Meir Kin, the new husband, has been divorced for more than seven years,
under California’s civil law. But he has refused to give his previous
wife the document known as a “get,” as required by Orthodox Jewish law
to end a marriage. In the eyes of religious authorities, the woman he
married in 2000 is what is called an agunah — Hebrew for chained wife.
Without the get, the woman, Lonna Kin, is forbidden under Jewish law to
remarry. [...]
Ms. Kin, who runs a real estate company, and her supporters
say that Mr. Kin, a physician assistant, is demanding $500,000 and full
custody of their 12-year-old son in exchange for the divorce. And they
cast doubt on whether he really has the support of 100 rabbis. Reached
at his Las Vegas home on Thursday, as a photographer took pictures of
him and his bride in the driveway, Mr. Kin declined to comment. [...]
Instead, Mr. Kin, who in recent years moved to Las Vegas, has repeatedly
insisted that Ms. Kin agree to binding arbitration from one particular
religious court based in Monsey that is controversial and has been
widely denounced by rabbinical authorities in the United States and
Israel. Several leading rabbis, including the chief rabbinical office of
Israel, have said they would not accept a divorce document signed by
this particular court. Mr. Kin has said that the head of the beit din,
Rabbi Tzvi Dov Abraham of Monsey, granted him dispensation to marry
again. [....]
Mr. Kin, according to several members of the small Las Vegas Orthodox
community, has worshiped at two synagogues affiliated with the
Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, which is known for welcoming a broad
array of Jews. The rabbis at those synagogues do not count him toward a
quorum needed for prayer because of the controversy over his divorce
case, but they have declined to publicly rebuke him or force him out,
according to Rabbi Shea Harlig, the head of Chabad of southern Nevada.[...]
Every other husband, like Meir Kin, who is facing a wife making unhalachic demands during a divorce proceeding, whether she is demanding more custody rights than halacha grants her, whether she is demanding a 50%/50% split of marital assets in contradiction to halacha which grants all marital assets (that she didn't own prior to marriage) to the husband (even her own earnings!), or whether the wife brings a case to secular court (arkaos) in contradiction to halacha since she knows she'll get a better divorce "deal" out of secular court using secular law rather than facing the halachos of divorce (assets, custody, etc.) adjudicated in beis din, in all these cases the wise example of Meir Kin should be followed where the husband deposits a conditional Get with a beis din of his choice, that will hold the Get until the wife stops her unhalachic activities and reverses and unhalachic gains she already achieved by repaying (including his legal costs incurred in arkaos/secular court that she unhalachicly initiated) and undoing the unhalachic damage she caused her husband.
ReplyDeleteAt that time when she ceases and desists from her such actions and compensates and undoes the damage she already caused, the beis din will give her the Get.
Irregardless however long it takes the wife to come along to these halachic terms, the husband will be given a Heter Meah Rabbonim and be free to immediately remarry.
If you don't want a 50-50 split: make a marriage contract, so everyone knows what you want, and you can enforce it in court!!!
DeleteI am really quite astonished that the blog owner insists on publishing comments such as this one, which makes the torah world look really, really bad.
50/50 splits are not halacha. By default divorces must follow halacha which means it is NOT a 50/50 split. Goyish law does not override halacha.
Deletehttp://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/modern_orthodox_protest_against_agunah_wedding_in_vegas
ReplyDeletehttp://www.getora.com/Press/Meir%20Kin%20-%20June%2025.html
Everyone is saying that this Beis Din in Monsey is the only one Yisroel Meir Kin is willing to use, and that a Get issued by this Beis Din would not be accepted by the Rabbanute in Israel. Has this been verified by any non-ORA sources?
I found this link. Does anyone know the Rav behind it?
ReplyDeletehttp://mekubal.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/honest-beit-din-or-loose-cannon/
TJ, do you have any evidence that the wife made non-Halachic demands? Do you have any evidence that the husband made only Halachic demands?
ReplyDeleteAs you know, a woman can turn down her husband's support and keep her own earnings, and people can get a heter for going to secular court. If you want to condemn Lonna, you have the burden of proof. Let's hear it.
The comments in NY Times are enough to make any truly religious Jew cry. They say Lonna deserves to suffer because of her stupidity. Any law that is so unjust as to let the husband remarry while letting him extort his ex wife and stop her from doing the same couldn't possibly be Divine. It is her own stupid belief in an obviously false and cruel system that is imprisoning her in a worthless life. Years of work by tzaddikim like Rav Noach Weinberg z'l were flushed down the toilet by this one NY Times article that accurately reported the incident. Everyone is heartbroken by this Chillul Hashem. Are you?
We follow the Torah whether or not the NY Times and the gentiles think it is ancient medieval views or not. It is a kiddush Hashem to follow halacha even if gentiles think it is ugly.
DeleteSuch a sad Chillul Hashem. How could someone do Teshuva for it?
ReplyDeleteIn today's day and age, it's very easy for a Rav to speak to both sides before signing a Heter Meah Rabbanim. Assuming there really is a Heter Meah Rabbanim here, would the Rabbanim who signed it bear some responsibility for the predictable Chiilul Hashem of the NY Times article? If they had spoken to the heads of any Kiruv institute they would've heard them begging them to please not sign it. No Heter has been shown, so I think I should be Dan L'Kaf Zechus that there is no Heter. This way it's only a single non-accredited Beis Din that messed up, and not 100 Rabbanim. If 100 Rabbanim contributed to this Chullul Hashem, then we all deserve it. We should all do Teshuva as the tzibbur as a whole did this.
Wondering I gather you either have no knowledge of halacha or it is secondary to what the NY times says.
DeletePlease describe how exactly did Meir Kinn violate halacha? If you can't answer that question than I assume that you would want to stop mila because many goyim view it as disgusting and barbaric. same with schitah
I completely agree with wondering.
DeleteBut nice for you if you insist that polygamy is a good, old jewish custom, and why should we abolish it, just because the goyim don't like it.
By the way: that's exactely what rabbi Gershon of Rothenburg did, but in your opinion he might be an apikores, or a reform jew...
R' Eidensohn: Please explain your position on whether this man is doing the right thing or not (as well as whether he's violating halacha, if that's not the same thing).
DeleteRabbi Eidensohn, you wrote:
Delete"Wondering I gather you either have no knowledge of halacha or it is secondary to what the NY times says.
Please describe how exactly did Meir Kinn violate halacha? If you can't answer that question than I assume that you would want to stop mila because many goyim view it as disgusting and barbaric. same with schitah"
We both agree that you know much more Halachah than I do. To say I have no knowledge though is to overstate matters, don't you think? Your assumption about my wanting to ban Mila is completely wrong, so please allow me to explain.
A) Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a difference between a Chiyuv and a Rishus. We must perform Mila, and so by definition it can never be a Chillul Hashem. It is also worth noting that even the most irreligious Jews overwhelmingly support Bris Mila. I don't know if you read the comments to the NY Times, but the people most outraged and ashamed of Meir's behavior are Jews. There is a big difference between turning non-Jews away from Torah and turning Jews away. If there is no Halachic Chiyuv to do something which makes Jews ashamed of being Jewish and turns them away from Torah, I would (perhaps naively) assume that simple Ahavas Yisroel says you should stop it.
Let me give you 2 theoretical examples. Imagine if Halachically a man could marry off his five year old daughter to a man over the objections of the daughter herself and his wife. Even if Halachically he was fully within his rights, such a move would turn people away from Torah, and for that reason alone he should not do it, and the community would be wise to protest if he did. Furthermore, please imagine if there was no Halachic obstacle to a man having relations with a Kitana, as long as she remains a Besula. I know that is not the case, but please imagine it for the sake of argument. Imagine if there wasn’t a famous Musar sefer that criticized those who took advantage of that Halachic loophole which lets them bypass the problem of Niddah, and there was truly no Halachic problem whatsoever with such behavior. Then imagine if an identifiably frum Jew would regularly exploit this loophole and pay Kitanos to have relations with him, and it made the Front Page of the NY Times. Would you say that since it is Halachically accpetable, it would not constitute a Chillul Hashem, no matter how many Jews it caused to renounce and condemn Halachah?
I don’t accept your premise that as long as someone follows Halachah they can’t cause a Chillul Hashem, but that’s certainly due to my complete ignorance of Torah. Please bring down sources to disprove me, and show that even when doing a Rishus, as long as you avoid violating technically violating Halachah you are immune to all charges of Chillul Hashem.
B) As for Meir Kin, there is at least one Halachic injunction that he publicly ignores. A Porush Min HaTzibbur is Ein Lo Chelek. He was a member of the LA community, and the Rabbanim there investigated his situation. When they all came to the conclusion that he was wrong, he was Porush from that Tzibur and he eventually moved to Las Vegas. Even there the community does not accept him or count him towards a minyan.
C) I don’t know what you hold about shopping for a Heter, but all of the Rabbanim in the communities where he lives have condemned his behavior. Instead he relies on a Daas Yachid from across the country, who the Rabbanut and others have declared to be unreliable. To go back to point A, do you go so far as to say that as long as you have a single Posek to rely on, even if that Posek is not generally accepted, nothing you do can ever be a Chillul Hashem, no matter how much it turns Jews away from Torah?
If doing something halachicly correct (even only a "rishus" not a chiyuv), even if non-Jews or secular Jews or Amei Hararzim frum Jews think it is not so nice or bad or whatever, it is not on that basis on Chilul Hashem and it 100% may be done.
DeleteLet's says Metzitz B'Peh is "only" a reshus (even if you disagree and think it is a chiyuv, for the purposes of this discussion let's assume it is only a rishus), it is still 100% a mitzvah and a Kiddush Hashem to do Metzitza B'Peh even though the goyim, secular Jews and the amei haratzim think it is disgusting and sick.
Wondering: That is pure speculation and likely untrue your claim that Meir Kin was declared porush min hatibur by any authority that has jurisdiction over his case. As well as it being untrue he is not counted for a minyan.
DeleteDon't believe everything you read on the internet.
BT, Everyone who does Metzitz B'Peh says it is a mitzvah, and they have several universally recognized Poskim who say that they must do it. Are there several universally recognized Poskim who said Meir Kin must get remarried without giving his first wife a Get? Are there several universally recognized Poskim who say he is even allowed to do it? Is there even one? The one Posek whose support he has is not at all universally accepted, and other Poskin have spoken out against him in matters of Gittin.
DeleteSam, all frum Jews have friends and relatives who live in LA. Do what I did and contact them. Ask around and you'll see that all of the Rabbanim there who investigated this matter have spoken out against Meir. The NY Times gave the name of the Chabad Rabbi who said that he lets Meir daven with them but won't count him towards a minyan. You can call him to confirm the facts if you want. I'm sure you won't bother, and you know exactly what he'll say.
Wondering you have a very creative approach to halacha - which simple ignores what the halacha is and uses the name independent of its meaning. .
DeleteSimply ask yourself the question - what do these terms mean, what is the source and what are the parameters in the rabbinic literature.
There are no halachic sources that I have seen that use the terms of chillul hashem, separating from the tzibur and shopping for a heter - in the way you have.
To put in another way - you are reading halacha into these terms and deciding what they mean - and not learning what these terms actually mean.
That is not Judaism or scholarship
Wondering,
DeleteAgain, even if something is only muttar as a reshus, it is 100% kosher and doable and a non-CH despite what goyim, secular Jews and am haratzim frum Jews think of it.
P.S. Don't believe something because the NY Times wrote it.
R' Eidensohn: So you support R' Gerstener's runaway extortionate beis din? Either way, please inform us of your position on his beis din's practices.
DeleteRav Eidensohn, We all agree that I’m an Am Haaretz Gamur. It’s very sad, which is why I’d like your help. I don’t care how much you attack me, but please bring down sources to answer my questions so that I can become a tiny bit less of an Am Haaretz.
Delete1) Do you have sources that as long as someone is within the guidelines of Halachah, nothing he does can be considered to be a Chillul Hashem? Do you have sources that this applies even when he is doing something that Halachah allows, and not something that Halachah requires?
2) It sometimes happens that someone takes an action that is condemned by many Poskim and which makes countless Jews ashamed of the Halachic system, leading to less Halachic observance. I always thought of that as a Chillul Hashem, but you seem to be saying I’m using the wrong term. That’s certainly possible. So please tell me, what term I should use for the action which turns countless Jews away from Torah. Should I say “Machti Es HaRabbim”? There must be some term for doing the opposite of Kiruv Richokim. Should I say “Richuk Kirovim”?
3) What are the parameters of “Porush Min Hatzibur”? Physically leaving a community because all the Rabbanim there condemned you for publicly violating Halachah – does that qualify? Are you telling me categorically that there’s no Posek in our Mesorah who would say that qualifies? What about maintaining a behavior that causes the shul you daven in (and so consider to be your tzibbur) to not count you for a minyan? If it’s not “Porush Min Hatzibur”, what is it?
4) It sometimes happens that someone can’t find a local Rav to support his position, and rather than conform to the local Rabbonim he travels across the country to find a Daas Yachid who is not widely accepted and relies on him instead. I always mistakenly called this “shopping for a Heter”. My apologies. What should I call it?
5) Would you go on record as defending Meir Kin? It’s one thing to say there isn’t enough proof to condemn him. It’s quite another to actually defend him. What do you hold?
BT, Sevaros are a dime a dozen. Please give me solid sources that prove your assertion that if something is muttar it can never be a Chillul Hashem. I asked Rav Eidensohn because he is a Bakki who is sure to know many sources that I've never seen, and he may decide to include them in the next volume of his Dass Torah.
DeleteI found some small minor sources that argue with your assertion, so after Rav Eidensohn brings down his sources I'll ask you to explain to me how they fit in with the counterexamples given in http://bit.ly/NL2Lmz
Wondering - you wander into a discussion and start issuing pronouncements about it - even though you clearly have no knowledge of Jewish law. When I challenge you you say that I should teach you. I am not interested in attacking you nor spending time explaining why you don't know what you are talking about.
DeleteYour questions have nothing to do with the topic. I am not interested in explaining the nature of halacha and why it doesn't always correspond with commonsense reasoning. It is a genuine topic - but not one that I am currently interested in.
רמב"ם תלמוד תורה ד:ו
אין שואלין את הרב כשיכנס למדרש עד שתתישב דעתו עליו, ואין התלמיד שואל כשיכנס עד שיתישב וינוח, ואין שואלין שנים כאחד, ואין שואלין את הרב מענין אחר אלא מאותו הענין שהן עסוקין בו כדי שלא יתבייש, ויש לרב להטעות את התלמידים בשאלותיו ובמעשים שעושה בפניהם כדי לחדדן, וכדי שידע אם זוכרים הם מה שלמדם או אינם זוכרים, ואין צריך לומר שיש לו רשות לשאול אותם בענין אחר שאין עוסקין בו כדי לזרזם.
Daas Torah,
DeleteWhen Rabbeinu Gershom instituted the need for a heter from 100 rabbis, consisting of rabbis in three different countries, was the intention that the heter should be difficult to obtain? Was the intention that the rabbis granting the heter should be those that are "yodea b'tiv gitin v'kedushin"?
Did Meir Kin obtain such an heter? Or did the signatories also included people who don't know much about gitin and kedushin? Did the majority of those who granted this heter not know much about gitin and kedushin?
regarding your first issue - this is discussed fully in Otzer HaPoskim.
DeleteRegarding your second issue - a gratuitious smear without the slightest evidence is clearly wrong.
I asked whether he received a proper heter. That question was left unanswered. Instead, I was accused of smearing. I fail to see why a sincere question is considered smearing. Has he publicized his heter? (Would a proper heter not be publicized in a case where a web page was set up to defend him?)
DeleteThere are rumors out that one can get a heter from Mrs. Kin's cousin as well, for the right price.
Did Meir receive a recognized and proper heter? A heter that your brothers rabbeim, Harav Feinstein, Horav Kotler and Horav Elyashiv would recognize as legitimate?
From the following teshuva you posted from Horav Shternbuch, it appears as if would require a proper heter in this type of case as well.
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/cherem-rabbeinu-gershom-rav-sternbuch.html
To clarify, I am not supporting any claims that Meir must give his wife a get. I am questioning his ability, as an Ashkenazic Jew, to marry an additional wife without putting himself in cherem.
RDE,
DeleteIn the past you've clearly said that Rav Moshe held it assur to remarry with a heter meah if the wife was not given an unconditional Get that she could accept without conditions.
"Ben Torah" - apparently, you know more than Chazal or the Rambam, since you've just rejected the concept of m'nuval b'rshus hatorah
DeleteBen Torah is 100% correct. This is not by any means m'nuval b'rshus HaTorah.
Delete@Akiva - the concept of "being disgusting within the realm of Torah"- is not a blank check for you or anyone else to decide what is disgusting and then claim that Chazal and the Ramban [not the Rambam] would automatically agree with you..
DeleteYou need to bring evidence that in fact Chazal held something as being truly disgusting. From the sources in the gemora it is clear that Chazal did not consider a husband refusing to give his wife a get just because she was bored with him or thought she could find a better one - as disgusting.
If you in fact have a source in Chazal - I would greatly appreciate the citation.
Thank you all the Rabbis of the Dodelsons (Kotlers etc.) who either endorsed, (or at the least never protested - essentially an endorsement) the use of the non-Jewish media to create a Chillul Hashem that one could never have accomplished before.
ReplyDeleteAs much as now BMG would love to distance themselves now - BMG and ORA are one and the same.
There is alot we dont know about this strange wedding. Is Daniella Barbarosa Jewish? Did she convert al pi halacha? Were they living together before they got married?
ReplyDeletewhat happens if a couple is living together before the non jewish partner converts? Is the conversion still valid?
DeleteA conversion is valid if the requirement for conversion (acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvos, etc.) are fulfilled. There is not, and never has been, any absolute rule that conversions done after a couple are already living together are invalid.
DeleteThank you Yeshaya. One thing that has always bothered me about the condition of "acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvos", is this: Is not the correct intention that a person recognizes the Truth of the Torah of Moses, and that G-d chose israel as His Am Segula? In other words, nobody will mechanically wish to fulfill the mitzvot just stam, with no reason. Even if they do, the question is are they doing it in order to get X,Y, Z... or becasue they recognize the Emet of the Torah. Maybe I will start a Mehadrin conversion beth Din. Just kidding, it is still Adar.
DeleteTo clarify, conversion for the sake of marriage has always been frowned upon, and converts in such situations have to be very clear that they are becoming completely observant and would continue to be observant if the Jewish partner ended up no longer being a part of their life. I should also add that if a couple is already living together, they are normally required to live separately for three months (havchana) before the gerus is finalized.
DeleteYou're right that converts are expected to believe in the truth of the Torah and want to join the Jewish people (if they believed the former but not latter they could be Noahides).
I know you were joking, but really, many batei din are already mehadrin -- the standards today are significantly higher, particularly in certain situations, than they were even a generation ago. Charedi batei din are probably somewhat stricter than RCA ones. Either way, conversion frequently takes several years nowadays, and the gerim often start their life as a Jew being more observant than most of their new Orthodox congregation.
Thank you for your comments Yeshaya. It is not an easy issue. Many rabbis will admit semi-privately that the majority of people convert for marriage purposes anyway. I think my argument comes from the reason behind a person's motivation. A fallacy in the argument of wanting to observe Torah mitzvot is that it is a mitzvah to have children with a spouse. So hence a conversion for marriage is to keep that particular mitzvah. Perhaps the acceptance of the yoke of torah mean also recognizing its truth, in which case that condition is included in it. What remidned me of this is the story of Rahab, who saw miracles and was for this reason motivated to convert.
DeleteyeshayaMarch 23, 2014 at 7:12 PM
DeleteA conversion is valid if the requirement for conversion (acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvos, etc.) are fulfilled. There is not, and never has been, any absolute rule that conversions done after a couple are already living together are invalid.
Not true. The Sh"A in Even HaEzer states that they have to separate or three months before the conversion. This is even if a non-Jewish couple comes to convert, all the more so a Jew living with a non-Jew. That is a requirement of conversion in any B"D that is competent to do conversions.
If it wasn't done here, her conversion is invalid and k'neged halakha.
Rabbi Tzadok: That is the general requirement, but there are exceptions. For example, the RCA's Gerus policy, which was developed in coordination with the Rabbanut to ensure RCA conversions are accepted in Israel, includes grounds for leniency on this issue. You can read it here: http://www.judaismconversion.org/GPS_Policies_and_Procedures.html
DeleteHowever, if the only way to get her out of this situation is to analyze her conversion and rule that it was invalid in some way, then I suppose all issues should be on the table in making that decision.
@Rabbi Tzadok - Since you're quoting the Sh"A re: conversion, it seems there's a much greater halachic issue here that you ignored.
DeleteIsn't there a severe aveira involved in publicly questioning Mrs. Kin's Jewish status, or in alleging that she converted, without citing even the slightest evidence to substantiate these claims?
Could you please cite any halachic sources that allow Jews to arbitrarily question the Jewish status of a woman, simply because she married an Ashkenazi Jewish man who obtained a heter?
Now that the militant ORA feminists have discarded the halachos of Gittin, and have also discarded mitzvas bein adam l'chaveiro in regard to Mr. Kin, do we now have a heter to discard mitzvas bein adam l'chaveiro in regard to Mrs. Kin?
Emes, how dare you talk about mitzvos between man and man when you support the horrific cruelty of denying a get for seven years? Not inflicting unnecessary cruelty on others, not oppressing them, is the basic foundation of the Torah (the golden rule stated negatively by Hillel.) You speak as if decrying an injustice is worse than the injustice itself. That is the height of absurdity.
DeleteIf he is withholding a Get until his wife stops wronging him halachicly and repairs the damage she already caused him, it is his right to withhold the Get until she undoes the damage she caused him.
DeleteIf there's only one beis din in the world (one way outside the norm, and widely seen as extortionate) that supports him, I'd say it's a very questionable basis to oppress someone for seven years.
DeleteWho said only one supports him? Besides, the only beis dins that could take a position, pro or con, is a beis din that heard the case. There aren't too many beis dins that heard the Kin case.
DeleteLet me know when you find another bein din (besides R' Gesteners) that has the same extortionate practices. Please also let me know if you find any posek who supports their practices.
DeleteLet's say Jews were still keeping slaves in conformity with halachah. Would that be a chillul Hashem? Probably. To prevent chillul Hashem the system needs to develop means to stop it happening just as Jews have stopped owning slaves and keep quiet about the subject of slaves. The same has been done with corporal punishment.
ReplyDeleteCorporal punishment is alive and well and even legal in almost every US State.
Deletegood question, James. I had the impression from what I read that she is fully Jewish and the chuppa was attended by numerous upstanding members of an Orthodox community. But I don't recall exactly where I read that.
ReplyDeleteI hope someone can give us clear sources here.
So according to ORA and the Jewish feminists, if a woman obtains an “Order of Protection” in a non-Jewish court (archaos) preventing her husband from speaking to a Bais Din, the woman is an "agunah"?
ReplyDeleteCan the ORA supporters please cite a source for that in the Shulchan Aruch?
-------------------------------
BETH DIN OF AGUDATH HARABONIM
"Mr. Kin had provided us with court documents namely an “Order of Protection” which in essence was a “Gag Order” that prohibited him from speaking freely to a Bais Din. Mr. Kin informed us that he would be willing to go to a Din Torah with his wife once such Gag Order would be lifted. "
http://mishpattsedek.com/mtwp/justice-denied/meir-kin-lonna-kin/
THIS CASE UNDERSCORES THE FAILURE OF ORA. IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT ALL OF THE RABBIS IN LAS VEGAS URGED ORA NOT TO HAVE THIS RALLY AS THIS WOULD MAKE MEIR MORE RESISTANT TO GIVE HER THE GET. HE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT NEGOTIATE WITH JEWISH TERRORISTS. SECONDLY, IRONICALLY IF HE WERE TO GRANT HER A GET UNDER THESE PRESSURES, THE GET WOULD BE INVALID. SO ESSENTIALLY ORA IS THE CAUSE OF MANY AGUNOT BECAUSE THEIR RELENTLESS PERSECUTION OF MEN LEADS TO MEN NOT GIVING IN. MEIR HAD OFFERED HER 4 BAIS DINS TO ATTEND. #1 RABBI GOBIOFF FROM MONSEY, AND #4 RABBI TEICHMAN FROM LA ARE ACCEPTED AND YET SHE DID NOT APPEAR. SHE ALSO HAD HIM GAGGED BY COURT ORDER THAT HE COULD NOT DISCUSS THE PORNOGRAPHY THAT SHE AND HER DAUGHTER WERE VIEWING AND THEREFORE NO BAIS DIN WOULD HAVE ALLOWED HIM A FAIR DIN-TORAH. THEREFORE HOW COULD YOU WRONG SUCH A MAN WHEN SHE MANIPULATED THE RESULTS THAT SHE WANTED?
ReplyDeleteShmuel, you can write in caps all you want but ORA didnt get involved in this case until she had been an Agunah for years. Actually, this marraige was over years before ORA was created.
DeleteBottom line is that Meir is remarried and still uses the Get as ransom. If he really wants to give her a Get, there are numerous ways he can do so. He doesnt. He wants to get married, live another life and still chain her to his marriage.
James, Once again you are wrong. checkout your facts first. ORA mounted a rally in front of his employment in 2005 less than 1 year after separating ! that is a far cry from a woman who has been waiting for a GET for many years. THE TRUTH ABOUT ORA IS THAT THEY ARE THE REAL EXTORTIONISTS BY REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE HER GAG ORDER AND HER VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF HER DIVORCE IN 2005 AS LEADING TO HER DELAY OF RECEIVING THE GET. THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN HALACHA AS AN 'UNCONDITIONAL GET". THIS SAGA SHOULD BE A WARNING TO WOMEN, THAT IF YOU VIOLATE THE TORAH AND PROCEED TO THE CIVIL COURTS PRIOR TO A BAIS DIN, YOU RUN THE RISK OF PAYING THE CONSEQUENCES.
ReplyDeleteAnd what are the consequences if a man goes to secular court?
DeleteThe bottom line is that he is getting remarried and is using the Get as leverage for money. You may think that is acceptable but most people do not.
His claim that there is a Get waiting for her is ridiculous. Women are entitled to a Get that will be recognized throught the world. If she cant even move to Israel with that Get, it is worthless. The only people who will recognize a Gestetner Get are R' Dovid and a few anonymous bloggers.
Meir should just be honest and say that he will not give her the Get until he gets everything he wants instead of saying that there is a Get waiting for her. Also, unless he publicizes the heter meah rabbanim, it is worhtless. Otherwise anyone can say they got a heter. Lets see which rabanim signed onto it.
He doesnt need your permission to use the HMR to remarry. He got rabbinic permission whether you like it or not and he remarried. He doesnt need most peoples approval. He has a halachic right to withhold the Get until she fixed the damage she caused him.
DeleteAnd she has a right to tell the world what he is doing.
DeleteNobody denies that he can halachically withold the Get. The question is whether it is the right thing to do. Getting remarried and moving on while not allowing your spouse to do the same is a hillul hashem.
If you are going to cast doubt on other people's gittin without any real basis or investigation I can cast doubt on this HMR. You can not get a HMR unless you deposit a Get with not restrictions.
If she is wronging him (halachicly) in the divorce process, he has every moral and legal and halachic right to wait until she fulfills her halachic obligations and duties (and stops violating them if she is) before he issues her a Get.
DeleteHe doesnt need your permission to use the HMR to remarry. He got rabbinic permission whether you like it or not and he remarried.
DeleteNo but he does need to deposit an unconditional Get as per the Rema in Even HaEzer. Has he deposited an unconditional Get?
He has a halachic right to withhold the Get until she fixed the damage she caused him.
Yes but then he forfeits his right to a heter meah rabbanim. The Rema is very clear that the Get he leaves for her must be unconditional. If he still wants to squabble over things, no heter.
Tom,
DeleteMost people think that a Get should be used for its intended purpose - divorcing a wife, not as an instrument of punishment. We leave punishment to the courts.
If he is getting remarried, his first marriage is over and he should give that wife a Get.
What is the alleged exact terminology of the REMA that says that the GET deposited for a HMR must be *unconditional*? (Not interpretation. The REMA's exact wording.)
DeleteAvraham1 Jewess are keeping slaves. They go to arko"oys and make their husbands become slaves and destroy them. You are right that this is a chillul Hashem
ReplyDeleteAye. Get your brother, the Gaon, in Mosey to go after this Rabbi Abraham.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very important for all commentators to always be respectful to the Rabbanim they disagree with, especially for those commentators like me who are Ami Haaretz. It seems to me that every defense of Meir says that he is allowed to rely on his Posek. Let show why that is a dubious defense in this case, by quoting sources which have links to even more sources.
ReplyDeleteMeir's Posek attacked Rav Shlomo Miller for upholding Cherem D'Rabeinu Gershom http://bit.ly/1giOiKc and many other Gedolim for other reasons as well http://bit.ly/1fULsX3 He even said many Gedolim are in Nidui http://bit.ly/1iuBBeZ Not only is his Beis Din not recognized, the Rabbinut will cease to recognize any Dayyan who sits with them. This is a fairly serious charge. It means that something is so wrong with his Beis Din that any Dayyan ought to be able to see it and to know to stay away. Essentially the Beis Din is charged with corruption and incompetence. Various Chareidi news sources publications have said much worse. http://bit.ly/1lgRKrK
@Wondering if there is a dispute regarrding any topic - why can't he follow his own posek?
DeleteYou keep repeating how terrible this beis din - but you have not cited a single terrible thing that they have done that would justify this name calling. The Rabbinut also has not explained what the problem is. As we have seen there are gedolim who do not follow the halacha and yet they condemn others for following the halacha.
Your statement "Essentially the Beis Din is charged with corruption and incompetence." is not supported by any published facts.
I don't have any problem with condeming someone who does something wrong. In this case however there is a lot of table thumping and hand waving - but nobody has said exactly what this beis din has done wrong!
Finally your last source is the blog of Rabbi Tzadok Elcohen who post frequently on this blog and in fact in the post you cited mentions this blog. But there is no explicit charge except to say that if everybody is against this beis din then they most have done something wrong.
I simply would like to know what that "something " is. Since you seem to have read everything on the subject - please tell me explicity - what is wrong with the beis din?
@Daas Torah - "nobody has said exactly what this beis din has done wrong" - Correct. The ORA propagandists and spin doctors cannot and will not ever tell you what is wrong with Meir's Bais Din.
DeleteIn fact the ORA spin doctors have no halachically valid evidence of any wrongdoing by that Bais Din. They are simply spewing lies motivated by their extreme contempt and loathing for a non-feminist Chareidi Bais Din that refuses to sacrifice Torah Judaism and Jewish men's legitimate halachic rights on the altar of feminist political correctness.
Since I have been mentioned and sourced, I feel the need to jump in here. While Rav Amar(and Rav Ovadia Yosef and others) do feel that the Beit Din of Rav Gestetner is corrupt, that charge has not been made against the Beit Din of Rav Abraham.
DeleteSee the letters from Rabbanut that were linked with my article in response to this. They only say that the B"D of Rav Abraham is not known/recognized, and thus it's Gittin are not accepted in Israel.
There are many Batei Din, run by perfectly competent and upstanding Rabbanim, that are not recognized by Rabbanut and who's Gittin would not be recognized in Israel. ITIM has a list of which Batei Din are and are not accepted, you may be surprised to find that your own local B"D doesn't make the list. Again, it is not a matter of corruption.
Now as far as Rabbanut or Rav Amar or anyone else having to give evidence as to why they feel Rav Gestetner's B"D is possul, and all who join with him are possul, that is simply absurd. When Rav Shternbuch starts writing a detailed teshuva for every hechsher that the Eida doesn't accept, then you can put that question forward.
Coming back to the issue at hand. There is a lot of information that is not known, and thus ultimately it is hard to say anything conclusive about this case. However, you cannot charge Rav Abraham with corruption simply because his B"D is not known to Rabbanut.
but you have not cited a single terrible thing that they have done that would justify this name calling.
DeleteDid he deposit an unconditional Get as per the Rema in order to get his HM"R? If not we need look no further.
Emes, when you can only find one "non-feminist beis din" in the entire Orthodox world, and accuse all others of being corrupted by some feminist conspiracy, it doesn't exactly lend credibility to your case.
Delete@yeshaya -
Delete"only find one "non-feminist beis din" in the entire Orthodox world":
I never made any such claim. Are you having delusions?
"accuse all others of being corrupted by some feminist conspiracy"
I never made any such claim. Are you having delusions?
To the best of my knowledge, the Chareidi Batei Din that you've been dishonestly attacking here never made any such claims either.
Yourself and the other ORA groupies are terribly tormented by the possibility that your whole feminist conception of Torah divorce law may be erroneous. Therefore you grasp at any straw that might invalidate the anti-feminist Torah positions.
Emes, maybe I'm confusing you with Stan, who makes very similar comments...Anyway, some frequent commenters on this site have certainly suggested that R' Gestener's beis din is the only non-feminist beis din in the world. I'm now aware that this case involves another beis din, but since various other rabbis have spoken out against it, it seems like the beis din, like R' Gesteners, may be implementing an extreme minority view of the halacha not supported by contemporary poskim.
Delete
ReplyDeleteRav Eidensohn,
I know what I've heard "off the record" from a Rav who knows, but I don't have published sources that I can link to on the web, so I can't "prove" anything here. I'm sure if you ask the right people you'll hear the same things I did. Do you have any close friends associated with Beis Din of Mechon L'Hoyroa who would tell the real story, and not just the official one?
Rav Eidensohn, you asserted that unless Meir Kinn is violating halacha, he can't be causing a Chillul Hashem. I asked you for sources to demonstrate that and you didn't provide any. Here is a list of sources from Rav Yaakov Charlop’s article in Techumin 25 that indicate to the contrary: Chillul Hashem can cause Rabbanim to forbid what would otherwise be permitted. Please show me how they are mistaken or irrelevant, or revise your statement. http://shaashuim.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/chillul-hashem-as-a-factor-in-psak-halachic-methodology-15/ http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/805327/Jonathan_Ziring/Chillul_Hashem_as_a_Factor_in_Psak
ReplyDeleteR. Charlop is not saying what you are claiming him to be saying.
DeleteEven if rabbonim can forbid something that is permitted, "the rabbonim" have not forbidden anything under discussion here. Certainly not the consensus of worldwide Orthodoxy rabbonim.
am,
Deletethe concensus of worldwide Orthodox rabbonim is not to accept the BD that Meir chose to deposit his conditional Get.
The law is that in order to get a HMR, a man must deposit an unconditional Get with a BD. Meir Kin did not do that.
The point of the HMR is that the Takkana of Rabbeinu Gershom should not create a situation in which a man can not remarry. So, what he did was say that if you want to get remarried and your wife wont accept the Get, you can get a HMR. That is NOT what is happening here. Meir isnt saying he will give a Get and be done with Lonna. He is saying that he WONT give a Get until he gets a certain amount of money and other concessions he lost in court. Thus, the HMR is not valid because he has not deposited a Get for his wife.
That is NOT the concensus of worldwide Orthodox rabbonim. The Israeli Zionist rabbunut does not in any way represent the concensus of worldwide Orthodox rabbonim.
DeleteBrav,
DeleteThe rabbanut is run by charedim. That is a fact. But it isnt just them. Does Machon Lehora'a accept it? Rav Elyashiv chose the previous corrupt Chief Rabbi.
The rabbanut was not run by Chareidim when that letter was issued. And besides the rabbanut rabbi that signed that letter is not and does not represent Chareidim.
DeleteAFS - we discussed this issue before and I dont want to discuss it again. If you get me a letter from the anti-Zionist Eidah RABD Rav Shternbuch that he will accept Gestetner gittin I will withdraw my comment.
DeleteWould you like his phone number? I have it.
The Eida and Rav Shternbuch never said they wouldn't accept his gittin. There is no letter saying any such thing. Otherwise produce a letter from the Eida or Rav Shternbuch.
DeleteThe rabbanut was not run by Chareidim when that letter was issued.
DeleteRe: The Gestetner letter, the Rabbinut was run by Rav Shlomo Amar(who is Chareidi) who operated in close concert with Rav Ovadia Yosef(Chareidi).
Yes Eliyahu Ben-Dahan signed the letter. However, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu released two sefarim of Teshuvot that he claimed to have issued while sitting as the chief Rabbi, and easily half of them bear the signature of Eliyahu Ben-Dahan.
My understanding is that he transcribed the verbal response of the Chief Rabbi as his secretary. When the Chief Rabbi was too busy to write the response himself. However, the opinion is fully that of the Chief Rabbi(Rav Amar in this case).
RMT: Eliyahu Ben-Dahan is not Chareidi and his writing a letter does not represent the Chareidi view.
DeleteIt is doubtful (and certainly cannot be assumed) that anything Eliyahu Ben Dahan wrote was speaking on behalf of or approved by the Chief Rabbi himself.
DeleteIt is also doubtful that every time such an issue arose (accepting a particular beit din from chutz l'aaretz or every divorce case from chutz l'aaretz) that the Chief Rabbi involved himself in every case.
So unless the Chief Rabbi himself signed something it is presumptuous to assume he agreed with it.
Furthermore, and this too is vital, even if Rav Shlomo Amar did take a specific position on an issue (which in this case even this much cannot be assumed), it in no way indicates that position is agreed to by the wider Chareidi rabbinic world -- such as by the Agudah, Moetzes, Chasidish Admorim, Eidah Chareidus, etc. Rav Shlomo Amar speaks for Rav Shlomo Amar; he does not speak for "the Chareidi world".
I saw on a previous thread on this blog an anonymous unsourced comment claiming that the CRC (Central Rabbinic Congress/Hisachdus HaRabbonim) in Williamsburg, Brooklyn wrote a letter saying it does not accept the R. Gestetner Beis Din as being valid. I didn't accept this claim since no photograph of any such purported letter was produced. But if a verifiable documented proof was made that the CRC/Hisachdus utterly rejects all decisions from R. Gestetner's Beis Din, that would be a much stronger proof against R. Gestetner's Beis Din than anything any part of the Israeli Rabbanut said.
DeleteOr if documented proof from the Eida HaChareidus is produced it would also be strong proof.
DeleteRMT -
DeleteYou wrote above that Rav Gestetner and Rav Abraham are two seperate beit dins and the issue is only with Rav Gestetners. I thought that the two them serve on beit din cases together (with a third dayan.)
Not according to the letters written by Rabbinut. Here is my translation of Rav Amar's letter:
DeleteI have received your letter concerning the Rabbis Gestetner and Abraham from the 26th of Nisan 5768.
It is my desire to inform you that Rav Abraham Gestetner of B"D Shaar Mishpat and Rav Herh Ber(Tzvi Dov) Abraham of the B"D Kahal Kedushat Levi and the Berditchiv Yeshiva are not recognized by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Any Gittin which are arranged by them will not be recognized here in Israel.
It does not appear from this that they both sit on the same B"D but rather that they have separate Batei Din.
RMT -- Above you wrote that the rabbanut doesn't accept R. Gestetner but only does not know of R. Abraham. The last post seems to characterize them together. Which one is it?
DeleteAlso, some posters asked you some good questions above your last post.
@wondering could you show me wherer I said "unless Meir Kin is violating halacha he can't be causing a chillul Hashem? I did say that according to your logic you should ban mila and schecita.
ReplyDeleteYou found articles in which sometimes the concept of chilul hashem is used - for example one does not have to return the lost property of a goy - except where it would involve chilul hashem.
You insist that there is such a principle rather than a factor. Therefore you say if the goyim are upset that he didn't divorce his wife - then it is a chilul hashem and he must divorce his wife.. I would agree if you want to say that sometimes this might be used as a factor - but not that it is a halachic principle.
Similarly the Geonim forced a man to give his wife a get because women who were trapped in marriages were converting to Islam. So now you say we have a new principle that if women are upset they should be given a Get. However the Ramban says in his time that is no longer the main concern. Rather the concern that women might be interested in marrying someone else and demand a Get became the problem. Therefore divorce was made harder.
Bottom line. There are a wide variety of factors which are sometimes used but they are not universal principles.
For example if the goyim found the tolerating of the husband's refusal the basis cutting funds to yeshiva or pikuach nefesh such as we find by saving a goy's life on Shabbos - then I assume the poskim would say tmes have changed.
In short there is no categorical statement that when there is chilul haShem a Jew must stop doing certain mitzvos, or even stop certain minhagim. Otherwise , mila and schechita would have been banned a long time ago.
Let's forget about chillul Hashem for a second -- what about the inherent cruelty of preventing a spouse from remarrying for seven years (or even her whole lifetime) because he claims she did something wrong and could find a single beis din to support him (even though the vast majority say he has to give a get)? And if he wants something extreme -- according to the article, $500k and full custody of their child -- in exchange for not being cruel, isn't this problematic?
DeleteIf you want to accept her version only then you might have a point. However as we see in other cases there can be a legitimate basis for demanding large sum's of money to compensate for legal fees forced because of going to secular courts. And if a parent feels that only he is capable of raising the child properly - why can't he use the get a leverage?
DeleteHowever It is clear that if the only reason for witholding the get is financial gain unrelated to Torah rights or to be cruel than I would agree with you that it is wrong that is what the poskim say.
Are there poskim that say it is OK to use a get as leverage even when it's clear there's no hope for the relationship to continue? This seems ripe for abuse, since spouses commonly think they're getting the short end of the stick, have great hatred and resentment toward their spouse, and if allowed by the rabbis, will use whatever leverage they have, whatever the consequences.
Deleteyeshaya: Shulchan Aruch and the poskim do not preclude or otherwise prohibit a man from withholding a Get until his wife meets her halachic obligations towards him.
DeleteThe Get is the last piece that is done in the divorce process.
good explanation, DT
DeleteWhat I'm asking is whether there are contemporary poskim who say it is acceptable for a man to withhold a get as leverage in order to get what he wants (redress for claimed halachic wrongs, money, custody, etc), even when the relationship is over and there is no chance of reconciliation.
Delete@Tom - "The Get is the last piece that is done in the divorce process." - This is a critical point that the ORA spin doctors like yeshaya are attempting to sweep under the rug. That point essentially invalidates all ORA's propaganda because the real issue here is not the GET. The real issue is that the ORA feminists are attempting to eliminate any halachic due process for Jewish men.
DeleteMeir Kin and other men who deposited a GET are not "using the Get as leverage" or "withholding a GET" as falsely claimed by the ORA spin doctors. The men are simply asking the Bais Din, as per their halachic rights, that disputed issues should be resolved by Torah law, instead of resolving them by the the cruel, unjust, and anti-father family court orders so beloved by the ORA feminists. Any litigants making claims against the other party must bring proof of their claims, they cannot just make up numbers or use extortion.
Once the Bais Din has properly resolved the issues, then the GET will be released by the Bais Din who controls it.
yeshaya: The poskim dont say he cant wait and hold it for that reason.
DeleteBrav, we don't prove something by a negative. Has anyone asked poskim if they can withhold a get under these circumstances? If not, let's ask...
DeleteThere is no issue. A man is not required to divorce his wife. Under halacha there is no obligation to give a Get. Only under certain very specific circumstances can a beis din require him to give a Get. Normally a man has no obligation to divorce. So he doesn't have to give a Get.
DeleteHorav Eidensohn:
ReplyDeleteDoes Meir Kin indeed have a heter to marry from one hundred competent rabbis who are properly knowledgeable in gitin and Kidushin?
If he got one of those phony heter-for-money type of heterim, why are you expressing support for him?
Please don't waste our time with "when did you stop beating your wife questions"
ReplyDeleteDid someone accuse you of beating your wife?
DeleteWhat is this in response to, and how does it answer the question?
you are assuming that there is reason to question the validity of the heter - but you have not presented the slightest evidence to slander him.
DeleteUntil he makes the HMR public we most certainly can question the validity of the HMR. There is plenty of halachic basis to support the notion that we dont question the validity of a Get and yet you do that on this blog all the time.
DeleteThere are people on this blog question the validity of Dodelson's Get and we cant question the validity of a man who claims to have a HMR that noone has seen and who claims to have deposited a Get in a BD nobody accepts?
Your not accepting it doesnt have to worry him or make him care.
DeleteWe are not discussing whether he cares or not. I was responding to RDEs comment questioning our right to question the validity of the HMR.
DeleteMeir got his hetter for zero dollars. Just for the record. It is unbelievable that the feminists distort halochio and completely ignore the fact that Lonna went to arko"oys. They se no reason for her to have to pay his legal costs or for her to disregard court rulings and give him his son whom he is entitled to raise. Yet they are suddenly worried about the validity of the hetter meah. According to halocho, she is moredes for refusing to come to bais din. He doesn't even need a hetter then. See for examole teshuva in Achiezer vol 1. Furthermore the whole cheirem expired. To call him a biamist when he is civilly divorced is defamation. He should sue those who go to arkooys like Lonna.
ReplyDeleteMuch like you are ignoring the fact that she dropped her case in court, and then Meir went to arko''oys kneged halacha. Once again we see that you have two Torahs. One where going to arko"yos is a sin(for women) and one where it is a mitzvah(for men).
DeleteShe went to arkaos kneged halacha first.
Deletemnb,
Deleteshe dropped the case.
James: After forcing him to incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses due to her incursion with arkoyos.
DeleteShe went to arkaos kneged halacha first.
DeleteYour point? Once she dropped the case he had no halachic right to go to Arkoy"os. The Sh"A and halacha make no distinction between first and last. Use of a secular court is forbidden.
After forcing him to incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses due to her incursion with arkoyos.
How much in legal fees did his incursion wiht arkoyos cost her? Since he took her to arkoyos kneged hadin he is also responsible for restoring any damage he did her through the courts including legal fees.
That is the definition of terrorism. Its not that he doesnt have a claim (Which, I dont think he has btw). The chillul hashem is that he is using his power (Again, noone is saying that he doesnt have the halachic power to do so) to torture to get what he wants. His marriage is over. It has been for years. He decided on his own that until he gets the money he thinks he deserves, he is going to ruin her life.
DeleteThe vast majority of frum Jews think that is wrong.
Once she violated halacha by going to secular court, he had the halachic right to go to secular court. But in any event he didnt. All he did was get a technical divorce from Calif. court that was not a litigation. It was an administrative court to just issue a paper divorce with no decision or suit against her. Just a divorce without deciding any issues. That isnt arkoyos even if he werent allowed to go.
Deleteadministrative courts do not "issue a paper divorce". Family Courts issue divorces.
DeleteOnce she violated halacha by going to secular court, he had the halachic right to go to secular court.
DeletePlease give a source in the Sh"A or poskim that says that. There is an entire sefer that the blog owner put up giving numerous sources saying just the opposite.
It was an administrative court to just issue a paper divorce with no decision or suit against her. Just a divorce without deciding any issues.
Oh really? Then why is he complaining that said court gave his wife custody? He took her to court, kneged halacha and lost. That damage is on him, that is written in the Sh"A.
If Party A unhalachicly sures Party B is arkoyos/secular court, Party B is then allowed (and advised so by beis din) that he can take Party A to any secular court proceedings and counter-sue and do whatever else he needs in secular court against Party A who first initiated any secular court proceedings.
DeleteHaving a court issue a secular divorce with no other activity (no custody, no asset seperation), just having the court issue a divorce and nothing else, is not an arkoyos violation.
In this case the wife started the secular court. She was first in secular court and thus violated arkoyos. He then is halachicly entitled to be reimbursed from her for any of his costs and losses in secular court and the secular court decisions must be reversed in deference to a beis din decision.
Furthermore, she had a NY secular court issue the custody decision in this case rather than let beis din decide. This arkoyos violation must be reversed so beis din can decide it per halacha rather than goyish law.
She took him to court in NY first. He only started the court activity in California after she had initiated arkoyos against him in NY. The NY court decided custody after she filed and opened a case in NY.
DeleteIf someone sues you in court, you can countersue but if they take you to court and then withdraw the case, you dont have a blanket heter to go to court whenever you want.
DeleteThere is a constant obligation to withdraw from secular court. Lonna did so, Meir did not.
The court case to decide custody was initiated by her and not withdrawn, so she used arkoyos.
DeleteHypothetically (not specific to any case), even if the heter meah was invalid, what's the big deal? So he has two wives. That isn't an issur d'oraysa. It isn't even an issur m'drabbanan. At most it violates a takana. And there are strong arguments the Cherem has already expired. And many segments of Klal Yisroel never even accepted the Cherem against polygamy in the first place (i.e. Sephardim and Teimanim are not subject to Rabbeinu Gershom.)
ReplyDeleteI hope that soon, get extortion will be tried as extortion in US courts, and that extortionists go to jail.
ReplyDeleteCan't happen as the US Constitutional separation of Church and State prevent the government and courts from involving itself in any way in obtaining, enforcing or pressuring a man to give a Get.
Delete"duress" = In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person.
DeleteKeeping someone from marrying over a long period of time is "other pressure against the person". So if he says: "Give me 500'000$ or I won't give a get", this would be coercion of money under duress.
Furthermore, I think that if she pays the 500'000$, obtains the get, she could claim that she paid the money under duress and could ask it back, i.e. obtain it back through state authorities.
By the way, I am quite astonished that the blog owner encourages get extortion.
How is it extortion to demand that a get be given according to halocho? Its against the constitution to force someone to perform a religious act
ReplyDeleteHe's demanding half a million dollars and full custody of their child to allow to her remarry without producing mamzerim. "I will continue oppressing you and causing you great pain and suffering, making it impossible for you to live a normal life, unless you give me lots of money and exclusive access to our child" -- how is that not extortion? It may not be enforceable in criminal courts because of constitutional concerns, but that does not mean it does not fit the legal definition.
DeleteThat's a lie. He's not asking for "exclusive access to our child".
DeleteOkay, "full custody" -- big difference!
DeleteOne of the two parents has to get full custody with the other getting visitation. He has at least as much right to full custody of their son as she does. Just because some goy judge gave it to her does not mean it is halachicly correct. He is entitled to have a beis din decide custody not an arkoyos/secular court.
DeleteNot true -- joint custody arrangements, as opposed to full custody, are very common. (Technically custody means the right to make legal decisions for the child while "placement" means who the child stays with, but when people say custody they really mean placement, or placement plus custody.)
DeleteWhat if she doesn't recognize that beis din? So he can just pick whatever beis din will be favorable to him, no matter how biased and corrupt it is, and then he gets to withhold the get and ruin the rest of her life because she objects to the rigged proceedings (and the half a million he's demanding)? That makes a mockery of the halachic system.
Why does ORA always take the side of the female ? How is it possible than in every dispute between a male and a female , the female is always a perfect angel and the man is wronging her ?
ReplyDeleteCan't they ever take the side of the husband and attack the female publicly for doing things that are evil, anti halacha and Chillul Hashem's ?
Can we make a ORA Chadasha organization to ostracize females that cause their husbands psychological, physical , religious or financial pain ?
Taking away access to someones child is very painful. But women get to do it all the time.
Lets even the playing field.
After the sin of Adam , Tov and Rah are mixed and there is no clear Tov or Rah.
Bottom line,
DeleteORA rejects cases. You only hear of the cases they vet and choose to take.
It is not about taking the side of a man or a woman. The organization is about resolving Agunot. It is based on the premise that no one should be stuck in a dead marriage. Its not about advocating for men or women.
James,
DeleteThey only take the females side of case. Did they ever assist a husband ?! Men also get stuck in a dead marriage. They also would like to publicize the wrongs done to them.
These women are not agunot. You take the term "agunot" ,a term that all the Gedolay Haposkim trembled , quivered , and yes, cried when they heard of a true agunah and you cheapen it. To you, any female who wants a get and the male is not giving it , is an agunah. ORA is not about resolving agunot. It is about trying to modernize the torah. If they have to destroy men to do that , so be it.
Let them change into "the organization to assist people (whether men or women ) in dead marriages. "
I bet that you would have an equal amount of men asking for your help.
ORA never took a man's side in a divorce case against the woman. ORA never had public protests outside any woman in divorce's house or those of her relatives.
DeleteAgunah means chained. Most of these women are chained. Lonna is chained to a man who is now remarried to another woman. They are not a social services organization. They assist women whose husbands wont grant a Get but whose marriage is completely over.
DeleteIf a man is "stuck" in a dead marriage, he can give his wife a Get.
'chained' is neither the definition or translation. Were all of Klal Yisrael agunot in Mitzrayim ? Does every Jewish Female become an Agunah under the chuppah ?
DeleteMen also need help when they are unsticking themselves from a dead marriage and the wife wrongs them .
"Men also need help when they are unstikcing themselves from a dead marriage..."
Delete100% correct but also irrelevant. Men can give a Get of their own volition. This isnt about making divorce proceedings go more smoothly.
Does every Jewish Female become an Agunah under the chuppah?
A wife can reject a Get.
DeleteRight. And we have a solution for that - HMR.
DeleteNo, a HMR is not available simply because a wife rejects a Get. She is entitled to reject a Get, and he must accept that. He cannot get a HMR on that basis alone.
DeleteSo start an organization for men whose wives wont accept a Get for years and cant get a HMR. I will support the organization and all three people in that category.
DeleteThere are about the same number of women who refuse a Get as men who refuse to give one.
DeleteIn any event and regardless of which one has more or less numerically, why isn't ORA fighting on behalf of these men - however many or few - the same way they are fighting on behalf of the women?
A.F.S.March 27, 2014 at 11:29 AM
DeleteNo, a HMR is not available simply because a wife rejects a Get. She is entitled to reject a Get, and he must accept that. He cannot get a HMR on that basis alone.
Have you ever actually read the Sh"A and what it says on these matters?
Perspective: I don't know what afs saw, but am looking at S"A and wondering what you are talking about?
Deletehear-hear
ReplyDeleteThis needs to be repeated:
ReplyDelete"ORA is not about resolving agunot. It is about trying to modernize the torah. If they have to destroy men to do that , so be it. Let them change into 'the organization to assist people (whether men or women ) in dead marriages.'
I bet that you would have an equal amount of men asking for your help."
You are the one that wants to add a new halacha to the Shulchan Aruch stating that when a man refuses to give his wife a Get, nobody is allowed to publicize that fact.
DeleteWe follow halacha and there is no halacha that states that we can not tell all of our friends what scum Meir Kin really is.
You have a problem with people who think Meir Kin should give a Get telling all of their friends what he is doing. Fine. But dont create a new Shulchan Aruch forbidding what is permitted.
Actually the halacha IS that you can NOT pressure a man to give a GET, even public pressure.
Deleteto call somebody scum when he is doing something within the confines of halacha is motzei shem ra..Remember the dictum of Chazal: kol haposeil bemumo poseil
DeleteThe Gedolim dont have nice things to say about men who marry off their 12 year old daughters - completely legal.
DeleteExactly how is he being pressured? He is certainly not being pressured by a BD. Are you saying that if I run into Meir, it is Assur for me to tell him that I think he should give his wife a Get? Where does the shulchan aruch say that? And where does the shulchan aruch say that I am not allowed to tell the world that Meir isnt giving his wife a Get?
The BD is not fining him. BD has no power to do so in this country.
Non-BD pressure for a Get is illegal and invalidates a Get.
DeleteSo telling the world that he refuses to give a Get (which you dont think is wrong) is pressure? How is it pressure?
DeleteI dont think that every Joe Shmo has the power to invalidate gittin.
Lets see if Harry Myrles will let the following post through:
ReplyDeletehalocho • 2 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Emes Ve-Emunah.
This whole complaint against Mr. Kin is a result of people blatantly ignoring halocho. The halocho is clear cut that someone who goes to arko"oys loses all rights in Bais Din. This is so clear cut that someone who doesn't even go to court but "merely" refuses to appear in bais din when summonsed loses all rights regarding ever summonsing anyone else to bais din (lo tizias dina) - see the veretsky school building issue.
Ms kin was lo tzias dina. According to Mr Kin, he summonsed Lonna to 4 different botei din but she refused to appear. She gets custody through arko"oys and equitable distribution and child support and then demands a Get. Now in order to recoup his losses and his son he goes to a bais din that tells Lonna to get out of arko"oys and follow halocho and all you people on this blog have a problem with that.
Going to arko"oys, destroying your ex financially and then saying everying is over and I want my get well that's not how halocho works regardless of what anyone tells you. And this is not my opinion but the opinion of Rav Pam, the saintly Rosh yeshiva of Torah V'daas, rav Shmuel Birnbaum and many other chareidi Rabbis.
See the following kol koreh posted below. We live in an upside down world. Why is it that none of the women who go to arko"oys regarding divorce matters are ever put in cheirem and ostracized?
And why do they go to arko"oys ? Because secular law favors the custodial parent and who is the custodial parent in 95% the woman. They get a far better deal in arko"oys than in secular court.
We can adopt secular morality all we like but it is not Torah morality. As long as Lonna is benefiting from the judgement of secular court she is in arko"oys according to every posek. And yes she is chayav to repay her ex's legal fees. That is not extortion.
here is the link to the kol koreh. I hope you are objective enough to allow this post through. And please don't start woth novol birhsus hatorah. The halocho deems someone who goes to arko"oys a rosho and a mechalel sheym shomayim. rav ovadia has said that such a person loses their cheilek in oylom habo. Women who run to arko"oys are not agunahs at all. If the problem of arko"oys would be eliiminated and they would go to bais din instead the agunah problem would largely disappear.
I find the attitude of YU/ ORA to be incredibly hypocritical. They have never ever condemned a woman for being in arko"oys. The torah considers this almost as a cardinal sin. Divorce court also involves mesirah for which the punishment is to be placed in gehonom for eternity and your soul destroyed. And lets not start with democracy and it not being mesirah. Anyone spending a day in divorce court will know it has nothing to do with justice and fairness at all.
You might not agree and in fact disagree very vociferously but stop presenting this Get issue in such a simplistic way. A get needs to be given when the woman follows the halocho. If she breaks it there is no moral argument in the world strong enough to overcome her halachic requirements first. if she fails to fulfill her halachik requirements that is her problem.
http://mishpattsedek.com/mtwp/...
If you are really interested in the truth you will allow this to be posted.
@halocho - You've made a great summary of the issues, and you've drilled down past the very heavy media fog of MO feminist hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, Emes Ve-Emunah has not posted your very enlightening comments. You are quite correct, the MO/ORA/YU feminists are incredibly hypocritical. They must suppress the truth and resort to vicious personal attacks on divorcing men because they really have no response to valid halachic and logical arguments against their misandrist feminist ideology.
For example, see "frum" attorney Daniel Schwartz's vicious, hypocritical personal attacks against Meir Kin on the Emes Ve-Emunah blog. There's not an iota of valid halachic arguments in his comments.
For a so-called "frum" attorney to accept payments from a Jewish woman using archaos against her husband, while attempting to claim that "as far as Judaism is concerned it's his (the husband's) fault" is mindboggling hypocrisy and absurdity.
And what of your hypocrisy that allows him to take his wife to arkoyos and then when it goes against him claim that she damaged him?
DeleteThe wife dropped her case. The husband has since been the only plaintiff. It was his running to arkoyos that lost him his children and that cost him(and her btw) so much in legal fees. That is his tough luck.
The fact that he can go to arkoyos kneged hadin and then have people who claim to be Torah Observant yiddin support him is an actual Chilul HaShem.
His wife took him to arkoyos and got arkoyos to render a custody verdict in the case she opened rather than allow beis din to decide custody as he wanted and as how halacha demands.
DeleteThe arkoyos custody decision was in a case she was plaintiff in.
DeleteSock-puppetry is obviously rampant on this thread. There seems to be one or two pro-Kinn posters posting under a number of similar generic or meaningless names. That is contrary to established internet norms. R' Eidensohn, if you have the ability to crack down on this, please do.
ReplyDeletemr.yech oh i mean mr.yeshaya deal with the issues.but u can't, so you try to squelch your opponents.
Deletehttp://5tjt.com/the-heter-meah-rabbonim-an-overview/
ReplyDeleteIs it any wonder after seeing this firsthand in Las Vegas that Israel Meir Kin has acted as he has? ( http://cleanupyoungisrael.blogspot.com ) .
ReplyDeleteYoung Israel Aish of Las Vegas and its National Council flouted the Torah when they afflicted a widow in defiance of the warnings in Parshas Mishpatim AND simultaneously violated Siman 153, seif 16 the Shulchan Aruch that rules that even in a Beit Knesset belonging to a private individual, the owner cannot decide to exclude one particular person. This is mentioned in Orchot Chaim as also one of the decrees of Rabbeinu Gershom!!! Why is this not as or more important than Kin vs. Kin? Why does no one fulfill the words of Navi Yeshayahu we read every year on Shabbos Chazon to "revu almanah" ?
This brings to mind the Catholic rule about getting an annulment of the marriage. Depending on your religion, you could be legally divorced but morally and spiritually married. It certainly becomes a sticky wicket, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteAfter 6 moths of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids, I felt like ending it all, i almost committed suicide because he left us with nothing, i was emotionally down all this while. Thanks to a man called Dr Aisabu of Aisabu temple which i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I came across several testimonies about this particular man. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb,cure cancer,and other sickness, some testified that he prayed to stop divorce and get a good paid job so on. He is amazing, i also come across one particular testimony, it was about a woman called Shannon , she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days, and at the end of her testimony she dropped his email. (aisabulovespell@gmail.com) After reading all these, I decided to give it a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We resolved our issues, and we are even happier than ever. DR Aisabu you are a gifted man and thank you for everything you had done in my life. If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster, Try him anytime, he is the answer to your problems. you can contact him on aisabulovespell@gmail.com !
ReplyDeletehundreds of men, more than women
ReplyDelete