Well written and said, Rav Dovid Eidensohn shlit"a.Yasher Koach!
I'd like to point out the obvious - you never answered the question that you yourself raised in Part 6: When may a woman demand a get? If he is physically abusing her, is that enough? If he is emotionally abusing her, is that enough?Putting aside your idea of the Shalom Bayis Beis Din (which as I've pointed out previously is essentially the equivalent of the RCA prenup...) what recourse does a woman have if she is currently married to a man who is beating her? I really want to know what is your answer to this. If your daughter was married to a man who beat her regularly, what would you advise her to do?You claim that the two most famous wars in the frum community relating to a get are not about husbands who are cruel or insensitive. I don't personally know any of the parties involved, but at least in one of the cases, that appears to be blatently false (if there is any truth to what was written in the New York Post by the World's most famous Aguna. Again, I don't know for sure, but to me, an impartial observer, it sounds a lot like a case of a cruel and insensitive jerk of a husband. Not to say that she's an angel, she seems to be a piece of work as well, but that is neither here nor there...)I await your response.
Super,So it is "obvious" that I never answered when a woman may ask for a GET. I feel that the conclusion of the article where I stressed that marriage is holy and sacred and if there are children there is damage to the children and this is frowned upon by the gemora says something about that. And the fact that a man married young in his twenties and by the time he gets divorced and remarries he is much older, is a terrible damage upon the husband. Thus, divorce can damage children and the husband, and can also indicate a lack of old fashioned sensitivity to the holiest of human institutions. All of this was clearly written in the article if you had time to read it instead of jumping in with your criticisms. I worked hard on that article, and it is not fair just to invent complaints.Next statement that my Shalom Bayis Beis Din is the same as the RCA prenup which is not true at all, as the RCA prenup clearly mentions a GET that can be forced and some people oppose it for that reason, but the Shalom Bayis Beth Din never talks about GET, but the GET must be given just to save fines, as I explained. But if you are in a hurry to knock somebody down, just jump in without reading all ten pages and say whatever you want. And please tell me what you read in the New York Post that shows the husband to be" a cruel and insensitive jerk of a husband." Please quote the exact words.
I think that it is critical to know what kinds of actions are deemed grounds for divorce.Therefore, like Superintendent Chalmers, I would ask you to answer his question. What you wrote above does not answer his very essential question.
R' Dovid - FINALLY! Kol HaKavod. Your essay is balanced, pointed, stares down falsehoods and popular "religious" demogoguery... and most important, is fully of yiras Shomaym.I don't know if your proposal for a BD for ShB will ever take off, and if just the basic idea of doing such education and moral reparation should be associated with Din. But I applaud the effort to find a practical way around this growing klippa eating away at some of the best of us.
Rav Dovid Eidensohn - Please listen to Rav Schachter's hesped for Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt'l, from 9:50 – 13:27, at http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/798928/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Hesped_for_Rav_Ovadia_Yosef_zt-lRav Schachter mentions a Teshuva from Rav Ovadia that documents many sources, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi, that permit a Beis Din to pressure a husband to give a Get even when Halachically they are not allowed to coerce him.
Confused,In other words, Rav Ovadiah Yosef says that we can disregard the Shulchan Aruch. Do you believe that? I wouldn't believe anything that Rabbi Schachter says, because he really knows how to stretch things. He is so great that he makes YASHE MAYIN.
Read the Teshuva of Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt'l for yourself. Rav Schachter says the Teshuva shows a long precedent of Poskim who allow a Beis Din to use pressure even when Halachah forbids them from using coercion. Perhaps Rav Yosef Zt'l is making a mistake, and perhaps Rav Schachter is misquoting him. I don't know. What I do know is that it is impossible to refute him without reading the Teshuva and checking the sources directly. I've heard many say that Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt'l was the biggest Baki of the past century. While no Gadol is immune to making mistakes, one should never dismiss a Gadol before carefully analyzing his sources and sevaros.
Confused we have been that route before I have a number of his teshuovos translated. search of "Yosef" and "alei". Also see Rabbi Yair Hoffman's contested reading of the Chachom Tzvi. Read http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rabbeinu-yonah-maus-alei-mitzva-to.html.http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-yosef-forced-get-for-maus-alei.htmlhttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/maus-alei-forced-only-if-disgusting.htmlhttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/rav-yosef-320-forcing-only-sometimes.htmlIf you read through the teshuvos I don't see that he is providing l'maaseh the leniencies that Rav Schechter and ORA are claiming in a cases which are not even ma'us alei. In other words he is not advocating divorce on demand.
Dovid EidensohnJanuary 29, 2014 at 3:28 AMConfused,In other words, Rav Ovadiah Yosef says that we can disregard the Shulchan Aruch. Do you believe that?This is a new tact. A couple years back you promissed to show us all how Rav Ovadia was clearly wrong and didn't understand the B"Y or Sh"A and I offered to walk your attempt at a rebuttal over to him should you put it forth.Now that he is niftar you are going to try to coopt him to your position... Classy that is.
Rav Eidensohn, I've never spoken to your brother Rav Dovid and I can only go by what he's written. And what he's written is very different from what you're saying. He writes that there is no legitimate Machlokes by Mous Olei and that no legitimate Posek would ever permit pressuring the husband in such a case, and if they ever would the get would be invalid and all subsequent children with a new husband would be mamzeirim. I then gave him a source in which Rav Schachter quotes a Teshuva from Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt'l, and asked him what he thought of it. Your brother replied that he doesn't trust Rav Schachter, who may have misquoted the Teshuva. If so, here is a perfect opportunity for your brother to refute Rav Schachter. Let him read Rav Yosef's Teshuva, and see if Rav Schachter quoted him correctly! You are now bringing other sources to support your brother's position. To me that is missing the point. The question is not who is right, which is something I'm certainly not entitled to voice any opinion on. The question is if there is a legitimate Machlokes here, so that legitimate Poskim may allow pressuring the husband, and that the subsequent children won't be mamzeirim according to every legitimate Posek. If Rav Schachter is properly quoting the Teshuva from Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt’l, honesty would require your brother to edit his article.
Confused I just listened to Rav Schacters hespedhttp://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/798928/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Hesped_for_Rav_Ovadia_Yosef_zt-lYou do not accurately report what he said and apparently don't really understand what we have been discussing for many months about what causes a get me'usa (a forced get).The section is between minutes 9-13.Rav Schacter notes that the Rema says according to Rabbeinu Tam that in some situations that even though no force is used but social pressure in the form of harchas Rabbeinu Tam are used such as not giving an aliya. He notes that the Piskei Teshuva says that in general these harchas Rabbeinu Tam are not used because of the fear of creating mamzerim. Rav Ovadia in the 8th volume shows that in fact that through the ages there are rabbonim - Ashkenaz and Sefardim who in fact have used these harchakas. As we have mentioned many times the harchas of Rabbeinu Tam involves the withholding of benefit. It is passive not active pressure .As I have pointed out - the public demonstrations and the demands that people lose there jobs and that relatives are publicly embarrassed are not part of the harchakas and that the poskim - including Rav Yosef - do not support Rav Schacter and ORA understanding of pressuring the husband.In sum, at most in a case of ma'os alei where there is some objective basis to the wifes claims against her husband that is recognized by beis din - some poskim permit using the withholding of benefit (harchakas Rabbeinu Tam - but not public shaming, financial loss, public demonstrations and not international media campaigns. The Rav of Kaminetz in Jerusalem was told by an aguna activist that he was going to get up in Shul and denounce the husband. The Rav said he couldn't do that because of the problem of get me'usa.So to answer your question - Rav Schacter does not understand the teshuva the way Rav Ovadia Yosef did and thus it does not give justification for ORA and Gital and Tamar. There is nothing radical in what Rav Yosef says. He just notes there is a dispute whether the harchas were generally not used for hundreds of years. There is thus no support for a legitimate Machlokes regarding ORA and there is no need for my brother to change his article!
Rav Eidensohn - Thank you, good reply. I'll listen to the shiur again. I wish your brother Rav Dovid Eidensohn would answer questions the way you do, as it would greatly enhance his ability to win people to his side. When you get the chance please show him the difference so that he can be more effective in influencing public opinion. Which of you is the older brother?
@Confused I am glad to see you understood my point. My brother has a different style - which in many situations has been much more influential than mine. But you are right sometimes it backfires. I also get similar complaints as to why I don't deal with topics like "X" also. Can't please all the people all the time. My brother is older and much more learned than I which is also relevant to your comment.
Among the reasons why we pasken like Beit Hillel is that they would study the views of Beit Shammai, and would even teach them before stating their own views. This was not only to demonstrate that they were calm, modest and respectful. It was to show that they fully understand the arguments for both sides and had no personal attachments to winning the debate; they only cared about finding the truth. You'll never convince a follower of Rav Hershel Schachter to ignore his psak by attacking him personally and dismissing his arguments without even listening to them. You do it by calmly listening to his entire argument, and then showing step by step the errors that he's making. Many people determine who they agree with by seeing who has more vitriol and then joining the other side. Memri publishes sermons from Hamas as that's the best way to get people to become pro-Israel, and anti-Israel organizations are more likely to quotes Meir Kahane than Ben Gurion. People who have a Big Stick are much better off when they speak softly. The Big Stick here is a precise point by point rebuttal of the other side’s position. Those who have it should show it to the rest of us, and we’ll all lean in to hear his every word.
How does that idea, that wives should be held prisoners through get-refusal, jive with that other video by Esther Perel who states that being a prisoner is not such a good precondition for love?
A hasband is under no obligation to divorce his wife if he does not want to, barring extenuating circumstances.
I suppose: the more abusive and oppressive a husband is, the less he will understand that he is under the obligation of giving a get...Therefore, every get-refuser on this earth will think he is right to withhold a get, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. Right here on this blog we had one commentator who was told by a great rabbi to give a get, and he still refuses to do so....
There is no obligation. You are mistaken.
I know a couple who runs to the rabbi or beith din every monday and thursday. it does not bring them happiness or shalom bayis.I think that extrinsic resources have only limited capabilities to repair a marriage. Essentially, I think that this is only possible if both spouses have good will to do it. As soon as one of the spouses does not cooperate, external pressure will not really re-establish good relationships.In the "famous cases" you mentionned, it seems as if one spouse refused to cooperate until the trust of the other spouse was completely obliterated and then claimed they were ready to work on the marriage (or not ready to let go of the other spouse).The good will has to come from both sides, in a timely and honest fashion.Therefore, there should be a reasonable time limit to efforts to save a marriage. After that period, a get should be given or received unconditionally.Don't forget that get-refusal makes both spouses an easy prey to sexual transgressions (with other persons), and therefore puts a stumbling-block in front of a blind person, which is forbidden mideoraita.
Don't forget that get-refusal makes both spouses an easy prey to sexual transgressions (with other persons), and therefore puts a stumbling-block in front of a blind person, which is forbidden mideoraita.Not getting married until age 25 has that same problem until you get married. (Let alone someone getting married even later.)
Therefore everyone should get married at 18.
Patience I gather frum your rather naive idealistic comments that you are not married and really don't know what you are talking about.
Furhermore, I do not understand why you view the dissolution of a civil marriage in front of the competent civil court as problematic.Civil marriage allows for marriage contracts or prenuptial agreements, where both spouses can determine their property rights or how they want to proceed in case of a divorce. If couples contract civil marriage without marriage contract, one has to assume that they agree to the default regulations in case of divorce. If they don't agree, they should state it (and agree on an arrangement) before marriage.The same possibilities seem to be open in jewish marriage. Therefore, I see no problem in establishing an equally worded marriage contract for civil and jewish marriage. As a consequence, the results of the civil and rabbinical divorce would be exactly the same.I have a slight feeling that hareidi rabbis fear for their power when they lash out against "arkaos". RCA Rabbis have no problems in accepting civil divorce that preceeds the beith din ceremony. They have no problems in accepting that civil courts are qualified to settle (and enforce) divorce arrangements.Sadly, rabbinical courts have only a very limited capacity of enforcing their decisions. So the party reliying on beith din will always be the weaker link - if the other parties does not play according to beith din rules. Therefore I recommend divorcees to seek the security and enforcability of civil court rulings, and to take beith din only as a secondary resource. Because they are just incapable of enforcing their rulings.
This is halachicly incorrect.
"They (RCA) have no problems in accepting that civilcourts are qualified to settle (and enforce) divorce arrangements" -If this is true, they are not Torah rabbis, they are simply Torah hating feminist politicians. Behind your slick sounding MO rhetoric, you (Patience and your MO henchmen) are promoting the destruction of Jewish families and men in the wickedly oppressive and unjust feminist police state kangaroo courts called "archaos".Your claim about enforcing Bais Din decisions in archaos is a lie. Parties can submit non-contested settlement agreements to archaos that will usually be rubber stamped by the archaos. Archaos encourages alternative dispute resolution as their dockets are full.You and your ORA henchmen do not have the slightest basis to invoke any Torah morality against Jewish men who withhold Gittin while you yourselves promote wicked goyish oppression against those same Jewish men. Your feminist hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
On this point, Patience is correct with regard to child custody:"Sadly, rabbinical courts have only a very limited capacity of enforcing their decisions. So the party reliying on beith din will always be the weaker link - if the other parties does not play according to beith din rules." Decision by binding arbitration (including a Beis Din) are generally enforceable in civil court, but not in the cases of child custody.
It is also true that if the parties submit a beis din decision to a court as a settlement by the parties, that the court would generally accept that settlement, just like a court would generally accept any settlement agreed to by the paries.The problem is if the beis din issues a child custody decision, and the other party refuses to accept that decision. Courts are generally not permitted to accord any deferene to the beis din decision.
You remind me of the rabbi in this maysse about the duck farmer, whose ducks are suddenly hit by an epidemic and die by the dozens. Two or three times, the farmer aks the Rabbi for advice, but the ducks go on dying, until not one of them is left. After that, the Rabbi asks "How are your ducks" "they have all died" "What a pity, I still had so many good Eitzes to give you".I think those two famous cases you mentioned are cases where all the ducks are dead, but you won't stop dispensing your good Eitzes - in a rather contraproductive way, since neither of the cases achieved shalom bayis.
R' Dovid R' Dovid, You have spoken for the Mizbeach, haShulchan asher lifnei hashem, you have spoken in the name of Hashem for his precious children not to make them lebedige yesomim, for the paining husbands who have been tearing rivers crying their hearts out, and you have spoken so well. Yafah dibarta, yasher kochacha shedibarto. Dovid, Dovid, Melech Yisrael chai vekayam! Halevay sheyirbu kmotcha beYisrael. Let it be heard and let it be known bechol tfutsot Yisrael, to all those stone hearted ra bonim that are noheg minhag shel bizoyon chavercho shehu bidmus yotsrech, and those ra bonim that raise their bloody hands inflicting pain on our brethren, leoalm Lo Nishkach velo Nislach.
I see here the compliments and the other remarks, and I read them all, and appreciate people taking the time to thank me or to educate me. But I am doing what I was trained to do by Gedolim Reb Aharon Kotler, Reb Moshe Feinstein, Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev all of them zt"l. Find out what the Shulchan Aruch says, what the codifiers say, and when you do, there cannot be a question. It is a sin to coerce a GET, and it is a disaster to teach women to hate men for not giving a GET. It is incredible that the Gedolim in Israel have written letters that coercion makes invalid GIttin and mamzerim, and still, we discuss it as if there are two sides to the question. My standard question is: I have stated my sources, from EH 77:2 and 3; the Rashbo VII:412 quoted by Radvaz IV Beis Yosef 154 and Chazon Ish, and if you disagree with them and feel that MOUS OLEI can produce a coercion of a GET, please tell me a source. I am not here as a philosopher, but as one who studies Torah. If you have a Torah teaching to permit coercion and the hideous things the Dodelsons have done to Rabbi Weiss, having his father and uncle fired from their parnoso and constant humiliation, please let me know it. If you have a prominent posek who permits doing to Aharon Friedman what the kidnappers tried to do in Philadelphia at the home of his mother-in-law, let me know it. If you bring me a proof I will accept it. But not an isolated statement here or there that can have various interpretations, not when my sources are clear as day. And if you don't believe in the Torah, chas vishalom, but consider the circus of the two famous ladies to be something of a secular moral issue, I ask you, what moral value do you place on ruining a man by marrying him and then running away after you have a baby from him. Just what hideous thing did he do? I am still ignorant of that.
Ben Torah,You sound like someone filled with Torah, brocho vihatslocho.
"It is a sin to coerce a GET"Is this your answer? It is forbidden to coerce a get, no matter what? rabbonim should send battered wives back to their husbands?
Is this your answer? It is forbidden to coerce a get, no matter what? rabbonim should send battered wives back to their husbands?That is his answer. He relies on a fraudulent teshuva in the name of Rav Elyashiv, that says even Maus Ali with Amtala does not allow one to even pressure for a get.Since halakha puts things such as physical abuse as Maus Ali with Amtala, he is saying that even if a husband were to beat his wife night and day with an iron bar, you cannot even pressure him to give a get.
@Patience - Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn is simply teaching traditional Torah viewpoints that you and your MO/ORA/RCA feminist henchmen find repugnant. Now grow some intellectual honesty and stop calling your invented religion "Judaism".
@Tzadok - Doing your obfuscation game again? Your disrespect for Rav Dovid Eidensohn and for Ashkenazi divorce psak is disgusting. Dovid Eidensohn is not just relying on a teshuva from Rav Elyashiv, he stated in his letter that he is "Musmach from Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l to be Rosh Beth Din of Gittin". If Rav Eidensohn is musmach from Rav Elyashev zt"l, then he is certainly qualified to explain Rav Elyashev's opinions.
Musmach? You are really going to go down that path again? Whenever he has been pressed on the point, he has said that he got a Bracha from Rav Elyashiv to do so. He has no actual Semikha from him. Talk about obfuscation. Making a hamlatza out to be a Semikha is some serious obfuscation. Further I talk Rav Elyashiv's own words in explaining both his disdain for the Kovetz Teshuvot, and what he put his actual signature too as far more explicatory concerning his views than someone who has a Hamlatza from the Rav. By the way, Rav Sherman(on trial for fraud) Rav Eisenstein(the mastermind behind EJF) Rav Zalman Kohen(a previously convicted rapist and a recently convicted pedophile) and to a certain degree Rav Leib Tropper(of EJF fame) were people who actually had Semikha L'Dayyanut from Rav Elyashiv... Not a great crowd to be included in.
RMT: Maus Ali with Amtala may be grounds to coerce a Get but Maus Ali without Amtala is not grounds to coerce a Get. You must differentiate.
I do, quite clearly. Maus Ali without Amtala there is no grounds to coerce a get, and there are those that say, that we do not even tell a husband that it is the right the thing to do to give a Get.Maus Ali with a clear Amtala however, is a completely different case all together. Depending on what the Amatala is, and how it appears in the eyes of the B"D.
Michael: Beis Din cannot make its own judgement call whether the Amtala is sufficiently strong. It must use strict halachic criteria to make that determination.
Shalom Orthodox brethren. From my name you will notice I am not orthodox, and I follow only the Written Torah. I don't know if you allow comments from other denominations, but I will try.Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra was perhaps one of the greatest of medieval rabbis in terms of Bible studies, and understood the karaites perhaps better than anyone else.His polemic against the Karaites was based on his attempts to derive halacha using the Torah Sh'BiKetav only. He argues this is not possible. However, the Torah itself says a man should write a Sefer kritut which enables his wife to remarry. I've heard Rabbis claim this can only refer to a valid get. But what this article is doing, is going back to the original Written law - where even a civil divorce document would prove they are divorced. I am not sure if orthodoxy considers a Get to be a rabbinical level document or part of the Unwritten Law?Many Thanks
Karaite, what is your evidence that Sefer Kritut means a civil divorce document?ben dov
Shalom Ben Dov,That is part of a larger discussion - which must take into consideration our differing understandings of the Torah. You might agree, at least, that some of the Laws in the Torah were given to elevate man from the laws of society living previously - eg the Hammurabi and the Hittite codes. For example, the Hittiites also had laws of "arayot". But they were such a corrupt people, that they had certain animals that were assur - for arayot, and certain that were "mutar". Now we would agree that the Tprah gave us the laws of Arayot to make us Kodeshim.In one of the these codes (I forget offhand which), the Divorce law was that a man can tell his wife orally that she is divorced, and then she is free. the innovation of the Torah, in my humble opinion, was to provide this divorce bill in writing - which is stronger than an oral bill of divorce. As Groucho Marx once said, an oral contract isn't worth the paper it is written on.
You made an assertion that the Torah is talking about a civil document, but did not back it up. Speculation replaces facts. ben dov ben dov
The Torah says a man should write a Sefer Kritut, as opposed to going to the Kohen, the Shofet, or the Temple in order for it to be written. It is essentially a termination contract, that can be handed to the wife to certify she is no longer married. Perhaps it became a Standardized form as Halacha developed. Also, if it was already a standardized form at the time of matan Torah - then the first divorce would have committed this to writing - therefore it would not longer be Oral Law, but written down. Ben Mikre
You are declaring, not substantiating.How do you know? ben dov
The same question could be asked of you. But that would be getting into a full debate of the fundamental issues.
You are correct, but that is a false equivalence. I am up front that I'm relying on Oral Torah. You are relying exclusively on the written text, but that text does not tell us what Sefer Kritut is. Maybe the husband writes it on a Hallmark card!If you are unable to show from the text itself why the text must mean X, your declarations are useless.I suggest you read The Biblical Basis for Rabbinic Authority by Moshe Shulman. see judaismsanswer.comben dov
PatienceBefore proceeding for a Get, you must show proof that you have made efforts to mend. Short of that, any woman can just take off with the children and HOLD the husband hostage to a Get like a time-bomb. Kidnapping the kids and a run away bride is proof only for Kidnapping, she cannot be a choteh veniskar. You can run, but you cannot hide. veda'l
In civil court, there are quite long waiting periods (2-4 years) before a divorce is pronounced without mutual consent.How come that the RCA considers those efforts sufficient?
These also approve cattle prods, sadistic makot retsach with ski masks beilum shem YMV even annulments. yeynam yayin nesech, veshamnam chelev chazir, uptirim mitchiyas hameisim. I wish it upon their yotsei chalatsav.
Patience --actually, iknow of acase (the second wife isa friend of mine) where the hudband didn't know what was going on till later, and gave a get before a civil action even started, per instructions of the rca. He then married my friend and is involved in divorce court for years. The first wife id angry that he remarried (and the two daughters from the first marriage dont even know they have two brothers from the second marriage), and the second wife wants to civilly marry her hudband, but can't cause the first wife has been dragging the civil divorce for ovrt five years, and the rca is letting her do it.All this meaning yes, the rca is happy with long civil divorces, but chas veshalom a get is not done indays.
Over here, it is forbidden to remarry (in any way, shape or form) as long as the first marriage was not civilly divorced. That's called polygamy and is punishable by law. Over here, it is also forbidden to contract religious marriage before having had a civil marriage (ministers who perform the marriage can be punished, as can the spouses).
Rabbi Eidensohn,Is it right to quote the remark about killing the Prime Minister? I believe the Rabbi apologized for the remark, but your reader would not know that.ben dov1honestlyfrum.blogspot.com
The apology doesn't make it all better. That he would speak that way is outrageous. And that is particularly the case given that a previous Prime Minister was killed due to such incitement.
I am not discussing whether it's "all better." My point is that the Rabbi has been misrepresented.ben dov
I find your approach of abolishing marriage in order to solve the get crisis quite original. I like it.
Rabbi Eidensohn,The issue is not only that the fact that a marriage is broken does not mean that it is permitted to coerce a get.It seems to me that a bigger problem is that Rabbi Safran, OU spokesman, advocates that when a marriage presents some difficulties, the parties should get out as quicky as possible, instead of trying to work on their marriage. And this is the case even where children are involved.
Puzzled,You are right. The new feminism is that the only mitsvah in the Torah that is really important is that the wife can leave the house and the children whenever she wants, and any husband who refuses can be deal with by ORA and other such mazikim.
There have been requests here that I define when a wife can force a GET. I feel that is the wrong question. The question should be what we do when there are serious problems with the marriage. There was Rov in Jerusalem who was in charge of divorces. But when the husband came to him for a GET, the Rov took him for a walk and there was no GET. That takes a lot of experience and talent, but it can be done. Giving up a wife is not a good idea because who knows what single life is like and who knows who the next wife will be. And the same thought should occupy the wife. Therefore, the question is not when do we free the lady from the evil man in her life, but how do we improve the marriage. My Shalom Bayis Beis Din would go a long way to improve the situation. But for those who are looking to make war, I hope they are not looking to make war on children. And even making war on a man can make a woman's single life a misery. A lady in her sixties once begged me for help after her divorce. She was egged on by the noise makers and then found out what single life really is.
Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn,I think an even more disturbing question is what we do when there are problems that are less than serious with the marriage. The radical counterculture approach, now apparently adopted by the roshei yeshiva, is that marriage is meaningless and that the Orthodox community should follow the practices of the lowliest of the nations who change their spouses as often as they change their socks. Or, as decried by Patrick Moynihan:The lifestyle options available to individuals seeking a fulfilling personal relationship include living a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual single lifestyle; living in a commune; having a group marriage; beings single parent; or living together. Marriage is yet another lifestyle choice. However, before choosing marriage, individuals should weigh its costs and benefits against other lifestyle options and should consider what they want to get out of their intimate relationships. Even within marriage, different people want different things. For example, some people marry for companionship, some marry in order to have children, some marry for emotional and financial security. Though marriage can offer a rewarding path to personal growth, it is important to remember that it cannot provide a secure or permanent status. Many people will make the decision between marriage and singlehood many times throughout their life.Divorce represents part of the normal family life cycle. It should not be viewedas either deviant or tragic, as it has been in the past. Rather, it establishes aprocess for "uncoupling" and thereby serves as the foundation for individualrenewal and "new beginnings."
"My Shalom Bayis Beis Din would go a long way to improve the situation." How do you insure that both sides cooperate?What do you do in a case where the husband does not cooperate? In a case where a husband behaves in a way that is unbearable to his wife, and where he neither wants to improve his ways, nor give a get?What do you do in case of domestic violence?What do you do in case of marital infidelity?What do you do in case of child abuse? (Fahter hits children, mother is opposed to it).What do you do in case the husband will not provide for his family?What do you do if the husband is never home and the wife feels estranged and neglected?
@Patience, your blatant MO/RCA/ORA feminist ranting jumps out of the page. The husband is always the one not cooperating, the husband is always the unbearable spouse, the husband never wants to improve his ways, the husband won't provide for his family, ad nauseum. And of course the wife can moser her husband to her heart's content in archaos, with full MO heterim, and her only obligation is to pick up the pasul Get forced by the ORA goons.
According to the Editor's Note, Rabbi Safran’s article is not discussing get on demand. (By the way, please provide a link to an article under critique; it is a common courtesy to one's readers.)The Note states:"This article deals with observant men who refuse their wives a religious divorce (called a Get) despite the fact that the marriage is over and the rabbinic courts have allowed the divorce." So, really, the questions to address could be "what actions of Beit Din permit any form of coercion to give a get? and "what if any constraints are placed on Beit Din by the civil law of the jurisdictions involved?"
RDE:Please stop obfuscating and give a clear answer to the question (that you raised yourself in your article.) When may a woman demand a get?If your answer is "never", please say so straight out.RMT wrote:"Since halakha puts things such as physical abuse as Maus Ali with Amtala, he is saying that even if a husband were to beat his wife night and day with an iron bar, you cannot even pressure him to give a get."If he is wrong, please correct him.
Regarding coercion, 1) aren't there very specific actions that would constitute forcing a get in the halachic sense? Not every form of pressure on a husband invalidates the get. 2) What about coercion to force a husband to appear before a beis din? Is it not standard practice for a beis din to mandate public pressure in order to force a baal din to appear in court?
The longer it takes for you to answer the hugely important question as raised by Superintendant chalmers and numerous others the more credibility is lost by this site and the individuals associated with it.
"He has no actual Semikha from him. Talk about obfuscation. Making a hamlatza out to be a Semikha is some serious obfuscation. Further I talk Rav Elyashiv's own words in explaining both his disdain for the Kovetz Teshuvot, and what he put his actual signature too as far more explicatory concerning his views than someone who has a Hamlatza from the Rav. "I see tzaddok is back. The guy was discredited for the invention of facts so many times on this web site that one would think he would stay off. But he never learns his lessons.At least RDE does not have semicha from the corrupt rabbanut. Tzaddok's only response to the Rabbanut's forced gittin is where is the tik number of a corrupt organization. Funny he was pretty silent when about the arrest of R Rabinowit recently the head of the rabbanut in yerusholayim. he will again tell us this is separate from the national corrupt rabbanut that forces gittin all the time and is marbeh mamzeirim in klal yisroel.I believe i saw recently that he posted about rav Ovadya yosef's views on conversion claiming that he held one had to undertake to take on all the mitvohs and keep them properly. it is my understanding that this is the exact antithisis of ROY views - he held conversion for marriage was fine. In fact he was called a chamor noseh sefarim regarding his lenient opinion by Dayan Grossnass of the London bais Din for his views.It is really unfortunate that this guy is back to mislead the readers once more.
Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim of the Eda Haredit explained that the tension of the past weeks was a result first and foremost of miscommunication between the sides.“There was never the notion of establishing lax conversions; Yosef was in line with the rest of the leading sages, his words were simply misinterpreted,”Don't let a little thing like the truth come between you and your baseless hatred for Rav Ovadia and all Sephardim.
Michael: MR. Shmuel Pappenheim is not a rabbi or a spokesman for the Eida Careidus. He has in the past paraded himself as an unofficial spokesman but the Eida strongly advised him to discontinue from misrepresenting himself as such.
I dont care what you say Pappenheim is alleged to have said. I know what Dayan Grosnass said about ROYs kullahs with regards to geirus chamor nose sefarim.tzaddok thanks for oslo and the improved share price of the volvo company.
I dont care what you say Pappenheim is alleged to have said.Not me Stan, don't take my word for it. It was widely published and publicized in news sources.You call me a liar Stan. You continue to say that Shas voted for Oslo, but that is not the case. They abstained. Final vote 61-50-8. I am going to assume that you simply are bad at math and do not realize that 61 trumps 58 just as easily as it does 50. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Stan.http://s3.kikar.net/data/auto/addonsmgr/in/zo9picgx.jpgRav Elyashiv's own B"D says that his party accepted 4mil NIS to vote in favor the Gaza pullout. Which in turn caused unprecedented rocket attacks on Israel, and Jerusalem came under direct attack for the first time since 1967.4mil Shek and, whatever car the MKs get these days...
News sources are not the gospel. They are more often incorrect than correct.
So you are saying you don't believe the clear picture of the ruling by the Beit DIn? Ok call the Beit Din and get them to send you a letter on their letterhead saying that it is false and they never ruled that way. Otherwise you are just being ridiculous.
I have little doubt that dayan grossnass would have said the same thing about those claiming mous olai equals a get. Chamor nose sefarim.
Simple question. Who carries more weight R Grossnas or R Elyashiv?
Aside from the comments here that are childish bickering, I have been reading the others that are extreme positions, some being pro- or anti- men, others pro- or anti- women. These arguments have little relevance to specific situations, and all opinions are apt to change when one is affected personally by a situation in which the "terror" that is perceived is in the direction opposite the "shittah".In reality, the man has the power because of the halachic requirement that he give the get (willingly). The woman's willingness is not Biblically required, but mandated by Rabbenu Gershom. Then, of course, there are the intricacies of halacha and the multiple shittos of Rishonim and Acharonim, complicated yet further by the opinions of Gedolei Yisroel up to the present. None of the above discussion includes the moral responsibility. So here go some remarks about that.If you love her (a common statement by men who want "Shalom Bayis", not the get), set her free. There are marriages that are abusive, where one party (often the husband) is a bully, controlling, and anything but the expected head of household. The recalcitrance is just another extension of the abusiveness. This must be evaluated by the Beis Din, and the guidance to exit the marriage must follow. I bet there are plenty of men who will still refuse, and I have no answer how to resolve such tragedies. One thing - articles in the media or the blogs will not solve those situations. Sunlight does not disinfect this germ.Any savable marriage should be saved. But many are not, and those should be terminated. I'm not sure the Shalom Bayis Beis Din would work. Why? Because the very feature of the two parties being litigants renders compromise impossible. An arbitration BD is what any other BD does anyway. If this is intended to serve as a mediation BD, nothing other than an agreement can be yielded, which requires give and take, compromise, etc. A single mediator, as opposed to a BD, would make much more sense.Lastly, a Dayan is trained to hear opposing baalei din, and reach a psak of right versus wrong. Such an approach to "Shalom Bayis" is counterproductive. So just how would this proposal work, in a practical sense?
"If you love her (a common statement by men who want "Shalom Bayis", not the get), set her free."Incorrect. If you love her and wish to remain married to her, remains steadfast in your insistence to Beis Din for your desire for Shalom Bayis and not divorce.It is both your moral imperative and your moral right as well as the correct thing to do.
" It is both your moral imperative and your moral right as well as the correct thing to do."She wants a divorce. This means that he behaves in a way that she thinks she cannot live with him.If he loves her, the moral imperative would be to change behaviour so that she feels she can live with him.Your desire seems to be to keep a wife as a captive. - Don't change, don't strife to behave in a way that is acceptable to her, but don't let her go either. That's definitely not love, nor a moral right, nor a moral imperative.I don't know if this aveira has a name, but it is definitely not a humane way to behave. So either it is not compatible with jewish values, or, if it is, there is a problem with jewish values.
Her "wanting a divorce" in no way automatically entitles her to one. And it is no way gives him a moral imperative to give her it simply because she wants it.And it is a mitzvah for him to remain married to her if he loves her and wishes to remain married to her.I want your car. Where are they keys? If you love me, as you should love every Jew, you should be handing it over.
Some people here may want to read an exchange Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn and Rabbi Michael Broyde on this very issueRabbi Broyde: http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/04/protesting-without-coercing/Rabbi Eidensohn: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/r-broydes-coerced-get-protesting.htmlRabbi Broyde: http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/04/protesting-without-coercing/#comment-19318The comments sections of both blogs contain more information for those looking for arguments for both sides. Would someone here be willing to summarize the points of disagreement, to make it easier for us readers to see which side is more mistaver? We would really appreciate it!
Thank you for these links! I wasn't aware that this had been previously discussed on this blog. I do not pretend to even begin to understand the subtle nuances in all the sources mentioned, but what is clear is that it is not at all clear what constitutes a get meusa. When respected Rabbanim sanction public pressure I think we can all rest assured that we are not wandering into that territory. Also, in the case of children born from a second marriage, there is a lot of room to be lenient even if the get was a result of public pressure.As for public pressure to go to beis din, there wasn't much discussed there, but I saw one comment from R. Dovid Eidensohn stating that someone had issued a siruv authorizing public protest against Aharon Friedman to force him to return to beis din, and not to give a divorce. This would seem to imply that he sees no problem with the former, only the latter.Given that public pressure is permitted to force a recalcitrant husband to go to beis din, the pressure in the two "famous" cases will not cause a get meusa at all, since it is pressure to, at the very least, accept a reputable beis din which will deal with the divorce (though obviously if the husbands choose to give gitten in place of going to beis din, that would satisfy the wives as well).
It's a shame that the argument goes around in circles. I wish there was a neutral blogger who was trusted by both Rabbi Eidensohn and Rabbi Broyde and could host a debate on his blog. The neutral blogger could then hold each of them accountable to the questions that the other one asks him.
Rabbi Michael Tzadok asked several questions to Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn that haven't been answered yet, which be seen by scrolling down http://tinyurl.com/qbxzk6r Please don't let him win the debate by forfeiting and letting his questions go unanswered! Does anyone here know if Rabbi Eidensohn answered the questions somewhere else?
Tzaddok who is an apologist for the corrupt rabbanut. He refuses to explain how jails dont lead to a get meuseh something which all modern day ashkenazi poskim worth their salt feel lead to an invalid get, adultery and mamzeirim. Until he answers these charges he who has been severely discredied through his own pronouncements is unlikely to restore his credibility at all. Now he has falsely portrayed the opinion of ROY with regards to conversions
Stan it is so sad that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks simply because you cannot prove your points.He refuses to explain how jails dont lead to a get meuseh something which all modern day ashkenazi poskim worth their salt feel lead to an invalid get, Please provide Teshuvot from these Rabbanim who are worth their salt that say such a thing. Now he has falsely portrayed the opinion of ROY with regards to conversionsYes because you know better than Rav Pappenheim and the Eda HaChareidit who said that Rav Ovadia's positions were in line with the rest of the leading sages.So why don't you bring a source from the Yabia Omer and show us all how he is wrong on conversions.
It is totally natural that Stan must resort to personal attacks, because, as demonstrated previously, Stan doesn't know Hebrew, so he can't defend or argue any position on substance. That fact alone is sad enough. but when someone who doesn't know Hebrew disparages talmidei chachamim...I don't even know what to call that.
M. Rav Pappenheim has been a Rav and a part of the Eida for decades. I think you are confusing him with Yoelish Kraus, or Shmuel Chaim Pappenheim, rather than Rav Shmuel Pappenheim that has been signing on Eida decrees and haskamot for decades.In any way Rav Eisenstein, who though now disgraced, at the time spoke for Rav Elyashiv on all matters of Gerut said the same thing, and would just months later be quoting from Teshuvot of Rav Ovadia in various publications of his Beit Din which operated under the auspices of Rav Elyashiv, until another of Rav Eisenstein's hand picked chaverim, Rav Zalman Cohen(a previously convicted rapist), was convicted of pedophilia and Rav Elyashiv disbanded the Beit Din.
Stan - why are you silent about corrupt haredi Bosei Din such as the one organised by Eisenstein ?
This clarifies who R' Pappenheim is - chairman of Ha’edah Hacharedit,Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/tag/rabbi-pappenheim/http://www.jewishpress.com/tag/rabbi-pappenheim/The Rabbi is Shlomo; his grandson is Shmuel.
HaGaon HaRav Nachum Eisenstein shlit"a is one of Rav Eliashev zt"l's closest, if not closest, talmidim and confidants. Eddie: The Jewish Press is a rag that is untrustworthy even as far as the weather.
The Pappenheim who made the proclamations earlier mentioned above in this thread is the imposter not the legit who signs legit Eida communications. The impostor is a distant cousin and it is the imposter who made these announcements that bear no validity or valid impetur of the Eida.
SZ "Nachum Eisenstein shlit"a is one of Rav Eliashev zt"l's closest, if not closest, talmidim and confidants. " That explains why he has disappeared from the limelight. He is not a Gaon, and he is not a Gadol, that is why R' Elayshiv's askanim are no longer courting power.
He was a trusted Rov shlita, gabbai of the godol hador and highly trusted. He still heads the organizations he always has.
I would like to ask a question: Is the procedure to obtain a heter meah rabbanim (for men to remarry without get) akin to a beith din procedure, i.e. that both sides have to be present at the same time in order to be heard, or may the husband just tell his story to the rabbi, the rabbi believes him and puts his signature on the heter?How do rabbis signing a heter meah rabbanim verify the claims? What is their due diligence?
Your question is great. I will describe my limited experience in this subject.The husband must demonstrate to a beis din that he has attempted to proceed with the get process in beis din and has been refused. (The notable intent of this procedure is where the woman suffers from mental illness and is often incapable of receiving the get.) The BD must verify the facts of the case, though this does not require both parties to be present simultaneously, as the understanding is that the wife refuses to appear. Based on the facts as verified, the BD writes the get, and the husband must deposit it with the beis din, for the wife to receive it when she is ready and fit. Meanwhile, the BD produces the "heter meah rabbonim" that exempts the husband from the cherem of Rabbenu Gershom of bigamy. Typically, signatures are collected from yungerleit sitting in kollel who have not heard the story, and just affix their signatures to a document based on trust. Needless to say, this process has been abused beyond belief, and those who work in the field are aware of certain "rabbonim" and "batei din" who take corruption to unimagined levels. So the question highlights a severe shortcoming of the heter meah rabbonim process, in that there is definitely NO due diligence for the greatest majority of the signers.To make matters much worse, the husband who demands a ransom (cash payment) in order to give the get, is someone that many of us will easily recognize as immoral, though this injustice is common. Same goes for the wife that demands such sums in order to voluntarily receive the get. Some "heter meah factories" are known among men as ways to get their last blows against their wives by using this as a means to allow the men to move on in their lives, while stranding the woman to deal with the corrupt "dayanim". These criminals can then bypass the immorality of the husband making demands, which is easily recognized as corruption. They become the hostage takers, and they make demands before releasing the get, including cash payments, forfeiting child support, compromising unfairly on custody, etc. It is a disgusting scene.It is an embarrassment for Klal Yisroel to have among us people who are called "dayanim", "rabbonim", etc. and "batei din" that have zero moral scruples. I wonder just how much due diligence these low lifes actually do.
You can't decide that your not going to beis din, and go to court, and when you lose, ask for a heter meah. It won't happen . He will either realize the damage he is doing to himself and his own family and give a get, or remain without a family,children and wife for the rest of his life. The choice is his.In the meantime ,nobody was able to explain to me why he went to court and not beis din, and even now, if he feels she owes him money, go to a beis din.The main reason this blew up on him, is because of going to court. If he chose the beis din route, he would have saved himself a lot of aggravation and it would have been settled by now.
@My View - "These criminals can then bypass the immorality of the husband making demands" - Most of the husbands who obtain a "heter meah rabbonim" do so after having been robbed and oppressed in archaos, and deprived of their children by so-called "frum women" who are being aided and abetted by the MO feminist gangsters such as ORA Inc.In your little feminist world, all the so-called "frum" women who rob, oppress, and jail their husbands in non-Jewish courts are not making any immoral demands, they're just practicing "dina d'malchusa", and they're fully entitled to Gittin.The hypocrisy of this MO feminist mafia stinks to high heaven as they self-righteously invoke Torah morality while promoting wicked oppression of Jewish men in non-Jewish courts.
I'm not sure if you are directing your rage at me. I have worked with a shocking number of marital cases, and have a rather even score of assisting the men and the women. I have no feminist agenda. In fact, those cases that have been affected by the corrupt dayanim I speak of have never been to arkaos at all. Perhaps in other cases, but never in my experience, have there been robbing the husbands of visitation via courts, not has there been oppression or jail. I am acquainted with such cases, and I have never sided with anyone withholding a get, ever. So if you are getting heartburn from my agenda, you're cured - I don't have one. I am not pro-men, nor pro-women. I am dedicated to see families restored, if possible, or divorced in accordance with halacha if not. Personally, I frown on any use of court until after beis din has accomplished its maximum, and has referred the case to the court system for its jurisdiction on issues it cannot settle.By the way, the tally of evil women is quite equal to evil men. Both have misused the courts, both have made baseless accusations intended to damage the other. When I am involved, I judge every case by its own merits, not by some preconceived agenda or even statistics. There is plenty of oppression by evil women against their estranged husbands. Likewise, there is plenty of oppression by evil men against their estranged wives. No feminist world for me.Lastly, the heter meah rabbonim is easily misused, and this is frequent among the "heter meah factories" I alluded to in the earlier comment. In the majority of cases, the men were simply unwilling to provide child support (I'm not talking about outrageous demands), and looked for a way to move on in life while ignoring their true responsibility. Court was never even involved.
"My view": "Child support" ordered by whom? An amount ordered by arkaos (secular court) not in accordance with halacha or an order for child support ordered by beis din?If the former, the spouse refusing to accept an arkaous judgement for child support would be fully justifiable.
@My View - "there is plenty of oppression by evil men against their estranged wives" -You're attempting to sound balanced, but the facts on the ground sharply conflict with your bogus impartiality.There are hardly any Jewish women who have been thrown out of their homes with fraudulent Orders of Protection. There are hardly any Jewish women who have been jailed in archaos due to their spouses making false charges against them.Jewish men are being used as sperm donors and then discarded. Very few Jewish men have gotten custody of their children in a divorce case.Many decent Jewish men in divorce conflicts have been harassed and defamed by feminist hooligans such as ORA and their so-called "rabbis". There are no pro-male counterpart organizations for ORA. There are no Jewish women (to my knowledge) who have been harassed and defamed by pro-male Jewish organizations.Show me one case where a Jewish woman has suffered what this Jewish man has gone through:"Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony.html
You are correct in noting that that the community lacks the male counterpart to organizations like ORA. I will add that the entire community of activists and organizations that address domestic violence are founded on the belief (known as the Duluth Model) that spousal abuse is almost universally husband to wife. Statistics do give the men the edge as the perpetrators, but the majority is very slim. This is grossly unfair, and renders the entire system biased and not justice based. There is a staggering percentage of domestic violence claims by women that are simply false and fabricated. There is much at the governmental (both legislative and judicial) level as well as community level to do to bring about balance. I hate to deny victims full access to resources for support. The OOP process may not be biased, but men tend to look for their own means of protection, without resorting to the courts. The numbers do show men getting shafted. I agree. And there are no organizations to protect them and advocate. However, for an individual case, I am still morally obligated to assess it on its own merits. I still find plenty of evil women and plenty of evil men.
R writes:" I saw one comment from R. Dovid Eidensohn stating that someone had issued a siruv authorizing public protest against Aharon Friedman to force him to return to beis din, and not to give a divorce. This would seem to imply that he sees no problem with the former, only the latter."I saw problems in the issuance of a siruv by a Beth Din and signed by major Rosh Yeshivas. In that siruv, it said that the siruv gives the woman power to force a GET anyway she can. That is wrong. I called up the rabbi who issued the Siruv and asked him what a siruv has to do with a GET. Only a Beth Din that heard both sides and was accepted by both sides can issue a ruling on a GET. He agreed with me and said that when he wrote in the Siruv she could do what she wanted or some such language he meant if it is permitted by Jewish law. i pointed out to him that he never wrote that phrase about permitted by Jewish law. So the Friedman siruv is invalid as it is written. Furthermore, it was signed and pushed by a Rosh Yeshiva who is very close with the family of the wife in question so such a siruv is corruption. But in general, a siruv only demands that the person receiving it go to a Beth Din, any Beth Din, and does not presume to adjudicate anything. In once famous case, Dodelson, there was a great battle between Beth Dins if the siruv was good or not, and there are those who claim they have proof that it was no good, something that was discussed often on the blog.By the way, after I spoke to that rabbi about his invalid Siruv, someone else showed me another siruv from that rabbi with the same language, that the woman can do whatever she wants or some such language to force a GET. I again called the rabbi but if I see it a third time I won't be amazed. This is rabbinical garbage. And this one is not alone.
Shlomo Zalman:Beis Din can order child support. I am familiar with the typical amounts that batei din ask. The numbers have very slight variability with the relative wealth vs. poverty of the father. They are not outrageous numbers, but they often more than what would be in compliance with the state minimums that would be imposed by a court. The flip side is that a wealthy father would be required much more than a beis din would impose. Regardless, the batei din do consider the state requirements in their deliberations, because the role of batei din, as recognized by the court, is that of binding arbitration. All sorts of complications can arise from an arbitrator going outside of the state mandates.From your comment, I sense some skepticism that the arkaos and batei din are likely to be at odds, and that the couple caught in the middle will create the problem of running away from batei din with the factor of issur of arkaos. I recognize that this can happen, but that the reality is that this occurs infrequently because of the caution taken to try to comply with all requirements. I will state that the minimums for child support, as demanded by the state, are quite low for the average earner. There could be a lengthy discussion about this, and you should investigate this with a dayan or matrimonial lawyer who could inform you in greater detail.
"My View:"A Beis Din cannot -- halahcicly -- award an amount greater than granted in halacha even if that amount will then fall outside the "state mandates". The only exception is if the parties voluntarily agree to accept the state mandated child support figures; but either party can choose to insist on a strict halachic formula in determining child support, even if it is outside the state guidelines.The wealth of the father has little bearing on what he is halachicly required to provide child support to his children. Indeed the halachic requirements are quite minimal and end at a relatively early age (long before the child is 18 years old.) The State requirements are nearly always far and above the halachic requirements. And a Jewish parent has the right to insist exclusive use of halacha, and NOT secular law or courts, be used to determine the amount of child support.
MV: What I am suggesting is regarding your earlier comment indicting men for being "unwilling to provide child support", is that it perhaps is a result of their spouse having obtained secular legal orders from arkaos determining a child support amount in accordance with non-Jewish law that is not supported by Halacha. If so, such husbands have solid halachic grounds in declining to pay a child support amount in excess of what halacha minimally requires.
Shlomo Zalman:There are many reasons why men try to deny their child support obligations. Sometimes the women deny them visitation, and the men withhold support to force them to bring the matter to court. It is the women who seek redress from the court, while the men are halachically permitted to respond with their complaints about visitation. The one element that seems to elude many of the commenters here is that the throes of divorce often involve either party doing things that are illogical and even against halacha. Why? Because divorce nearly always involves intense emotions, generally hate. Either wants to bury the other, and judgment is likely to be clouded by such emotion. While one cannot be held responsible for negative feelings, one is still responsible for their behavior.By the way, halacha does not have a precedent in determining the dollar figure for child support. There are numbers that are commonly used, but one cannot say that child support is in excess of halacha. The seforim that discuss shiurim for mitzvos do not have an entry for this subject.
"By the way, halacha does not have a precedent in determining the dollar figure for child support."This is precisely my point. The halachic requirements for child support are basic and minimal. And end at a young age for the child. (At most Bar Mitzvah but generally even before B"M.) And the custodian parent has no halachic right to demand anything that halacha does not specify as the responsibility of the other parent. So a father is responsible for chinuch. This would translate as yeshiva tuition. The father must pay thing but he can pay the yeshiva directly not the ex-wife. Other than that there are halachicly only very little else the father is responsible and halachicly obligated to pay. And the mother cannot use an arkaos decision (especially based on non-Jewish law) to receive child support.The point is that the father cannot be made to pay more than halacha specifies. If halacha does not demand he support something he cannot be made to pay for it. Even if State law states he must. In such a case the ex-wife is halachicly obligated to forgo accepting even what she is legally entitled to under secular law but not entitled to under halacha. And if she does demand that he pay her child support that he has no halachic obligation to pay, she is a thief. And he then may take recourse to hold firm his halachic rights. That might mean withholding the Get until she stops stealing from him and returns any funds she already made him pay her in contrary to halacha.There are numbers that are commonly used, but one cannot say that child support is in excess of halacha. The seforim that discuss shiurim for mitzvos do not have an entry for this subject."You are mistaken in claiming that "one cannot say that child support is in excess of halacha." If halahca does not specify a specific responsibility for him to support his child, he has no such responsibility.As far as "shiurim", sure that has to be established by beis din. But ONLY for items he is halachicly responsible to pay for (i.e. chinuch/tuition). NOT for other "miscellaneous" child expenses. And even these shiurim can only be established by beis din and not by an arkaos/secular court.Furthermore, halachicly the father is entitled to pay the child support that he IS responsible for under halacha, directly towards the expense (i.e. directly to the yeshiva or directly to the grocer for the child's food needs) and he has no halachic obligation to give the money to the ex-wife.To reiterate, even if a ex is legally entitled to go to arkaos and collect X amount of dollars in child support, per halacha she must forgo doing so and only accept what is halachicly mandated and only as established by beis din.If she does otherwise, he is entitled to not give her what she is due until she ceases and repairs her unhalachic action.
"By the way, halacha does not have a precedent in determining the dollar figure for child support. There are numbers that are commonly used, but one cannot say that child support is in excess of halacha. The seforim that discuss shiurim for mitzvos do not have an entry for this subject."Thank you for that clarification.It is a shame the blog owner did not clarify this point much earlier, when accusations about "stealing from the husband in arkaot" were thrown about.
Correction on one point: The age a father is halachicly obligated to support his child until is six years old.
Additional point: Custody, by default all other things being equal, is that the father gets custody of the sons 6 years and older and the mother gets custody of daughters. If a son under six is nursing, the mother gets custody of him until six years old.
Along the same lines, considering secular law (enforced by arkaos) stipulates equitable seperation of marital assets whereas Halacha does not -- generally halacha states all marital assets (even the wife's income) is owned by the husband, sans any assets she owned pre-marriage... if the wife uses arkaos to receive equitable distribution in contradiction to halacha, she is wronging, stealing, from her husband, and he has the right to take corrective action (i.e. withhold the Get) until she corrects and returns her thievery of him.
Shlomo Zalman:Did I read you correctly? If the wife is demanding more than her halachically allocated support, then the husband is allowed to withhold her get? Please provide a Torah source for this.
My View:I didn't say "if the wife is demanding more than her halachically allocated support"; I said if she forces him, through arkaos, to give her (effectively stealing from him) more than she is halachicly hers.So she is not just "demanding" but rather she is actually and actively engaged in stealing from him. Under those circumstances he certainly does not have to give her a Get while she is robbing him.She cannot demand her halachic rights from him while she is denying him his halachic rights from her.As far as a Torah source, the burden of proof is on you. Under normal circumstances there is no obligation to give a divorce. If you believe she is entitled to a divorce you need to provide Torah sources proving he has an obligation to give her a divorce.
Samuel don't waste your time having a dialogue with My View who can deny all they like they are feminists but they are. Anyone claiming he doesn't know of any father denied his visitation rights is clearly delusional or a feminist who cant face the truth. I don't have the time to go and destroy this feminists arguments at the moment. I will just point the readership to the following refutation:http://mamzeralert.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-do-we-witness-tragedies.html
Stan:I assume you can read, and respectfully suggest you re-read those comments that gives you the impression that I am a feminist. I have just staunchly refused to accept the generalizations about who is guilty or responsible for the breakup of a marriage or the turmoil that follows. I will only review each case individually and reach my conclusions. Yes, I have seen women abuse their husbands, run to arkaos, and withhold visitation. I have two such cases presently. I am assisting both fathers in insuring they have adequate visitation without shtick.
To stress one of the given examples, a father's responsibility for any child support at all ends at age 9 or 13, depending on what. After that to force the father to pay is thievery. Of course the father should choose to pay longer. But he cannot be forced otherwise it is theft. And if he chooses to pay, he can choose to pay directly for the child's needs without channeling the money through his ex.
Your statement is halachically inaccurate. Please review the halacha in Even Hoezer 71, and then rewrite. Note that the age limit is subject to the standard adopted by the chachomim of the generation. Where on earth did you get the numbers 9 or 13?
I corrected it above to age 6 (see above.) It is in S"A. (Age 13 is the chinuch obligation; 6 is for general support.)
A divorced father is not obligated to pay for his child for anything a married father is not obligated to pay for his child.
My View your veneer of sophistication is intoxicating to the masses. Your comments about the hetter meah alleged factories unmask who you really are. Likewise your comments about child support also illustrate that you are fro mm the modern camp. Shlomo zalmans views on child support are correct and yours are not. Seforim have been written about levels of child support e.g. the book recently published in EY and publicized on this blog discussed this in depth.
Stan:While you clearly have no idea who I am (noting whatsoever to do with MO), your challenge to me reveals a great deal about yourself. Your willingness to defend the heter meah factories is nothing that approaches the morals and ethics that the Torah demands of us. Child support is addressed clearly in Even Hoezer 71, and specifically conditions that it is tied to the judgments of the chachomim of the generation with regards to age. I have discussed this issue with dayanim for many years, and I am quite versed in the common judgments used in America. I do not have experience dealing with dayanim in E"Y.
@Shlomo Zalman - "The halachic requirements for child support are basic and minimal" - Thanks for your enlightening comments. I just wanted to add some philosophical points. Feminists may attempt to denigrate HALACHA or justify using ARCHAOS based on the minimal child support amounts required by HALACHA. But actually, there's nothing misogynist or discriminatory about halachic child support levels. Reason being that if a father receives custody of the children for any reason, my understanding is that the mother does not have to pay the father child support. So in fact halachic child support moderately favors women, not men. Also, my understanding is that there's no imputed income in halachic child support, no hidden alimony, no debtor's prison, nor may the Bais Din destroy the father's income by removing his professional licenses (as ARCHAOS does). So in fact HALACHA is much more reasonable, moderate, and progressive relative to the feminist police state that the "Orthodox" liberals are so enamored of.We need to keep this in mind when we hear feminists denigrating HALACHA.
My View your views are frankly repugnant. These are botei din that rightly refuse to overlook the facts that women in arkooys have lost their rights to summons anyone to any bais din regarding any matter whatsoever and have lost their rights to go and ask for a get in any bais din. It is the for profit botei din which are factories writing gittin as if there is no tomorrow ignoring women in arkooys and steamrolling over mens rights. You may be very articulate but you are defending the indefensible. No get should ever be written until all legal fees have been paid back. Thats the halocho whether you or your corrupt money making dayonim friends like it or not.
If not for violating personal privacy, I would document quite a few cases in which the accusations you level are completely untrue. BTW, the heter meah factories to which I refer are major for profit ventures. Unless you are one of the corrupt dayanim yourself, you have no clue who I'm talking about, and that is better for all. I have never sent a case to court before beis din. Virtually every case that progressed to court did so because of the refusal of either of the parties to cooperate with the beis din. So I'm not too keen about your views either. You might be a mentch and agree to disagree, or proceed with your running spewing of accusations that have no factual basis.I continue to refuse staunchly to accept the generalizations you carry as your agenda, that all women are shrews that violate halacha and run to arkaos to financially abuse their husbands. I have already stated that I know of such cases. The sweeping generalization is baloney, and you know it. Organizations like ORA have a single direction, and push an extreme agenda that also generalizes, albeit the direction against yours. I do not have any connection to ORA or any other "agunah" organization. The spousal abuse programs, both secular and frum, are also guilty of generalizations that are damaging and frankly criminal. I will only judge a specific case on its own merit. And in my experience, there are evils that go on with men breaking halacha and women who are just as guilty. And if I am involved in advocating for someone who runs to arkaos without a heter or before beis din, I excuse myself.You are correct in noting the frequency of gittin these days. I do not have personal knowledge of any of the batei din doing this for profit, though all do charge a minimal fee. I have been present in BD several times, and the fee never changed, and was paid equally by both sides. As far as I can gather, the only one who makes real profit in BD is the sofer.BTW, which batei din steamroll over men's rights? I'd really like to know.
And dont call it extortion. Extortion is arkooys equitable distribution etc. The halocho demands repayment. Technically when a woman is in arkooys a hetter meah is not needed since by failing to go to bais din she is a moredes
My View you continue putting words inro my mouth. Where did I even closely say that all women are shrews who run to arko"oys? However a very large no. Of cases do end up with the woman going to arko"oys. Name the hettwr meah factories or keep quiet. If you dont have the guts to name them under an annonomous name then you are as spineless as the for profit dayonim who take money.Which botei din run roughshod over mens rights? The BDA which bifurcates when women are in arkooys. Most of the brooklyn botei din. In fact any bais din that uses peshoro which is usually inappropriate in a divorce. Please stop acting so naively. All the botei din who are willing to write a get for $$$$$$$ even when the case is in court.Look at rhe kol koreh of the previous generation about what should happen to a woman who goes to arko"oys. She should not receive a get and even if somehow she receives a kosher get one should not marry her.
Doesn't either party have the absolute halachic right to reject beis din's use of peshora and demand that beis din strictly stick to pure halacha? Beis din has to honor that request if either party reject peshora.
It may be a machlokes. The for profit botei din dont like din. Then they shouldnt be overcharging for their services and cant award alimony and excessive child support used as alimony.
What machlokes? Who ever had a shitta that beis din can force a party to use peshora even if one party didn't want to? Isn't Shulchan Aruch clear that either party can insist on using din and not peshora, in which can beis din must only use din?
While Shulchan Aruch recommends peshora, that is basically proposing that the parties mediate their issues with the beis din. That option helps insure that both parties will willingly accept the conclusion. It removes the psak issue, which can provoke the loser(s). If either party is unwilling, the peshora cannot be imposed. Even if dayanim formulate a middle ground ruling, it is not a true peshora unless it is an agreement.Most batei din have small range for child support, with the differences being the relative wealth of the father who is paying it. I have actually surveyed this. The dollar figures are actually a bit more than the state mandated minimums. However, the very wealthy fathers would have their child support calculated in the court system by the percentage of their income. Thus, the state requirement might exceed the psak of batei din in some cases.There is no halacha precedent for alimony whatsoever. Moreover, alimony is not a requirement in most states, such as NY. If someone wishes to offer alimony, it can become a legal requirement because it is written so in the settlement. I do not believe courts require alimony either.Also, there are other expenses for children that get addressed outside of child support. Examples, tuition, summer camps, bar (or bas) mitzvahs, transportation to visits, vacations, medical insurance, and similar ones. These may vary per state. These add ons may also be subject to different formulas for calculation (such as shared costs, and percentage of responsibility).Within limits, batei din may also opt to comply to some degree with the court mandates. Go debate this, if you wish. I am just sharing experience.
That is my understanding as well. But please see for examplehttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6808207101836063741&q=religious+excommunication&hl=en&as_sdt=4,33and i believe that even today this is done by some "Botei Din"
RDE:I think you will find this interesting (and possibly consider a new post for it):http://www.science-halacha.com/getlaw/getlaw_eng_B1.htmhttp://www.science-halacha.com/getlaw/getlaw_eng_A1.htmhttp://www.science-halacha.com/getlaw/getlaw_eng_D1.htmhttp://www.science-halacha.com/getlaw/getlaw_eng_homepage.htmIn a nutshell it is saying, and signed by Rav Eliashev, Rav SZ Auerbach, Mir RY Rav Berenbaum, Debreciner Rov, Rav M Klein, Rav's Belsky, Pam, Kotler, Wosner, etc., that a Get obtained under the New York Get Law or the Canadian Get Law or even under a RCA prenup is invalid and a Get Me'usa.
Beth din experience seems to have a similar style of writing to My View who has mysteriously disappeared presumably because he is unable to justify his positions. Some of what is expressed here is also baloney e.g. of course NY state awards alimony in fact it is now compulsory and there is a formula if the marriage is of sufficient length. Summer camp is a discretionary add-on and unless the mother is working or the father paid for it in past cannot be forced by law unless the judge is a feminist which happens all the time. My View your views are beyond the pale.
Halachicly a father cannot be forced to pay for summer camp even if he can more than afford it and even if the child went to summer camp every single year during the marriage. And if the wife petitions arkaos/secular court to award her to force the father to pay for that, she is a thief until she stops and repays him and he may withhold a Get until she stops robbing him.
And what if the zdaka fund of the community pays for the summer camp and morally pressures the father to pay it back?Is this also thievery? Against halacha?
Probably if he is not obligated to pay it. Please call rav gestetner if you are genuine.
Testimony of my life!!I am Anna Moon from USA, after 4 years in marriage with my husband,she divorced me and with another man. i did all i could to get him back but all proved abortive, until a old friend of mine who told me about a spell caster Dr.ODUDUA on the internet who helped her in a similar issue, at first i doubted it but I decided to give it a try, when I contacted him (firstname.lastname@example.org) he helped me cast a re-unite spell and within 48 hours me and my wife come together again. Contact this great spell caster on your relationship or marriage problems and counseling at email@example.comBest Regards,Anna Moon Anderson.Email:firstname.lastname@example.orgTel:+2340759402500
I am CLUXE MORREV from USA,i hear how people are talking about The powerful spell caster called DR OKORO in regard of how he bring back ex lover,winning lottery,getting pregnant and getting married to their dream true lover and i also contact him to help me cast a spell in regard of my ex lover whom i love so much that left me 2yrs ago,but today my ex is back to me and we are happily married with 3kids and i am so much happy for the help i found in you DR OKORO of email@example.com,i and my family are very much happy and we are living large now,i am grateful and appreciate your good work of spell casting,thank you and may you leave long to help people in problems His email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I am full of happiness and delight, on the grounds that I have my significant other once more at my palm. My partner left me for just about 2 years. He doesn't pick or even return my calls and sends I tried each approaches to get him back, however no way. Until I met with this extraordinary spell caster called Lawrence, who did magic for me to get him back in less than 42hrs. I exhort anybody going to this site to run to him promptly for any relationship offer assistance. He is an extremely effective and experience spell caster you can get help from.you can contact this great man Dr Lawrence on his email email@example.com
i want to use this medium to testify for what Dr Ishvara has done in my life . i had issues with my husband that lead to a divorce i was so heart broken and was so financially down also, things became hard for me cause i was left alone to take care of two kids , it was like the enemies have taken the greatest part of my life . i was not engaged in any job or business cause he never wanted me to work , he just want me to be a full time house wife , because he wanted me to take very good care of the family, so things were very rough for me, so i need no option than to engage in some kind of job so that i can earn little money to take care of my children needs and the feeding, that was how i continued doing it, until i met a very good friend of mine and explained everything to her , she felt pity on me and that was how she introduce me to a powerful spell caster called Dr Ishvara. he told me some spiritual things i needed to do, which i did not less than 1 day my husband came to me begging for forgiveness telling me he made a mistake divorcing me and that he will never do such a thing again in his life that was how we resolved every issues we had and got back together again even much more happier and stronger than before. how Dr Ishvara did everything still remain a mystery to me up till now. thanks to Dr Ishvara, you can contact him also if you seek his help , his email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!please use either your real name or a pseudonym.