a mamma's boy and stupid.

    Now is the ex-husband justified in refusing to give the get unless she pays cash money?

    The reason this dispute is so interesting to the world is that Weiss is "pussyfooting" around. He will not tell the truth.

    Weiss is withholding the get solely to get money from Gital, but he and his family are spouting silly, transparent deceptions about Torah, halacha, gemara, etc.

    All this halacha Torah moredes spiel is just not honest. Give him the money, cash only.

    Put the money down on the table in front of him. Do you think Weiss will leave the money laying there while he runs off to get a psak as to whether halacha permits him to take the money? Get meruvin? Get shmuvin? magen? mesarev? Fooey!

    Weiss... you claim Gital is making Chilul HaShem. You are worse, because you keep pretending that there are noble Torah issues of great talmudic significance that only a few elite can understand. You are using the Torah and the halacha to get money.

    You don't make yourself out to be anyone desirable when you want money but pretend that its not you that wants the money, its the Torah and the Halacha that are forcing you to seek money for the sake of Torah and mitzvos.

    If anyone reading this believes this is not the truth, let's hear you. What does Weiss want other that money?

    What Jewish interest is Weiss advancing by refusing to give a get unless the ex-wife pays?

    Is Weiss somehow good doing something good for the Jewish people?

    Don't bother to answer child custody. That's money, too. Weiss does not want to pay lawyers to get him the custody he wants.

    But who knows where he is getting such bad advice that a Beis Din will strip her of her rights? The civil court always controls child custody. Beis din agreements as to child custody are not enforceable unless in the best interest of the child.

    So why not admit it - there's no halachic issues here. Weiss is using the get to save money on legal fees.

    Is it futile to ask the Weiss camp to show a little integrity? Is there a bigger chillul haShem that hiding behind the Torah to make money?

    Avrami, make this statement:

    To Whom It May Concern: My ex-wife Gital wants a get from me. I will give it to her on one condition. She has to pay me in advance the sum of $ ________.
    No money, no get.

    All the other mumbo-jumbo about halacha is in itself chilul haShem.

    SO HERE'S A CHALLENGE TO ALL THE WFGs (Friends of Withholding the Get):

    Is Weiss refusing to give Gital a get for any reason other than to get money and save legal fees?

    Is Weiss using the Torah to obtain money from his ex -wife?

    Is it better or worse or worse for the Jewish people that Weiss refuses to give his wife a get unless she pays cash money.

    Let's hear your point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  24. following the gedolimNovember 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM

    The signatories of the kol koreh should be asked to clarify if they are allowing the current tactics. May I request that your brother ask them to do so? If they feel that this is a chillul Hashem, they should put a stop to it. Admittedly, it would be difficult for them to do so, being that the free gital page has 13,000+ likes, but if they feel that way, it is their responsibility. Until they do, anyone using these tactics is doing nothing wrong as they are following the gedolim. Though Shira Dicker is clearly not who they expected to be listening to them (see http://www.nycreligion.info/?p=9863 ) she too is within her rights to be following what they did, in fact, say.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Recipients and PublicityNovember 14, 2013 at 5:58 PM

    Stop the madness and stop fighting with each other ALL of you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Second Bais HaMikdosh was destroyed because of Sinas Chinam ("causeless hatred), and the third Bais HaMikdosh will only be rebuilt by Ahavas Chinom ("selfless love")! You are ALL making yourselves into a laughingstock in full view of the world !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To the Weisses and Dodelsons STOP IT and tell your warring kids who are fighting each other to grow up and stop acting like BABIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rabbi Eidensohn,
    I was hoping that you could comment about the following underlying attitude towards marriage. Has this also become the attitude of Rabbi Kotler?

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-face-of-agunot-promises-to-keep-fighting-for-all-chained-women/

    Dodelson’s public fight for a religious divorce has changed her, especially in terms of how she might approach future relationships.

    “It’s kind of too depressing for me to even think ahead to this, given my current situation, but I do now understand why people live together before marriage,” she says. “I’ve even told my mother that next time I like a guy, I’m going to live with him for five years first. Of course I was joking. I know what I would and wouldn’t do — and I would never do that.”

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/jewish_get_dispute_gets_increa.html

    Shira Dicker, who described herself in an email to the Advance as "part of Team Gital," acknowledged that "Gital is one of my clients" and became defensive when asked whether she was paid for her services.

    "I have seen some people jump on the fact that the Dodelsons hired a publicist as if this is some kind of crime or sinister strategy," Ms. Dicker said. "That really confuses me. What is problematic about a victim taking her story public? I hope that is NOT what your question implied. Other women in Gital's position hired hit men."

    http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/jewish_get_dispute_gets_increa.html

    ReplyDelete

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