Sunday, December 29, 2013

Withholding A Get: Between Leverage And Extortion

Jewish Week    All too commonly, we read about a man who refuses to grant his wife a Jewish writ of divorce (a “get”). We are told her story, culminating in her demand for a get and a plea to help pressure the recalcitrant husband to grant it. As for the man’s version of events – they do not matter; according to the approach promoted by the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (“agunah” refers to a woman chained to a failed marriage by a husband unable or unwilling to grant her a get) and numerous others, it is never justified for a man to withhold a get as leverage during the divorce settlement.

The zero-tolerance attitude toward get-withholding is an adaptation of Jewish law to a relatively new social reality. This in itself does not make it wrong; on the contrary, new circumstances demand that the application of halachic norms be reconsidered. Yet this attitude implicitly adopts certain core attitudes toward marriage and divorce that are largely alien to Jewish tradition. It behooves us to consider whether it is possible to retain the traditional system but tweaking it to prevent abuse, instead of adopting the regnant divorce paradigms relegating the get to a mere religious technicality. [...]

Mutual consent implies, by definition, the ability to withhold consent, which is inherently a form of leverage within divorce negotiation. This sort of leverage is present in many negotiations and works against the party most eager to reach an agreement; a thirsty man is willing to pay a higher price for a bottle of Coca Cola. Of course, there is a point at which leverage becomes extortion, and that point must be defined, but we must take care not to treat leverage as though it is extortion.

The mutual-consent paradigm seems reasonable in principle, but in practice the traditional system of Jewish divorce has become unacceptable. Despite the best efforts of the medieval rabbis, the playing field is not really level. The deck is stacked against women in several ways. This imbalance has become a central issue as awareness of it has grown and demands for an equality in divorce have become almost universal.

Another reason for the turn against traditional norms of Jewish divorce is the adoption of a unilateral divorce paradigm. This has shifted perceptions about the nature of marriage and the process of its dissolution. The marriage is deemed over once one spouse deems the differences between the spouses unbridgeable. Under this paradigm, withholding a divorce is perceived as a denial of one’s basic rights and freedoms, and if the purpose is withholding is to negotiate a more favorable division of the marital pie, it becomes extortion. The same act that is a legitimate tool of negotiation under the mutual-consent paradigm is a weapon under the unilateral paradigm. [...]

103 comments :

  1. Excellent, eloquently piercing article.

    "this attitude implicitly adopts certain core attitudes toward marriage and divorce that are largely alien to Jewish tradition. It behooves us to consider whether it is possible to retain the traditional system but tweaking it to prevent abuse {...} This has shifted perceptions about the nature of marriage and the process of its dissolution. The marriage is deemed over once one spouse deems the differences between the spouses unbridgeable. Under this paradigm, withholding a divorce is perceived as a denial of one’s basic rights and freedoms,"

    Academically speaking - the author nailed the dillemma. Religiously speaking, he seemed to miss the crucial issue at stake: The basic Torah idea is that me must be the primary GIVER in the marriage. He gives the ring (contrast modern romantic practice of them giving rings to each other) and ketuba, etc, etc. The SPIRITUAL bond that Torah Judaism is out to protect and ideally cultivate is under attack by those who want to totally "level the playing ground." It just can't be done and still call it a Torah marriage. All we can do is be careful to prevent abuse.

    If he's clearly withholding to get an upper economic or psychological hand - no good. But if he's trying to protect his family, his honor, and certainly if he still sees himself as inherently a giver in the relationship (still loves her) - then there's just no way to "level the playing ground".

    Sorry ladies. You must learn to appreciate that if you want the spiritual power of a kosher yid's neshama givingness in a marriage, it's a gamble you must take if things sour. Only he can un-give.

    ReplyDelete
  2. yy, well said. Yasher Koach.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I completely agree with the author that a divorce requires mutual consent and that a unilateral desire for divorce is insufficient to require a marriage dissolve in divorce.

    BTW, this idea is similar to how even the secular world viewed divorce prior to the introduction of no-fault divorce. One spouse could not demand a divorce without cause.

    Halacha does not, and never did, support the forcing a divorce down a spouse who is unwilling to divorce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Halacha does not, and never did, support the forcing...."

      That statement is false. During the times of the Geonim and early rishonim, that was the case. The Rambam did not invent his position. It was the position of the Baalei Hamesora before him.

      The "Reform" came later.

      Delete
    2. Rabbeinu Gershom is the biggest proof. Prior to Rabbeinu Gersohm a husband could, per Torah Law, shove a Get into his wife's hands against her will -- for any or no reason i.e. she burnt his dinner -- and he was done with her and she had no recourse. All 100% Halachic and moral as explicitly stated in the Mishna and Gemora.

      Then Rabbeinu Gersohm made a takana that a husband could no longer force his wife to accept his Get. Rabbeinu Gersohm decreed that a wife has the right to refuse to accept a Get. This is the same right husbands always had per Torah Law that Rabbeinu Gersohm extended to the wives. Now either spouse could refuse to accept a divorce. Divorces from Rabbeinu Gersohm forward must be by mutual consent only and never unilateral by one spouse's insistence for divorce.

      Delete
    3. Time to call a SPADE a SPADEDecember 29, 2013 at 7:45 PM

      These husbands are more then willing to give a divorce. No one denies that his rights of WHATEVER needs to be settled yet, be it financial, visitation rights or any other qualified rights, are NOT to be skipped for after the GET. The LAW and ORDER, IS the LAW and is the ORDER. Stop calling it leverage or anything else, other then PROTOCOL. Anyone ordering otherwise, is against the Shulchan Aruch, called a BESI DIN CHOTZIF e.g. EPSTEIN WOLMARK et al. I can only add, that midechotzif kulay hay, shma minah Mam..r hu. These gangsters didn't even comply to dinei demalchusei dina either other than the mighty dollar, vekol dealim gvar. Would you also suggest that those mothers WITHHOLDING father's visitation rights and NACHAS, Meagen the children of Kabed es ovicho and spending quality time, have them kidnapped, karate kicked and karate chopped, plastic bagged, and electrocuted with cattle prods? if not, why not? haven't you learned what's good for the Gander is good for the GOOSE?

      At the end of the day, it is less than a handful that truly are witholding umesarev shelo kedin, or in spite. Please, time to call a SPADE a SPADE!

      Delete
    4. Time to call a SPADE a SPADE; you are absolutely correct
      thank you

      Delete
    5. James: Even in those cases it was ONLY forced if the spouse had been wronged in a way that is a) unrectified by the wronging spouse b) considered by halacha as sufficient cause to justify forcing a divorce and c) the alleged wronging action was proven to beis din to be true and to have actually occurred.

      Delete
    6. James: Even by Malkus arbaim yakenu, there was a doctor present and assessed how much the nidon can take. Remember, lo yoisif pen yoisif is reassessed midway if he cannot take it no more. Veniklo achicha is an aditional shutting valve to stop hitting. Cattle prods are inuyim koshim veachzoriyos and not even considered shotim vealim, let alone waterboarding. Only the worst SADISTIC people "chelat enosh", can inflict such inhumane punishment. These scum of the earth should be court martialed in the International Court of Hague, hung and strung midday in Town square and left for the birds, leof hashamayim ulebehemas hasodeh veyirkevu lederaon olam. Lashan hara and messira lea'kim? Olay veal tzavori, bni.

      Delete
    7. MG,
      That is not the Rambam or the Geonim. The halacha was simple: A woman who does not want to be married can demand a Get and it must be given even at the use of force. That was the Mesora. RDE believes that is no longer relevant but it is not correct to state, as M said, that the halacha never accepted Maus alai.
      "Mengele" why would you use that alias? anyway, this is not a din of malkus.

      Delete
    8. I'm speaking of the Halacha L'Maaisa that we pasken today based explicitly on the Shulchan Aruch. The S"A openly and clearly states that in those very rare cases where force may be applied, even then it is only after the three conditions I mentioned above. Namely, it is

      a) unrectified by the wronging spouse

      b) considered by halacha as sufficient cause to justify forcing a divorce and

      and

      c) the alleged wronging action was proven to beis din to be true and to have actually occurred.

      Otherwise, which is over 99% of cases, a divorce cannot halachicly be mandated by beis din.

      Delete
    9. Kofin bealim veshotim does not mean ad shetetze nafshoDecember 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

      James: mengele is only an ilum shem (nik bela'az) for the EPSTEIN makeh beseiser. Whatever the case may be, 'Koifin ad sheyomar' is not MEAYMIM lehorgo (threaten to kill) that is prodding / waterboarding.

      FYI, the use of force is only if a get was justified by a kosher Beis Din after listening to both sides, and she was able to make her case of maus olay and prove it. Otherwise we are choshesh shemo nosno eneha beachar. If ORA counsels a 'fangunah' claiming this 'taineh' only to lie through her teeth, it is worthless. An honest beis din comprised of Anshei emes veSonei Botza, can see through the smoke and mirrors and sort things out. From whence does a woman take such a taineh of maus olay anyway, if not coached in saying so. Not so Beis din chotzif veyoshvei kronois of mengele EP,,,,N, al nishmosoi yapilu goral, kulom menoafin, rodfei shalmonim ($100,000) veato meratzchim. No din Torah, not even listening, a husband doesn't even have to exist, without establishing who is the eishes ish, whether she is an eishes ish. All that was needed was the Depo$it of 20K mezumen and a "HAM" sandwich, the blessing done by ORA backed Ra bonim, an underground makeshift Kangaroo court at an undisclosed destination, decreeing the HAM sandwich is "FREE", FREE for all, come one come all, only to wake up to a rude awakening after a 2 year ongoing STING OPERATION. What a sad state of affairs! And you James, still support arrur makeh beseiser beilam shem? Chazor bach, umiyad!

      Delete
  4. While Halacha does require consent of the husband, it is the job of the rabbis and the community to convince and if needed pressure the husband to give that consent when the marriage is over. There will always be debate as to determining a "failed marriage." However we do not want to, as yy said, make bnot yisrael "gamble" with their lives "if things go sour." There must be institutional protection to protect both spouses. For that reason I believe every marriage should have both a ketuba and a PNA designating a particular B"D to use if there are problems. This binding agreement prevents so many issues that we tragically read about on this blog. Before people jump down my throat that we are talking about divorce on the happiest day of the blessed couples lives, remember that is what the ketubah is, a PNA. Just as we are not concerned talking about divorce with a ketubah, we should not be concerned using a pre-nup. The ketubah addressed problems to protect women in their times, we need to use halacik solutions for our times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan - That is not accurate. The rabbis were never, and still cannot, pressure a husband to grant his wife a divorce against his will, unless she has justifiable cause under Halacha to make such a demand in Beis Din.

      Delete
    2. If you claim to level the plainfield, why did Rabenu Gershom need to create a Heter of meah Rabonim, why not just use cattle prods when she is not tzayes leDina?

      Delete
    3. Dan

      Most people would agree that women should not be trapped in a marriage that is not working.

      The problem that we have that fundamentally the husband must truly agree to the divorce and no matter what arrangement you will put in place you will still need a valid divorce.

      So why divorce may not be valid. This is largely due to feminist attitude of the authorities and some Jewish public leaders that truly undermine the husbands rights. This in turn represent pressure that may invalidate the get.


      Delete
  5. VENAFSHI KSHURO BENAFSHODecember 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM

    The sidrei haGet is, to have ALL matters settled first, then to proceed with the formalities of GET KRISUS of which is the clear ending of the marriage. There are many matters to iron out beforehand, there are established HALCHOT to follow in an orderly manner According to the TOARH and Shulchan Aruch, whether financial, custodial or otherwise, and NOT before those matters are secure, safe and sound do you proceed. First and foremost is Poschin beShalom, and only after it is clarified that all else failed, you move on to the next step. It is also known and accepted under International laws, that uniting families from over the globe move mountains to relocate and join each other, THAT strong is the bond of a FAMILY UNIT and of each and every family member , an inalienable G-d given right. When it comes to an inevitable divorce L' Alenu, it is only the wife that gets divorced, not so the children. The NAFSHI KSHURO BENAFSHO bond between Father and his children is not only a legal bond of someone's own flesh and blood, but a UNIVERSAL inborn love with mind, body and SOUL, which is the same as G-d's all other creations, you can see even in the animal kingdom. Denying a FATHER access to a child to cherish, love, hug and kiss and to nurture is a pain of BIBLICAL proportions, like ripping off a major limb without anesthetics left bleeding away, a wound with pain so deep, that can never heal. Can anyone in their right mind explain, why declaring the so called alleged "WITHHOLDING" of a GET have precedence over securing the FATHERS right, while truly it is SHE that is WITHHOLDING his G-d given inalienable right to access his own children. "Umay chozis dedamech sumkei tfei"? Since when is the WOLF crying so called Agunah's blood more red then the blood of the FATHER or the blood of the CHILDREN? Do you know how many FATHERS have been ROBBED of this RIGHT, how many MACHSHEFOS have ignored the FATHER'S quest after his own flesh and blood. Does anyone know of an organization that enforces those Internationally accepted rules? TORAH rules, and not ORA RA chosech veafeilo. And this question I direct to YOU R' SHACTER, did you ever entertain the thought of EPSTEINING and WOLMARKING those so called alleged self proclaimed "AGOONSQUAD" mothers without exorbitant SHOCHAD fee's of 100,000 Dollars in order to restore the rights of the FATHERS agooning their life away in pain. And what about the pain of those innocent little CHILDREN that miss out on Tatti's love, hugs and kisses, and QUALITY TIME to spend with them? WHEN have you ever ELECTRIC PRODDED even ONE relcalcitrant MACHSHEIFELE to restore the little SHEFELECH'S inalienable right to their FATHER, does your heart not bleed for WITHHOLDING the children's gift in life? DAM ACHEINU VETAPEINU TZOAKIN ELENU AD LEV HASHAMAYIM, where is my Abba, what happened to my Abba? When will you heed to the children's cries? Will you wait another thirty years before you wake up and say "TORAF TOIROF ABBU YOSEF? Huh? Yossele einenU, Shimele einenu, ve'es Binyamin tikach, veono ani ba, huh? Something to think about, on the flip side of the coin. Good thing the law caught up with the Malachei Chabolo Knufya, Datan VaAviram veEdoso, VENIREH MA YIHYE CHALOMOISOV.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There must be institutional protection for men against machasheifohs going to arko"oys. Once a machasheifoh understands she will be excommunicated for going to arko"oys only rhen can the marriage be terminated al pu halocho and a get be considered. If she is in arko"oys she needs to understand her only option is to join a nunnery.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree in the selection of a bais din which needs to follow din and no peshoro or p korov ldin. You want out with a get. Then follow the halocho all the way. You dont want to follow halocho by running to arko'oys then you have lost your rights to a get

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The very first Siman of Tur Hoshen Mishpat tells us that the purpose of batei din bizman hazeh is Shalom, not pure din.

      Delete
    2. Sholom Sholom ve'ein SholomDecember 30, 2013 at 10:47 PM

      James:
      Les din v'eles dayan. Choshen Mishpot also states that kol kavonoso yihye leshem shamayim, and apply the din equally to all, male or female. However, not all creations are created equal, some are more equal. Torah states in the first parsha of Breishis, "vehi yimshol bach", how would you stomach such an unfair command, and how does ORA deal with it? How do they level the plain field, to be an equal partner? Furthermore, "ve'el ishech teshukoseich", what happened to equal rights, what's the feminist take on this. Why didn't Hashem consult with ORA and the feminists first, it is a gzeira she'ein rov femme tzibur yecholim laamod boh, it is unjust and unfair. When Sara insisted Avraham chase away Hagar, was that fair? It was Sara that was the shadchanit, isnt that an oxymoron? Where is the level plainfield about writing a Ketuba, why is the parnassa burden on the husband, so much so, meal glima deal kisfei. For equality purposes, in difficult times when jobs are scarce and hard to come by, why doesn't she take the initiative for a change, and mortgage her glima meal kisfeho? And for that matter, why not make a Ketuba for him for a change in the spirits of feminism, before bearing children, after bearing children, or even while bearing children. There are no more tinok shetzarich leimo anymore, since the invention of FORMULA. Taking it one step further, why is chazir ossur, it is such a good tasting comfort food, just look at the kosher chazir fissel, kosher kosher, and R' Boruch Matir Issurim will chew away in lieu of maalo gero for FREE, thereby, CHAZIR IS FREE, so that we can have a feast and a chin'ja, that wasn't so difficult. For those that taryag mitzvos is too burdensome, you can invent a "Kol Haneorim Matir Issurim". It is known, that the Tora was given as kofo alehem har kegigis, take three ra bonim and chozer bi'shailos chochom thusly, it was an offer you couldn't refuse, under threat of life, and undue force etc. hence an unacceptable gift & U R FREEEEEE.... for a quick fix.
      Look at the Middle East, four wives toiling upfront with loaded baskets on their heads filled with goodies for sale, and he nicely parades himself 20 paces behind, twiddling those rofl beads tween his fingers, watching the birds and the bees in all directions. When Mr. Kafiyeh so chooses, plays sheshbesh with his peers, and pipes away at his nargilah to his hearts content. Who ever saw to it that all things in life are equally distributed amongst husband and wife, or is it? Why if the wife brings along 'nechsei melig', it belongs only to her, and whatever he brings, earns, and inherits, it is sheli shalach, and shelach shelach? Shall we renegotiate with the Ribono shel olom and update him how times have changed. How is that fair, did ORA go out protesting and changing, equalizing, balancing back to equilibrium. It wouldn't take more than a mere declaration, of 'hefker beis din hefker' to level the plain field according to (t)ORA. Here is another unfair, unjust, unequal imbalance in life, why don't the feminist Amazon ladies go in the Army and serve their country, take their share of this burden, let's see how much they like to come home in wheel chairs, missing limbs, wearing prosthetics, eyepatches and everything that goes along with it. Why is it taken for granted that the majority of men serve for their country and bear arms, need to bring home parnassa, etc. etc. etc. Times have changed, things need to be updated. Let's create a new organization hmmm.... called "Tora Bora", to counter Ora. In order not to disturb the equilibrium, and level the plainfield, when you add or remove something from the feminists bleeding heart leftists side of the scale, it is only right to counterbalance just the same on the rightists side of the scale, otherwise it is lopsided, unbalanced, and unleveled plainfield. Why have we never heard of any demonstrations to such, in the name of fairness. Rav lachem bnos tzelofchod.

      Delete
    3. Sholom, I agree with you to a great extent. One of the differences between Orthodoxy and say, Karaism, is that the rabbis would often make takkanot, whereas the karaites would advance a more fundamentalist argument, that the Torah cannot be changed, even if it is unfair. In that discussion, I am more inclined to a "Mikreh" perspective , precisely because I agree with what yo say. I.e. Torat haShem Temimah, if G-d gave , chas v shalom, an imperfect Torah, then we would need takkanot. The rabbis always sought takkanot, whether Chazal, or Rabbenu Gershom etc. The real question is where you draw the line - which are authentic changes and which are not. In the case of Bnot Zeolphachad - the leader of the generation, Moshe , petitioned Hashem, and a "change" was incorporated in the Written text.
      The Ora-ites will claim that they are following this true tradition of the Oral law, whilst their opponents will say they are apikorsim. Hatam Sofer said Hadash Assur Min HaTorah - presumably he drew the line at that point in time - but it wasn't just the re-formists he opposed, but also changes via Kabbalah, eg his machlokes with Lubavitch on the issur of men shaving.
      So, begadol, it is a fascinating issue you raise - and it is so important that we will never resolve it here or even before Moshiach comes (may he speedily arrive!)

      Delete
    4. btw Sholom, the phrase is actually " level the playing field" , ie it shouldn't be slanted to favour one side or other.

      Delete
  8. Stan: Halacha is that a beit din is supposed to encourage p'shara.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike: And either party to the case has the right to insist on exclusively basing the psak halacha of the beis din be on strict halacha.

      Delete
  9. The problem is all Orthodox Jews are not in a marriage but in marriages plural. They basically are in two marriages simultaneously, they have their civil and religious marriages and the laws that govern both are completely opposing.

    Women run with false Heterim to the civil divorce courts because they know they will do very well there. But what happens when an Orthodox Jewish woman drags her husband to Civil divorce court against his will, destroys him with the process and then says please give me my Jewish divorce now. Two wrongs don’t make it right! but if you are the person that is wronged how sure are you that you will do what is considered right?

    The Agunah term used today to describe women stuck in Jewish marriages is incorrect. These women are not really Agunahs but are false Agunahs or fagunahs. A fagunah is a woman whose husband will not for whatever reasons that may be grant his wife a divorce. In Jewish law there are many valid reasons for a husband to not want to divorce his wife and there are very very few reasons for which a woman can ask a Beis Din to compel a husband.

    In today’s day and age a man given such power over a woman is considered unconscionable. To be an observant orthodox Jew is a choice. Modernistic views cannot change codified Jewish Law. Civil Laws cannot be written to change Jewish Laws. It is possible to amend Jewish laws but in today’s day and age that would require every Rabbi from every sector of the Jewish race to unify and unilaterally agree to change the law. The chances of that happening are slim to none.

    The bottom line is if one choses to be an Orthodox Jew, then one choses to abide by the laws that govern the religion. Jewish laws cannot be changed or altered in any way no matter how incorrect (based on common law or civil inalienable rights) they may appear to be. The only thing that can change is ones choices.

    There are three ways in which a fagunah can be released from her status.

    1. She complies with her husband’s demands removing her civil contempt.
    2. She or her husband passes away.
    3. She chooses to no longer adhere to Jewish laws.

    In most cases the husbands demands are not that unreasonable, but if they are it is his right under codified Jewish law. We cant dispute that the playing field is uneven on the Jewish side just as much as the playing field in the civil courts is uneven in the opposite direction. But lets face it as Orthodox Jews which side and which divorce really is important. Civil or Religious?

    As far as codified Jewish law is concerned a husband cannot be coerced in any manner to divorce his wife unless she meets the very stringent standards. If in fact a legitimate Beis Din ruled she does meet those stringent standards, coercion is still very limited. Any Divorce given under undue coercion is invalid and potentially creates Bastards and that is a much larger problem the fagunahs. We all understand that modern culture and ways of living are often contrary to Jewish Law and to combine the two are impossible.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MB: love your phraseology, ROFL

      Delete
    2. Well said, MB. Yasher Koach.

      Delete
  10. Lets face it we are not going to change Jewish Law, any attempt to do so will be futile because as we all know it will not be universally accepted.

    ORA has tried hard to fix the imbalance with anti Jewish Law practices. They are creating Bastards as a result. So we will fix the Bastard problem with another organization declaring them not to be so. All this is going to do is further divide the Jewish nation until we no longer recognize each other other as Jewish.

    Since women are now much more likely to ask for a divorce then men. A trend started in the 70's and growing annually to the point where today over 80%+ divorces are initiated by women. The only way to fix this problem is with education. Much like we have mandatory pre marriage classes so should we have mandatory pre divorce classes.

    What needs to be primarily stressed as far as women are concerned is you probably don't have a valid Jewish Law reason to ask for a divorce. So be mindful of whatever you want beyond actual divorce. It may be unfair but you have to understand in Jewish Law a husband granting a divorce may well be the first and greatest concession on his part. And we need to teach men to try to be reasonable and to not antagonize women by even mentioning their rights, because that may well send them on a straight path to civil courts.

    Peace not War. Or as a previous article mentioned prevent "The Erosion of Trust".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better we should teach our yeshiva boys how a good husband behaves. There are two ways to look at the changing trends: one, women have become "feminists" or two, men have become oismensch

      Delete
    2. never mind yeshiva boysDecember 31, 2013 at 12:05 AM

      Better yet, is to teach feminists, "no need to apply and just intermarry with each other", enjoy their feministas as birds (feigalach) of a feather, right of the bat you saved four miseries for life, no shiduch Crisis, no Fangunah crisis. Let's face it, they are just not into it, no one will miss them, no need to become oismensch. They have plenty of Maha-Rats willing to make a hesder with Nupitals to their hearts content, with sheva blessings of Matir Issurim.

      Delete
  11. @ MM and Mishpat- You throw the term bastard around with little consideration. Which B"D declared a mamzer after another B"D gave a p'tur? I know you are so fond of ORA- which B"D declared their gitten pasul after the BDA approved? You can shout as loud as you want but until another B"D challenges the get it follows the rule that we don't challenge what was done already.
    Why would you be opposed to a PNA? It is not against halacha. It only strengthens the power of B"D since neither spouse can go to court since they stipulated they will go for binding arbitration in the event of conflict. The court will not hear the case. I know this works in the States, I don't know how it works in Israel. This is not changing Jewish Law, it is strengthening it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, If some so-called beis din gave a p'tur that does not halachicly hold up, it does not remove the status of future children as being mamzeirim.

      If a Get was issued invalidly, there is an entire section of Shulchan Aruch on it known as Get Me'usa. It is real and applicable. And it is a case that very much can be found to apply in a real-life situation today.

      By time another beis din declares these unfortunate children to be mamzeirim, it will be too late to save those poor children.

      Delete
    2. The "so called bais din" you refer to is the largest and de facto the most accepted B"D in the US. Which get was done invalid? No one argues that there is S"A simanim on the topic. What is under debate is your application of the halacha. The BDA has been around for long enough that to question it now serves no practical purpose. It is your choice if you don't want your children to marry bnei gerusha, but not to besmirch kosher children as declared by a most respected B"D.

      Delete
    3. BDA is neither the largest nor the most accepted B"D in the US. Far from it.

      Delete
    4. BDA, the one started by wonderfully honest and smart Rabbi Hershel Golwasser, um, oops, Micheal B.? Largest and most accepted?
      Well, it depends who is writing the comments!

      Delete
    5. They handle more gitten than any other B"D. How do you define largest?

      Delete
    6. I don't know whether they handle the most gittin; that may be because the Modern Orthodox community has a much higher divorce rate than the Chareidi community. But they certainly are very far from handling the most Beis Din cases in the US.

      BTW, you realize that in American Orthodox community Chareidim constitute 71% of the Orthodox while the MO are 29%. Among Orthodox Jews aged 30 and under, Chareidim are 81% and MO are 19%. This is per the recent Pew Research Center survey.

      You also must be aware that the Chareidi community does not hold of the BDA and does not consider its methods in considering Halacha to be correct.

      Delete
    7. Epstein Wolmark's gitin are invalid. B"Din hagadol shebeYerushalayim along with Poskei hador of Eretz Yisrael ubber alles, declared these machsheifos Eishes Ish, and their children of next marriage as mamzerim lehalocho in a letters that are available on line. BDA gave their blessings to same.

      Delete
  12. Marriage believer not Get refuserDecember 30, 2013 at 2:33 AM

    In my experience the term Get Refuser is completely wrong the true term is Marriage Believer.

    The process of Arkaos is what’s turning Marriage Believers into a Get Refusers. It’s corrupt Rabbanim whom falsely enable Arkaos and allow women to drag husbands to a Secular Court that systematically begins the distrust that results in divorce stalemate impasses.

    We have to face the facts that we are not going to be able to change Jewish Laws because it will never be universally accepted. The only option we have, is to create an environment within the boundaries of the Jewish Laws to prevent stalemates and impasses.

    Before a Religious couple gets married they are required to take mandatory classes, why have we not created mandatory divorce classes?

    The story of Purim taught us that when a person is thirsty they will pay any price for a drink. It also taught us that if you eventually refuse to pay the price, when the time comes you will suffer for it.
    If a man and a woman voluntarily subscribe to a law that gives the man greater rights in granting divorce, then they both have to accept it is as a right given to him. The only other option is to voluntarily unsubscribe.
    Women need to be taught that when requesting a divorce, she is not automatically entitled to, she has to be mindful that possibly the first and greatest concession she is going to get is that a man will wave his rights and grant her request even if he doesn't fully agree.
    A man needs to be taught that he should be reasonable, because if he does antagonize his wife and threaten to invoke his rights, she may circumvent Jewish Law and drag him to Civil Court.
    The word extortion is completely inappropriate. Divorce is a right, and as Yaakov and Eisov taught us, rights can and have been sold from the very early days of our history
    If a woman requesting divorce perceives her husbands price to be unreasonable then as a requestor that is her problem to deal with not his. As long as its within her means or capabilities to comply then she has a choice.
    But to drag him to Civil Court and use unlawful Arkaos to bludgeon him, will most definitely not make him more reasonable. To slander him and or his family in public or in the media will definitely not make him more reasonable. As recent history dictates it’s actually quite the reverse.

    And if the end result is an impasse or a stalemate then we the Jewish Nation have failed. But to collectively champion the perceived weak (because we view Jewish Laws to be wrong) and to rally behind unlawful coercion is just exasperating the problem and creating a much bigger problem for the whole Jewish nation in the future.

    Are we going to have organizations in the future that will unilaterally declare Bastards Legitimate? And if we do will that not further divide our nation into subsections?

    Let’s choose not to be Haman the wicked, agree to pay then renege on the deal. Let’s learn from Yaakov Avinu and if necessary buy the rights.

    The true extortion here is the Civil Courts because all who work in it or have experienced it know that with a few simple lies and twisted truths the man has no chance.

    We cannot wait nor do we have to wait for the broken Civil Courts to change. In the end we as Orthodox Jews, care not about the Civil Divorce, we only care about our Religious Divorce. So let’s learn, train, teach and deal with what Jewish Laws dictate. There are valid ways to accomplish Jewish Divorces without coercion, most often we have to amend our expectations in order to achieve that goal.
    If a Jewish woman is asking for a divorce, they shouldn’t demand but request, and if they are taught and understand what exactly it is they are requesting. That most importantly, it is almost always not an automatic right. Then perhaps they will be mindful of how much more they want and request beyond actual divorce\separation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for clarifying your point that the rite of a get is not a right, rather a commodity. So for practical purposes can you advise how does one calculate the price of the ransom? Is there a calculation based on how long they were married? How many children they had? How much money her parents have. What about uncles? Im Ken, Ain l'davar sof. When a marriage is over, divorce is a right and the get is the rite.

      Delete
    2. Just because someone wants a Get does not give them the right to demand and receive it anymore that I have the right to demand and receive a million dollars or to become a Kohen or to be allowed to live in a private co-op or the right to a membership in your club or the right to be approved for an American Express card or the right to receive Swiss citizenship.

      Delete
  13. I don't see how the idea of leverage is consistent with the Torah's attitude toward disputes. If they are agreed about ending the marriage and arguing over the terms each party is supposed to be doing right, and they should seek out an honorable beit din (not each party trying to get a beit din that will favor him or her) to tell them what that is. See the first perek of Sanhedrin where it says that even the party that loses a din Torah should leave the court singing. Winning isn't supposed to be the goal; doing ratzon haborei is.

    Yes while there is a realistic chance of holding the marriage together either party can refuse a divorce to do so. But the rabbonim and battei din should also help the parties see when it is beyond hope and time to move on. And once that happens a yirei shamayim will be focussed on doing the right thing, not on winning.

    ReplyDelete
  14. James and Mike peshoro today has been used to completely corrupt botei din. That is why the dayonim can c harge way more than their schar betailoh, provide equitable distribution, alimony, etc etc . peshoroh has been abused by corrupt botei din. furthermore peshoro is where 2 parties have some kind of claim of some validity. if one knows for sure that someone has no claim e.g. to equitable distribution then using peshoro to decide this is pure rishus and only favors the woman. I suspect since it favors the woman that is why you are in favor of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats all very nice but dont ignore the halacha. Choshen Mishpat Siman 1. BD follow peshara because the goal is shalom. Thats the halacha. You cant make up exceptions or put words into the halacha.

      Delete
  15. Yes Mike a yirei shomayim doesn't run to arko'oys and make up lies and be oyver mesirah based on sheker. following din is the win for both parties. if the woman wants to win in arko'oys let her rot. no get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you want to stay married to someone who invents lies about you and maligns you? Wouldn't that in itself be grounds for divorce?

      You do not hold on to the marriage because you want to stay married.

      Delete
    2. When they say yes they mean no, when they say no, they mean maybe, when they say maybe, they deny they ever said it. It happened that they keep husband hostage due to the fact that he gives great consideration for his children, and tries to strangle him to give in... let's say to her high maintenance lifestyle, and he sweats it out. One day when it becomes to much to bear, he might just say OK, and when it's over, she wakes up to a rude awakening. Most gittin, husbands do NOT want to hang on, they just want to secure their rights, rightfully so, and until that happens, ORA rushes in with machsheifo ..GEVALD.... refusenik...blah blah, and mechallel shem shamayim berabim. Occasions that one hangs on is only a myth, except when it is against psak din of chiyuv get, which is negligible and very very few.

      Delete
    3. If she wouldn't cause any difficulties with the process in settlement of his inalienable RIGHTS thae torah grants him, she would long be passe and a has been. No one is holding on to machsheife for fun, and no one is holding on to a non marriage. Rather she is holding on to his destruction, and would not let go. Why doesn't she hand over what belongs to him, he needs to relinquish to machsheifo nothing that is his. She is not going to be a chote veniskar, and mechsheifo can cry "fangunah" till she becomes red in her face in tandem with ORA. These reshaim arurim cannot and will not be able to ignore and cover their true intentions. Once and for all, you all must understand that he wishes her good riddens, the sooner the better. It is highly convenient to bundle those gitin which needs to cut all loose ends, together with those that hold on to a straw of a worthless nonMarriage, which is only very few. But it sounds more prominent for schnurr purposes when they come in bigger numbers. It is high time to LET MY PEOPLE GO!

      Delete
  16. A man must remarry using a htter meah etc if the marriage us over ans the machashefa is in arko"oys.

    ReplyDelete
  17. here james goes again. Denying how I responded to him. yes the goal is sholom, and the woman wants out and wants to stop the man proper access to his children and on top of it now claims she wants peshoro offered to her by corrupt botei din because the type of peshoro these botei din offer is corruption. When it is black and white who owns what it is ossur to apply peshoro because that is geneivoh. Not only that it breeds tremendous sinah when yiddishkeit is distorted to take away what is legitimately yours. Peshoro is not a licence for corrupt botei din to do as they wish and trample over a man's rights just because james and his corrupt BDA/ ORA/ YU soul mates say so or because some unscrupulous uneducated dayonim can now charge $600 an hour in their botei din when it is doubtful if their schar betailo is even 10% of this. But james because he purports to understand hebrew has proudly read the first s'if in choshen mishpot and now declares the man must want shoolom and he defines sholom as financial rape.

    James read choshen mishpot 26 and 383 as well as well as the psakim that toveah or toyevoh usually the woman must go to the bais din of the nitvah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are missing the point. You keep saying that the din is clear and anything to the contrary is geneivo therefore promoting "shalom" is really following the din otherwise you have corruption. There is a deep logical flaw to your argument. When both parties go to BD following peshara, their decision IS the law. Anything to the contrary is geneiva.

      Delete
  18. Menachem from Lakewood New JerseyDecember 31, 2013 at 1:01 AM

    Rabbi Dovid Cohen from Gvul Yavetz allows any woman to go to secular court and obtain a restraining order without going to Bais Din,

    I was involved in a case where a woman in Lakewood NJ based on Rabbi Dovid Cohens Psak obtained a restraining order against a tennent in family court (In New Jersey a House Mate can Be considered a "Family Member") because she claimed he "Harrased" her by insulting her, subsequently she had him arrested on some minor technical violation. I called up Rabbi Dovid Cohen as i wanted to discuss the details of this case with him. Rabbi Cohen acknowledeged that he was the one who issued the Psak that this woman can get the restraining order however he cannot discuss it with me as he does not know any of the details of the case, he gave her a Heter Arkous because according to the Torah any woman is entitled to an "Order of protection",

    when i pointed out to Rabbi Cohen that many woman misuse the restraining order as a tool for revenge to have their men arrested and humiliated, his answer to me was that it is just like any other power or right that the Torah gives to a person that if someone wants abuse that power he or she can if a woman decides to abuse that power that is her issue not mine (Rabbi Dovid Cohen)

    Basically what Rabbi Dovid Cohen is saying i am giving this Lady an Atomic Bomb and if she decides to misuse it, it is not my issue

    P.S. I found out latter that this womans father shared Mechatanim with Rabbi Dovid Cohen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is NOT what he is saying.
      We live in a country in which our BD are not recognized as legitimate courts with any power. ALL BD are arbitration panels which require both parties to submit to their jurisdiction. RDC holds (and so do other batei din) that you dont have to go to BD if doing so will cause you to lose certain rights. So, if you need an emergency TRO and going to BD sending hazmanas is not possible, then you are permitted to go to BD. That is the law. You dont need a special heter to do so. Its like molestation. One is permitted to go to court and doesnt need a special heter from a rav who will "investigate".
      But, if possible, (for example, you are seeking certain monetary damages) you MUST also go to BD and try to remove the case there. that is where Weiss went wrong. He DIDNT go to BD. He went straight to court. Even if you think his response to Machon Lehoraa was permitted (I dont) that only happened after Dodelson summoned him to BD.
      Here is a question: How else do you propose a woman get a TRO against a man? What if he is abusive? Does she need to ask a Rav to investigate her claims?

      Delete
    2. james;he got a hetter because it was an emergency and to use your words he was losing his rights and whether you agree with his response makes no difference the problem is that the bd ignored it and didn't respond and instead issued a seruv with no halachic basis because he did respond

      Delete
    3. His response was not deemed justified. You cant select an incapacitated man as a borrer.
      You keep missing my point. You want to allow people to go to secular court to protect their rights. Fine. But then you accuse women who go to court of the most outrageous things. You wish them to rot for eternity. Make up your mind. Either you can go to court to protect your rights and Tamar did nothing wrong or you cant and Weiss is guilty. You cant have a rule of nobody is allowed to go to court unless its approved by Rav Gestetner and only Rav Gestetner. Either you are allowed to go to court to protect your rights or you are not. Pick one.

      Delete
    4. james; i'll repeat it again he replied to the bais din what you think of his reply makes no difference the problem is that the bais din ignored his reply if they had a problem with it they should have told him so and see what he says then but instead the bais din put out an unjustifiable siruv i hope this is clear enough for you

      Delete
    5. ish tomim vetzadikJanuary 2, 2014 at 9:48 PM

      In my observation, AMW is a gentleman and a great Tzadik. You have never heard one piece of lashan hara about his X to be. She on the other hand, did anything and everything to destroy him and his greater family, defame him, rob him, lied through her teeth and blatantly lo tzayeis ledinah. Ne'elovim ve'einom olvim is a gevaldiga madreiga and I firmly believe that whatever he did, court or otherwise, was al pi SA and al pi Totah, even though we do not know all the details nor are we privileged to. All the dirty tricks have been exposed, although in drips and dribbles, and thanks to this blogs initiative in the spirit of lo taamod al dam reacha, we were able to stand up for his reputation, kvod haTorah, and for a great baal midos. Thank you, Thank you Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn, we cannot thank you enough for giving us this opportunity! May AMW be zoche to build a true bayis neemon beyisroel, bimhiero didan AMEN.

      Delete
    6. well, if you want him to build a true bayis neemon beyisroel bimheiro, tell him to give the get and move. Because it does not look like his current or ex-wife is ready to do this with him.

      Give the get: win-win!

      Delete
    7. Shimi,
      The BD did tell him and he picked another unqualified borrer. You cant say that he did reply and the nature of the reply is irrelevant. The response has to be legitimate.
      Ish Tomim, please explain how dodelson was "blatantly lo tzayeis ledinah."

      Delete
    8. Feminist January 2, 2014 at 10:22 PM

      He is chasing her to give the Get for many years, but she doesn't comply, does not follow protocol, tzayes ledina. Tell her, if she refuses to accept the SA way, we will send Prods after her, use ORA tactics and then see if she can withold Both, the prod and accepting the get. Get it? After all, the stick has to ends, and the end justifies the means, end of story. Have a wonderful Shabbat.

      Delete
  19. Stan I am sorry but your level of hypocrisy is frankly unbearable. You have repeatedly slammed Rav yes rav gestetner claiming he violated halochoh for dismissing the siruv on Friedman without consulting tamar friedman (not Epstein). yet I have explained to you on numerous occasions that this bais din had no jurisdiction over aharon because tamar had been in contempt of the baltimore bais din. but this did not satisfy you not because you disputed tamar is lo tzias dina but r gerstetner should not have used this approach.

    Can you please explain to all the bloggers why you do not similarly slam r schachter, kamenetsky, belsky for getting involved in a case and issuing a siruv on friedman when the petitioner of this siruv is none other someone who was mesarev l'din. This level of hypocrisy even for you is far too much. I respectfully demand an explanation how these rabbis could get involved in assisting someone who fled bais din? please read choshen mishpot 26 if in any doubt and ask superintendent chalmers for any assistance in translation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we go again:
      1. I did NOT slam him for violating halacha in dismissing the seruv. I slammed him for all of the other stuff he did in that bittul seruv which was not a bittul seruv at all. Read it again.
      2. I did not know that the Baltimore BD had issued a seruv on Tamar. That might change my mind.
      3. I have commented on two cases: Friedman and Weiss. In each case, you have asked me to condemn the BDA, Schacther, YU modern orthodox "biryonim", etc. But the BDA and YU are not involved in either case. All the parties in both cases were chareidim. Schachter signed on to the seruv against Friedman relying on Kamenetzky but he is not really involved in the cases any more than we are. The seruv would have been issued without him. You can use every cases to attack modern orthodoxy and feminism but it simply is not the case.
      Now, the reason I dont slam Belsky for this (I am no lover of Belsky - he protects child abusers) is because he spoke to Aharon many times. He got involved on Aharon's side but eventually changed his mind when he saw how intransigent Aharon could be. If he wasnt neutral at the beginning he was favoring Aharon and that's why Aharon spoke to him willingly.

      Delete
    2. james; and who authorized ora in both cases if not RHS

      Delete
    3. ORA is not exactly a transparent organization. They operate based on valid seruvim. RHS simply stated that RSK was reliable and if he issued a seruv, it can be relied upon. I would assume that as halachic advisor with Belsky at the OU he would consider him reliable as well. But that is a far cry from saying that he was involved in the case or asking me to defend his role in both cases when that role was minimal and tangential. The question is why I dont slam RHS like I do Gestetner for violating halacha and the answer is that he is not on any Beth Din involved in these two cases. He may be wrong to trust RSK and Belsky but being misaken is not a violation of Choshen Mishpat. RHS is not a dayan on any sitting BD. He doesnt issue hazmanas or seruvim.

      My concern is with pointing out when Batei Din do not follow halacha. I read these comments and sometimes lose sight of the topic because they are all about attacking individuals that have nothing to do with the case. The Moderator can post a story about MAchon LEhoraa putting a seruv on Weiss and Lakewood Rosh Yeshiva supporting Dodelson and somehow that becomes an opportunity to fight against Modern Orthodox feminists, the BDA, RHS, YU, etc.
      Malkiel Kotler signed a letter against Weiss and I challenge you to find someone who considers a man who abandoned his wife and married another to be feminist or modern orthodox.

      Delete
    4. James: " He may be wrong to trust RSK and Belsky but being misa[t]ken is not a violation of Choshen Mishpat."
      Misaber al riv lo loy. Vekol mi she'eino boki betiv gittin vekidushin, lo yehe esek imohen, to mention but a few.

      Delete
    5. He is not osek in them. He is trusting that RSK and Belsky are.

      Delete
    6. Mesayea lidei aveira, keovrei aveira, no matter which any way.

      Delete
  20. Interesting excerpt from the article.

    Leveling The Playing Field

    In addition to the provisions of the prenup, other measures can be taken, by the rabbinical courts and by the community, to level the playing field. Some tentative suggestions might include:

    · Distinguishing leverage from extortion. This will demand the work of bona fide legal and halachic experts, though certain distinctions seem intuitive. To take one variable among many, withholding consent for existential reasons (e.g., to ensure that one’s children remain nearby) is more likely to be legitimate than withholding for financial reasons.

    ---------
    Perhaps this is why ORA decided to focus on a case involving child abduction in order to drive home the ORA view, contrary to this article, that a get must be given unconditionally in all circumstances where the woman says she wants out of the marriage no matter what the woman's behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Buy me out - Gid Oy OgudDecember 31, 2013 at 1:45 PM


    @ Mike S.December 30, 2013 at 2:42 AM
    I don't see how the idea of leverage is consistent with the Torah's attitude toward disputes.
    Ever heard of "GID Oy OGUD"?
    A marriage is a commitment and partnership for life, having and bringing up children. Many people sweat it out for the sake of the children, or at least till they grow up and get married. When she decides, I want mashiach NOW and here, even in a business dispute you have an option of GID Oy OGUD, considered fair, leveling the playing field, and no one considers that leverage. A divorced man, especially with children, is less marketable than a bochur, therefore, there are many things to consider, and rightfully so, when machsheifo decides to split. Whoever insists for divorce, is yado al hatachtoino, of course, having everything else considered.

    ReplyDelete
  22. James, Bonco Beitzo umorror:

    If he refuses a Get, ORA, Epstein, Wolmark, Goldsteins and goon squad shmayss him bealim veshoitim ad sheyomar. If she refuses a Get, Why doesn't the Shulchan Aruch pasken to SHMAYSS her just the same. Being what it is, where is ORA and the peacoks in leveling the playing field, harassing, intimidating, demonstrating in front of her house, relieve her of her Parnassa, her Uncles Parnassa, Ksav Seiruv, Kol koreh's, Post articles, Newwsweek, vechol shaar marin bishin. You are all fakers. Don't you know the Choshen Mishpat states to apply same judgement equally to all. It seems that leveling the playing field is not equally leveled for all players on the same level. MiKro minayin? Shene'emar: vehoyo hoekev lemishor vehorchosim levikoh, except when it comes to "Gays", Kol Gay yinosse, neum ORA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly have no idea what you are referring to.

      Delete
    2. Simplified version of Shailos ChachamJanuary 1, 2014 at 2:29 AM


      James: here is a simplified edition of Shailos

      Rabeinu Gershom made a tikkun leveling the playing field so that you cannot force a wife a Get against her will. If she refuses to accept a Get where there IS a Psak Beis Din or any other situation where the husband is in limbo, he created a tikkun of Heter meah Rabanim. Wouldn't it be only fair that just like ORA forces a husband bealim ubeProdim to order a Get when there is a Psak Din of chiyuv Get (or an alleged chiyuv get, and mostly even without an alleged chiyuv Get if you are bekoach to pay 100 Grand), the exact same treatment of - "alim uProdim, beatings, harassing, intimidating, demonstrating in front of her house, relieve her of her Parnassa, her Uncles Parnassa, Ksav Seiruv, Kol koreh's, Post articles, Newwsweek, vechol shaar marin bishin" - should be applied to the recalcitrant wife until she accepts the Get? Why is there a need for Heter meah Rabanim, except when she is R'L insane? Shouldn't Alim veProdim be commutative, e.g. recalcitrant + Cattle Prod = Cattle Prod + recalcitrant, for whomever it might be? Why is everyone so comfortable without the husband having the same privilege. Why hasn't ORA updated this unjust state of affairs? Get it?

      Delete
    3. Clarified and simplified Shailos ChachamJanuary 1, 2014 at 4:14 AM


      James: here is a simplified edition of Shailos

      Rabeinu Gershom made a tikkun leveling the playing field so that you cannot force a wife a Get against her will. If she refuses to accept a Get where there IS a Psak Beis Din or any other situation where the husband is in limbo, he createdr of meah Rabanim. Wouldn't it be only fair that just like ORA forces a husband bealim ubeProdim to order a Get when there is a Psak Din of chiyuv Get (or an alleged chiyuv get, and mostly even without an alleged chiyuv Get if you are bekoach to pay 100 Grand), the exact same treatment of - alim uProdim, beatings, harassing, intimidating, demonstrating in front of her house, relieve her of her Parnassa, her Uncles Parnassa, Ksav Seiruv, Kol koreh's, Post articles, Newwsweek, vechol shaar marin bishin - should be applied to the recalcitrant wife until she accepts the Get? Why is there a need for Heter meah Rabanim, except when she is R'L insane? Shouldn't Alim veProdim be commutative, e.g. recalcitrant + Cattle Prod = Cattle Prod + recalcitrant, for whomever it might be? Why is everyone so comfortable without the husband having the same privilege. Why hasn't ORA updated this unjust state of affairs?

      Delete
    4. I am not aware of any situations in which there is a seruv by a recognized BD against a woman who refuses to accept a Get. If that were the case, then I would hope that ORA would protest the woman as well. The answer is yes. A few points:
      1. ORA doesn't physically beat people. The whole point was to avoid that.
      2. I dont actually support everything ORA does. I just dont think its totally assur. That said, I wouldnt hold out hope for them protesting a woman because there arent really that many cases. (That should tell you something.) There are other mechanisms to deal with that - just ask Malkiel.

      BTW, does anyone know the facts in the Kotler case? Were there children? Did he summon her to BD? Which one? What was her response? If he got married in Eretz Yisrael, was his marraige recorded by the rabbanut? Is he still technically married according to Israeli law?

      I think that case is alot more interesting than Weiss or Friedman.

      Delete
    5. James:

      The SA and poskim do not mention beatings for a woman in order to accept a Get, ORA and their Ra banim backers never mentioned that the playing field should be rectified. The fact still remains that she can refuse, and the only way out is a Heter of Meah rabonim. There are several Hetered husbands here in our blogs and outside of it as you mentioned M.K., I do respect their anonymity. Had there been only a few women get refuseniks, rabenu Gershom would have not created a tkana of Heter Meah, as you mentioned of the other "mechanism". This proves ORA's bias.

      Wasn't the Epstein Sting Operation to prove the ongoing BEATINGS of A.R., Wax pair of Lakewood saga and many other Husbands that complained they were extracted a Get by force, of which is well publicised, and also caught on tape. Even according to you, if you hold that it is partially ossur, you are matir sofek Eishes Ish, and create sofek Mamzerim beyisrael, haloy dovor hu. As far as I know, Israel recognises a marriage of heter meah, and can register by the Rabbanut. BTW, M.K.'s case should be very well known in the town of Lakewood, and there are plenty of bloggers here, from there.

      Delete
    6. I get the point but I dont think it proves bias.
      1. I dont think there cases in which a seruv was issued against a woman. If there were, maybe ORA would take the case.
      2. Maybe the release of Agunim is not in their mission statement. Go start your own organization.

      Delete
    7. Your Honour,I rest my caseJanuary 1, 2014 at 11:33 PM

      James:
      I have heard of many Heter meah Rabonim over various continents.
      1) If you think it is the lack of composing a Seruv is the problem, isn't that a bias, why not write a Seruv, and if she doesn't comply, then Prod her.
      2) If ORA is for equal rights, they SHOULD take it up in their mission.
      3) Maybe ORA should start their own Edition of "New Torah", and "New Shulchan Aruch", leveling ther own playing field and their own players that believe in them, and leave faithful Torah followers alone. AMW, AR, are not evn in their ball park. I do think that the Arrests of the Prodders, were on behalf of their players and non-players as well.

      Delete
    8. ORA is for the resolution of agunot. They do not have BD and do not issue hazmanas or seruvim. IF there is a real case of an agun maybe they will protest. I just havent seen such a case.

      Delete
    9. Simplified, Clarified, ORA, Your Honour,
      Are you all the same person?

      Delete
    10. All as in the aboveJanuary 2, 2014 at 6:28 AM



      James:
      Yes your Honour, we are all the same, the blogs response was boshesh lavo, hence resubmitted with minor changes. Even R' Kaminetsky recalled the so called seruv if you can even call it such, called for a 'Sulcha', to cease and desist of ORA's chilul hashem berabim and bizayon of kvod haTorah oyom venoiroh. When Operation Epstein Bar was stung by the feds, has there been a Din Torah, Beis Din, Psak Din of chiyuv get, Seruv, wife as a so called Fangunah, or even an existing recalcitrant husband meagen refusing a Get? When ORA recruits their Army of Protesters yored lechayov, do they check if machsheifas complaint is Authentic? Or they follow High Command on demand? Do they check out to make sure they have the correct target to kidnap? Ein HakB'H mevi tkala al yedei tzadikim, how was the leader of ORA nichshal in such Deoraysas, e.g. Lo Signov, Lo soini ish es amiso, motzi shem ra, Lo selech rochil, lifnei iver, makeh re'ehu beseser, mashgeh iver baderech and so many more? If AMW or any other tayere Yid, that has no affiliation whatsoever with ORA nor care about them, how in the world are they MISABER AL RIV LOY LOI? All this is only miktzas shvocho, and the rest of the story we shall hear in Feds Court. If you can explain their actions, I would love to hear it if you only can. However, your responses were very shvach and poseach al shnei heseifim, you either haven't heard or haven't seen, or don't agree with all their methods, like just a little bit pregnant. Why would you be melamed sanegoriya on such Epsteins and their ilk? How can you deny the beatings of the malach hamavet, haven't you seen those Auschwitz pictures R'L' of A.R.? See no evil hear no evil, loy roisi eno rayah. Outside of creating psulei gitin, matir eishes ish leshuk, manufacture mamzerim on the wholesale level, they have resolved nothing. Other than that, they are a great organization, veda'l.

      Delete
  23. How much of this is a spectator sport - since real sport is not permitted - hence energy is expended on looking at other mikeinim's divorces.
    How much of the various arguments here about a woman's role in marriage apply to those that work or are reasonably happy? Or is it again, just theorising and applying various statements to messed up situations?
    And what of the halachic debate? There are occasional references to halacha, but not enough, considering the various tiles for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. James,
    It is absolutely not true that ORA only gets involved once a beis din has issued a seruv.
    ORA attacked Aharon Friedman before there was any seruv from any beis din.

    ReplyDelete
  25. James,
    What makes you so sure that ORA has not been involved in beatings kidnappings? ORA circulated a letter calling for Aharon Friedman to be beaten, and stating that anyone could appoint himself of herself as a messenger of Beis Din to beat Aharon.
    I don't know that ORA has been involved in kidnappings (although those taking part in ORA's demonstrations have assaulted people whom ORA is targeting or their relatives).
    What makes you so sure that ORA is not involved in kidnappings and beatings of fathers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What makes you so sure that Rav Gestetner isnt involved in these attempts to bolster his reputation?

      Nothing. There is no evidence to support either allegation. Again, ORA was designed to prevent the beatings that were popular in the chareidi world, especially among chassidim. They have respectable attorneys advising them and they would never hire goons. Its just too risky.

      Delete
  26. Look at ORA's extremist rhetoric claiming that those who do not give a get upon demand are engaged in domestic abuse. There is no reason to believe that ORA doesn't itself engage in violence to protected those whom ORA claims are victims of domestic abuse (despite ORA's claims that it does not engage in violence)..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,
      They have legal advisors. They operate according to the law.

      Delete
    2. Not according to Jewish Law though.

      Delete
    3. James,
      Did the Feds work against the law? Or epstein wolmark worked against the law?

      Delete
  27. James,
    You think that because ORA has lawyers advising them that is proof that ORA follows the law?
    Mobsters often have lawyers representing them, but that doesn't mean the mobsters are innocent.
    In fact, sometimes the lawyers actually specifically advise the mobsters how to conduct their criminal enterprises without getting caught.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Feds ran a sting operation. Epstein broke the law. ORA organizes protests. They do not break the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Epstein broke both Jewish and civil law. ORA only breaks Jewish law, not civil law. (At least not openly.)

      Delete
    2. Harassment and defamation of character are not exactly only protests. These are serious charges admissible in court. Judgement day will prove their extent of involvement.

      Delete
    3. jo,
      you raise a very important point regarding the permissibility of ORAs actions according to secular law. defamation and harassment are crimes with legal definitions. They are not what you say they are. That is why ORA has a legal advisors to advise them on their actions. They do not break the law.

      Delete
    4. Gavriel,
      Thanks for admitting they dont break civil law. As for Jewish law, that is exactly what we are discussing here. Which halacha in shulchan aruch do you think they are breaking?

      Delete
    5. James: Pressuring a husband to give a Get when Halacha prohibits pressuring the husband to give a Get.

      Delete
    6. Defaming one so that he should his livelihood, is against the law and ORA might reconsider to change their advisors. Epstein's case might prove this, "UMAKLO YAGID LO", yamim yagidu.

      Delete
  29. Gavriel,
    Cite a halacha. The questions is when can one pressure and what kind of pressure. If I stand in shul and tell the whole world that Gavriel refuses to give a Get, that is not "pressure". That is stating the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ORA isn't just annoucing Ploni ben Ploni isn't giving a Get. ORA is coming with pressure signs demanding a Get. Like big signs "Give your wife a Get". And Jeremy Stern holding a loudspeaker outside the husbands home and business demanding he give a Get.

      Even though it is against halacha to pressure him to give a Get.

      Delete
    2. GH, James,
      I would like to add, that ORA's protests insinuates as if the husband has a chiyuv Get of which is untrue. Especially if his Halachic rights have not been adhered to. He has the right to his own Beis Din as the nitva, still and all, ORA makes believe as if it's a done deal. I do happen to know it for a fact even though you will say, that only after there is a siruv, and haven't heard nor seen such. According to the orthodox Judaism al pi ruach Yisrael Sava, SA, Poskei haDor, ORA's tactics produce Mamzerim lerochtzo, no questions asked. Over and out!

      Delete
  30. The idea that the fact that a client has lawyers advising the client means that the client is following the law is absurd. Rabbis Wolmark and Epstein have had lawyers representing them regarding their kidnapping and beating business for many years.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It is pointless arguing with James as his feminist emotions run havoc with the truth. However i will repeat my arguments against his falsehoods for the last time. There was no seruv of any halachik in effect against Aharon Friedman regardless of what rav gestetner did or did not do or say. plain and simple since Tamar Friedman pulled out of bais Din and was lo tzias dina she lost her rights to ask for anything from any bais din. james complaints against rav gestetner are pure bulls**t. All rav gesttner did was point out a fact - the seruv was invalid from the getgo. He did not need to consult tamar about that.

    James disingenuous argument that R Schachter can sign on a seruv because he was relying on someone else when signing and was motzi la'az on another Jew and that's okay is pathetic. However once the facts regarding tamar's unilateral wthdrawal from bais din became exposed he still refused to withdraw his name from the seruv.

    As for claiming that belsky spoke to friedman and changed his mind - well what is th e reason? Especially when she pulled out of bais din? that is hardly a halachik reason - i put a seruv on someone because I spoke to him. What facts did he ascertain? Belsky is notorious at doing this and when confronted says oh I didn't know it was you, I didn't mean it?

    I am not wasting my time with james any longer. he has stated he is against bais din and that is the situation. whatever else he claims is frankly irrelevant given his position of approving of violating halocho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. stan,
      I second emotion, he is an apologist.

      Delete

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