Guest post by Rick Under
Jewish law and tradition, leaving a marriage is a grave matter, and
should not be done absent serious cause. Yet, some in the Orthodox
community seem to have adopted the worst aspects of the 1960s
counterculture's attitude towards family and marriage.
If a marriage is irretrievably broken, the parties should work out all issues in good faith, including a get, with the involvement of a beis din if the parties cannot work out a mutually acceptable agreement. It is one thing to dispute under which circumstances a get is appropriate, and, if so, what measures are appropriate to coerce a spouse into giving or receiving a get. It is quite another to assert, as does ORA, that a get is appropriate and that k’fia [coercion], whether with or without [shotim] force, is appropriate in all cases in which one spouse wants out of a marriage. ORA’s position completely contradicts accepted Jewish law and practice over many centuries. [Although in fairness to Rabbi Stern, it should be noted that he has previously claimed that the one exception from his rule that a get must always be given upon demand is if a wife steals one million dollars (as opposed to one child) and runs off Daas Torah 2012/05/ora-1-million-dollars-vs-1-child
But the problem goes far deeper than that. ORA and its supporters are not just trying to overturn centuries of Jewish Law and practice over what is appropriate once a marriage is irretrievably broken, but also under what circumstances it is proper for someone to leave a marriage in the first place. ORA’s position is not just that a woman should receive a get whenever she demands it, but that it is perfectly legitimate and appropriate for a woman to leave a marriage, regardless of whether there are children, for any reason at all.
“Man,” Rabbi Stern said, as though addressing such a fellow [who doesn’t give a get on demand]. “She’s just not that into you.”
The Daily Beast 2013/11/04/for-orthodox-women-getting-the-get-can-take-years
Or as Gitel Dodelson wrote in the New York Post, “I said: ‘You’re not a bad man. We’re just not right for each other.’ …. ‘This isn’t working, I’m moving back to my parents.’ I packed up [the couple’s child] right then and there, and drove off.”
The message of ORA to married women is if you decide at any point that “you are just not that into him” just leave and take the children to wherever you please. Is that also the position of Rabbi Hershel Schachter and ORA’s other rabbinical supporters? And for that matter, is that also the position of the roshei yeshiva who have joined side-by-side with ORA in support of Dodelson?
If a marriage is irretrievably broken, the parties should work out all issues in good faith, including a get, with the involvement of a beis din if the parties cannot work out a mutually acceptable agreement. It is one thing to dispute under which circumstances a get is appropriate, and, if so, what measures are appropriate to coerce a spouse into giving or receiving a get. It is quite another to assert, as does ORA, that a get is appropriate and that k’fia [coercion], whether with or without [shotim] force, is appropriate in all cases in which one spouse wants out of a marriage. ORA’s position completely contradicts accepted Jewish law and practice over many centuries. [Although in fairness to Rabbi Stern, it should be noted that he has previously claimed that the one exception from his rule that a get must always be given upon demand is if a wife steals one million dollars (as opposed to one child) and runs off Daas Torah 2012/05/ora-1-million-dollars-vs-1-child
But the problem goes far deeper than that. ORA and its supporters are not just trying to overturn centuries of Jewish Law and practice over what is appropriate once a marriage is irretrievably broken, but also under what circumstances it is proper for someone to leave a marriage in the first place. ORA’s position is not just that a woman should receive a get whenever she demands it, but that it is perfectly legitimate and appropriate for a woman to leave a marriage, regardless of whether there are children, for any reason at all.
“Man,” Rabbi Stern said, as though addressing such a fellow [who doesn’t give a get on demand]. “She’s just not that into you.”
The Daily Beast 2013/11/04/for-orthodox-women-getting-the-get-can-take-years
Or as Gitel Dodelson wrote in the New York Post, “I said: ‘You’re not a bad man. We’re just not right for each other.’ …. ‘This isn’t working, I’m moving back to my parents.’ I packed up [the couple’s child] right then and there, and drove off.”
The message of ORA to married women is if you decide at any point that “you are just not that into him” just leave and take the children to wherever you please. Is that also the position of Rabbi Hershel Schachter and ORA’s other rabbinical supporters? And for that matter, is that also the position of the roshei yeshiva who have joined side-by-side with ORA in support of Dodelson?
Not that I am supporting everything ORA does, but I don't think you are doing anyone a service by twisting their philosophy like this. It is outlandish to suggest that ORA doesn't value marriage at all and that anyone who comes to their door for a get will be supported by them. You've taken a few isolated quotes and turned it into an entire worldview. This just sows more discord.
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly ORA's position that anyone who wants a get is entitled to an unconditional get. The only exception that Rabbi Stern has recognized is someone who runs away with one million dollars.
ReplyDeleteCan you point to any evidence for that position?
ReplyDeleteCheck ORA's website, or the link above, which links to a video clip by Rabbi Stern.
DeleteOne link is broken and the other does not contain a video.
DeleteI looked at ORA's website. Did not find anything that sounds like what you're saying.
Again, I am not necessarily the biggest supporter of ORA. But many things have been said on this blog about them. I am simply asking you to back up your claims. Otherwise I will continue to assume you are launching false accusation.
Not sure why the link above is not working.
DeleteThis is the link:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/ora-1-million-dollars-vs-1-child.html
It is also quite clear from ORA's website.
It is not clear to me. Perhaps you can provide some concrete points rather than repeatedly stating opinions without supporting any of them?
DeleteThe video is over an hour long. Are there any quotes you feel particularly demonstrate the fact that "It is clearly ORA's position that anyone who wants a get is entitled to an unconditional get"?
watch at about 58 minutes into the video
DeleteWatched it. Did not hear him say that “anyone who wants a get is entitled to an unconditional get.”
DeleteI DID hear him say that “ONCE THE MARRIAGE IS IRRECONCILABLE, the get should be given as soon as possible” (emphasis mine). He also does state that “it’s not acceptable to use the get as leverage” – which you may disagree with, but it hardly makes him a destroyer of Torah.
When he says that a wife who steals a million dollars has acted beyond the pale, he is clearly not saying this l’afukei a wife who steals a child. Those of you trying to paint him as such are deliberately twisting his words. His support of people like Epstein and Dodelson is clearly due to his belief that they were justified in their actions, whether they “ran away with the baby” because of an abusive husband/father or because the arbitration methods failed. You may disagree with his assessment in these cases, but to suggest that he thinks stealing a child is okay or less important than stealing a million dollars is dishonest.
You may not like his positions, but it serves nobody to twist them and trumpet them as evidence of a heretical stance.
Epstein, who is sitting next to stern as he speaks in that video, simply abducted the child. No allegations of abuse. She could have brought the matter to a Beis din or court for permission to relocate the child. But they may have said no. Instead, she simply abducted the child, calculating that she could drag matters out long enough that the abduction would be treated as a fait accompli when the matter would eventually be adjudicated.
DeleteAnd Dodelson alleges in her ny post article that she just picked up the child and took the child to her parent's house. She doesn't allege that she even tried to mediate or arbitrate before doing so. And the allegations Dodelson makes in the article, for which she brings no proof and are presented in an obviously one-sided fashion, do not amount to abuse that could possibly justify her just unilaterally relocating the child.
DeleteYou are implying that ORA believes that abducting a child without reason is a perfectly normal thing to do. The other possibility is that they believe she had every reason to run off with the child in tow. In fact, they have made statements to that effect. So, once again, you have yet to provide any evidence for your position. You are just making assumptions that are in line with your position and then using them as proof.
DeleteI am all ears, friends. If you can provide me with evidence that ORA believes what you say it does, I will join you in your condemnations. But nobody on this blog has yet succeeded in doing so.
Delete"The other possibility is that they believe she had every reason to run off with the child in tow. In fact, they have made statements to that effect"
what exactly are you referring to in claiming? What statements have they made?
The Dodelson camp claims that "The Statement claims that his child was withheld from him. This is false. In fact, there was a disagreement about visitation arrangements and the Dodelsons had begged that they go to an impartial Rov to resolve the dispute, which the Weisses refused to do."
DeleteLet us note well that it is NOT RELEVANT if this is true or not; what is relevant for the purposes of this specific discussion is that the Dodelsons - and ORA - BELIEVE it is true. This is important because it means that they are not supporting the abduction of a child; they are supporting what they believe is reasonable behavior, which does NOT include kidnapping. (Of course, it is alternatively possible that they are all lying, believe that kidnapping is A-OK, and are trying to destroy Orthodox Judaism from within. But again, I believe the burden of proof is on those of you who wish to demonstrate this.)
Doldeson herself asserts in the New York Times that she picked up then and there and relocated the child to her parent's house. She doesn't say she asked the child's other parent if that would be OK. She just acted unilaterally.
DeleteIn addition, in the video Stern is standing next to Tamar Epstein, whose kidnapping of a child Stern has repeatedly supported.
Deletetypo: meant New York Post. sorry.
DeleteDoldeson herself asserts in the New York Post that she picked up then and there and relocated the child to her parent's house. She doesn't say she asked the child's other parent if that would be OK. She just acted unilaterally.
I can think of many cases where relocating with a child is the proper course of action. Of course, this is not true of all, or even most cases. Whether this is such a case I can't tell you since I don't really know what things were like inside that house. Furthermore, according to the Dodelson camp, there were no attempts to cut the child off from his father. Again, whether that's true or not I don't know. But again, if ORA believes that, whether here or in the Epstein case, then they are not supporting kidnapping; they are supporting what they believe are appropriate measures, including allowing visitation, etc. And once again, if you'd like to assert that they DON'T in fact believe any of that, that they really know that it was all-out abduction and that they are in favor of gneivas nefashos, you will have to demonstrate that that is the case. Sitting next to someone they BELIEVE has done something that is NOT kidnapping doesn't do that.
DeleteSo you have changed your mind and it is now OK for a mother to kidnap a child so long as she doesn't completely prevent the child from seeing the father and allows "visitation" for the child and father on her terms?
DeleteDodelson alleges in her New York Post that she simply relcoated the child to her parent's house. Although she makes all manner of accusations against Weiss, she does not claim that either she or the child were in any danger.
DeleteAgain, Dodelson does not claim that she attempted to have Weiss go to beis din or court to adjudicate whether she could relocate the child. She asserts that she just did it.
You are now saying that is perfectly acceptable?
I said, "I can think of many cases where relocating with a child is the proper course of action. Of course, this is not true of all, or even most cases."
DeleteYou said, "So you have changed your mind and it is now OK for a mother to kidnap a child so long as she doesn't completely prevent the child from seeing the father . . . ?"
I really don't see how your conclusion follows from my statement.
At any rate, once again it is not relevant what my personal beliefs are. You claim that "It is clearly ORA's position that anyone who wants a get is entitled to an unconditional get." You have yet to provide any sort of evidence to back this up.
You have also repeatedly implied that ORA values children very little and money a lot more; but the only support you have for that claim is a single quote taken out of context to make it sound the way you want.
All I'm asking you to do is provide evidence for any of the claims you have made that justify the vilification of this organization. (To be fair, your statements have been less hateful and inflammatory than others', but you still appear to take issue with ORA for positions they do not hold.)
ORA supports women who have kidnapped their children, and it thus seems that ORA is actively encouraging this type of behavior.
DeleteThere are at least three specific examples on this blog, and so it would not be surprising if there are many more: Dodelson, Epstein, and Gelernter.
Dodelson - boasts of just unilaterally taking the child to her parent's house in the NY Post
Epstein - court finding (as well as Epstein admission in her court filings) that she abducted the child
Gelernter - condemned in US Congress for kidnapping the children;
@Raffi - The YU ORA organization is a militant feminist group, operating completely contrary to HALACHA, that believes firmly in the concept of divorce on demand. ORA employs numerous methods of "persuasion" to convince Jewish husbands to comply with their wive's demands during divorce conflicts.
ReplyDeleteThe foolish women who utilize ORA are sealing their own fate by provoking vengeful, long term conflicts with their husbands and then receiving a coerced PASUL GET, if any GET is received at all. ORA is the only winner in these cases.
Feminists believe marriage is oppressive for women, and divorce is somehow liberating for women. Can anyone identify even one Jewish marriage that was ever preserved by ORA?
"The YU ORA organization is a militant feminist group . . . that believes firmly in the concept of divorce on demand"
DeleteDo you have any evidence for that position?
"Can anyone identify even one Jewish marriage that was ever preserved by ORA?"
That is absurd. Women don't go to ORA for relationship advice. They go to get a get in a situation where they are clearly not looking to get back together.
@Raffi - "concept of divorce on demand" - Show me one statement ever made by any ORA connected rabbi claiming that a woman demanding a GET is NOT entitled to receive a GET. If any woman who demands a GET is entitled to receive it, that's called divorce on demand.
Delete"They go to get a get" - Then you're admitting that ORA's methodology is always to dismantle Jewish marriages, never to save them. This is clearly a feminist ideology, not a Torah ideology.
"Show me one statement ever made by any ORA connected rabbi claiming that a woman demanding a GET is NOT entitled to receive a GET."
DeleteNo sir, I believe the burden of proof is on YOU to provide a statement indicating that they believe in divorce on demand.
""They go to get a get" - Then you're admitting that ORA's methodology is always to dismantle Jewish marriages, never to save them."
By this logic, rabbanim who specialize in writing gittin are also feminists. Obviously that is not the case - that just happens to be the stage in the process that they are operating in.
Most rabbonim who specialize in writing gittin probably try to encourage reconcilation, rather than running out of a marriage with a child and then running to the New York Post to generally besmirch Orthodox Judaism.
DeleteMost? Probably? So not only do you really not have any facts to support your claim, you are once again trying to throw things off topic. (The Post issue has nothing to do with ORA's position.)
DeleteYou have been trying to claim that ORA is in favor of divorce on demand and has no concern for the institution of marriage. Pointing out that ORA doesn't preserve marriages doesn't do that since the women (and men) who come to ORA are well past the point of wanting to keep the marriage, so it is obvious that ORA doesn't have any saved marriages under its belt. If someone came personally to Rabbi Stern asking WHETHER he thinks she should get divorced, he might very well encourage her not to. (In fact, I imagine that's likely since he knows so well the horrors of divorce.) You are painting him as someone who would not do that when in fact you have no evidence for that, because ORA as an organization is not a place one goes to ask such a question.
@Raffi - You and all the other ORA trolls here cannot kasher and whitewash ORA. ORA's perverse anti-family, anti-father, anti-Torah ideology was displayed right on their website until recently:
ReplyDelete"An agunah is a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a Jewish divorce upon request."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050130200043/http://getora.org/
One of us is using ad hominem attacks and name-calling. The other one (that's me) is asking for evidence and explanation. Which one is a troll now?
DeleteI imagine that that definition was removed from the website because it led people to believe that they thought anyone who wants a get automatically is an agunah, which is not their position (unless you have evidence to the contrary?). Here is a quote from their updated answer to the FAQ, "What is an agunah?":
While historically the term agunah referred almost exclusively to a woman whose husband was lost at war or sea and could not issue her a get, today, the term is most often associated with the plight of a woman whose husband refuses to issue her a get as a means of extortion or emotional abuse.
http://www.newsweek.com/divorce-orthodox-jewish-community-can-be-brutal-degrading-and-endless-3082
Delete“Get refusal is a form of domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is never justified,”
Stern does not qualify this statement in any way. Anyone who demands a get is entitled to one, no matter what the circumstances, according to Stern (the only exception being stealing one million dollars - although not one child).
I don't understand you. He says domestic abuse is never justified. That means if a woman is suffering from domestic abuse, she is entitled to a get. I don't see how that is problematic in any way. Maybe if a woman FALSELY claims there is abuse she should not be immediately entitled to a get - but I don't hear him saying that she is even in that case.
DeleteThe one million dollars vs. one child is a red herring. He clearly is not implying that one million dollars is worth more than a child. You are twisting his words to make it work for you. It's just plain dishonest.
Stern doesn't say that a woman is entitled to a get just in cases of domestic abuse. Stern says that not giving a get to a woman [no matter why she demands one, or what behavior she engages in to leave the marrage] is itself domestic abuse that can NEVER be justified.
DeleteThe ONLY exception Stern recognizes is for a woman who steals one million dollars. Those are his words, not mine.
Where does Stern say that a woman deserves a get "no matter why she demands one"? You are putting those words in his mouth.
DeleteThe one million dollars vs. one child is a red herring. He clearly is not implying that one million dollars is worth more than a child. You are twisting his words to make it work for you. It's just plain dishonest.
@Raffi - You are obviously an ORA troll and your intellectual dishonesty is really pathetic. Anyone with an ounce of brains can see right through your bogus attempts to deny, obfuscate, and cover-up the plain truth here.
DeleteStern's statements and the unscrubbed statements on ORA's website are both clearly promoting the O-RAH agenda of feminist divorce on demand, contrary to HALACHA.
I think I'll let all those ounce-brain folks out there decide for themselves. One of us is putting out evidence and rational commentary. The other one is launching insults.
DeleteGood luck winning folks to your point of view.
@EmesLeYaacovNovember noted from ORA's website.
ReplyDelete"An agunah is a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a Jewish divorce upon request."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050130200043/http://getora.org/
Neither Jeremy Stern or ORA has ever backed off this position.
Indeed, in his Newsday article above. Stern claims that not giving a get when requested is domestic abuse. period.
You are aware that you are using an archived website, right? The current website doesn't say that. Instead - as I already posted - it says "While historically the term agunah referred almost exclusively to a woman whose husband was lost at war or sea and could not issue her a get, today, the term is most often associated with the plight of a woman whose husband refuses to issue her a get as a means of extortion or emotional abuse."
ReplyDeleteSounds like they have "backed off" - or perhaps just clarified - their position.
http://www.yuobserver.org/2013/11/of-agunot-and-yoatzot-shifting-a-paradigm-of-powerlessness/
ReplyDeleteRabbi Jeremy Stern, Executive Director at the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA), said in a recent interview, “In abuse, there’s no other side. Abuse is never justified.” Refusing to give a get is a form of abuse.
I get it, I get it. You are willing to take a sound bite and make of it an entire worldview. I maintain that is a simplistic way of making sense of the world. To each his own.
Delete