Sunday, November 17, 2013

Weiss-Dodelson: Gital "the face of Agunot" discuss her views

Times of Israel  Update see below [...] 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.”

This is because one major thing she is not allowing her struggle to do is convince her to leave Orthodox Judaism.

“I’ve never blamed my religion for this situation. I blame Avrohom Meir for it.”

As she sees it, Judaism is not bad, but there are Jewish people who do bad things.

“I don’t want Avrohom Meir to ruin my religion for me,” she asserts.

Other than finding herself an agunah, Dodelson claims that she has always felt empowered as an Orthodox woman. However, she is uncomfortable with the “feminist” label.

“Being a feminist is beyond what I am putting my energy into right now,” she states.[...]

===================
Guest post by Outraged rebuttal to Gital's apparent belief that living together before marriage helps prevent divorce

Gital is mistaken: Couples cohabiting before marriage are MORE likely to divorce, not less

Marriages are successful only when each of the spouses believes that marriage is a commitment, not just an easily reversible choice, and works hard to make the marriage successful.

But Gital apparently believes that the true problem is that she and Avraham Meir didn't move in together before marriage, in which case she presumably would have known that he was not for her and would not have married him.

NY Times Marry
NY Times: Downside of cohabiting before marriage

"...About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.

But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

98 comments :

  1. This article is precisely why this woman and her supporters must be fought. They are on a war-path against pure Torah. She's determined to come out of this as a high profile lawyer with her mission to save fellow "victims" of antiquated religious laws set out for her!

    I am personally going through a process not far behind this one -- in the Israeli Rabbanut for 3 yrs fight my wife's claims for chiyuv Get. The big difference is that I am claiming Shalom Bayis, and that we have no secular court saying differently. All I ask for is a couple of months of serious couple's counseling before making the decision to end over 25 years of a blessed marriage (with children, et al). She, riding the wave of this kind of feminist momentum, claims the right to hit and run... and scream aguna, so that she appears righteous!

    It's so deeply wrong; cutting at the core of the whole concept of kedushin!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blessed marriage where she had to provide for the family and raise the children...

      Delete
    2. I agree with you in your case - you are 100% right! You should insist on counseling! See, I am not a feminist! If you love your wife and you want to get back together with her in a real happy loving relationship, then you have a right to demand counseling over a period of a few months to see if something can be worked out.

      But as you wrote, there is a “big difference” between your case and this case.

      Weiss is not claiming that he loves his wife and is not saying that he wants to stay married, he is just demanding $350,000 and is not even happy with the Court’s 50% custody decision.

      Delete
    3. @yy - Its grotesquely evil to destroy Jewish families and destroy children's relationships with their fathers.

      You're absolutely right, this ultra-sick divorce on demand ideology must be fought tooth and nail. The YU ORA ( the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot ) is forcibly promoting this twisted ideology in the Orthodox community while aiding women like Dodelson.

      ORA's sickening public propaganda onslaught against R. Weiss has repeated itself over and over in prior divorce cases, only on a smaller scale. Now the ORA goons are dragging the Jewish husbands and the Torah through the feminist non-Jewish media in front of millions of non-Jews.

      The methodology of the ORA BIRYONIM is to force a PASUL GET using ruthless pressure against the husband, allowing the ex-wife a free hand to engage in unrelenting legal assaults on her ex-husband.

      Foolish women like Gital Dodelson using ORA are consigning themselves to a PASUL GET and destroying their own reputations.

      Any decent Jews here with Torah values should aggressively counter the propaganda and lies of the ORA trolls swarming over this site.

      ORA = RAH, NOT Torah Judaism:

      "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/

      Delete
    4. Blatant - where are you coming from? You're sadly mistaken.

      AZ - I agree with your reasoning.

      Emes - I agree with your main points, but not the rant and mudslinging. An agunah is NOT a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a Jewish divorce upon request. Kedushin is indeed a bond based on committment. Only clear abuse or mutual fatigue justifies undoing it.

      Delete
    5. To complete the reasons for justifying the undoing of kedusha bonds -- there are also, of course, the cases of objective halachic problems that prevent healthy marital relations.

      Otherwise, maintaining / rejuvenating a Jewish marriage is a MITZVAH. It's called "Shalom Bayis." Many, many sforim speak about it. The fashion today is to ignore them.

      Breeding grounds for sinas chinam...

      Delete
    6. Emes L'Yaakov - please cut out the ad hominem attacks that you dish out with so much relish. It really isn't helping convince anybody of anything and it simply is irritating to read your attempts at brilliance. Your points which you make are genuine and important one's but from the feedback I have gotten - most people stop reading your comments when they see who wrote it.

      Delete
    7. Sadly, in this context, the phrase "Shalom bayis" means "I won't let you go" or "I refuse to give you a get". It does not mean that the husband is ready to contribute what is needed for a peaceful, healthy, happy marriage.

      Delete
    8. Blatant Shalom bayis means to you that the welfare of the husband and children are irrelevant as long as the wife is maximally happy. Whenever there is a problem - don't try resolve it - always get a divorce and find a man that you don't have that problem.

      Delete
    9. I am happy you deign reply to this comment. however, there are questions I asked in other comments where you did not deign to reply.

      Is it OK, according to halacha, that a husband sues his wife for child support?

      Is it OK, according to halacha, that a husband sues his wife for Alimony?

      What is the halachic basis for AMW's claim to 350'000 ?

      Delete
    10. kol ha'kavod, DT. You hit the nail on the head in terms of his mindset re. ShB.

      But there's another interesting fact that "Blatant" has no idea what he's talking abt in throwing around such slanders re. my kavanas, except for revealing that someone is feeding him lines. It's called lashon ha'ra mammash.

      Shame on you!

      Delete
    11. Blatant you questions have been answered before. The husband can ask for whatever he wants - halacha places no restrictions on amount or reason. The $350,000 is compensation for the expenses involved for legal and other fees to defend his right to see his son. Similarly the wife can ask for whatever she wants in order to accept the get.

      Delete
    12. well, there have been many discussions here about women being awarded child support and alimony by civil courts, and this was deemed "Theft" by many commentators here.

      Now, according to halacha, the wife has no obligation to provide for children, nor for her husband, while the husband has an obligation to provide for his wife and children.

      Therefore, any claim for child support and alimony by a man MUST be against halacha.

      Again, your biased stance does not allow you to see that.

      And thank you again for confirming your position which is in favor of get extortion.

      Delete
    13. Blatant stop foaming at the mouth and spewing nonsense. If you want to have an intelligent discussion stop screaming bias etc and simply ask a question.

      If a wife is awarded money by a secular court against the husband's will that is called theft. If the two of them negotiate a settlement that is legitimate. If the wife demands alimony or the house etc to accept the get it would seem that is alright.

      Delete
    14. OK.

      My (female) friend (who has nothing to do with this case) was not awarded custody for her children and the civil court forced her to pay child support for her children. Both her and her husband are hareidi.

      Is it legitimate, according to halacha, that my friend has to pay child support for her children to her ex-husband?

      If it is not legitimate, according to halacha, for an ex-husband to receive child-support from his ex-wife, how can AMW be considered a honest frum jew when he sues his wife not only for child support, but also for alimony?

      Does the fact that he sues her for alimony and child support not prove that he is only after money?

      Delete
    15. Blatant - getting back to your original comments, you bizarrely declared, as if in the know, that my claim for ShB "does not mean that the husband is ready to contribute what is needed for a peaceful, healthy, happy marriage".

      Would you like to enlighten us with what my wife feels "is needed"?

      Delete
  2. I had a few comments on the "pragmatic resolution" post which were not posted. I am not sure if they just accidently did not go through, so I am reposting them here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They went through, but you have to clikc "load more comments" since there are over 200 comments in that thread.

      Delete
  3. Why is Weiss concerned that if he gives a Get, the Dodelson’s will sue for more custody?

    Even if the Dodelson’s sue, can’t he trust that the Court will side with him?

    He already won 50% custody.

    The Court has proved that they aren’t anti-men.

    As long as he acts like an upstanding person he will win again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to one of Dodelson's supporters on this blog, the child is only with Weiss overnight two nights every two weeks, which is one-seventh custody, not half.

      Delete
    2. And how is Weiss supposed to finance years of continued litigation if Dodelson were to keep dragging him back to court?

      Delete
    3. Dear "Outraged",

      Stop speculating and stop asking your friends what the NJ Court custody arrangement for Weiss is – just read the actual Court order – it is available in PDF on the Set Gital Free website.

      Every other weekend - 3 hours before sundown until Sunday 6PM, Plus, every Tuesday and Thursday from 1:30PM until 7:30PM.

      Every person I told this to was shocked – and they all ask the same question – so why is Weiss fighting!

      Indeed, why?

      Delete
    4. AZ,
      Thank you for confirming my point.
      So between Succos and Chanukah, a period of over two months, Avraham Meir has been able to kiss the child good night and put him to bed in the evening, or say modeh ani with him in the morning, a grand total of eight times, ten times? Even if you think that a get should be given in all cases, do you actually think he should be happy with this horrific situation? You think this can possibly be in the best interests of the child?

      Delete
  4. Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer writes on Harry Maryes’s blog:

    “secular courts should be the arbiters of custody/visitation determinations, since they are better equipped than our resources to handle these issues…..once a secular court has issued a ruling, a recalcitrant husband has no right …..to withhold a get”

    Daas Torah – just as you realize that a Beis Din is not trained and equipped to handle child molestation cases, you should also realize that a Beis Din is not equipped to handle custody/visitation determinations

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @AZ (Avodah Zara) the Reformadox OH-RAH troll - "you should also realize that a Beis Din is not equipped to handle custody/visitation determinations" -

      So you and Reformadox clergyman Bechhofer love the custody rulings of the feminist family courts, which normally give automatic custody to mothers, and where decent fathers may hardly be able to see their children, if at all?

      Fine, according to the US Constitution family courts can make no rulings on the Jewish GET. Case closed, the court has ruled, and Jewish fathers have no obligation to issue any GET to their "ex" wives.

      Delete
    2. AZ I don't view Rabbi Bechhoffer an expert in these matters. If you show me an important posek quoting him regarding gittin and custody then we will pay attention.

      Delete
    3. AZ's qoute is, I think, out of context. Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote: "RYH's article a) Is worthless, since an anonymous posek is no better than no posek at all. b) If anything, leads to the conclusion that the secular courts should be the arbiters of custody/visitation determinations, since they are better equipped than our resources to handle these issues. c) Leads, accordingly, to the conclusion that once a secular court has issued a ruling, a recalcitrant husband has no right - even according to Mr. Anonymous Posek - to withhold a get. QED. "

      (RYH article -- http://5tjt.com/false-accusations-and-the-withholding-of-a-get/)
      "...Recently, this author posed the following question to a major Posaik. “Is it ever permitted for an ex-husband to withhold the giving of a Get to his wife?”

      The Posaik responded that it was never permitted to withhold a Get in order to try to negotiate better divorce terms, but it is permitted to do so in response to false legal accusations that are still causing a continuing negation of the father’s rights to see his children. The Posaik claimed that when a false report has been filed against a husband and the husband is not allowed to see his children as a direct result of the false report, he may, with the permission of a reliable Posaik, withhold the get as leverage to ensure that the situation be rectified..."

      Delete
    4. Josh thank you for looking up the original quote - AZ you totally misread Rabbi Bechhoffer's statement

      Delete
    5. Bechhofer is dead wrong, as he is on many other things.

      Secular courts most certainly should NOT decide custody. Custody is a halachic issue that halacha says who should have custody. The non-Jewish courts couldnt give a hoot what halacha says about the matter.

      Delete
    6. אשר פיהם דבר שואNovember 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM

      This one goes out to the one I love. This one goes to the one I left behind ( The תורה) Seriously, courts are more equipped to decide visitation and custody ? Why ? Are they also more equipped to decide דיני ממונות ? So who needs any חושן משפט בית דין ? Let's just have a public book burning of the שולחן ערוך ! That should do the trick ? Can I get a quick קול קורא ? Book burning 12:00 ?

      Delete
  5. אם הוא ירא שתלך לערכאות אחר הגט, הוא יכול לגרשה על תנאי שלא תלך, וכמבואר בספר משפטי ישראל נוסח המסירת מודעה טרם הגט

    ReplyDelete
  6. Suggested guest post:
    Gital is mistaken: Couples cohabiting before marriage are MORE likely to divorce, not less
    Marriages are successful only when each of the spouses believes that marriage is a commitment, not just an easily reversible choice, and works hard to make the marriage successful.
    But Gital apparently believes that the true problem is that she and Avraham Meir didn't move in together before marriage, in which case she presumably would have known that he was not for her and would not have married him.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?_r=0

    "...About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.

    But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

    Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daas Torah,

    It is now almost a week, and I am deeply troubled by your failure to admit that the Weiss’s misled everyone claiming that RG was an arbitrator? Not only that, but when the deception was uncovered, you compounded the deception by claiming that the Dodelsons were the ones spreading misinformation!

    It should be obvious that the proper thing to do is to update that post and publish it as the most recent post on the blog for all to see that the Dodelsons were saying the truth all along.

    It has already been almost a week since you wrote “There will be a clarification in a day or two from the Weiss family regarding the misinformation being spread by the Dodelsons”

    Rabbi Weiss wrote in his resignation letter that they “are ready to give a Get as soon as the Dodelsons accept the arbitrator’s decision”

    However, Ronnie Greenwald wrote “The parties never agreed to my serving as Binding Arbitrator” and RG also wrote “I never received any agreement from the parties to serve as a mediator”

    Besides, it is logically impossible for this case to have been in arbitration. Once they agree to arbitration their fate is in RG’s hands. It is game over. Whatever he decides happens. We don’t need the Dodelson’s to “agree” to the arbitrator’s decision. The Weiss’s would be able to ask the Court to enforce the arbitrator’s decision. From the very fact that the Dodelson’s didn’t agree to the decision of RG shows that they never agreed to arbitration! Otherwise, it wouldn’t be in their power to not agree!

    Instead of admitting that the Weiss’s are liars and dishonest people – you write that the Dodelson’s are spreading misinformation!

    Why if there is overwhelming evidence against the Weiss’s would you automatically assume that the Dodelson’s are spreading misinformation?! Even before the Weiss's attempted to answer the evidence you already "knew" that they were right?!

    And now we know that the Weiss’s realize that they can’t even come up with a way to spin their deception and are just hoping that everyone will forget about it.

    I am begging you, in the interest of fairness and truth please post an update vindicating the Dodelsons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZ you are too ready to see evil in the Weiss'. They did not mislead anybody nor did Rabbi Greenwald and I hold by my original assertions. The explanation is still in the pipeline it simply has been delayed.

      Delete
    2. To quote Mark Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."


      Delete
    3. Daas Torah,

      First, I want you to know that I wish only happiness and blessings on the Weiss's and the Dodelson's. I have no bias here, I have never met or spoke to a member of either family. But, I wish them all only the best!

      I am just deeply pained by the fact that it is 4 years and this girl has not received a Get.

      I am puzzled when your brother writes "the Weiss family will never buckle" - as if the Weiss's are trying to avoid a calamity.

      The Weiss family will be getting a custody arrangement which is the envy of every husband if they give the Get today! That is what bothers me so much! Weiss's explanations for not giving a Get would seem to apply if he was getting divorced from anyone. So it would seem that the problem family is the Weiss's not the Dodelsons.

      Now, let's address this issue.

      Let's be clear, I am not jumping to conclusions - I quoted R' Weiss written statement which was contradicted by RG's written letter, and more importantly was contradicted by the very mechanism of how arbitration works.

      However, like you requested, I will be more patient and wait for an explanation.

      Brachah V'hatzlacha!

      Delete
    4. So do the DODELSON'S agree to arbitration or not?

      Delete
  8. "Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer writes on Harry Maryes’s blog:

    “secular courts should be the arbiters of custody/visitation determinations, since they are better equipped than our resources to handle these issues…..once a secular court has issued a ruling, a recalcitrant husband has no right …..to withhold a get”

    So basically we have the shulchan oruch, all the rishonim, the gemorah, the mishnah and pi Hashem atzmo that arko'oys is ossur and some irrelevant feminist decides to be oyker kol hatorah kulo and AZ thinks we should take bhim seriously. Basically he doesn't believe in Bais Din so why do you need a Get. There is a Bais Din in Monmsey which follows the real gedolim not the puppets of the moetzes. It's run by rav gestetner. This woman can receive a get when she gives custody of the child to the father immediately and agrees to put $5 million in escrow that she will never ask for custody or she will forfeit the money. Where she gets the money is her problem. She wants a stepfather for her son. let her meida k'neged mida get a step mother for her son. that the Feinsteins could be so naive not to dot their i's andcross their ts to be ready for all her tayneas that they went to arko'oys is beyond belief.

    The crux of the issue is whether arko'oys is more trained and suitable to make decisions in general about divorce. They are if you believe in every divorce the woman is correct, she should stop the father from seeing his kids and the father should be bankrupted. otherwise if you have any concept of justice you will know they are the most corrupt, biased and despicable people making these decisions destroying countless lives who will rot for a long time in the next world. Not only are the laws totally biased against men, but their implementation in practice is far worse than those who drafted these thuggish bills ever intended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, AZ's out of context quote has led to people thinking that Rabbi Bechhofer thinks that secular courts should prevail over Beit Din. Josh did the fact checking above; please refer to that.

      Again, RYGB's opinion is NOT that "secular courts should be the arbiters of custody/visitation determinations, since they are better equipped than our resources to handle these issues" but that "secular courts etc." was the where R' Yair Hoffman's approach inevitably leads.


      Delete
  9. AZ,
    If your name is Dodelson or whatever I don't know, but I ask you a simple question. Do the Dodelsons have a right to terrorize a GET when the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo, the Gro, the Beis Shmuel, the Chelkas Mechokake, Chazon Ish, etc. forbid it? Why do the many Rosh Yeshivas and Rabbonim who sign to humiliate Rabbi Weiss in clear violation of gedolei haposkim, Rashbo, Radvaz, Beis Yosef and Chazon Ish not have to show a source for their opinions? Is it because they are "gedolim" who can disregard a Shulchan Aruch to help a cousin? Why do you ignore the fact that on the day the GET is given I and others, including the Gedolim in Israel, will pronounce any child born from the GET to be mamzerim, unless certain major rectifications are made in the situation. You and your kind can spend good money and get some garbage on the New York Post to make Chilul HaShem, but when Reb Chaim Kaniefsky and Rav Wosner ask you what kind of chutspah do you have to defy their declaration, what cute remarks will you make? And make no mistake, I don't live in Lakewood, but I just came back from Israel, and there, every shull and every Rov is being given a large set of two books showing the sins of people like you who invent a new Torah, that to save a woman we can disregard the Shulchan Aruch. The gedolim in Israel signed on it. Your kind of people in the next generation will be considered possible mamzerim by the followers of the Shulchan Aruch and the true Gedolim. Rav Elyashev zt"l told me that any Beth Din or Rov who invents innovations to pressure a GET has lost his right to chezkas Beth Din, that is, we no longer trust his rulings on Gittin. That includes the crowd in Lakewood who sign on these ridiculous letters to protect somebody's cousin by disregarding the Shulchan Aruch's plain rulings in EH 77 para 2 and 3, the SA, Ramo, Beis Shmuel Chelkas Mechokake and the Gro in #t5 who says that nobody permits pressure in MOUS OLEI. Nobody except the bums in Lakewood who help somebody's cousin. We are not far from somebody pronouncing Cherem on these mamzer factory rabbis, and they deserve it, for nothing else except for pure chutspah for issuing a pesak without talking to the other side, without being accepted by the other side as as Beth Din, and without any source, and without a true knowledge of the laws of Gittin. I have spoken to some of the signers and I saw ignorance and lies. But they are helping somebody's cousin. Isn't that what the Torah is all about today?
    I demand that at least one of the signers produce a source for what they are doing. Why don't they produce it? Because they have no source! And when they invent one, I want to reply to it. When this started Reb Aharon came to me in a dream and said he was going to test me on Tamid. I woke up and wondered what that meant, as I am in no position to take such a test. I realized he was saying that this fight was Tamid, going to go on forever. The Weiss family will never buckle, and if they do, I am going to pronounce the GET invalid, unless major rectifications are made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's the case ,then he should give the get. This way he can say he didn't hold back a get, and you'll say she can't get married. Then each can go their way and this huge chillul Hashem can stop.

      Delete
    2. Reb Dovid,

      I cannot quote sources, as I am just a simple Jew.

      However, I do know that there are poskim like R' Shmuel Kameneztky, R' Ovadia Yosef, R’ Hershel Schachter, and R’ Mordechai Willig and many others who disagree with you.

      I know you feel very strongly about this, but there are other Poskim who also feel very strongly and disagree. Read the guest post that I wrote which your brother very kindly posted on this blog.

      Delete
    3. AZ you are just a simple and sincere Jew but you inserted yourself in a major halachic dispute as if you knew what you were talking about. Please tell me what the above rabbis hold concerning get me'usa in a case of ma'os alei? It is nice you claim they disagree - please tell me what exactly do the say?

      One of the reasons I didn't answer your challenge in your post is your mistaken assertion that that are two distinct camps - those who have halachic reasoning for peace and make it easy for woman and those whose halachic reasoning leads them to cause problems. People like Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky have not written teshuvos on the subject - so it is difficult to know what exactly they believe. He has never justified is action in these case by halachic reasoning By and large these rabbonim who signed the kol koreh did not do it for halachic reasons but for political reasons. My brother called up a number of them. One declared that even though he signed it didn't mean that he was saying that that kefiya is permissible! If you can wrap your head around that one then you can understand that your premise is not correct. The declaration of the kol koreh are halachic nonsense. Speak to a posek and ask him for a source for nidoi for the supporters of someone who doesn't want to go to a particular beis din or to destroy a supporters yeshiva or to go to a trashy newspaper and speak lashon harah about your husband and Judaism - there is none!

      Delete
    4. Daas Torah,
      One need not understand the halachos of eruvin to argue that those who follow Poskim who hold a certain Eruv is kosher should not be vilified.

      And one need not know the parameters of hilchos Gitin to know that those who follow Poskim like R’ Herschel Schachter should not be condemned.

      In every one of the ORA cases on your blog – every single one – there were Poskim who disagreed with you! I don’t need to know hilchos Gitin – I don’t need to know their sources - I have a right to follow them the same way I follow them on hilchos borer even though I don’t understand the underlying principles.

      Here are 3 views of R’ Herschel Schachter that are well known:

      a) It is well known that R’ Schachter says that in a case where there is a total breakdown of the marriage that the husband is obligated – obligated – to give a Get.

      b) R’ Schachter also says that in those situations where there is a total breakdown of the marriage it is permitted to shame the husband into giving the Get.

      c) R’ Schachter also holds that everyone should have a halachic prenuptial which requires a monetary payment by the husband for every day that he doesn’t give a Get. And as R’ Mordechai Willig says he has never seen a single case where there was a halachic prenuptial and a Get was not given.

      And as you know in the Epstein case, R’ Shmuel Kamenetzky and Rabbi Belsky held that the husband is obligated to give a Get – R’ Shmuel Kamenetzky clearly does not agree with your views.

      Furthermore, as you are well aware, there are probably a hundred different Poskim that I have seen quoted who disagree with one or more of your views on divorce.

      And, in Israel the Beis Din system clearly doesn’t agree to your views – there are husbands in jail for not giving a Get, and I doubt the custody and financial arrangements in Israel are in sync with your views.

      Do I know the exact parameters of these other opinions? No. Do I know in which cases their opinions should be applied? Not necessarily. However, in each of these ORA type cases I first made sure to find out that a real Posek declared that the husband is obligated to give a Get. So I didn’t have to figure out based on their halachic principles how they would rule – I waited for them to issue the ruling!

      Ironically – you yourself write that this is a halachic dispute – that is my whole point! So why don’t you follow the other halachic opinions whose ways are peaceful?!

      Delete
    5. AZ
      Please explain why you think parental kidnapping is "peaceful"?
      Also, when Rabbi Hershel Schachter calls for men to be beaten with baseball bats is that also "peaceful"? If so, why did YU take down that lecture from its website?

      Delete
    6. Daas Torah,

      Would you agree that the core issue is that whenever there is a divorce, the husband becomes a Talmid Muvhak of R’ Gestetner, and the wife becomes a Talmid Muvhak of R’ Herschel Schachter?!

      Delete
    7. "Why do you ignore the fact that on the day the GET is given I and others, including the Gedolim in Israel, will pronounce any child born from the GET to be mamzerim,"

      If you do this, you are plain evil, since there has been a long-standing consensus not to search for mamzerim, i.e. to try and keep mamzerim out of the mamzer status (e.g. by not recognising the results of DNA- or bloodtests as proof for mamzer status)

      Delete
    8. So how could you relay the Cherem in the Briskman case?

      I suppose the situation in the Briskman case was not really different from this, except that it took place in Israel, where the rabbis can coerce with prison.

      If you are strong on your position that coercion is not allowed in most cases, I suppose you must declare all the cases invalid where Batey din in Israel resorted to withdrawal of driving licences, blocking of bank accounts and prison.

      And if you start a war on batey din who are ready to resort to coercive measures, you should equally start it in Israel and not with the lakewood beit din.

      Dovid Eidensons post demonstrates that this is really a political dispute between warring fractions of orthodoxy, like the hechsher-wars....

      Delete
    9. Rabbi Kamenetsky’s interference: With all due respect, it is unclear what authority he has to suddenly interfere in a dispute that is not his, and offer “Psakim” (decisions) that the husband is obligated to give a get, and especially to turn the husband to a “Sarvan” when he never heard the husband’s side, at the same time during which the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin and that has heard both sides has not required a get be given. And particularly when Rabbis Ben-Dahan and Belsky issued a decision that until the custody situation is resolved in an appropriate manner there is no obligation to give a get, why wouldn’t he listen to them? [Note: we are not imposing our opinion and decision on the woman as an unsubstantiated decree without reasoning as he did. We offer strong sources for all of our conclusions according to our Holy Torah, and it is the husband’s full right to accept this instruction as conclusive and conduct himself accordingly.]

      It was certainly inappropriate of Rabbi Kamenetsky to act this way, when it is universally known that he has close ties to the Epstein family and has accepted benefits from them. The Zohar states that Moshe Rabbeinu stepped down from deciding on the case of Tzlofchad’s daughters since he felt there was suspicion that he disliked their father. And see there that whoever doesn’t act similarly is called an az panim [brazen] and a ga’e [exceedingly haughty]. See the Shla who wrote: “Judges…that… are… suspected of having favoritism to one of the sides in a case and do not resign from that case are called azai panim [brazen] and lacking even a modicum of modesty… When one of the judges in a Beis Din has a love for one of the sides, R’ Bachay wrote, that is the reason Moshe Rabbeinu dismissed himself from judging the Tzlafchad case, since he had somewhat favorable feelings towards them after they mentioned that their father “was not part of the Korach camp.”

      And if one thinks other “rabbis” [outside the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin] have the authority to share their opinion, why would Rabbi Kamenetsky think that specifically his opinion obligates the husband more than the opinion of the rabbis who said that he is not obligated to give a get until an appropriate custody arrangement is arranged in an acceptable manner. Does the husband not have the right to follow those rabbis? Why does he think that the husband is subjugated, and is required to listen, specifically to him?

      www.friedmanepstein.com

      Delete
    10. D. Rabbi Schachter’s letter: What Rabbi Schachter wrote concerning Rabbi’s Kamenetsky’s letter “there already is a sage who’s instructed” makes a mockery and disgrace of the entire Torah. With such a meaningless statement one can erase all the Torah’s prohibitions, and nullify all integrity and justice, and issue decisions according to whatever one likes in contradiction to the Torah. One should wonder whether Rabbi Schachter would follow so blindly after Rabbi Kamenetsky had he instructed him to abandon his family since “there is a sage who has instructed” based on “sod Hashem lerauv” [the secrets of G-d are revealed to those who fear Him, and therefore the statements of such people represent the word of G-d]? Presumably not… But when it comes at the expense of others he has become a great “believer.”

      Also, Rabbi Schachter’s pronouncement of “sod Hashem lerauv” is against the poskim who required that psakim [decisions of Jewish Law] be based on actual sources. [See the Mishpatim Yisharim: A judge who says “So it appears to me” and does not base his decision on actual sources is a false judge, and his opinions are worthless….] The pronouncement of “sod Hashem lerauv” shows that Rabbi Kamenetsky’s baseless psak [decision] is a painful mockery and a spewing malignancy. This “sod” [secret] reveals to everyone that Rabbi Kamenetsky has close ties to, and received benefits from, the Epstein family.


      Rabbi Schachter’s conclusion “unless it is proven in error” shows that he admits that even though a “sage has instructed already” and “sod Hashem lerauv” if Rabbi Kamenetsky’s decision is proven wrong then that decision is totally worthless. We have already proven in our decision that ta’ah bdevrei mishna [he erred on a fundamental matter] and did so twice: Rabbi Kamenetsky erred in regard to the divorce obligation that he decreed on the husband [even if this was just between him and husband without public embarrassment] that clearly contradicts all poskim as the rule is that if a purported obligation to divorce is imposed on the husband, where no such obligation properly exists, any resulting get would be invalid. And he even more clearly erred when he issued the derogatory letters and the “seruv” against Aharon to permit all to shed his blood, which is considered complete coercion that invalidates any resulting get in this case. And now he should show some integrity and heed his own words and admit in public that there was such an error.

      www.friedmanepstein.com

      Delete
    11. www.friedmanepstein.com

      Rabbi Belsky’s letters: The glaring flip-flopping from his signature on the Seruv against the husband, in complete contradiction to what he himself wrote earlier that the husband cannot be required to give a get before custody has been resolved properly - screams out to the heart of the heavens. And what he had said to the husband when he was approached for an explanation about this matter: he can’t remember signing the Seruv… and even if he had done so it wasn’t done in a serious manner but under pressure… This is even more troubling than the first, and frightening. This is a “game” he plays to besmirch and embarrass a person and cause him pain and suffering – known by our sages to equal murder. Is this a matter of a game and clowning around by saying, “I did not do this with seriousness”? (Note there are additional cases known to us in which he acted in a similar manner: that he started off supporting the husband and afterwards bowed to pressure and reversed himself.)

      Delete
    12. AZ,
      Have you seen any halchic justification for the opinions and actions of the rabbis you cited in the Epstein, other than Rabbi Shachter's claim that "a sage has decided"?

      Delete
    13. www.friedmanepstein.com

      After reviewing the history of this matter and the applicable halacha, anyone with a brain in their head will be left scared and astounded as to how based on such frivolous and immaterial claims the so-called “rabbis” can work on themselves to turn into righteousness the destruction of a Jewish home, and also create a chiyuv gerushin on the husband and to persecute him without pity even while the halacha is clearly the opposite: that she is obligated to return to him. And in case she refuses to return to him, he is permitted to refuse to give a get for her entire life. [also see quote from the MAHRSHAL] One of two conclusions must be true. Either these “rabbis” are not well versed in the laws of divorce and follow astray those of modern society who erase whatever laws that are not pleasant to them – in which case these rabbis should not involve themselves in such matters at all, or, they are nullifying and rebelling against our Holy Torah, which states that a get given by a husband against his will is invalid, following the theology of “Reform Judaism” and others who uproot religion, G-d forbid.

      Either way, in each of these scenarios, the Jewish People is in terrible straits like a boat about to sink at sea without leaders having sechel hayashar or true Daas Torah, where the leaders have lost their wits and are blindly following any wind that blows through the streets of public opinion, and they bow on their knees to give a falsified seal of Daas Torah to follow the opinion of masses, which is based on the lowliest of the world’s peoples, G-d have mercy. And they directly contradict true Daas Torah.

      Instead of behaving as have great leaders of the Jewish People in all past generations, where if a woman had come to them with such immaterial “claims” following the practices of the lowliest of the world’s peoples who decide to divorce and change their spouses for any absurd or immaterial reason just like they change their socks – those rabbis would have rebuked the woman that it is forbidden to do such an absurd thing to destroy a bayis neeman byisrael [a loyal Jewish household], and to be cruel to her daughter and husband and destroy their lives for no reason. They would ask if she has no consideration whatsoever for the best interests of her daughter, when she has an important husband with all the spiritual and physical positive attributes that she herself described when she wrote out of the purity of her own heart (without trickery or outside pressure). Instead these “rabbis” came and did the opposite. They fanned the conflagration, and turned into righteousness the cruel behavior of ivelles beyadeah taharsena [a foolish woman destroys her household with her own hands]. And if the husband wants to defend his basic human and halachic rights, they further tar him as guilty and cruel. And it is on the behavior of these “rabbis” that our sages said: anyone pitying the cruel will end up being cruel towards the merciful. Be appalled at this, O Heavens.

      Delete
    14. So for you it is not whether the halacha is poskened correctly - but the consequences. This is known as posek shopping. I first find out what the different views are and then I pick the posek if he agrees with what makes me happy?!

      This is amazing scholarship - you don't really care that I am asserting this is the view of most poskim through ages and it is recognized as the most accurate fit with the texts. You totally skip that and you say since there is a rabbi who says something that I want to here I will chose him.

      Why don't you ask those poskim such as Rabbi Kaminetsky and Rabbi Schachter if that is what you should be doing?

      Delete
    15. Daas Torah,

      Would you agree that the core issue is that whenever there is a divorce, the husband becomes a Talmid Muvhak of R’ Gestetner, and the wife becomes a Talmid Muvhak of R’ Herschel Schachter?!
      ==============
      no but that has been your view that you keep repeating over and over. Truth is irrelvant for you

      Delete
  10. AZ, I guess you missed the following email where R'Greenwald says that the reason why he couldn't act as arbitrator is because the Dodelsons backed out.

    /www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1388925251350409&set=a.1386906691552265.1073741826.100006988420621&type=1&theater

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your question:

      The Dodelson’s have decided not to use RG as an Arbitrator. That doesn’t reflect negatively on anyone. There are many good people who neither the Weiss’s nor the Dodelsons would want to use an arbitrator.

      There are also many people who one side would want as an arbitrator, but the other side would not agree to. That isn’t a negative on either side.

      The first step in arbitration is when both parties find a mutually acceptable person who they both agree to use as an arbitrator. That first step has not happened yet.

      I am sure there are many unrelated people who the Dodelsons would be happy to use as an arbitrator, who the Weiss’s would not agree to.

      I am sure the Dodelsons would be happy to have R’ Hershel Schachter or R’ Mordechai Willig as an arbitrator.

      Delete
    2. Do you propose that Rabbi Schachter bring his baseball bat?

      Delete
    3. Why are you sure? Did they ever suggest that?

      Delete
  11. ps. the email I just linked to did not come from the weiss's

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I’ve even told my mother that next time I like a guy, I’m going to live with him for five years first."

    That's why enabling get extortion is not a good idea. Marriage will become a non-option for bnoth israel if get extortion is enabled.

    By the way, the only difference between the Meir Briskman case and this case is that the Briskman case was in Israel where rabbis have the power to put recalcitrant husbands in jail and in the US they do not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. R Dovid - AZ, Daniel S have posted dozens of times in the last 2 weeks on this blog repeating the same nonsense about how the laws of Judaism are based on what seems right to each individual and other such nonsense. They have not brought down any sources in Halacha to back up the actions of the Dodelson’s. I believe they are just PR hacks hired to post on the blog. Its no use trying to argue Halacha with them its not their area of expertise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be the first one to admit that, actually. I never intimated I was a halachic decisor, and I don't think I ever said that Judaism should be based on whatever anyone wants at the time. If you could remind me where I said that, it would be much appreciated.
      Yis, you remind me of those parents that ask shaailos regarding whether they should do anything if their child reports to them that they have been molested. Let's turn the clock back before all the modern Poskim gave their views. It's the very first time such a thing happened.
      Anyone who holds that one has to ask a Shaailo and make deep חקירות on whether something can be done, is a fool and a חסיד שוטה. And if you believe that's what Judaism demands, then I dare say you really haven't learned a thing in all your years of 'learning'.

      Delete
    2. The fool is the one who is willing to shed the blood of his brother without knowing all the facts and what the Torah says.

      Despite what Jeremy Stern says there are instances where a husband is permitted to withhold a get from his wife.

      Why don't you call him up and ask him if there is a din in the Torah of a "Moredes"? Or is it that you follow the "modern poskim" who have done away with the parts of the Torah that don't fit "their" world view.

      Public humiliating ones follow Jew is the equivalent to spilling his blood – you can be the fool who acts first and thinks later.

      Delete
  14. I suggest not to overplay the role of Gital, she is just a young wife, likely to be a moredes and nothing more.

    To me she does not appear to be an expert in any matter..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue is not so much the views of Gital, as it is the views of the rabbonim who insist on supporter her.

      Delete
  15. http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=34
    A fantastic teshuva that applies in this case. What are you allowed to do when the marriage is over and the wife claims maus ali.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AZ claims: Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer writes on Harry Maryes’s blog:

    “secular courts should be the arbiters of custody/visitation determinations, since they are better equipped than our resources to handle these issues…..once a secular court has issued a ruling, a recalcitrant husband has no right …..to withhold a get”

    Daas Torah – just as you realize that a Beis Din is not trained and equipped to handle child molestation cases, you should also realize that a Beis Din is not equipped to handle custody/visitation determinations

    AZ,
    Even assuming that you hadn't taken this out of context and disregarding any halachic issues, don't you see any pratical problems arising out of having secular court adjudicate custody schedules? Just for starters, what about taking Shabbos and Yom Tov into account? (And no matter how much that could be explained to a civil court judge when both sides are actin in good faith with regard to this issue, the judge may not understand or care. Furthermore, one side can deliberately succeed in convincing a judge of a custody schedule with the other side that is virtually moot because of incompatibility Shabbos observance.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is not a question of either / or to cohabit or not before marriage. She is obviously distraught by the breakdown of her marriage and is swinging to the other extreme. The extreme of a quick shidduch /engagement marriage is the problem that needs to be countered, but within halacha. hence a relationship needs to be formed, and the prospective couple should really get to know each other first. jumping to the secular model , is counterproductive. There is a frum therapist , Dr John Gottman who can scientifically, predict the breakdown of a marriage. He is a leading expert on marital problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe she's being sarcastic.

      Delete
  18. Sir Paul Coleridge

    "The Hollywood/Hello! image of marriage has a great deal to answer for. The more we've spent on weddings, the greater the rate of family breakdown. The graphs would be interesting to plot," he says. "People also seem to think good, stable marriages arrive fully formed and drop out of the sky, and if you're lucky you'll catch one. But, actually, long, stable marriages are carved out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness and difficulties. The way you make them work is by chipping away bits over the years so you end up with something beautiful."
    http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Content/Default.aspx?Content=403

    ReplyDelete
  19. Blatant wrote: November 18, 2013 at 12:25 AM

    "Why do you ignore the fact that on the day the GET is given I and others, including the Gedolim in Israel, will pronounce any child born from the GET to be mamzerim,"

    If you do this, you are plain evil, since there has been a long-standing consensus not to search for mamzerim, i.e. to try and keep mamzerim out of the mamzer status (e.g. by not recognising the results of DNA- or bloodtests as proof for mamzer status)

    ======================
    Blatant have you ever studied halacha? Do you have any awareness that the poskim have said there is at least a problem of sofek mazerus. There are clearly times when we concern ourselves with possible mamzerus. Are you aware that Rav Eliashiv was seriously interested in have a yichus book? If your child is interested in a baal teshuva from a divorced family - you would not check the situation with the divorce. Just close your eyes and hope that the child is not a mamzer? Rav Sternbuch has said that as a general rule we don't check the validity of the get - but if there is a systemic fact such as many poskim ignoring the issue of get me'usa he said each divorce needs to be checked. Do you consider the major poskim through the ages are evil people?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Blatant you are a blatant fool. rav Elyashiv said that there was no longer a chezkas kashrus on gittin in NY state - in fact the opposite a chezkas posul because of the NY Get Law. BH this case was not fought in NY. All you people are interested in destroying the man and then think the woman can move on. No longer always going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AZ,
    You are right that many people disagree with what I say and permit doing things that I prove are in violation of the Shulchan Aruch and the Poskim. It is also obvious by now that these people have no clear source in the poskim, but they invented things without a clear source or spoke out of emotion. I am waiting now for a long time for somebody to provide me with a source for their opinions of coercing a GET with MOUS OLEI. If you know a true source, please identify it. But let us go beyond that. Let us say that a woman remarries with a GET permitted by Rabbi Schachter and forbidden by the great rabbis of Israel like Reb Chaim Kaniefsky and Rav Wosner and the many Shulchan Aruch opinions that I have often quoted. What about her baby? I say it is a mamzer, as do the great rabbis of Israel, and yet there are people who permit the marriage and accept the GET. THIS BABY IS A SOFEK MAMZER, this baby s a doubtful mamzer. Now, who wants to marry a sofek mamzer?
    But it is worse than that. The Chasam Sofer and others maintain that any coercion done when some approve the coercion and others don't approve is a definite mamzer diorayso. Now, you may disagree, but the baby is going to be in big trouble. And yes, there will be many who accept the baby and maybe marry it, and this will simply increase the number of people who are considered by the great of Israel to be mamzerim. Is this not the ultimate child abuse? But it seems that none of this concerns you and you are rooting for more coerced divorces!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reb Dovid,

      There is something disquieting about how much your comment focuses on mamzerus. Why?

      Does the chilul Hashem not trouble you? The lost parnassa? The non-mamzer child of Gital and Avraham who is suffering? The fact that פרצה מחלוקת בישראל over this issue?

      You focus on one and only one issue, as if that is all that is at stake here. A bit similar to how many could only focus on הלכות לשון הרע or עניני מסירה while children were being molested. Don't you think?

      I fail to understand how you are so wrapped up in one detail, while so much damage is occurring on so many levels.

      Delete
    2. Because mamzeirus is a terrible thing to put on a child. And there is an extremely serious risk of doing exactly that, mamzeirus, when a husband is pressured into giving a Get against his will. Any subsequent "marriage" by his wife can be adultery and their children mamzeirim.

      There could be nothing worse.

      Delete
    3. Daniel S,
      You fail to understand why I am so wrapped up in one detail, the issue of mamzer, when you have other complaints about the situation. The answer is simple. Chilul HaShem and lost parnoso as bad as they are do not condemn a line of human beings to be mamzerim for ever. A child mamzer who has a child who has a child, they are all mamzerim. This is the ultimate child abuse. And yet, people like you are not moved to think of creating a mamzer as anything unique.

      Delete
    4. BT and Dovid,

      Thank you for explaining the dire predicament of the mamzer.

      In fact, I (and some other 'people like me') might be moved to ask an uneducated question. I will break it down for simplicity's sake:

      - There seems to be much disagreement about how to properly handle these situations.
      - I know that you disagree with all the other rabbinical minds who hold differently.
      - Since this is a מחלוקת, many would think that the vast array of rabbinical minds who hold differently than you have some perspective. IOW, this is a thorny issue; to claim that every single one of them has 'sold out' and is knowingly being מרבה ממזרים בישראל is quite a stretch for us lay people.
      - Finally, I seem to recall that we generally look to AVOID tarring people with the stain of ממזרות, unless there really is no way around that reality.

      Given all the variables of this situation, and the reality that some very serious תלמידי חכמים hold differently than you, my last question really wasn't flippant about the issue of ממזרות. Rather, it was a question of why you must scream Mamzer from the rooftops, considering how much debate is going on regarding this problem.

      I suspect the answer will either be:

      This has been rehashed many times in the past, so there's no point in rehashing it. Or,
      You will again tell me about the halachic responsa which confirm that you, and only you, are correct, and everyone else is wrong.

      So, you want all of us to scrap all the other rabbinical minds as political pawns, or power-hungry sell-outs, who know the same halachic responsa that you do, and are purposefully ignoring it.

      Given the massive חילול השם that continues to develop around this issue (Friedman, 'rabbis' Epstein and Wohlmark, now Weiss-Dodelson), the vast majority of us lay people side with leaders who realize that the halachic responsa are not providing us with an adequate solution to this problem. A new perspective must be developed. Some serious rabbinical minds are working on it.

      And some are just trying to keep us mired in the status quo. One thing I am certain of: Rabbeinu Gershom probably had many detractors in his day, if current events are a good indication.

      Best,

      Daniel

      Delete
    5. There is no different psak saying that such a situation is not a mamzer. Such a child IS a mamzer. Please provide any TESHUVA to the contrary.

      Delete
    6. Daniel S: And if the child is "only" a Safek Mamzer, you are okay with that?!?!?!?

      Delete
    7. Both MG and Columbus,

      Apparently you didn't read what I wrote, or you ignored it in favor of continuing the mamzer discussion.

      That's why I compare this to the Mesira element that was always waged to quell any reports of child abuse. Even (or maybe especially) when the truth stares you in the face, the best response is to throw out the one emotional issue that EVERYONE knows is the, in BT's words, 'there could be nothing worse' issue.

      Often, we don't declare ממזרות even when it's a high likelihood. Your camp, OTOH, is declaring it even before the re-marriage.

      Delete
    8. Daniel S,
      You write, "- Since this is a מחלוקת, many would think that the vast array of rabbinical minds who hold differently than you have some perspective." In other words, those who agree with me that a forced GET is invalid, are the tiny minority. I beg to differ. First of all, I have shown that the Vilna Gaon writes that not one opinion permits coercion with MOUS OLEI See EH 77 #5 and that is the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch there and the Ramo along with the Beis Shmuel and Chelkas Mechokake, with nobody differing and many others agreeing. Now I agree that Kotler and Schechter disagree with the Vilna Gaon, but fortunately, the great rabbis of Israel have recently signed a letter and even a sefer disagreeing with the few inventors who disagree with the Vilna Gaon and the Shulchan Aruch to help a cousin.
      I could mention a Chasam Sofer that when there is a machlokess whether to coerce and the Beth Din takes the side we can coerce, that the GET is botel and the children are mamzerim diorayso, but even without that, the great rabbis of today and the rabbis I spoke to who head Botei Dinim for Gittin strongly agree with me. Today in Israel, all of the synagogues and major rabbis are receiving two books signed by the major rabbis of the world, Rav Chaim Kaniefsky, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, Rav Nissim Gestetner and others, that one who pressures a GET in MOUS OLEI produces mamzerim diorayso. I have written on this blog extensively on this topic, and if you are interested in truth, you can sweat out a few minutes and read my sources.

      Delete
  22. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/halftime-in-staten-island/
    I will add my two cents, whoever went thru a divorce will understand this 100%. Without taking sides of who's right or wrong, for your own sake move on. There might be times to be stubborn,but not when it's killing you, your family, your name,your income and your yeshiva. Speak to anybody who has been thru this, the quicker you get out, the better you will feel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam,
      When you child is being stolen, do you say, let's just get it over with and surrender?

      Delete
    2. Child being stolen is hogwash, and you know this very well.

      But besides this: parents have DUTIES towards their children, no RIGHTS.

      So this whole concept that appears so often in modern divorces "I have a RIGHT to my child" is just wrong.

      And yes, if you divorce, the court attributes the child to the other parent, and the other parent does not let you see the child or the child does not want to come and see you, the most reasonable thing is to go on paying child support and surrender. Because you will not help your child when you come and get it with the police.

      I have a friend (hareidi), she divorced, her husband got the children, made her pay child support (halachically not kosher), and kept the children from seeing her.

      She did just that: nothing, because there is nothing you can do.

      Delete
  23. RDE:

    Can you present the entire Weiss/Dodleson saga to Rav Shternbuch and ask him his view on this matter?

    ReplyDelete
  24. However, cohabitation has the advantage that you can leave whenever you want: you do not run the risk of being chained against your will.

    So it would be a solution to the problem at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think the debate based on what was posted has gotten off track. I took the time to read the entire article in the Times of Israel and I think you should all too. Her idea of living with a guy prior to marriage seems to be a bad, half serious joke, on her part, but she is still a torah observant Jew and is not considering such a thing, she can only reflect on "what if" in her circumstance and I think she has the right to theorize. Thus, the discussion shouldn't be on the merits of whether it's OK to cohabit before marriage but rather, should she bring it up at all since she is such a public figure and her words are scrutinized so much. I'd like to judge her favorable on this one and cut her some slack, i like to give fellow Jews the benefit of the doubt. But please don't post that she believes in something that is against the torah as she clearly does not. gital would just agree with posts that living together before marriage is a no-no as an orthodox Jew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to break it to you but its not a joke. She represents the Lakewood torah community, She is supposedly a daughter of someone who learns in BMG and comes from such a yichusdik family. To even joke or theorize about such a thing in private let alone in public is terrible and inexcusable. The article speaks volumes of her character.

      Along with all the other things she has done, all she has shown the world from her foolish moments of fame is that she is a spoiled little brat who got married young and does not want to accept any responsibility for the bad decisions she made and continues to make. She can blame AMW from today till tomorrow but it is quite obvious from her article she had no interest in marrying a kollel guy or living the lifestyle of the yeshivish crowd in the first place.

      Enough of the phony Agunah cries! Let us save that sympathy and support for the real agunahs out there who sincerely tried to make their marriage work and were honest from day one with their spouses but were duped into marriage. The ones who made a real effort and have done everything that is in the best interest of their children by not displaying their dirty laundry in public and not playing games with holding back visitation rights.

      She should grow up and accept responsibility for her mistakes. If she wasn't honest with herself before she got married why should AMW life be ruined because of it? Is he not entitled to guarantees that his rights will be protected?

      If she really wanted this to end this she could go to arbitration with him and could have spared everyone the unnecessary drama and chillul hashem. Unfortunately, contrary to what she claims she has no interest, all she wants to do is prove a point and be the poster girl for ORA. It seems to the world that she can't get enough of the publicity and attention. Any normal parent who truly cares about their child would never come to farshmutz their ex (whether husband or wife) in public no matter how bad the situation is. This goes for any mother or father their primary concern should always be to put your children first.

      Delete
    2. For those who attack Gitel for insulting marriage, even as a joke, let me say this: I am against marriage. Now, I am married, at least until my wife reads this post, but I repeat, I am against marriage. Let me explain.
      Years ago, a group of Orthodox people who worked as Conservative rabbis split off from the Seminary over the issue of women making Gittin. They formed their own organization, not Orthodox, and not Conservatve. I spoke to the group and begged them to realize what they were doing. They would make Orthodox marriages to people who would not honor it, but would divorce in secular court or whatever and create mamzerim. I asked them not to perform Orthodox marriages and suggested making marriages of partnership which does not make Kiddushin, at least, we can save the children with this from mamzeruth even if the parents may be a problem.
      I believe that any woman who is not ready to live as an Agunah all of her life when that happens should not get married with Kiddushin. Is it a sin to live without Kiddushin? Yes. But are the children mamzerim? No. Furthermore, if the woman is not married and runs around it is a much lesser sin than if she runs around as a married woman. So, I am against marriage for people who won't stick with it, or will go to a cousin to get an invalid GET.

      Delete
    3. "I believe that any woman who is not ready to live as an Agunah all of her life when that happens should not get married with Kiddushin."

      Please make this into a guest post, with signature.

      Because I also think that this is the only solution to the get crisis: stop getting married, and stop the pro-marriage propaganda.

      Delete
    4. If my brother wants it, I would be happy to write such a guest post. When in the above story, I decided to tell these rabbis what I told them, not to make kiddushin but a kind of kiddushin that does not make a true marriage such as a two ring ceremony that makes them partners which is not recognized by the Torah, I asked several major rabbonim and they agreed. So I was ready to let loose rather than just talk to this small group of rabbis. However, just then the rabbi of Haifa who was a major personality had the same idea that in Israel the rabbinate should not make marriages for secular people because of the problem of mamzeruth, etc. But the rabbis in Israel did not want to do away with the rabbinate and the control of marriages and there was an explosion. So, I didn't make a lot of noise, but obviously, there is something to be said for people in America who don't produce mamzerim. There is a statement from Rabbeinu Tam, as I recall, at the end of his famous teshuva on forcing a GET, that a woman should rather spend her whole life as an Agunah than to have a GET that could cast aspersions on her children. But today people are not ready for this, and how can we prepare them for producing mamzerim?

      Delete
  26. Suggested update to the original guest post based on some comments above:

    The issue is not just Gital's remark on cohabitation before marriage per se (which is itself very telling and one would think inconsistent with the views of a kollel wife). A much larger point is that this remark, in combination with her New York Post article, seems to reveal a complete disregard for the sanctity, permanence and importance of marriage, which is particularly the case under Jewish tradition where children are involved. The remark also reveals an ignorance of the reality of how successful marriages are made. Marriages are not a fairy tale in which if one picks the right spouse (such as by cohabiting beforehand), everything proceeds smoothly and without problems. Successful marriages can be achieved only though great effort and by working hard at solving problems.

    British jurist, Sir Paul Coleridge, Founder and Chairman of the Marriage Foundation, has addressed this attitude.
    "The Hollywood image of marriage has a great deal to answer for. The more we've spent on weddings, the greater the rate of family breakdown. The graphs would be interesting to plot. People also seem to think good, stable marriages arrive fully formed and drop out of the sky, and if you're lucky you'll catch one. But, actually, long, stable marriages are carved out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness and difficulties. The way you make them work is by chipping away bits over the years so you end up with something beautiful."
    http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Content/Default.aspx?Content=403

    “Marriage is not something that falls out of the sky ready-made on to beautiful people in white linen suits. It involves endless hard work, compromises, forgiveness and love. However right the person is, they might not be right two years later. It doesn't matter how wonderful you appear to be to your partner at the beginning, you will begin to display faults that we all have. In order for a relationship to last, you have to hang in there and adjust and change and alter and understand. Long, stable marriages are carved out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness and difficulties.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137070/At-A-judge-fights-marriage-Senior-family-court-judge-campaigns-break-Britains-divorce-addiction.html#ixzz2l9dXmFAH

    It is shocking that the Orthodox community has reached such a low that an observant bas yisrael, with the full support of many prominent roshei yeshiva would actually boast in the New York Post of destroying her family shortly after their child was born, telling her husband: “You’re not a bad man. We’re just not right for each other,” and then abducting the child and running back to Mommy and Daddy.

    As one rav has cried out:
    “This is something that even a person with integrity of any of the world’s peoples would understand is wrong and recoil from.”

    ReplyDelete
  27. Outraged,
    What is wrong with a person who doesn't like marriage? I don't know what kind of Jew you are, but obviously with gedolim like the Kotlers, if it is your cousin, let her be free! Sure, the Torah and all of the moral nations believe in marriage. But do the the Agudah and Lakewood Rosh Yeshivas and rabbis who signed away the Shulchan Aruch to free Kotler's cousin consider marriage Daas Torah? My friend, this is a new world. Let Gitel be free! Let Kotler be free! Moshe Rabbeinu had his turn, and now let's be friends with ORA! Are you afraid of mamzerim? Well, explain to the mamzerim about gedolim. Whoever insists on crying is an apikores.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Guess what? I did it. I was a frum girl who lived with my husband 3 month before we got married. nobody knew about this. we had it all well planned out.

    now you may ask me- why did I do this? fears.big huge fears. At age 28 I was
    terrified of moving in with a stranger while knowing this is for the rest
    of my life. I couldn't conquer my fears and discussed it with my future husband
    who agreed with me to the plan. My roommate just left at that time and he moved in to my place while still paying rent at his place to cover this up...
    I don’t regret it for one minute and I am thankful to Hashem that I had the courage doing this.

    Three months later at our wedding people kept on commenting that we both look so calm and relaxed… yes we were.. because we both knew what we are getting into.....


    Do I want my family/friend to know about this? NO. will we share this with our children? NO. but do I regret this? NO.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dear Frummy,

    Guess what? Is there a higher likelihood that your marriage will be everlasting due to the fact that you guys shacked up together, prior to marriage?

    If we look at statistics, it ain't that way, dear Frummy. I wish you only the best - for you, your husband and your children (if any).

    There is a much higher divorce rate among those who engage in prenuptial cohabitation.

    I'll provide a couple of links.

    Oh, it is also against halacha - what G-d wants from us. Hashem wants us to have happy, loving, caring and stable marriages. Shacking up will not only fail to provide any of this for us, it is likely to ruin that opportunity of have a real, sincere, loving, caring and respectful marriage.

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/23/1/107/

    http://cyber.gwc.cccd.edu/faculty/sisonio/timing.pdf

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5840263/Couples-who-live-together-before-marriage-more-likely-to-get-divorced.html

    Additionally, many men who are willing to cohabit before marriage will not see the girl as marriage "material".

    ReplyDelete

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