Tuesday, December 2, 2014

How Debbie Gross "saved" me from being abused physically and emotionally at her Convention dealing with abuse and violence in the religious community

update: Times of Israel Orthodox Jews convene to stop domestic and sexual abuse
=========================
What I am about to describe is the ironic story of abuse by the organizers of a convention dedicated to preventing and dealing with abuse. It also is also another example of well meaning laymen who are genuinely trying to help the Jewish community - insisting on imposing their innovations and distortions of halacha by strong armed tactics and blocking the voices of those that disagree with them.

As I have mentioned previously, I had been approved by the organizers to give two short presentations at next week's International Conference dealing with violence and abuse in the religious community. One of the presentations dealt with the problem of get meusa resulting from putting pressure on the husband to give a divorce the other with insensitivity to abuse by using halacha as a barrier to investigating the allegations of abuse

Also as noted in a previous post last Friday the 21st, I received a letter from Debbie Gross - the organizer of the convention - that she had received  many threatening emails against me from people saying they were coming to the convention specifically to attack me. She said there were no security guards to protect me and she would understand if I withdrew from the convention. This is the letter
Rabbi Eidensohn
Shalom u’vracha.

I am writing you concerning your email of a few weeks ago as to whether we will have some form of bodyguards at the conference to protect the speakers against “hecklers”.  Unfortunately, we do not have any funds or way to provide any form of protection to the speaker.  In these difficult security times in Jerusalem, we are hoping just to stay safe from the arab terrorists who seem to be everywhere.

I would like to alert you to the fact that we have been receiving numerous emails over the past week, from agunot and their families concerning your views and blogs about agunot and the use of the internet.  These emails have been very aggressive and threatening.  I would like to alert you to this fact so that you can reevaluate whether you are prepared both emotionally and physically to deal with what seems to be a large amount of angry participants who are specifically coming to the conference to denounce you and your views.  I am taking their anger quite seriously and relaying such to you.  I hope that you are prepared to deal with their anger and aggression.  I would like you to take all of this into consideration prior to coming to the conference.  I will certainly understand should you decide that this is not the right platform for you at this time.
With best regards,
Shabbat shalom
Debbie Gross
I replied to her that I was coming anyway. 
Thank you for the information. I am still planning on coming.  I am surprised given the emotion associated with the issue the conference is dealing with that there is no security - not even volunteers?
She replied:
May you be well. 
Shabbat shalom
Debbie
 From her response it seemed that she was not happy with my answer. 

But I also received another email on Friday the 21st  from the Conference reminding me that I must register by Monday 24th.

Monday 24th morning I received an email from organizer Henry Horwitz of the Conference saying that since I hadn't registered they were removing me from the Conference speakers.

I called up Henry Horwitz and he told me that he had been told to remove all unregistered speakers on Sunday. I protested and said that I had emails stating that the deadline was Monday. He said I had to speak to Debbie Gross because there was nothing he could do.

While it is true I hadn't registered I had responded several times to the convention organizers that I was coming - and I knew that I could register until Monday 24th.

I registered on their website Monday anyway and paid the fee - the web form said that I was officially registered. I took a photo of the confirmation screen and sent it to the Debbie Gross and the convention organizers asking for clarification.

 

It was clear from Debbie's letter that she was not happy with my presentation about Agunos and was exaggerating her point about the "physical and emotional" dangers to me to scare me. Obviously nobody is coming to the conference and paying the hefty fee - specifically to attack me etc etc. Besides why would a convention about abuse allow a speaker to be abused and heckled?
The question is why she didn't want me speaking since I am merely stating mainstream halacha? I had clearly indicated that on my application which had been approved by the conference. Why had my Internet activity dealing with Dodelson, Epstein and Stein suddenly become an issue 2 weeks before the convention?

However someone at the conference slipped up and sent me a confirmation at 5 p.m. Monday - that I was speaking - but the time of my presentation had been changed to Wednesday. It again specifically said that the deadline for registration was Monday and requested that I register if I hadn't done so already.

 I looked at the session schedule that they sent me and discovered that Rabbi Jeremy Stern was scheduled to speak at that session. He of course is the head of ORA which is a feminist driven YU organization which holds massive demonstrations against husband who don't give their wives a get on demand. Such pressure produces an invalid get according to normative halacha. He has often been mentioned on my blog as we have taken opposing sides in a number of divorce cases. Rabbi Blau - mashgiach at YU - and Dayan with the new Kraus Beis Din [the new incarnation of the Rackman Beis Din] for freeing agunos is also presenting at the convention.

An hour later at 6 p.m. I received another email from the convention saying that the confirmation was a mistake and that I was not speaking because I hadn't registered in time. I still have not heard from Debbie Gross or the other organizers I spoke to as to why I am being excluded.

The reason for my exclusion is obviously not a concern that I might be abused at the abuse convention nor is it a bureaucratic error about registration deadlines. The first could have been solved simply by the standard announcement that anyone who interrupted the speakers would be kicked out of the convention and not allowed to return. The hotel does have security guards for that purpose. The registration deadline is also strange since I received 3 different emails stating it was Monday and in fact the registration for the general public is until today the 26th. I was told by Mr. Horwitz that the registration deadline for the speakers was imposed to ensure the schedules of speakers could be printed up in time. Assuming that is true - it is not big deal to have a session with one speaker not officially listed and it does not explain why Debbie Gross did not bother responding to my emails.

I wish Debbie Gross well with her work to help the community and abuse victims and hope that next week's convention meets her expectations and goals. Perhaps she will allow someone there  to mention the serious normative  halachic problem of get me'usa.

209 comments :

  1. Debbie Gross and her ORA henchmen have served notice once again that their operating principles are those of the ultra-hypocritical, radical, fascist left - scream loudly about alleged oppression of fake "agunot", deny any free speech rights to non-feminists at their event while implying that violence may result against those opposing their jackboot feminist agenda. Then create a very thin facade of fake Judaism to make their war on Jewish families and on Jewish divorce law appear legitimate.



    "Inside every feminist is a totalitarian screaming to get out."

    ReplyDelete
  2. fedupwithcorruptrabbisNovember 26, 2014 at 4:24 PM

    Jeremy Stern is a coward . He likely nixed you from the speakers list. This is a sign that the feminist Halocho twisting heretics from YU dont want people to hear "the other side of the story". Rabbi Eidensohn, The rabbis of the 19th century were not afraid to publicly shame people with opinions that are contrary to the Torah. You must be a lion and do the same as no other Rabbis have the guts to denounce these heretics. This is why we are losing torah and Orthodoxy. They have become reformadox. This is a threat to our Torah, our traditions and for that matter also a threat to the sanctity of the Jewish nation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Debbie Gross is obviously a little deceitful coward who aside from not being interested in halacha she has inability to be forthright and honest. Instead of trying to BS you with a can of lies she should have told you they're dropping you rather than her trying to trick you into withdrawing to save her from being embarrassed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My dear brother,
    you are a fighter against abuse of children. Buit how can you go to a conference about the abuse of children when people there are speaking who are making children into mamzerim? Is that not the ultimate child abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We see once again here the methodologies of the hypocritical, fascist feminists: scream loudly about alleged oppression of fake "agunot", deny any free speech rights to non-feminists, harass non-feminist opposition and imply that violence may result against those opposing the jackboot feminist agenda. Then create a very thin facade of fake Judaism to make the war on Jewish families and on Jewish divorce law appear legitimate.

    "Inside every feminist is a totalitarian screaming to get out."

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Truthseeker - I am glad to hear that you - in your great wisdom - think I might be capable of learning something from you. That you think there is still hope for me even though I am such a confused and lowly being. But first I need is to accept your directives and criticism. Your humilty is breath taking..

    Perhaps it is also true that you might yet be educated and that there is hope for you too.

    I gather you have not been following the many posts on this blog dealing with the Dodelson Weiss divorce or the Epstein Friedman or even the Stein - Weiss. I gather you have not the slightest clue what the issues of get me'usa are and why the conduct of ORA is problematic. You don't seem to be aware of the serious problems of pervsion of a seruv that were associated with the above cases.

    You probably are not even aware of Rav Moshe Feinstein's teshuva dealing with feminism and why feminism is problematic.

    You also are misrepresenting my view of Meisels. I don't think there is a huge difference between us in principle in the matter.

    You obviously have no understanding what it means to have a Ph.D. which is why "it is difficult" for you to imagine that I have a Ph.D. You also are lacking in a meaningful education in halacha, and the halachic process as well as the role of beis din. You are making a serious mishmash of halachic issues. Your self-righteousness is not a substitute for knowledge..

    I am not aware that Rabbi Willig has declared that a woman should automatically be given a get when she asks for it. If beis din agrees that she has a good reason - that is something else.

    When a wife walks away from a marriage - especially when their are kids - not because he is bad or abusive. But simply because she thinks she can do better - halacha doesn't require the husband to give her a get. I also agree that it is wrong for a husband to withold a get simply out of spite or to extort money. If the marriage is clearly dead and all other issues have been resolved - I agree that he should give a get.

    Did you ever consider that sometimes the wife is being unfair and in a way that harms the children and that the husband has rights also. These are questions for a beis din to sort out - not for someone who knows neither the facts of the case, the psychological issues or the halacha - to make snap judgments based on slogans.

    I have no problem with a prenup or any other halachic procedure that is accepted by the mainstream poskim.

    In short - you have a lot to learn and it would be easier if you weren't so judgmental without bothering to first learning basic halacha and psychology. I do agree that I have much to learn - but it would be helpful for you to first understand and acknowledge what I know already.

    But I am glad to see that you are willing to at least discuss things. Hopefully we can expand on issue we agree on

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Truth Seeker

    I'm not Eidensohn, nor does he know who I am. But since you claim to be a "Truth Seeker" I'll try to help you a bit.

    "Eidensohn, I dislike you".

    You've said it in a nutshell. Apparently you're dislike of a person has clouded your search for truth. If you're intellectually honest, you would learn how to segregate you emotions from your intellect. Ad hominem attacks on the blog owner do not add to intelligent discussion.

    If you seek truth, you would have been here commenting why you thought that the blog owner was wrong on all the issues you mentioned.

    "You say you stand for Halacha but you DONT. The Prenup agreement is endorsed by Rav Ovadia Yosef and other Gedolim. What do u have to say to that?"

    The issue here isn't regarding prenup agreements. The discussion here revolves about fake agunos, who in the absence of a prenup, still feel they should be able to receive a "get" on demand.

    "If a woman wants a divorce she should get one. Like Rabbi Willig said, "It is a perversion of Jewish law for a husband to withhold a Get."

    Rabbi Willig is a fine person. I imagine that you're only partially quoting him. What he probably said in it's entirety is that It is a perversion of Jewish law for a husband to withhold a Get [when halacha requires him to do so. It's also a perversion of halacha, for a woman to ignore halacha by running to secular courts to seek better terms for herself in her divorce case, and then turn around and invoke halacha when it suits her].


    Again, if you seek truth, get over your aversion to the blog owner, and contribute arguments of substance as the issues arise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The so-called halachic prenup, RCA/BDA style, has been rejected by many poskei hador, including Rav Eliashev ZT"L, as causing possible mamzerim if used to remarry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeremy Stern causes psaul Gets to be issued resulting in mamzeirus, as paskened by many great poskim.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If the position you intended to present was that any form of pressure leads to "get meussa" (except when a kohen married a grusha or when a wife is a known adultress), I understand that Debbie Gross did not want to offer you a forum on her conference.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Non of what you wrote is a valid argument against what I have stated. I did not come here for a back-and-forth. The commenters here are the same few who comment over and over. Eidensohn has proven throughout some months that his opinions are frighteningly narrow. He is blinded by his own ego. Eidonsohn, you have literally embarrassed yourself. As David Morris said, "you have undone your lifetime work." Pity.

    (And how skillfull of you to simply say that I am misquoting Rabbi Willig. You obviously did not bother to watch the 2 min video I posted of him saying that. Good one).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eidensohn, like I said in a recent comment, I did not come here for a back and forth. Like David Morris has said, "you have undone your lifetime work."

    Oh, and don't try to twist things around in terms of the Meisles scandal. Everyone (literally EVERYONE) is sickened by you and of how you chose to view that topic. You don't even have the courage or sense of justice to admit your disgusting posts about it were wrong. You have shown yourself as such a fool.

    Shame on you and I have pity on your "Phd".

    ReplyDelete
  13. @truthseeker - your humility is incredible. David Morris is no position to decide about my work - he doesn't have enough knowledge in halacha and he is not a member of the chareidi world. (that applies also to Frum Folliers - whoever he really is). Obviously people are free to say they are personally disappointed with me. You are clearly even less capable of majking judgments about me than they. Your 2 years of seminary really is not sufficient qualification for the task...People in my wolrd strongly disagree with all 3 of you

    Your knowledge of the Meisels scandal is rather limited and you have no awareness of what (litterally everyone thinks). At most you can say that the people you associate with don't approve - but that is hardly the majority of the world and it sure doesn't include the significant people in the chareidi world.

    So please cut out the infantile pouting and grandiose posturing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Viva - so you are claiming your are ignorant of halacha and proud of the fact - so what?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not educated on the Meisles scandal? I have seen Meisles in real time more than u ever have and his interactions with staff and students. Rav Fuerst is the av beis din for Agudah in Chicago, and an internationally respected chareidi posek. I have been in direct contact with a number of chareidi Rabbanim who have shared with me shocking details about Meisles that I am not free to share in public.

    Like I said, you don't have the courage to take back the shameful things you wrote in the past.

    Oh, and I would like thank you for threatening to reveal my identity when you let people in the Meisles camp offer up my initials 'MB' and the fact that I am a triplet. It helped lead me to share my real name with the public on FrumFollies. I cannot "thank you enough."

    ReplyDelete
  16. And you are ignoring the fact that Rav Ovadia Yosef has endorsed this halachic prenup. I said nothing about Feminism, which you frantically argued over.

    I do not consider myself a feminist. I'm not interested in having female rabbis/minyanim/ wearing tefillin/ or learning gemarah all day. I accept halachic differences btwn men and women and their obligations. And Rav Ovadia Yosef ztl certainly was not a feminist either. But he def was one of the great poskim of our generation.

    So why don't you adress the fact that he endorsed the halachic prenup? It is OBVIOUS that it is a valid chareidi psak. Answer that, Eidensohn (if you can).

    ReplyDelete
  17. The laws of coercing a husband for a GET in the vast majority of cases, where the wife doesn't like the husband, is in EH 77 2 and 3. I never saw anything there about "some husbands must give a GET" and such ideas. In fact, the Chazon Ish says that if a Beth Din tells a husband he must give a GET and the husband is not obligated to do so, the GET, when given, is a coerced GET and a GET given under false pretenses, and is botel min haTorah. I don't know if ORA accepts this. But Shita in Kesubose brings Rabeinu Tam that Beth Din must not even tell the husband that a GET would be nice or a mitsvah.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I, for one, happen to agree with the man you call "Eidensohn". Having a Ph.D, at the very least, proves that Dr. Eidensohn has a pretty good grasp on how to research news and information.
    Who exactly are you? What are your qualifications?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Truth Seeker -

    I have no emotional need to respond to arrogant non-truth seekers. Rabbi Eidensohn is quite capable of defending himself, and he doesn't need me to stick up for him. If you took the trouble to analyze the issues Rabbi Eidensohn takes on, you will notice that he picks his fights well, and to the chagrin of others, usually prevails and is proven right.

    Ranting and raving doesn't add to the truth. You can vent your frustrations at Frum Follies. Lopin [=Ploni] loves you and your ilk. If you truly seek truth, you will know that the truth is slowly learned by having a back and forth. Stick around, and you might actually learn a thing or two!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your position is that the burden of proof is on the abused wife if she flees the spousal home. Unless she can prove that she was raped, beaten or otherwise abused, she is considered a "moredet", and the husband is completely justified in denying her a get.

    Furthermore, you advocated extortion of large sums of money against a get in the case Weiss-Dodelson.



    These are enough reasons to barr you from speaking at an abuse conference.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Viva - it is not my position but everyone who follows halacha. The wife is not able to force the husband to give her a get - she needs to go to beis din. Similarly a husband can not force his wife to accept a get - he needs to go to beis din. I would suggest you research the halacha. If you don't care about halacha there is nothing more to be said

    You are lying - I do not and have not advocated extorting money. When aa wife takes what belongs to the husband or forces him to incur major legal expenses to defend himself in a war of attrition initiative by a rich wife - yes she needs to compensate him. That is not extortion that is legitimate payment of damages.

    Extortion is saying to her I won't give you a get unless you pay me $50,000. just because I want the money. Extortion is demanding money that you have no legal right or justification.

    Yes I understand why you would not want to hear the view of halacha - when you obviously aren't interested in it.

    If you want to continue the discussion please show me in the Shulchan Aruch or other accepted halacha works how I am misrepresenting halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dovid Eidensohn writes in http://www.torahhalacha.blogspot.ch/

    "Beating a husband and forcing a
    divorce is only permitted in extreme cases that almost never occur in real
    life. A husband marries a woman forbidden to him, even dirabonon, is coerced
    even with beatings to divorce his wife. But a regular divorce case, where the
    wife simply claims that she hates her husband, she surely cannot have him
    beaten to give a GET. Nor can she have Beth Din make any coercion, period."

    I am happy to learn that you think that this position is completely ignorant of halacha.

    Would you care to explain the flaws of this position?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Viva - if a wife is being abused verbally - and she doesn't feel threatened - then going to a therapist is the solution. Sometimes a rabbi can provide the necessary counseling. However if she feels he is a threat to her or the children - then the clear requirement is that she call the police. She doesn't need rabbinnical permission for self-defense.

    I think my brother was referring using the police to control her spouse. The common problem is women using orders of protection as a weapon rather than trying to get shalom bayis.

    Making false claims that the husband is sexually abusing the children and then calling the police is not acceptable but is not unusual.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Viva you clearly are fishing for excuses. I never made such a claim regarding not calling the police and your lies about my views on extortion are disgusting. I will delete repetions of these false allegations

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Rav Yosef view is not relevant in a situation where Rav Eliashiv disagrees as do most chareidi poskim. In fact most Modern Orthodox couples dont use the prenup - not sure why though.

    TruthSeeker - please explain why you insist on being so obnoxious and confrontational. Please read RaP's detailed response explaining about how to discuss issues when you really want to know the truth. Could are coming across as an immature brat - rather than an intelligent truthseeker.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Your brother did not limit his statement to unjustified cases. If he wanted to exclude cases of domestic violence from his statement, he should have written so. He did not.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Rav Yosef view is not relevant in a situation where Rav Eliashiv disagrees as do most chareidi poskim"
    It may not be relevant to those who follow the Litvish line, but it is very relevant to those who are Sephardi or otherwise non Litvish, and seek a great authority.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Eddie - 100% but that was not the issue.It was about me - not about Sephardim.

    I was being accused of hypocrisy for not acknowledging his psak regarding prenuptial agreement. The answer is that his view is not authoritative for a chareidi individual such as myself - when opposed by the majority of chareidi poskim.

    ReplyDelete
  29. RaP,

    Your comment reminds me of something Mike Todd, A"H, the producer, said. Todd would put on smash theatrical show, praised by theatergoers and theater critics alike. After the show, the internal griping would start. The costume designer would complain that in a particular scene this or that was wrong with a costume in the show. And so on with other specialists who contributed to the show and whose drive for perfection was precisely what qualified them to work with the great producer. These specialists were right and they were wrong. They were right that within the confined universe of their specialty the show was a failure. They were wrong because within the full context of the perfect, successful production, the flaw they perceived was non-existent.

    L'havdil (to distinguish), this blog is not meant for entertainment, but still that's how some commenters seem to approach it. By way of contrast, some of us approach the blog as we approach our Torah learning. I try to have an attitude of what can I learn. If I write something and there's a comment that disagrees with what I wrote, I like to analyze the disagreement, and I like it best when I decide, "you know what? I'm wrong and he/she is right". This can be a stomach-turning experience. Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn has used a term like "getting his head rearranged" in describing his experiences seeking Shimush: direct, intensive Halachic discussions with great scholars. When I figure out I'm wrong, by switching to the other side I become right, and I like being right.

    On the other hand some people apparently don't mind being wrong in the final analysis. They suffer little or no shame or embarrassment in being wrong, or at least it seems that the desire to have the whole world agree with them is more important than achieving a collective correct perception of the Torah. For those people, there is an entertainment value in getting the discussion to line up with what "feels" right. True Truth doesn't come into play for them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It is quite humorous reading the discussion here in the comments section and seeing how some halachicly ignorant women are making all sorts of halachic points and claims that don't have even the slightest basis in halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Viva - your problem is with my brother not with me. Don't criticize me because you don't like what my brother writes.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Truth seeker - you might find a feminist critique of the prenup of interest.


    SIGN AT YOUR OWN RISK-- THE “RCA” PRENUPTIAL MAY PREJUDICE THE FAIRNESS OF YOUR FUTURE
    DIVORCE SETTLEMENT
    SUSAN METZGER WEISSΣ
    David called Rabbi Applebaum, his Talmud teacher, on the phone. "Rabbi,” began David, "I'm engaged. Will you
    perform the ceremony?” "Mazal Tov, " responded Rabbi Applebaum. "With pleasure David. However, you know
    that I will not perform any marriage unless the couple signs the premarital agreement recommended by the
    Rabbinical Council of America.” "No problem, Rabbi," answered David. "All my friends are signing them. I even
    have a copy on my bedside table.”
    SYNOPSIS
    Various premarital agreements have been proposed to offset the power given to men over women by
    Jewish law in the event of divorce and to ameliorate the resulting injustices to Jewish women. Premarital
    agreements like the one endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America (“RCA”), which expand the jurisdiction of
    the rabbinical courts and allow for the discretionary imposition of the suggested penalty clauses, do not
    adequately realign the imbalance of powers or correct the ensuing injustices. Such premarital agreements may
    even prejudice the interests of women in marital property, alimony or child support.
    This Article analyzes the premarital agreement recommended by the RCA, in contrast to other premarital
    agreements, and discourages its signing in favor of other agreements that better protect and promote the
    interests of Jewish women.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFMQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bjpa.org%2FPublications%2FdownloadFile.cfm%3FFileID%3D11649&ei=CAl3VNilC8Oy7Qax8IGwDA&usg=AFQjCNG4x5FIV8J0z_syGbB61jDkWocCVw&sig2=aJQzh34F94IIoEQhpoAUHw&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZGU

    ReplyDelete
  34. I Understand - but my "experience" was to read reviews such as R' Bleich's contemporary halachic problems where he brings sources from all sectors, so that is how I imagined halachic decision making is done.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You said that the burden of proof in cases of abuse in on the wife, and in cases where there is "no sufficient proof" (and the definition of "sufficient proof" is very unclear... Can DNA-samples be used to prove spousal rape?) you side with the husband and his "right" to use the get as "bargaining chip".


    This is very problematic, since it offers the husband the possibility to prolong the abuse through the divorce process and obtain rights he would have been denied otherwise.


    Therefore, it would be completely inappropriate for you to speak at an abuse conference.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Viva clarify with my brother what he said. Instead asking for a clarification you are trying to use his statement to smash both of us. You obviously are not interested in clarification - just to prove that you are superior and we are inferior. Please cut ou the nonsense. Please read RaP's comment

    your approach is "when did you stop beating your wife" . Try "Please clarify" or I don't understand"

    ReplyDelete
  37. She gave herself away above, by reminding us that she recently attended seminary in Yerushalayim. Re-reading the DT blog about Meisles, my memory was refreshed as to what her ex-friends have to say about her...

    ReplyDelete
  38. What a terrible thing to say to someone. Rav Eidensohn is a Tzaddik. He exposes so much of the abuse and
    dishonesty in the community and stands for sincerity, morality and
    justice. Without him the evil plotting
    and lying of Michael Schlesinger and his family towards Beth, the connivance of
    his enablers Janet who tricked Beth into going to Ezra and spread lies around
    Vienna about her at his behest, Konstance Thau, Rabbi Biderman, Aaron Foldes in
    Vienna may not have come to light. Now
    the whole world knows just what Michael Schlesinger and the Schlesinger family
    is as well as being made aware of the terrible way the Jewish Community and
    Community leaders in Vienna have acted towards Beth and her children who are
    being ruined by Schlesinger. Thank you
    Rav Eidensohn

    ReplyDelete
  39. Truth Seeker (and other ORA groupies) will typically claim "I do not consider myself a feminist." - Of course the YU based ORA group and their street boss Jeremy Stern (the MO Al Sharpton) do not characterize themselves as feminists because that would blow their cover. Of course they're not going to support women rabbis wearing tefillin because that would blow their cover.

    But ORA, its "rabbis", and its Al Sharpton boss have invented a bizarre New Age Femidox religion and called it "Judaism". This femidox "religion" never recognizes any halachic rights for Jewish husbands, and supports women's demands in divorce cases regardless of any halachic legitimacy to them. ORA's comrades in arms will aid and abet women to toss out their husbands like garbage and crush the husband's halachic rights using the RCA prenup. Any husbands who dare to resist ORA's tyranny are subjected to fake claims of causing "agunah", public harassment, intimidation, and demonization. If this isn't feminism I don't know what is.

    Cited from a letter issued by Rav Gestetner's Bais Din:

    “… the “ORA” group – shamefully known for their disgraceful actions against the Torah ...to whom many False and invalid GITTIN could be credited – which is causing the sin of ESHES EISH and ARAYOS to be allowed, as well as MAMZERIM B’MACHANEINU ....They (ORA) are following the crooked way of the Reform movement, as if in every conflict between husband and wife – the wife has to have the upper hand – to be able to force him to give a GET while depriving him of his rights, as well as in every detail of the conflict she has to have it all according to her wishes. And a husband who is willing to give his wife a GET, but insists on his basic human and halachic rights, is immediately being overwhelmed and publicized falsely as a (disobedient person) and is being shamed, humiliated and embarrassed as though he is a SARBAN (chaining) his wife, while quite the contrary, whereby the wife would only want a GET in a way that deprives her husband of his rights, it is only the wife that is chaining herself rather than the husband chaining her.”

    ReplyDelete
  40. Take the situation of Beth Schlesinger. As far as I understood from her, there was no physical abuse. So, in your view, there were no grounds for divorce.

    Indeed, Michael threatened he would withhold a get. So if the court had decided in Beth's favour (full custody for Beth), Michael could have counted on your support if he had withheld a get as a "bargaining chip" in order to obtain joinded custody, or sole custody for himself. It might be that he would have spent money on attorneys, so you would also have supported him withholding the get until Beth fully refunds his legal costs, as you did in the Weiss-Dodelson case.

    ReplyDelete
  41. He is a Tzaddik? "Emunah", this Tzaddik of yours has an extremely dangerous view on abusive marriages and women in it. So much more to say. You are one in few if you think Daniel Eidensohn is some sort of "Tzaddik".

    ReplyDelete
  42. I have never once "rant and raved". An easy way for you to discredit me. Oh, and I bet you never bothered watching my video I posted. You still did not comment back to you accusing me of misquoting Rabbi Willig. If you have some sort of argument to take up, at least back yourself properly.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lol IsraelReader I "gave myself away"? You have obviously been living under a rock bc u have not been reading FrumFollies. You rlly need to get out into the world and be updated on the recent news. You and a few others and the same who comment and support Eidensohn. Go on to FF and you'll be surprised by a totally different group of ppl who think the lowest of this man. n.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Eidensohn-obnoxious? You are gifted at turning things around. That much I will give you. Should I now start ranting about the many ppl who emailed you/wrote on this blog after that vicious attack on TS? So many ppl lost respect for you and publicly said it. And Rav Ovadia Yosef was not the only one who endorsed it. But you can choose to keep yourself ignorant if u want.

    ReplyDelete
  45. And those disgusting ppl are NOT friends. They are ppl living in e"y who are manipulated by Meisles...oh and guess what? Meisles is GUILTY and EVERONE knows it. So now wat do u and those sick ppl have to say to me? You just hurt yourself majorly for brining that up.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Daas Torah,

    I agree with most of your halachic conclusions surrounding
    Gittin.

    However, what I – and probably many others - find very deeply troubling about your position is that you have been encouraging and hoping and cheerleading for the husband to refuse to give the Get.

    Even according to your halachic opinion (which I also agree to), that often the husband is not obligated to give a Get, and the husband cannot be pressured or embarrassed into give a Get, it would still surely be ideal behavior to give the Get. Surely the Chofetz Chaim would give a Get if he was unwilling to continue the marriage.

    Your position surely should be that in this or that case the husband is not obligated to give a Get and we are not allowed to pressure or embarrass him into giving a Get. However, we encourage you to go in the path of the tzaddikim and give a Get, surely that would please Hashem and you will be our hero for “giving in”.

    Instead, these husbands who are sticking up for their “rights” have received almost “hero” treatment on this blog. Surely a true hero is as is described in
    Pirkei Avos “Who is strong? He who conquers his inclination”.

    It is this encouraging and hoping that the husband does not give a Get, which I find to be a terrible evil. And I believe that a great number of people in the frum community are open to your halachic opinions, however, they are revolted by this unbalanced approach which you have taken.

    The above thoughts apply especially in a case where the dispute involves either money or a desire to increase custody from a level which is considered more or less within the norms (and which more or less fulfills the emotional needs of the husband).
    Even if halacha does not require a Get, surely Hashem would be happy if the husband would be mevatter and give the Get. Do you think Hashem is proud of a husband who refuses to give a Get? Is he increasing his tzidkus by refusing the Get? Or, would he increase his tzidkus if he was mevatter and gave the Get? Which one are you encouraging and hoping for?

    We must encourage a society where a husband asks themselves - not what is required halachically – but what would give a “Nachas Ruach” to Hashem. Our society would fall apart if we encouraged people to stick up for their rights. As the Gemara says “Jerusalem was destroyed because they wanted to follow the strict letter of the law”.

    Surely, you would agree that the monetary and custody needs of a husband and wife could be different in each generation. If both sides are unwilling to live with each other, shouldn’t we encourage them to be mevatter on their “halachic rights” and instead focus on the monetary and custody arrangements that can fulfill their needs and enable them to move on and lead fulfilling, happy, and successful lives?

    Perhaps we can paraphrase a famous quote: “Ask not what it states in Shulchan Aruch, ask what would R’ Yosef Karo do!”

    In summary, the main issue that people have with your position, is not your halachic opinions, it is your encouraging and hoping and cheerleading the husband to not give a Get until his “rights” are met.

    I would be interested in hearing your reply. My intuition tells me that you disagree with this comment. However, it would be generous of you if you would consider posting this as a guest post to enable a dialogue with the entire blog’s audience.
    Thank you in advance for your consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "however, they are revolted by this unbalanced approach which you have taken."- thank you. Yes. Eidsenohn seems so caught up in the husbands "rights" to refuse a Get when he should be encouraging then to give it in a proper manner. I will say it again- Eidensohn, I think u are dangerous bc your view is so narrow that it will only INCREASE domestic abuse. Someone here mentioned that you are a Tzaddik (a title which does not describe even an ounce of yourself)- but you are FAR from it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You can claim that some are feminists while we will continue claiming that you are all Misogynists. Again, u still speak about the "husbands rights". Bottom line: the woman does not want to be married to him. And in many cases (which is obvious to all), the man wants money. Done.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oy you are so ignorant. Where to start..
    Good luck in life.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This is my testimony about the good work of a man who helped me..My name is Olivia Jane Mike, and I base in London.My life is back!!! After 8 years of marriage, my husband left me and left me with our three kids. I felt like my life was about to end,and was falling apart. Thanks to a spell caster called papa Justus who i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I was searching for a good spell caster that can solve my problems. I came across series of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. There was one particular testimony I saw, it was about a woman called grace,she testified about how papa Justus brought back her Ex lover in less than 72 hours and at the end of her testimony she drop papa Justus e-mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give papa a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 3 days, my husband came back to me. We solved our issues, and we are even happier than before. papa Justus is really a talented and gifted man and i will not to stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man...If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster to solve that problem for you. Try the great papa Justus today, he might be the answer to your problem. Here's his contact:
    drabeljustus@gmail.com Thank you great Justus. Contact him for the following:

    (1)If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3)You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4)You want women/men to run after you.
    (5)If you want a child.
    (6)[You want to be rich.
    (7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8)If you need financial assistance.
    (9)Herbal care
    10)Help bringing people out of prison
    (11)Marriage Spells
    (12)Miracle Spells
    (13)Beauty Spells
    (14)PROPHECY CHARM
    (15)Attraction Spells
    (16)Evil Eye Spells
    (17)Kissing Spell
    (18)Remove Sickness Spells
    (19)ELECTION WINNING SPELLS
    (20)SUCCESS IN EXAMS SPELLS
    (21) Charm to get who to love you.
    (22)Business spell.
    Contact him today on:
    drabeljustus@gmail.com,
    +2347033354868.
    You can also CONTACT HIM ON whats-app on the same phone number.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Of course he's "not relevant". Eidensohn, you're arguments are becoming a joke. People are not relevant to you if they are feminists, named "David Morris", Sephradi, a woman, or not chareidi. In all seriousness, I hope you realize just how ridiculous you sound.

    I am aware that you have give a lot of good from your blog, but the person that you are is frightening and this event was totally right in un-inviting you.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Moshe Ahron - thank you for your cogent, intelligent and respectful questions

    You write:
    In summary, the main issue that people have with your position, is not
    your halachic opinions, it is your encouraging and hoping and
    cheerleading the husband to not give a Get until his “rights” are met.

    You seem to assume that not giving the Get first until other issues are settled is not halacha. But it is in the Chareidi world - though not for the Modern Orthodox. Rav Moshe Feinstein makes the point that if issues are not settled and the husband had assumptions and compromises he was willing to make and assumed that he would get them - but he ends up not getting - it undermines the validity of the get. Therefore he says the get should not be given when all other issues are settled. That is standard practice in the chareidi world

    I would consider it as a guest post but am not sure what actions of mine you consider illegitimate "encouraging, hoping and cheerleading" - but I disagree with your assumption that my position is not solidly in the halacha.

    Furthermore often the husband's "rights" are balancing the wife's use of secular court. In the case of a rich wife and poor husband - there is the clear temptation of having a war of attrition until he is bankrupt and gives up. Should the husband accept debts for hundreds of thousands of dollars because the wife would not settle with beis din? Should the husband give up equitable custody because he can't afford - fighting with his wife and her media campaign against him. Should the husband give up because he is tired of being thrown in jail for violation of orders of protection that were obtained by the wife falsely claiming sexual and physical abuse? Should the wife not have to negotiate in good faith because she has a mob from ORA screaming at the husband, getting him kicked out of his shul and urging his employer to fire him? Dont' you think the recent media campaigns were instead of sitting down with beis din and working out the difficult compromises?

    In short you seem to have the image that the woman is always the victim and when the husband refuses to accept the slander, denial of seeing his kids, lawyers bills from going to secular court etc etc - it is because he is an extortionist.

    Please read the article I posted regarding extortion versus standing up for your rights that appeared in the Jewish Week
    . http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/withholding-get-between-leverage-and.html

    Regarding my support - You feel that Dodelson's disgusting media campaign was something that I should not have counterbalanced? You think that Tamar Epstein should have been allowed to have her media campaign against Aharon after walking out with their child and going to secular court. That I should have stood by and let Ahron be slandered by his wife's supporters etc. And with Yoel Weiss - you find it appalling that I helped disclose Rivky's lies about the beis din and the claim that he was required to give a get because he wasn't able to respond to their phone seruv.

    Please tell me how precisely in these three cases did you think I encouraged the husband to abuse and take advantage of his wife - rather than serve as an equalizer between the two sides?

    As I have said many times - I don't approve of the husband extorting money or witholding the get to hurt the wife. But on the other hand I don't see he should roll over and play dead because ORA barks at him.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Truth" seeker - I deleted your last comment. It is obvious at this point that your lack of civility is an indication that you are not yet housebroken. From the start your comments have been abusive rather than interested in understanding the basis of my views. No matter what I say - I am still guilty of some horrible deed.

    If all you want to do is bellow and draw attention to your lack of derech eretz - you are not welcome on my blog. I am quite willing to discuss issues with you - but I require a basic level of derech eretz - which you are not willing to display.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Let's take a hypothetical case. A Jewish man is kidnaped. The kidnapers place an Internet camera in front of him. Thousands watch as the man is tortured. The man's tormentor give the man a choice. They say, and it is broadcast to the world, that he has a choice. He can worship an idol and be freed or he can continue to suffer excruciating pain. Naturally, all G-d fearing Jews who would watch this unfold on their screens would be hoping that the man will be freed and vengeance wrought on his interlocutor. They would be praying that he have strength and not succumb.

    In our case, the husband's reputation has been taken hostage. Chained to it is the Honor of the Torah. Should the man capitulate? If he gives his wife a Get while under attack, (1) the Get may be invalid if he truly did not want to divorce his wife, and (2) he strengthens the hand of ORA. I say, Sir, that these men who resist are indeed heroes.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Getting back to R. Eidensohn, I believe that you owe him an apology. Just because you have a personal problem with a position he takes on one subject it doesn't make you have credibility on another. Hence I reiterate: What are your qualifications?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Eidensohn, I knew that at one point you would start deleting my comments. You are simply notorious for that. You do it to show one point of view and to make yourself look justified and like the 'victim'. It wouldn't surprise me if u didn't allow this comment thru as well.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Viva Agunot - your grace period is also over. Tone down your comments to the level of respectful discourse or they will be rejected.

    Regarding Beth Alexander - your assumption are wrong both in terms of the facts of the case and my response. Given the facts of the case I would not have supported Michael withholding the get. Beth should have received full custody and hopefully get custody in the near future.

    I deal with each case individually.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @IsraelReader
    I'm not sure why brought this up now.
    Right now her words should be judged on their merit, or lack thereof, alone.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Meisles is GUILTY and EVERONE knows it.


    Guilty of what? What was claimed that he was innocent of, and is now "common knowledge" that he is guilty of.


    And whatever he is guilty of, does that automatically absolve those who went along with him of their role, their decisions and the way they handled themselves? Does that give them the right to launch themselves into a life of supposed eternal victimhood, where they can rage on and on indiscriminately - and they are completely absolved of taking responsibility of their lives?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rabbi Eidensohn, you are a misogynist. You can throw out the word "feminism" all you want for those who stand up for agunot, but the bottom line is...I'm not the one who just got un-invited to speak at an event. Good bye.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Daas Torah,

    I completely agree with your second paragraph in your response that
    a Get should not be given until all monetary and custody issues are settled.

    However, my question is, why isn’t the husband mevatter so that it would
    be settled? As an example, in one of the recent cases, the Court’s custody decision was a fairly typical arrangement for the husband – every other weekend plus 2 nights - he was in no way being railroaded. Granted he might have had halachic rights for an even better custody deal, however, is it too much to ask for the husband to be mevatter and agree to have a similar custody arrangement as the rest of divorced husbands in America?

    Or regarding the money, if he was really owed the money why couldn’t
    he take her to a Bais Din for the money before the Get was given? Why couldn’t it be treated like any monetary dispute – let Bais Din resolve it before the Get is given. And if he thought a Bais Din wouldn’t rule in
    his favor, doesn’t that mean that the wife was right that the monetary claim
    was spurious?

    In addition you wrote “not sure what actions of mine you consider
    illegitimate encouraging, hoping and cheerleading but I disagree with your
    assumption that my position is not solidly in the halacha.” First of all, I agree that you are right about the Halachic aspects of the cases. I am disagreeing with you about the non-halachic aspects of the cases. I just don’t understand why you for example, didn’t tell the husband that “granted you might have a halachic right to more custody and more money, however, I encourage you to go in the way of the tzaddikim and be mevatter and you will be our hero”. If you didn’t want to say it publicly, did you say it privately?

    My most fundamental point, is that a person can completely agree
    with all your halachic opinions and still strongly disagree with your approach
    to these cases. I think it is unfair that you are looking at this as primarily a halachic disagreement between you and your opponents. As a result of this
    perception, you keep on proving that you are right halachically and then think that therefore you are right in your approach.

    Even if you continue to disagree with my approach, perhaps we have
    made some serious progress in this dialogue. Can we at least agree that this is not fundamentally a halachic disagreement? After all, we agree that a Husband cannot be pressured or embarrassed into giving a Get, and that all issues should be resolved prior to giving a Get. We also agree that we should try to preserve marriages and not run to divorce. I am specifically referring to cases where both parties are unwilling to continue living as a married couple.

    Can we agree that this is fundamentally a disagreement about fairness, and about who is being railroaded and who is the real victim?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yes. It's been a long time since I've read the FrumFollies blog. I rate it FF = F'or F'lunkies, and view it as an insult to my intelligence to continue to read it.

    I prefer to get my information from a real person, rather some Ploni who's too afraid/embarrassed to put his name to his writings and positions.

    I'm too am a Truth Seeker, and come here to learn more about the issues which confront the Jewish people, and participate in intelligent discussion.

    I know the members of the IBD, as well as the players involved with the CBD, and I think that Rabbi Eidensohn has had very clear thinking on the subject. I'm sorry if this doesn't resonate well with you. But that's life. Thins don't always work out the way we want/expect them to work out.


    BTW, I'm also happy to announce that I have a relative who is attending Peninim this year, and that she's blossoming there.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'm sorry if my words gave you flashbacks. The problem is that you actually brought this on yourself, by identifying yourself as TS from FF, which serves to remind all of us here about your infamous claim to fame.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thank you for your reply. Would you agree with my last sentence that "this is fundamentally a disagreement about fairness, and about who is being railroaded and who is the real victim"?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Just for Kavod HaTorah, since she continues to blame Rabbi Eidensohn for taking a stance which disagreed with her narrative, and for the fact that her ex-friends outed her identity.

    ReplyDelete
  66. TruthSeeker,
    If a woman coerces her husband and he gives a GET, and the GET is declared invalid, and she remarries and has a child. Is that child a mamzer? And if he is, do you believe that the wife is not a child molester?

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Moshe Ahron I would agree it is often presented that way. But when one side considers it only fair and just that they get everything - I think your statement needs expansion.

    In divorce parties can be so hurt by the divorce they can think that anything and everything that can hurt their spouse is fair and that by definition they have been railroaded and are the victim.

    Thus their subjective feelings of what is fair etc are not what a neutral observer/mediator with all the facts would say. A spouse who feels it is fair to falsely accuse the other of raping their children is not using the word as you and I would.

    ReplyDelete
  68. If Beth Schlesinger had obtained sole custody, this would have allowed her to move back to Manchester if she chose to.

    Therefore, the situation would have been akin to the Friedman/Epstein situation (just with a much greater distance) where you encouraged the husband to withhold a get.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Viva - you clearly illustrate the old adage "If the only tool you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail"

    The two cases are not the same. I'll grant you they both involve a man and a woman - but beyond that...

    ReplyDelete
  70. I want to draw your attention to the fact that by opposing divorce and encouraging men to withhold a get, you help create situations that are untenable, even in your view.

    If in the case of Rivky Stein you help the husband obtain sole custody (which he demands), it might be that you create a new Beth situation. You see the iniquity of the situation when it was brought about by austrian courts, yet you are blind to the great number of cases where similar situations were brought about because men have the possibility of withholding a get.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Viva.Agunot
    “As far as I understood from her, there
    was no physical abuse.” You know full
    well that is not true. Do not make
    things up. Please tell the truth. The physical violence has been well
    documented. What do you call Michael
    Schlesinger attempting to commit his wife to a mental hospital together with
    his crooked psychiatrist friend Foldes (who then admitted to the police doctor
    to never having met her)? This was done
    when she returned to the apartment after having spent the night in a safe house
    for abused women running for violent husbands. That is
    in itself a violent act. It is
    documented in the Austrian Courts that Beth’s parents also witnessed Michael
    kicking Beth and pulling her hair. He
    also kicked his own father and his father in law. Any woman would want to get as far away as
    possible from such an abusive man.

    ReplyDelete
  72. It's amusing that this supposed "truthseeker" girl continues to read this blog despite her professed hatred of it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. " I did not come here for a back-and-forth."

    But yet you perpetuate the back-and-forth by responding. Be silent, and it will end. Or perhaps you mean you do not wish anyone to respond to you. You should be allowed to simply make statements, and no one should oppose you. That would work better if you made a smidgen of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This kid obviously needs more attention and care than she's getting on the FF site or at home.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Rabbi Eidenson,


    Whatever you do, please do not delete "truthseeker". These posts of hers are all the proof anyone needs of her character and trustworthiness. They do more to expose her as a true crackpot than anything anyone could possibly write or say about her.


    Please allow her posts to stay [don't worry - no one takes her seriously anyhow] so that those unfamiliar with her who might be inclined to trust her can realize why she's not worthy of our trust.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @Viva - more "when did you stop beating your wife questions" You keep using false allegations to come to conclusions which are consequently wrong. Please stop making accusations and simply ask for information. You simply have no understanding of my position or the complex discussions which have gone on for years on this blog.

    I don't categorically oppose divorce - nobody does except for the Catholic Church. So your first stape is false. You don't seem to be aware of the incredible fact there there are some marriages that break up that one parent should get sole custody. You falsely generalize from one case to all cases.

    @Viva - this is the last post of your personal mistaken attacks which I will allow. In the future - first find out what my position before you attack me

    ReplyDelete
  77. At least, I am happy to learn that Debbie Gross shares my view that your stance is untenable, as well as many other persons, some of whom used to comment on this blog, but were banned due to a rather one-sided censuring policy on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  78. If he honestly thinks that she is mentally ill, he is right to seek help.

    From Beth's description, I understood that he exerted a lot of psychological pressure, but no physical violence. The fact that "Committing her to a mental hospital" is cited as the main instance of "physical violence" led me to the conlusion that there were no major instances of physical violence in the classical sense (i.e. wife beating).

    ReplyDelete
  79. Don't
    even try it again – you are still harping on about Beth being mentally
    ill. Talk about obsessive
    behaviour! Just lets remind ourselves and
    the readers of this blog again that Beth has a clear bill of mental health
    having been examined by the court appointed doctor. ‘Beth Rebecca Schlesinger is not now nor
    never has been mentally ill’. That must
    drive Michael MAD! A decent husband is
    kind and understanding to his wife and together they seek help if there is a
    problem. That is marriage - being together. A proper husband
    doesn't push his wife about, pull her hair or hit or kick her. Add to that Schlesinger’s lying about his wife
    being mentally ill, getting her friend to trick her into going to a psychiatrist.
    Michael plotted with her friend to lie about her, got his crooked friend
    Foldes just who happens to be a psychiatrist to help him dispose of her.
    Just lets remind ourselves again that this took place on her return from a
    woman's refuge where Beth had to flee to because her husband was so violent.
    This was all documented above and in the corrupt court in Vienna
    and conveniently ignored with the help of Konstanza Thau. What do
    you say to hair pulling, hitting, kicking, pushing etc., not just to your wife
    but kicking her father and his own father????? Or is that normal
    behaviour for you? For your information that is called wife
    beating. Imagine two defenseless babies being given to that,
    readers! Imagine a whole Jewish community and Rabonnim turning
    their backs on that mother and children.
    Perhaps you would like to address this.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Attempting to have your wife committed to a mental hospital is an extreme act of violence! Especially when you know there is nothing wrong with her.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Gwing to a bet din for momonot (money issues) means a further compromise on that issue. Meaning 50% at most of what was already compromised in the previous case. Further, batei din are notorious for NOT pressing for actual payment of the compromise amount.

    This business of pshara, etc, must be looked at, and applied only on cases where the nitva / defendant cannot pay.

    ReplyDelete
  82. FedupwithcorruptfathersNovember 30, 2014 at 1:43 AM

    Physical is not the only abuse. As I understand it Michael Schlesinger has the most dispicable nature. He tells lies and treads on people. He tried to control Beth and now he is trying to control his sons. This is probably the reason why at five, they still are unable to speak. He gagged Beth and thinks he can continue to gag his sons. What he doesn't realise is that he can't gag Beth's numerous supporters!
    The father is corrupt and so is the Court,
    or how else would having had only supervised vistis for 18 months did Michael Schlesinger manage to get full custody of Sammy and Benji?

    ReplyDelete
  83. By abusing Beth Schlesinger is abusing his children. By denying them their mother he is abusing them. In other words Michael Schlesinger is an abuser!

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Fuerst is the av beis din for Agudah in Chicago, and an internationally respected chareidi posek."

    That would be sad if it were true. Thankfullly, there are many, many people, some great ones among them, who know what this man is truly about.

    ReplyDelete
  85. A typically sophomoric response.

    ReplyDelete
  86. DT, this will be my last comment here since I frankly have no interest in ppl's responses to my bold and truthful comments.
    Someone said I should apologize to you. To that I say- Eidensohn, you have to apologize to SO MANY people who you have hurt the last few months. You should rlly be ashamed of yourself. I am not afraid to come on your blog and tell it how it is. (And I am not even referring to the awful things you have done in the name of TruthSeeker).

    Through your incorrect interpretation of the Meisles issue, you have not only turned off loyal readers from your blog, but you have deeply and undoubtedly hurt victims and their families thru your terrible posts. As a professional, you have truly failed. And as a human being with a conscience, you seem to have none at all.

    Good luck in your career. And I'll remind you again- I am NOT the one who just got un-invited to an event. YOU ARE. Bye. (But u probably won't even allow this post to go thru bc u like to show ppl only one side).

    ReplyDelete
  87. Nebach. It's sad when you see a little girl who is always being used.


    They never take the rains of their own life. They always remain vulnerable, by choice. They continue their life of being used.... by Mr. Gottesman, by the Paul at Frum Folies etc. etc.


    Rabbi Eidensohn is a big boy and can handle being dis-invited from a speaking engagement. He is a big boy and can deal with the comments of 21 year-old girl. But, what about you , Ms. MB? What has become the purpose of your life? What does your future hold in store for you? What will you make out of your life?


    Take the rains and choose wisely!

    ReplyDelete
  88. @Joseph Orlow - I agree with your analysis and the fact that she benefits by being exposed to the truth. But the problem is that her abusive words are not good for her neshma and there will eventually be a reckoning. She is just at the beginning of her life - but the consequences of her abusive comments will influence her life for years to come. So I will keep the posts I have already approved but unless she decides to focus on issues instead of attacking me - there will be no future comments of hers posted.

    חובות הלבבות (שער ו - שער הכניעה פרק ז): ואמר אחד מן החסידים: הרבה בני אדם יבואו ליום החשבון, וכשמראים להם מעשיהם, ימצאו בספר זכיותם זכיות, שלא עשו אותם, ויאמרו: לא עשינו אותם. ויאמר להם: עשה אותם אשר דבר בכם וספר בגנותכם. וכן כשיחסר מספר זכיות המספרים בגנותם, יבקשו אותם בעת ההיא, ויאמר להם: אבדו מכם בעת שדברתם בפלוני ופלוני. וכן יש מהם גם כן שימצאו בספר חובותם חובות שלא עשו, וכשאומרים: לא עשינום, יאמר להם: נוספו עליכם בעבור פלוני ופלוני שדברתם בם, כמו שנאמר: והשב לשכנינו שבעתים אל חיקם חרפתם אשר חרפוך ה'. ועל זה הזהירנו הכתוב באמרו: זכר את אשר עשה ה' אלהיך למרים בדרך. והרביעי, כשייטיב לו האל בטובה גדולה, כחכמה יתרה ותבונה רבה או עושר גדול או כבוד אצל המלכות והדומה לזה, ממה שנהנו בני אדם להתפאר בהם ולהתגאות בעבורם, וישאר על ענין שפלותו קודם לכן ולא הוסיף אלא ענוה ושפלות לפני האלהים וכבוד וטובה לבני אדם, כמו שאמר אברהם עת ששבחו הבורא, ואמר: המכסה אני מאברהם וגו' - ואנכי עפר ואפר, ואמר משה: ונחנו מה, ואמר דוד ע"ה: ואנכי תולעת ולא איש. אז יתברר מצפונו ותאמן כניעתו, ואמר החכם בענין הזה: אם רוח המושל תעלה עליך וגו'. והחמישי, כשהוא מוכיח את נפשו ונותן דין הבורא מעצמו, ואם באים בעלי דינו להפרע ממנו, משלם להם מעצמו וממהר לקבל על עצמו את הענש לאלהים, אעפ"י שאין יכולת לדין על זה, תתברר כניעתו לאלהים ושפלותו ושחותו, כמו שנאמר: אנחנו מעלנו באלהינו וגו', ונאמר: ויתנו ידם להוציא נשיהם. ועם המאורעים האלה והדומים להם יתקיימו סמני הכניעה לאל יתעלה והשפלות מן הנכנעים, ותראה אמונת לבבם בהם.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "I am not afraid to come on your blog and tell it how it is." - Except that you are not telling it how it is. You are spewing emotional, feel-good nonsense without making any serious attempt to seek the truth. I have searched this blog and I can hardly find one intelligent comment you made. Your methodology belongs on pseudo-intellectual leftist blogs like Anti-FrumFolies, FailedShmarya, etc.

    If DT was un-invited to a feminist "abuse" conference that features the Jewish Al Sharpton Jeremy Stern, its not a reflection on DT. Rather its a reflection on the sexist totalitarian mentality of Jewish feminists, for whom Torah truth and reason are toxic poisons.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "the woman does not want to be married to him" - Here's some Truth Serum for the TruthSeeker: Yes, the woman does not want to be married to him. That is, under draconian terms dictated solely by her, terms which more often than not crush the husband's Torah rights, but are given full backing the military arm of the feminist group known as ORA. Draconian terms that prevent him from having any real relationship with his children, terms that create a crushing financial burden on him, preventing him from remarrying so that he becomes a virtual "agun", while he waits for the knock on the door from the police to haul him off to jail when he's unable to pay alimony payments that are GEZEILAH D'ORAISA.

    Under such a situation, a man has no Torah or moral obligation to agree to a divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "DT, this will be my last comment here"

    Promises, promises.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Joseph,

    It is possible that in some way MBB's ramblings are therapeutic, but don't make the mistake of believing that she was in any way "hurt by her seminary experience." She most definitely was not hurt by anyone and never even claimed to be. In fact, she was the recipient of an enormous amount of kindness and understanding on the part of the staff in her seminary. This, even she cannot deny and it's been confirmed by many of her fellow students who are aghast at her current behavior.
    She fancies herself an advocate but is more like a useful idiot for the likes of FF and others.

    Her posts are evidence of her lack of common decency or trustworthiness. As the "star" witness for the CBD and FF, they do more to undermine their position than anything anyone could have ever said or written. Please reconsider whether it's worth deleting her posts.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Men do not only seek sensual contact with a woman. They also desire interaction with the fiery spirit inside, and maybe enjoy that even more. Truthseeker's telling off her seminary head and acting as his conscience fed right into this craving. I think she was sexually abused, even though she was not touched or threatened, and even though she herself may not be consciously aware of it. I haven't found anyone denying this, either.

    In essence, what should have been a time for her to hone her skills of respecting the authority of Torah degenerated into an experience of cynicism and disappointment. The kindness and understanding she may have received at the seminary does not erase that. I think a straight line can be drawn from her reaction to the accusations leveled at the seminary head to her glib comments here. Truthseeker was damaged, and this blog is hopefully part of her healing.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Here we have a hopeless discussion because both sides have a moral position that utterly rejects the other side. Furthermore, so many people accept each side, that nobody can really reconsider their beliefs.


    Tocqueville in the nineteenth century told about America that, "The great danger was the tyranny of the majority. No protection against it was provided--or could be, given the principle of one man, one vote. And that tyranny was not legal only but social also--pressure from the neighbors, tacit or expressed."


    Today, those who feel that a broken marriage forces the husband to give a GET cannot imagine anything else. And those who disagree quote the sources in the Shulchan Aruch and rishonim that totally disagree with this. And they also introduce the thoughts that the husband has a right to his marriage and his children. Each side is completely possessed by its moral side, and there is no discussion possible.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Most of us are aware that sometimes after a young person is sexually molested that they become sexually promiscuous. This can be because they are seeking to recreate the circumstances of the original violation and to deal with feelings that were repressed then.

    As I've written in a nearby comment above (or below depending on your comments readers' settings), Truthseeker's meritorious desire to set a man on the straight and narrow, an ability that a woman should reserve primarily for her (future) husband, was shockingly brought out of her by her seminary head. Thus her verbal promiscuity must be evaluated in this light. Please cut her some slack. A feminine truth may not appear like the truth found in the Bais Medrash. TS is communicating the truth of her internal state.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Joseph,

    You're free to psychoanalyze and theorize to your hearts content, but you're clearly lacking facts. "Truthseeker" has been outspoken forever - speak to anyone who knew her in seminary. She has railed against lots of targets and this is only her latest and certainly not her last.
    That you haven't found "anyone denying" your allegation of her sexual abuse that involved no touching is irrelevant. No one claimed it and therefore no one denied it.
    Regardless, even victims have an obligation to conduct themselves with elementary decency and she has failed in that on every count. That is what is so illuminating about her posts and what damage her cause so.

    ReplyDelete
  97. The man is a tzadik for allowing you to fulminate here as much as he has. You have nothing of value to impart, but, sadly, such great eagerness to impart it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I think you're missing my point, perhaps because I didn't articulate it sufficiently. I'm a teacher. It's my responsibility to shape the student's character emphasizing the good, de-emphasizing the not good. If I detect that a student has a trait that has to be worked on, then with a lot of work on my part, one-on-one, I first gain the student's trust, and then gently begin the process of raising their awareness of how they speak and behave.

    At the very least I don't exacerbate the situation.

    It is not a student's place to be "railing" against the head of her seminary. If that is indeed what happened with Truthseeker, then it was her seminary head's responsibility to guide her to a place called "the honor of a Daughter of Israel is inside."

    Instead, TS was working with a seminary head who apparently sought to detect a young woman's tendency to stray, and exploited it. With TS he apparently did just that: drawing out that very part of her character that it was his job to cover. Chanuka approaches. You are probably familiar with the story of Yehudis and how she craftily used her skills as a woman to behead the enemy. This is Truthseeker's potential! Instead, because of her allegedly sordid seminary head, she lobs her attacks on this blog. I have hope for Truthseeker. We learn that if one seeks out the Torah, that inevitably one will find it. We learn that the one seeks to purify will get assistance in the effort.

    Go Truthseeker. And heed Rabbi Eidensohn's words so that the merits which you are accumulating don't end up in our accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I don't think he needs to be "given a break. He's doing fine so far as I can tell, TS's silly comments notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Is this the same Debbie Gross that was on the board of Save the Child, Vicki Polin's organization?

    ReplyDelete
  101. @DT - "Besides why would a convention about abuse allow a speaker to be abused and heckled?" The answer to your question is simple. In the warped mindset of the ORA-PC feminist crowd, women can only be victims of men. Women can never be perpetrators themselves. In addition, non-feminist males are certainly deserving of attack and ostracism.


    Therefore abusing and heckling a non-feminist male rabbi cannot ever be considered abuse in the mindset of the ORA-PC feminist crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Rabbi Eidenohn, Ms. Gross did save you -- from being associated with some of the "honorable" people who presented at the event.

    ReplyDelete
  103. How sad when people defend lies and distortion as "truth."


    Emotions are feelings -- true for that person's experince (and treatment) but not objectively so.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Daas Torah,

    I would like to respond to a recurring theme on this blog, which has recently been mentioned again by your brother. Let me start with 2 partial quotes from your brother.

    Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn wrote: “a woman who demands a Get, If the husband wants to divorce, he can divorce, and if he doesn't want to divorce, he doesn't have to. …... Rav Elyashev zt"l has a teshuva that there is no mitsvah to do this…….Today, those who feel that a broken marriage forces the husband to give a Get cannot imagine anything else. And those who disagree quote the sources in the Shulchan Aruch and rishonim that totally disagree with this. And they also introduce the thoughts that the husband has a right to his marriage and his children. ...”

    I of course completely follow what our Poskim say. However, the whole discussion of whether the husband is obligated or not obligated to give a Get is a distraction and is academic. Although the husband is not obligated to give a Get just because his wife demands it (there is no ‘Get on Demand”), however, when the wife is adamant in her refusal to live with her husband it is in everyone’s interest from a practical point of view to give the Get - without coercion - after appropriate financial and custody arrangements.

    Whether the Get is given or not, either way they are not living together in the same house and are not accomplishing their purpose in life. If the choice is between (a) living in separate houses not divorced and not accomplishing the purpose of life, or (b) giving a Get and finding a new shidduch and bringing up a large family of servants of Hashem, is there any doubt which one is the Ratzon Hashem?

    If the wife is unwilling under any circumstances to continue living with her husband – and they are currently no longer living in the same house – wouldn’t you agree that it is the Ratzon Hashem to encourage them to get divorced?

    Let’s explore this in greater depth:

    Surely, if we can convince the husband and wife to continue living as a married couple that would be great. Surely we would be fulfilling the Ratzon Hashem by encouraging the husband and wife to continue their marriage.
    However, in a case where the woman is absolutely unwilling to continue
    the marriage, do we really have a choice? Surely, the husband can’t handcuff her to the house! If they are not currently living with each
    other, isn’t the only practical and realistic option to negotiate an appropriate
    monetary and custody arrangement and then give the Get?

    Does a woman have a right to demand a Get? No. But is it practical to refuse to give a Get? We have to think about this in a practical realistic manner. What are the choices? Is it realistic, normal, or even possible to force a woman to continue living with her husband? And once it becomes obvious that they are living separately and will never live together in the same house, isn’t it preferable to negotiate the custody and financial arrangements and then give a Get.

    By all means we must make a great educational effort to ensure that Jewish marriages are forever. Let’s have shiurim and lectures both before and after marriage to give men and women the tools, skills, and encouragement to enable people to have happy fulfilling marriages, and to explain the importance of working through difficulties and not abandoning ship if things don’t go smoothly. And if a wife or husband or both want to be divorced, we should require in most cases mandatory Shalom Bayis classes before
    divorce negotiations. But if after the first and last line of defense fails, and the wife refuses to remain married, I believe that it would be the Ratzon Hashem to make appropriate financial and custody arrangements and then give a Get.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Now we need a conference to shine a light on the dark side of landmark conferences.

    ReplyDelete
  106. You brought up a similar point before, and it was addressed in the comments on this post. If you review past posts and their comments you will also find your point addressed. Let me say this: when the woman and her friends are not plastering the local subway station with expensive advertising pictures of the husband etc, and the woman and husband each have a Rav they listen to, or even better, if they choose one Rav and agree to listen to him, then in general husbands and wives soon arrive at a point where the husband gives his wife a Get. Which recent case on this blog has fit that mold, however? So why make a straw man? The cases we're dealing with here are when the wife goes public with demonstrations, newspaper articles, phone letters from a real Bais Din, real letters from a phony Bais Din, and/or hiring thugs, etc. At that point, a Get given may be an invalid Get. It's a coerced Get. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  107. My 2 posts refer to 2 completely different concepts.

    The first post seeks to encourage husbands to be mevatter on custody and monetary arrangements that are less than he deserves, and then give a Get.

    The second post, refers to a certain way of thinking that seems to be prevalent among many of the commenters on this blog. According to this thought process, it isn’t
    even relevant if the proposed custody and financial arrangements are fair, as the Husband is simply not required to give a Get.

    Why does Rabbi Eidensohn keep mentioning that the Husband is not obligated to give a Get on demand? This is true, but it is not relevant. Whether the husband is obligated or not obligated to give a Get, either way he is entitled to a fair custody and financial arrangement. And whether the
    husband is obligated or not obligated to give a Get, either way as a matter of practicality he should give a Get on demand (after fair custody and financial arrangements) when there is no way that the woman will change her mind.

    In short, stop using statements such as “a woman has no
    right to Get on demand” as a reason for a Get to not be given. The only potential valid reason to not give a
    Get is if the husband is not receiving a fair custody and financial arrangement. Therefore, in practice there is “Get on
    demand” (although it is of course discouraged)!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Independent thinkerDecember 2, 2014 at 11:41 PM

    It is an error to think you can promote the stability of marriage by encouraging get refusal.

    Maybe that was the reason you were dis-invited to the abuse conference.

    Get-refusal gives abusive husbands one more tool to wield power. Therefore get-refusal should not be condoned, in any circumstances...

    ReplyDelete
  109. Hi Daas Torah,

    I have been reading your posts for years, I am still confused as to your position. What do you mean by "Insisting on a get on demand is not helpful to the stability of marriage and family."? I am mortified and horrified by the concept of divorce. I think divorce is a terrible tragedy and even worse than cancer. I am simply saying that we have no choice if she won't back down even if she is being irrational. What are the options? Maybe require a 3 or 6 month cooling off period to see if she will calm down and change her mind. Maybe also require mandatory Shalom Bayis counseling. But if after these items or similar things are tried, do we have any other option than to give in to her demand for a Get? If either way, they aren't living with each other, then it is definitely better if the Get is given. Their is certainly no advantage to not having a Get if they are already living in separate houses. Do you agree with this? If not, could you explain the advantage of not giving a Get, and what will be accomplished?

    ReplyDelete
  110. @Moshe Ahron - yes I agree with what you wrote - but at the same time repeat that it is important that both sides are aware there there is no automatic get on demand.

    There is a difference between saying he is required to give a get and saying that he should give a get that it is good thing a moral thing to do The difference is whether you claim that she/he can obtain a get on demand or not.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Even in an extreme case where the wife wants a Get simply because she found a better looking man, what is the purpose in withholding a Get? Is it because hopefully she will cave in and go back to her husband? If yes, would you agree that once it becomes obvious that she is not changing her mind and they are still not living with each other that there is no point in refusing the Get? Does the husband benefit by refusing the Get? The only benefit that i can see is that it would be a deterrent for other woman to do the same thing. However, why should this husband not move on with his life to benefit society?!

    ReplyDelete
  112. Just to reiterate, when things get to the end of the road r"l the get comes after all financial and custody arrangements are complete.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Thank you for your reply

    ReplyDelete
  114. Joseph Orlow,

    What you say is not so certain, and what actually happens is sad but almost comical. Most of the cases discussed on this blog seem to fit the following pattern. The wife demands a Get, husband says no way will he ever give a Get because he wants to reconcile. At this point, the husband is not even
    interested in negotiating custody and financial arrangements. The problem is that every objective outside observer realizes that this marriage is already beyond repair. Then the woman starts trying to take away his custody through the courts as a means to secure the Get. By this time, the husband realizes that there is no way his wife will ever reconcile with him and agrees in theory to give a Get assuming fair custody and financial arrangements – however, he now has a new demand – he wants to be reimbursed for his civil court costs! And then ORA comes into the picture….

    However, if the husband would have come to the conclusion earlier (when everyone else did) that there is no way that she would reconcile with him, then she wouldn’t have tried to deprive him of custody and wouldn’t
    have gone to secular courts, and he wouldn’t have incurred legal fees.

    In brief, for the sake of shalom we have to understand the importance of very quickly determining in which case is there a reasonable possibility of the woman reconciling with her husband and in which case is it almost certain that she won’t reconcile with him and to immediately start negotiations in regard to custody and financial arrangements.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I guess where I got bent out of shape is when you say, "If the wife is unwilling under any circumstances to continue living with her husband – and they are currently no longer living in the same house – wouldn’t you agree that it is the Ratzon Hashem to encourage them to get divorced?"

    The answer, if I've understood what has been taught on this blog, is "no". The Halacha does not allow me or anyone else -- even a Bais Din -- to encourage the husband to divorce his wife under the circumstances you've delineated. The Will of G-d is for us to follow the Halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  116. fedupwithcorruptrabbisDecember 3, 2014 at 4:40 AM

    DT, you mentioned if all the issues are resolved, then he should give a GET, however I must qualify that statement by adding IF ALL ISSUES ARE RESOLVED BY BOTH PARTIES BEING IN AGREEMENT. THIS EXCLUDES A WOMAN WHO FORCIBLY REMOVED CUSTODY, MONIES ETC.. FROM THE HUSBAND AGAINST HIS CONSENT BY USING THE CIVIL COURTS AGAINST HALOCHO TO ACHIEVE HER MEANS, WITHOUT THE HUSBANDS CONSENT.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Independent thinkerDecember 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM

    I agree with Moshe Ahron: once a marriage is over, once a spouse does not want to come back after a cooling-off period of 6 months or so, withholding the get will not promote "stability" in marriage. It will give the husband a unilateral advantage, since halacha does not really object against him having affairs on the side while being married. This advantage will be used first and foremost by abusive husbands, since a decent will not withhold a get to obtain whatever advantage he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I'm not sure who you are, but it's clear you haven't studied this blog. One example upends your argument: in the Friedman-Epstein case it started when the wife took the child and crossed State lines. Almost immediately the process began where the husband agreed to, and did, go to a Bais Din with his wife to negotiate a settlement. I'm not going to go through the rest -- do your own homework. Now, to the back of the class for you.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Yep, she has reappeared!

    ReplyDelete
  120. "However, why should this husband not move on with his life to benefit society?" - You are spewing one naive and/or deceptive statement after another here that are commonly used in the anti-halachic "yeshiva world" to entice naive Jewish fathers into quickly giving a GET. Many Jewish husbands that bought into your kind of nonsense and quickly gave a GET realized too late the disastrous situation they were in while their ex-wives moved on with their lives.



    The numerous fathers who are prevented from any contact with their children by Orders of Protection, who are crushed by huge legal fees, alimony and child support payments, and facing constants threats of incarceration from totalitarian family court judges, are in no position to move on with their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "encourage husbands to be mevatter on custody and monetary arrangements that are less than he deserves, and then give a Get" - Before offering twisted, dangerous advice to Jewish men, please try out your advice yourself by signing away your children and your home to your wife, agree not to see your children again while your wife can move anywhere she likes with them, and agree to pay any alimony and child support payments demanded by your wife. Then immediately give a GET to your wife as she has an affair with another man, and write a post here describing how great it feels to be mevatter, and why other men should do so.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Independent thinkerDecember 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM

    The state should not uphold spurious orders of protection. So I assume, as a general rule, that orders of protection are justified.

    You lump justified and spurious orders of protection in the same category, i.e. you defend abusers and you want to keep abuse victims from obtaining appropriate protection.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Hey, hey, cool down. Get a grip, Indie. We're all pretty much in agreement that a husband should give a Get to his wife when she's made it abundantly clear she ain't returnin'. What is being taught here is that the Halacha is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can do much about it in most cases. The husband has to make the call. On his own. No cattle prods. No plastic bags.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I am very surprised by this comment. This case actually provides evidence to my point of view.

    Isn’t it true that for a long time the husband insisted on
    reconciling with his wife even when it was clear to everyone that she would not reconcile with him?

    Isn’t it true that it took a long time for the husband to agree to start negotiating custody?

    Doesn’t it appear very likely that the husband’s unwillingness to contemplate a divorce caused an escalation by the wife to
    obtain custody?

    Don’t you remember the diary?

    Don’t you remember the arguments that he was a good
    husband based on the diary? Was that relevant at that point?

    At first, did the husband go to Bais Din to negotiate a settlement or to argue that he was a good husband and should be able to stay married?

    What came first? The husbands refusal for a very long time to agree in theory to a divorce (subject to fair custody) or the wife’s efforts to take away custody?

    Is this not true? Daas Torah do you want to weigh in here?

    By the way, I have been reading this blog for years.

    ReplyDelete
  125. The Shita in Kesubose quotes Rabbeinu Tam that it is forbidden for a Beth Din to tell the husband that it would be nice to give a GET. If the Beth Din says as some people here do say that the husband should by Torah ruling give a GET because the wife has left him and won't return, the Chazon Ish rules that the GET is invalid from the Torah. This is a coercion from the obligations to honor the sages, which is a real compulsion. Also, the Chazon Ish says that if the husband gives the GET because he believed what the rabbis said that he is required by the Torah to give the GET, the GET is invalid. Interestingly enough, I told this Chazon Ish to a major posek in Gittin and his response was, "The Chazon Ish is wrong." Oh, well. This is what is going on today. The rabbis disregard the Chazon Ish, which, in halacha terms, is terrible. At least, let it be a doubt and a sofek diorayso lichumroa with chezkas Aishes Ish. But there is a new Torah out there. The prominent Rosh Yeshiva in Philadelphia is not alone.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Joseph Orlow,

    I am not sure what "Halachah" you are referring to? Often Hashem's will is that we go beyond the requirements of halacha. You can't always learn out morality from halacha, because Halacha is rigid and cannot be modified based on the situation, that is why it must be fulfilled in conjunction with the requirement of "doing what is good and upright".

    I believe the blog owner agrees with me. Certainly in the above situation it is the Ratzon Hashem to give a Get. Daas Torah could you confirm your agreement?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Many people are receiving the impression that this blog is encouraging them to withhold the Get.

    To remove this impression, how about a general post -
    unrelated to a specific case - encouraging husbands to be to be mevatter on custody and monetary arrangements that are less than they deserve, and then
    give a Get.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Joseph Orlow,
    If you have the time, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  129. I think you may be a little fertummelt.

    This is not the place to rehash this case. The original post is about a conference and we're a little off-topic. Also, I'm not the official spokesman for the case, just someone who has had the opportunity to investigate it in depth and who has swayed some people who originally supported Tamar Epstein to become fierce advocates for Aharon Friedman.

    You may contact me off-blog by email or telephone. My number is 301-754-1128. The email address is torah104@gmail.com.

    Thanks, and look forward to hearing from you Moshe Ahron.

    ReplyDelete
  130. You are against going to Bais Din?! As frum jews, we go to Bais Din! You are saying that a husband is right for not wanting to take a monetary claim to a Bais Din prior to giving a Get?!

    ReplyDelete
  131. Huh?


    Who are these many people?


    How in the world can you be so inconsiderate about the needs of the children of divorce? How can you suggest that children be robbed of their father (or mother) in order to satisfy the misconception you claim "many people" have?


    Why don't you tell the wives to mevater on custody and monetary arraignments?

    ReplyDelete
  132. "I am not sure what "Halachah" you are referring to?"

    The Halacha taught by Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn. The Halacha taught by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn.

    It takes a Torah Scholar to determine when and how to apply the concept "doing what is good and upright". Which Torah Scholar is claiming, "Yes, a coerced get is not valid in most cases, but that when a wife leaves her husband we'll apply the Tov V'Yashar principle, so we can kidnap and beat until death the husband if he doesn't give a Get."

    ReplyDelete
  133. Of course I agree that a husband cannot be coerced into giving a Get. I am just saying that obviously it is the Ratzon Hashem for him to willingly give it!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Independent thinkerDecember 3, 2014 at 11:43 PM

    "Just take a look at the teshuvs of Marshal (tonight is his Yartseit) number 41. No coercion even for a very wicked husband."


    So, according to you, the abuser should go on abusing, and the victim should have no route of escape. Congratulations!!!

    ReplyDelete
  135. Independent thinkerDecember 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM

    Chazon ish also says that there should be no metal in a sukkah. Who holds by the Chazon Ish? It is certainly not an opinion that is viable for rov am. Since this opinion leads to untenable situations in many, many cases (including adultery by a wife who was refused a get for many, many years), I think it is a good idea to disregard this minority opinion, just as Shammai was disregarded in many cases.

    ReplyDelete
  136. You'd get more respectful responses if you stop with ur nasty comments, Joseph. And the bottom line is that NONE OF YOU are encouraging thean to do the right thing and give the Get. It's all about the "man's rights" for u guys. Nothing to do with doing the appropriate thing.

    ReplyDelete
  137. @Truthseeker - your time in Seminary seems to have wasted. It doesn't matter what Chazal say. It doesn't matter what the Rishonim and Achronim say. Truthseeker doesn't need to be concerned about them because she knows the write answer in spite of her education. Did you even learn the material in the original? Does it matter to you?

    ReplyDelete
  138. @Truthseeker it is rather strange for you to demand respectful responses when you are the most abusive responder on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Said by a man who encourages abuse. U better look in the mirror. Btw go on Harry Maryles' blog and see how they view u there.

    ReplyDelete
  140. @Independent thinker - it is the view of the Marshal. He is not defending abusers - just demonstrating how severe he considers the issue of a get me'usa.

    Thus you conclusion is nonsense

    ReplyDelete
  141. Reb Dovid says "I told this Chazon Ish to a major posek in Gittin and his response was, "The Chazon Ish is wrong." Oh, well."
    I am not asking who that posek was, or even if i would have heard of him. But does a posek have the Koach to say this about a previous authority?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Independent thinker - please review the posts regardin the orders of protection in the Weiss Stein case. Not unusual

    ReplyDelete
  143. Independent thinkerDecember 4, 2014 at 1:09 AM

    Yoel Weiss can see his children several times a week and they can spend nights with him.

    So what is your point? That the handover takes place in kindergarten?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Independent thinkerDecember 4, 2014 at 1:13 AM

    It is very disingenious to defend those minority opinions at a period where get extortion is rampant and threatens to undermin the whole system of marriage and family.

    Imagine, your own brother, Dovid Eidensohn, suggests that marriage should be abolished for women who do not want to risk to be left trapped in a non-existent marriage (i.e. more or less every woman) and replaced by a "pilegesh" arrangement.

    Personally, I do not think that this is a possible solution, since there are minority opinions who claim that even a pilegesh needs a get.

    But do you realise the dimensions of the problem, when the suggested solution consists in abolishing marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  145. @truthseeker - you are one of the most abusive people around. Harry's readers are by and large people without a great amount of learning that like to hear his pronouncments. Failed Messiah and his readers don't like to deal with facts and halacha - so what. Frum Folllies is also not the bastion of wise educated Jews. However they are definitely your type of people - why do you insist on responding on a blog concerning issues you neither understand or make useful comments about.? If you want to simply blast people and feel self-righteous about it - these other blogs are there to give you the appreciation and applause you crave.

    ReplyDelete
  146. @indepenent thinker - the minority opinions are part of the body of Torah knowledge. Whether you accept them as halacha - they still represent important lessons of a major talmid chachom.

    If you simply want simple black and white answers - this is not the blog to get them.

    ReplyDelete
  147. No one is good enough for u Eidensohn.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @truthseeker - why do you have such difficulty in having a normal discussion? My criticism of you has nothing to do with my view of other commentators on this blog. You alone insist on loud mouth arrogant comments which are usually off target.

    I do think that you have a lot of potential and we all would appreciate it if you worked on developing it instead of setting yourself up as judge and executioner.


    Most commentators of my blog find you obnoxious.

    Why don't you try following some elementary rules. To ask questions to learn information instead of making to make accusations. Try being polite and not to constantly express contempt for the people you comment about. It would help if you at least act as if you have basic humility. Ignorance is not some to brag about and it surely doesn't help your status to criticize someone who is clearly more learned in a particular area than you are. Didn't you learn anything in seminary?

    Normally I would have blocked someone who makes so many rude comments. But as I and others have noted - you clearly have potential.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Eddie,
    Does a posek have the right to disagree with a previous authority? A posek may feel that a previous authority is wrong. But this requires proofs that this is so. Just to say that the Chazon Ish is wrong is wrong. But today, well, there are so many people who know better than not just the Chazon Ish, but the Gro, the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo, the Rashbo, etc. And when I ask them their sources they don't have any. They just feel that it is obvious that we force the husband, and if the Torah says differently, we don't have to put up with such things!

    ReplyDelete
  150. Well, independent thinker has disposed of the Marshal. But the Ramo wrote about the Marshal that his teachings are if they came straight from heaven. Of course, you disagree. But maybe not. Maybe even if heaven would clearly agree with the Marshal you would not be satisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Independent thinker,
    I have discussed my opinions about coercions with the major Rosh Yeshivas who coerce Gittin, and none of them have a source that was real. Just ask them what they do with the Shulchan Aruch EH 77 paragraphs 2 and 3, the Gro who says that nobody disagrees that we don't coerce the husband when the wife wants a GET, the Rashbo who says this in VII:414.


    You are one of the new generation who did not do what I did, to spend all of my time possible talking to Reb Aharon Kotler, to Reb Moshe Feinstein, to Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky, to lihavsil bain chaim lichaim Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, until I learned to respect what is says in Shulchan Aruch. But there are a lot of people out there who did a lot of studying on their own and never had shimuah. And they are the ones making mamzerim. And there are plenty of them.


    I am now perusing the siruvs on ORA's website, and they are filled with basic errors. These are prominent Botei Dinim, and they don't know halacha. You can refer to my blog at torahhalacha.blogspot.com.


    I solved the worst Agunah cases in Monsey, without coercing, without anyone hating anyone else. It can be done. But when you begin with the idea that such and such must happen, the only possible path is coercion and hate.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Independent thinkerDecember 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM

    Well, if the cases were solved like the weiss-dodelson case (apperently through payment of a six-figure sum), you have nothing to congratulate yourself about.

    I have seen many cases where women stay with abusive husbands because rabbis send them back.

    I have seen many cases where children live in poverty because the father gets out of alimony payment, threatining to withhold a get.

    I have seen many cases where women were physically abused or denied liberty of movement because they give marriage "one more try".

    I have seen many cases where men refuse gittin for no reason at all, just to spite the wife, while they themselves remarry.

    And finally I have seen many cases where women ultimately have a new partner even without a get, because they have been waiting for 10, 20 years and not get is forthcoming.

    ReplyDelete
  153. "You'd get more respectful responses if you stop with ur nasty comments, Joseph."

    The responses to my comments seem to be, by and large, from my perspective, respectful. In any case, since you considered my comment nasty, I will try harder in the future to examine the tone of what I write with that in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Independent thinkerDecember 4, 2014 at 1:54 PM

    And the crowd on this blog is a bunch of misogynists, machos and abusive husbands who consider "feminist" an insult. They cannot be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  155. "It's all about the man's rights" - No, you're suffering from your usual leftist delusions again. Torah law recognizes both rights and responsibilities of both husband and wife in a marriage. Neither husband nor wife may arbitrarily force a GET on the other. This is clear to anyone who has studied the EvanHaEzer section of the Shulchan Aruch.

    In contrast to just Torah law is the vicious sexist feminism advocated by you and your fellow travelers on the ignorant leftist blogs like FrumFonies and PhonyShmarya that you idolize. This sexist feminism is only concerned with appeasing women by forcing husbands to grant them a GET on demand, under divorce settlement terms dictated by the women, without any regard for Torah law or the Torah rights of the husband.

    ReplyDelete
  156. @Independent - quick realty check. Do you consider yourself Orthodox? Do you accept that the Torah was given at Sinai? Do you accept the obligation to keep all mitzvos?

    If the answer to all the above is yes - then I would ask - do you consider Judaims mysogynist etc?

    If so you do consider yourself Orthodox but have a negative view of Judaism I would guest post from you explaining your answer.

    If you are not Orthodox than we really have nothing to talk about

    ReplyDelete
  157. Judaism/Torah is not mysogynist per se, however, society in the time Abraham through to Moshe was not the modern society we have now.
    Even Adam is criticised by meforshim for blaming the sin of the forbidden fruit on his wife!

    ReplyDelete
  158. Daas Torah,

    You previously wrote asking when you have been “encouraging and hoping and cheerleading for the husband to refuse to give the Get”. This is a perfect example! As Joseph Orlow wrote “he has swayed some people ….. to become fierce advocates” for the husband. I think it is fair to say that the blog also was a “fierce advocate” for the husband. Even if the husband was right, why weren’t you a “fierce advocate” for him to be mevatter? Don’t you see that you ruined his life by encouraging him to refuse to give a Get? Had he given the Get right away he could have gotten married quickly and had a bunch more kids and started a new happy life. And he would still have the same custody of his first child that he currently has! He wouldn’t have had anything less than he currently has! Would he have been better off to listen to people like me or to you and your supporters? Being mevatter would have been good for idealistic reasons and even for his own benefit.

    This is the great irony. It is one thing to not be mevatter and continue to fight for something when you are right and the fight will benefit you. But when the fight is bad for the husband and he will be much worse off from the fighting then it is just irrational to continue.

    Daas Torah, do you realize that while you are encouraging these people to refuse to give the Get, you Baruch Hashem have a family of children and grandchildren, and those poor husbands have nothing. Encourage them – like you would encourage a little boy without sechel – to preserve their reputation and give the Get right away so that they can marry quickly a great new wife and have a large family.

    Even if you think husbands should be receiving a better deal, you are fighting in the wrong context. Perhaps create a template of fair custody and financial arrangements that you can share with all Batei Dinim and Rabanim.
    But don’t fight this battle in a specific case in the 11th hour.

    ReplyDelete
  159. independent Thinker,
    When I was young there were two long time Agunas in Monsey, and many people had tried and failed to do anything about it. I succeeded in getting a GET for both of them, and there was no coercion, and no emnity at all. It can be done, if you have a community with the right people, and the community supports what they do. The disasters we have is often when somebody is so sure of himself that he can break the husband, and finds out the hard way that there are people who will fight back. That is what happened in the two sensational wars about forcing a GET that was covered extensively in this blog. I am now working on a national or international group who will work with me to protect people who get assaulted by wealthy antagonists, or powerful friends of somebody, or who get advice when they enter the question of divorce and it is often wrong. We don't have to change halacha. We have to change our empahsis from demonizing people to working with them and finding a better way. Of course, there are always people who feel that the Shulchan Aruch is wrong. And whoever got a GET or a permission to remarry without a GET from these people will have children who are out of the loop. This I feel is child abuse, but some call it helping Agunose.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Dear brother,
    If anybody here feels that when I quote the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Gro, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas Mechokake, Rashbo, Ridvaz, Beis Yosef and Chazon Ish that this is a minority opinion, please let me know who the majority is? As far as I know, there is no "majority" as the Gro says, that nobody permits coercing a husband to divorce (in most of our cases). And if somebody has an answer to this, why not tell Rabbi Hershel Schachter, who invented the right to beat up husbands and even kill them, and he said this in a tape that has been played all over, until YU took it down after the FBI scandal, and I listened to his tape and it is not enlightening, at least not to me. I once was attacked by one of his disciples verbally and he let me have it. I told him that I agree with him completely that I am this that and the other thing. But I asked him, that since I have sources, I would like to know his rebbe's sources, and I insisted that he call his rebbe up right then an there. He did so, and then told me that his rebbe said that his source is Rabbi Gedliah Schwartz, head of the RCA, and the rabbis in Washingoton DC. Now, I spoke to Rabbi Gedliah Schwartz, and he told me that he had sent away a couple that was married for a month and then wanted a GET, telling them that no GET was necessary. I told this to a prominent YU rabbi by telephone. A minute later, the phone rang. It was that rabbi. He screamed at me, "Where is the wife of that husband who left without a GET?" I told him that he should ask Rabbi Schwartz. And as far as the rabbis in Washington, DC, I am not familiar with the name of a single one who knows the laws of Gittin, but I do know the names of some of them who openly state that no GET is really needed when a woman is an "Agunah."

    ReplyDelete
  161. "misogynists, machos and abusive husbands who consider "feminist" an insult" - At least you've served us notice that your true religion is the MO - YU - ORA religion (ie feminism), but we can still have an interfaith dialog.

    No, we don't consider "feminist" an insult. Rather we advocate that Jews accept and practice Torah Judaism, instead of practicing your goyish, hypocritical, misandrist, oppressive, feminist religion, which is a religion greatly in conflict with Torah Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  162. "Now, I spoke to Rabbi Gedliah Schwartz, and he told me that he had sent
    away a couple that was married for a month and then wanted a GET,
    telling them that no GET was necessary. I told this to a prominent YU
    rabbi by telephone."

    On what grounds did he say this? Was the man a latent homo, or had spent tie in a mental institution?

    ReplyDelete
  163. I fail to see the potential, but I do value the entertainment Ms. TS provides.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Or she might just be an officious, tone-deaf, self-righteous person with delusions of grandeur and too much time on her hands. That's how she seems to me, notwithstanding your psychobabble.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Daas Torah, do you have time to share your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  166. okay, i will check back then

    ReplyDelete
  167. THank you for the insults. Maybe the reader of rabbi Maryles are not great learner, which is not my opinion. But it seems that they follows a part of halacha that you don't. Bein Adam lechaveiro. If your only answer is insulting people , it shows that your argu,ents are taking water. A true rabbi never will use insult against thr person to who he disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Moshe Ahron, let's say you have a valuable object, valuable to you, but perhaps it might command a modest price on eBay. It's a gold watch your great-grandfather gave you for your Bar Mitzvah.

    Someone comes to your house. You show it to him. He steals it, right in front you, just walks out the door with it.

    Such heartache you are going to suffer. Calling the police. Going down to the station to make a detailed report. Hiring a lawyer when the police assign it a relatively low priority, in order to possibly try to get the case to move forward.

    You call the thief and he tells you he already gave it to a fellow thief. You're never going to see that watch again.

    And you can avoid all this pain by simply saying goodbye to the watch and buying another one, an even better one.

    Which road are you going to take?

    ReplyDelete
  169. The correct approach is to breathe in and out 30 times and
    calm down and do what is best for yourself! We have to use our heart and sechel to help people.

    I know you meant well when you tried to help him, but you and
    others ruined his life when you provided him the emotional support to continue fighting over the custody. I also think that he received a raw deal – he should have received a much better custody deal. However, now – by not accepting the bad deal – his life is much worse.

    In almost every case of a Get refusal the husband would be
    better off giving the Get right away and preserving his reputation and his ability to get remarried quickly to a great new wife.



    By this time, he could have been remarried with a large family and still had the same custody arrangement with his first child as he currently has. I feel terrible for him.

    ReplyDelete
  170. "However, now – by not accepting the bad deal – his life is much worse.

    "In almost every case of a Get refusal the husband would be
    better off giving the Get right away and preserving his reputation and his ability to get remarried quickly to a great new wife.

    By this time, he could have been remarried with a large family and still had the same custody arrangement..."

    You ignored my question. Did you follow my gold watch analogy? The extra time a father wants to have with his children may mean zilch to you, but could mean the world to the father.

    Moshe Ahron: I'm convinced I'm right; you're convinced I'm wrong. Be a man. Be Mevatter. Here, I'll write your next post. "I concede." Just copy and paste.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Why do you insult judaism?December 5, 2014 at 9:14 AM

    You seem to represent all the categories cited above...

    ReplyDelete
  172. Huh?


    And what do you represent - projecting your issues upon others?

    ReplyDelete
  173. "give the Get right away so that they can marry quickly a great new wife" - Your comments reflect the fraud and intellectual dishonesty of the (non) Orthodox feminist groups such as ORA. Male defendants in family courts are routinely crushed by huge legal fees, child support and alimony payments, while living in impoverished basement apartments and being denied access to their beloved children, after being ejected from their homes with bogus protection orders. These men are in no position to "marry quickly a great new wife". These men have a Torah obligation to maintain a close relationship with their children, and they should not even consider giving a GET if they are being denied custody and/or significant parenting time with their children. If their wives utilize the corrupt ORA goons and/or family court judges to force a GET, these husbands should publicize these forced GITTIN to the whole world.

    The whole concept of men being used as temporary sperm donors until their wives decide to eject them is an abomination in gross violation of Torah law and ethics, and reflects the utter moral bankruptcy of feminist Modern Orthodoxy.

    Which feminist group are you working for? ORA? JOFA?

    ReplyDelete
  174. But it seems that they follows a part of halacha that you don't. Bein Adam lechaveiro.

    Two insults combined in one! Great.

    1) You accused Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn of not keeping halachos of "Bein Adam lechaveiro". That is a silly insult which you failed to provide any proof to.

    2) Harry's blog focuses eighty percent of time on telling you how others i.e. "chariedim" are supposedly wrong. That is very, very, very far removed from keeping halachos of "Bein Adam lechaveiro".

    ReplyDelete
  175. Today in many Jewish communities the real divorce problem that must be addressed is the "agunim" problem. The "agunim" problem refers to Jewish men who cannot deliver a halachic GET to their wives due to vicious harassment, intimidation, and coercion from feminist rabbis, activists and "agunot" groups such as the YU ORA group. Jewish men are prohibited by halacha from delivering a GET under these conditions, and the feminist "agunot" groups are fully responsible for creating the fake "agunot" in these cases.

    Even IF these "agunim" were to give a GET to their wives, they would be still be denied proper parenting time with their beloved children, while their time and energy is expended on legal defense efforts, and while they are financially crushed by legal fees, debts, child support, and alimony payments. These nightmare conditions prevent these men from getting remarried and cause them to become virtual "agunim".

    Whoever really wants to fix the so-called "agunot" problem should direct their efforts to fixing the "agunim" problem first. The so-called "agunot" problem will then in most cases resolve itself.

    http://www.coercedgittin.org/home.html

    ReplyDelete
  176. Joseph Orlow wrote: "The extra time a father wants to have with his children may mean zilch to you, but could mean the world to the father."


    Using my approach, in this case the father would have gotten the same amount of time whether or not he gave the Get!


    And in other cases, having more custody on the one hand versus preserving a reputation and having a better chance of marrying a great new wife and having a large family - I think it is obvious which one is the better approach. I know a husband who was mevatter right away for less custody - I am certain he is better off now - and he would agree.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Eddie,
    I wish those were the reasons for the rabbis who permit remarriage without a GET. But these rabbis always find some remote connection and go to town on it. Remember, the couple in this case came to him for a GET. They had a regular marriage, lived together for a month, and then came for a GET. He sent them home with no GET. Reb Moshe Feinstein, even when he finds a leniency, insists on doing everything to provide a GET. And what was Rabbi Schwartz's reasoning? He said that the couple did not have marital relations, so the marriage was off. I asked him how he knew that the couple had no marital relations. He said that a doctor said so. I asked if a doctor can determine if people had what is BIAH DIORAYSO such a anal intrercourse or penetration with a small part of the organ. I did not merit to get an answer to that from him. But if you look into the teshuva seforim, you find many cases of some punk going over to a lady and tricking her into accepting something from him and then he yells "You are mekudeshes to me" and the woman never showed any interest in him. Many pages are spent on this. Now, according to Rabbi Schwartz, all of these pages and lengthy discussions are a complete waste. Obviously, he has a different Torah than everybody else. A woman is married by ERUSIN, meaning there is no Biah, not even chupah. According to Rabbi Schwartz, she is not married. Ssee Ayin Yitschok ERH 3 a lengthy teshuva about a woman who fled from her husband right after the Chupa. According to Rabbi Schwartz there was no biah and no marriage. But the Gadol HaDor the Kovneh Rov disagrees. Nobody ever heard that Erusin alone does not make marriage. And nobody ever heard that people who had Erusin and Nisuin and lived together for thirty days and possibly had some type of relations besides could just separate with no GET. And this treifeh rabbi is head of the RCA. No wonder the FBI went there to make a Siruv for a non-existent husband, and the RCA made it.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Something to contemplate: Is it possible that husbands who have my mindset, attitude, and perspective are less likely to be in a divorce situation?

    Is it possible that a woman would find it easier to have a good relationship with someone who has my mindset?

    This mindset carries over to many other aspects - for example, in our marriage we treat our money as being completely jointly owned, we decide everything together, we are complete equals and best friends - I am not the boss! Of course, neither of us are saints - definitely not me! We yell and argue with each other sometimes - maybe often! - but even then we love each other to death!

    Wouldn't it be ironic if this blog which intends to be the defender of a traditional Jewish marriage is actually - in a subtle way - creating a mindset which makes divorce more likely to occur? I believe this blog promotes the opposite of the values mentioned in the previous paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  179. @Mohse Ahron - I would agree that you incorrectly believe that the discussion on this blog on not helpful to the welfare of marriages. That has been your bias from the beginning and why anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions has been rejected

    ReplyDelete
  180. Nope.

    The most you have is some wishful thinking. You are free to bring numbers - actual data. There is plenty available, yet you bring none. Why is the only thing you think of to support your emotional assertion a "maybe" armature thought?

    Please bring data by reputable sources as to the cause of divorces.

    What percentage of divorces in Western society are initiated by women?
    [Between 66% - 81%.]
    How much has the divorce rate hiked in the past 60 years?
    Why - in which way has the fabric and attitudes of marriage changed in the past sixty years?

    Now, clearly delineate what precisely is the position of Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn as to roles in marriages.
    Please link to posts where Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn advocated those roles.

    Please clearly describe how those views are different than yours.

    Then, please use actual data to support your assertion that Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn's views promote the breakdown of marriage while your views and emotions strengthen marriage.



    I look forward to your sincere and mature reply.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Daas Torah,

    Remember, we are friends and part of the same team. We both view divorce as a tragedy, want divorce to be very rare, and insist that if a Get does take place it should follow the halachic rules. Going forward as we continue this conversation, please keep that in mind.

    As we are striving towards the same goals, all I ask is that
    you keep an open mind as I believe that some of your approaches are counterproductive.

    If all we do is criticize the non-halachic solutions without
    proposing positive halachic solutions then we are fighting a losing battle. And I think you would agree that from a halachic perspective the situation is worse today than 100 years ago. Many of those people who are acting in an anti-halachic
    manner are desperate. Surely they are wrong, but in the long term they will win unless we come up with positive solutions that are in full compliance with halacha.

    An example of the losing battle – in a recent case you were rightfully concerned that the Get should be given willingly - however, many people couldn't “hear” you simply because at the same time you were encouraging the husband in his refusal to give the Get. Had you taken my approach of insisting that the Get be given willingly, and at the same
    time encouraging him to be mevatter, then people would have been open to understanding the importance of a Get being given willingly within halacha. They just couldn't “hear” it from you. Please recognize that.

    What are your solutions? I believe that not enough time is being spent seeking positive solutions to the issues at hand. The problems do not seem insurmountable.

    Here is an example of a real problem with a potential
    halachic solution:

    Woman often run to secular court instead of Bais Din. It is not enough to criticize them, we must also understand why this happens. It isn't just to get a better deal, it is to get a deal they could live with. Often they are scared silly from going to a Bais Din which they are afraid – rightly or wrongly – will rule that all money and maybe even all custody will go to the husband. I think a woman would need to be as righteous as R’ Yisroel Salanter to agree to go to Beis Din!

    An example of a positive solution is coming up with a general template for a standard custody and financial arrangement in the event of a divorce. This is not a pre-nuptial; and there will be no halachic or legal obligation on any party to comply with this template. This is just a template that Rabbanim and professionals would agree is a fair arrangement and would be used by all Batei Din and Rabbanim during divorce negotiations. If the wife or husband doesn’t agree to it they would lose the moral high ground. Maybe this is or is not a good idea. Maybe you could come up with better ideas, but more importantly let’s start the process.

    ReplyDelete
  182. @Moshe Ahron - I think while you are sincere you are also being condescending." we are friends and part of the same team ... please keep that in mind" Your clear belief that I am not being open minded etc etc.

    If I see a house buring down - I think it is helpful to save the inhabitants without first find the reason for the fire. Likewise reminding people to drive safely - without getting into the reason they are not.

    People are violating the halacha because they don't know there is a problem. First job is to notify them that there is a problem. Dealing with other issues such as finding alternative approaches that are consistent with halacha is nice - but that issue has been discussed actively for hundreds of years. I really don't have anything new to say. I am not going the route of Rackman or Kraus without kiddushei ta'us or zichoi. There is a reason that halacha doesn't allow for get on demand - either for the husband or wife. Think about it.

    I don't know that the stuation is worse today than 100 years ago. There has always been a concern that women would leave yiddishkeit if they could get divorced and likewise that they would commit adultery.

    You seem to be willfully ignorant that the halachic positions I am describing are not "mine" but they are normative halacha. There is nothing bizarre about saying that a settlement must give at least consideration to the husband's interest as to the wife. That children suffer in most cases when they are cut off from either parent.

    You want to come up with positive solutions - go ahead - nobody is stopping you. But it does require that 1) the approaches are consistent with halcha 2) that people are willing to try them 3) that they actually work

    ReplyDelete
  183. "we are complete equals" - I'm gratified to hear that you've overcome the prevailing sexist, male chauvinist mentalities in the Jewish world. So does this mean that you wear your kippa on some days, and on other days you wear your wife's sheitel? On some Shabboses you cook the meals and serve your wife? On some days your wife goes to shul and davens with your jointly owned tallis and tefillin? If you're complete equals then which one of you is the husband and which one is the wife? Is the concept of a husband's role and a wife's role then chauvinist, reactionary, and a relic of Bronze Age Patriarchy?

    ReplyDelete
  184. Moshe Ahron,
    It is obvious from this that the husbands who don't fork over the GET on demand are enemies of society, don't understand the Torah as you do, and besides, have no normal reason to refuse giving it. Of course, all of those husbands who have geniune fear of giving a GET because they have other calculations that you ignore, too bad for them. As for the ideas I write that the husband has no obligation to divorce his wife, and I have many sources, you reject. But your idea, that is not found anywhere, you do accept. I just want to make sure I understand properly.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Reb Dovid shlita,

    i understand what you are saying. Is there an argument to be made that they are the dyanim of the generation, and hence they have to do according to what they see, whether it is wrong or not in absolute terms, as per the Tanur of Akhnai?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Rav Dovid,


    I saw in Shut Har Tzvi (ח"ב סי' קפא) that if the husband has no גבורת אנשים, it is grounds for annulling the marriage on the basis of מקח טעות. It would seem that a person who can only achieve העראה but without penetration would also fall under this category, since he cannot be בועל in a normal way that gives pleasure to the wife and is מקיים מצות עונה.


    So of course אירוסין is sufficient to prohibit a woman, as we are not חושש that this man is from the small מיעוט of those who have a מום that would be מבטל the קידושין (namely אין לו גבורת אנשים). But if the couple HAVE been living together, and it has been established that there is insufficient גבורת אנשים to engage in normal marital relations, then there are indeed grounds for annulling the marriage.


    Where have I gone wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  187. First, I apologize if I sounded condescending. I have the highest respect for you even if I think you are wrong in this one area.
    Things must be worse than 100 years ago if this blog is complaining that even Roshei Yeshiva are not following the halacha!
    My point is that in these cases we can only prevent the violation of halacha by understanding the reason why it is being violated. After all, it is being violated by people who in all other areas are keeping halacha.
    Surely you don't want to just criticize - you want to be effective and succeed in getting everyone to change their ways.


    I have said again and again that I agree with your halachic approach, I only disagree with you on things that do not touch upon halacha - like stopping to encourage the husband to refuse to give the Get. It is precisely because we need to prevent non-halachic approaches that we need to do something to help the situation. Right now the divorce situation is like the Wild West. My example of a template for custody was not in the least bit controversial and it might help in some cases. But I am a nobody and no one will ever listen to me, that is why I am trying to convince you that this is a good idea as people will listen to you.


    The divorce rate in the frum community is growing. This blog repeatedly criticizes women seeking to divorce for being influenced by secular society, but are these criticisms helping? Or are the criticisms likely to help in the near future? And these are yeshivish girls!
    It seems that ideas of equality are becoming more and more entrenched even among yeshivish Bais Yaakov girls. Woman again and again are complaining that there husbands are controlling. Wouldn't it actually go a long way to teach men to treat their wives as equal and the money as jointly owned? This doesn't violate halachah. Just criticizing secular society will not help!


    And regarding the other aspects, was your approach effective? Surely you care about results.

    Did you stop the public pressure on the husband to give a Get? Didn't those supporting the husband actually ruin his life?

    ReplyDelete
  188. The most frequent complaint by women in yeshivish circles is that their husband is controlling. I have not read studies, but this what I hear again and again in my yeshivish circles.
    Do you disagree?
    Did you ever hear a woman complain that she can't take it that her husband treats her as an equal or that they decide everything together or that her husband treats their money as jointly owned?

    ReplyDelete
  189. "As for the ideas I write that the husband has no obligation to divorce his wife, and I have many sources, you reject." No. I agree with you. But the husband should be smart not "right". The husband is much better off to give the Get right away and remarrying and bringing up a large family. Even if he will have less custody and less money than he deserves.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Of course he should say good-bye to the watch! That is why you need a cool head to be successful in this life. The Gemara says that he who listens and ignores will be saved from a hundred evils! Don't stick up for your rights!

    ReplyDelete
  191. The most frequent complaint by women in yeshivish circles is..... I have not read studies, but this what I hear again and again in my yeshivish circles.

    Are you joking? Cool. You - an anonymous poster - claim that this is what you hear. And based upon what you claim you "hear" you claim that Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn is promoting divorce while you are promoting marriage.

    You were asked to support your ridiculous assertion and the best you can come up with is I supposedly heard? LOL From whom, what and where.

    Let me repeat my questions again:

    Now, clearly delineate what precisely is the position of Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn as to roles in marriages.
    Please link to posts where Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn advocated those roles.

    Please clearly describe how those views are different than yours.

    Then, please use actual data to support your assertion that Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn's views promote the breakdown of marriage while your views and emotions strengthen marriage.

    I look forward to your sincere and mature reply.

    ReplyDelete
  192. In at least 2 of the recent cases discussed on this blog this was the claim of the women, and in more than half of the cases of divorce that I know this is the claim of the women. Do we always have to read studies about everything?

    ReplyDelete
  193. I have a personal rule not to get involved in people's marriages, but that's only if they don't bring it up. Here we go: if you advocate keeping a cool head then why did you write, "We yell and argue with each other sometimes - maybe often!" Saying "neither of us are saints - definitely not me!" is an answer, but then why the double standard and expect other men to act in a way that were you, Cahs V'Shalom, to be in that situation you wouldn't act that way?

    ReplyDelete
  194. In at least 2 of the recent cases discussed on this blog this was the claim of the women

    Is this the extent of your "proof"? In at least one of these two cases the woman has been shown to be a liar of the highest order and that everything she has claimed is a ridiculous fabrication.

    Lets, then, dig a little deeper.

    * Both these woman had the same PR hack working for them.

    * Both these woman had the same PR hack advising them on the best way to fool the public.

    So yes, this PR hack will advise to accuse of being controlling in order to arouse public "sympathy".

    Anyhow, back to your ridiculous assertion. Let me repeat my questions again - for the third time:

    Now, clearly delineate what precisely is the position of Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn as to roles in marriages.
    Please link to posts where Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn advocated those roles.

    Please clearly describe how those views are different than yours.

    Then, please use actual data to support your assertion that Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn's views promote the breakdown of marriage while your views and emotions strengthen marriage.

    I look forward to your sincere and mature reply.

    You have yet to even link any post by Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn where he advocates his position on marriage that you claim is counterproductive. Please. If you would like to claim that Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn is wrong, you have to first show us where he takes this position. Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn is not shy about his positions, he doesn't hide behind anonymity claiming to be "Yeshivish" in order to fool people about his true intentions. You, on the other hand......



    Now again, please provide links and data. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  195. moshe ahron, this seems to be a very sound approach, and I fear that indeed this blog might contribute to rendering jewish marriage less attractive. Once a woman heard that a husband could refuse a get on a whim, even if the demand for divorce is completely justified (e.g. in cases of violent domestic abuse), she will think twice before entering such a trap.

    I also note that empathy for women in difficult marital situations seems to absent.

    ReplyDelete
  196. This comment about the very sound approach laid out by Moshe Ahron reflects very badly on you as a person.

    Either you are a troll who really wants to mock the haredi attitude to marriage and show how unviable it is, or you are really a very sorry person.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Why? What did Tamar do to Yehuda? She used him as a sperm-donor, and he willingly complied, because he could not hold back his urges...

    ReplyDelete
  198. My comment to Moshe Ahron was an attempt to understand what is meant by "complete equals", and it had nothing to do with mocking Hareidi attitudes. My Talmud and Shuchan Aruch does not mention any such concept of "complete equals". Moshe Ahron did not respond to my question, and neither did you, because neither of you have the intellectual capability to address it.

    Nor would you be able to explain why the MO/RCA prenup only requires the husband to pay the wife if the marriage fails, but never requires the wife to pay the husband. Its interesting how quickly MO/YU can quickly dump "equality" during a divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  199. "makes divorce more likely to occur" - This comment is laughable when one considers how the divorce rate in the MO/YU world, despite their enthusiastic embrace of feminism, is significantly higher than the divorce rate in the Chareidi communities.

    The MO/YU/RCA prenup greatly encourages Jewish women to divorce their husbands any time they care to do so for any reason. Note how ORA supports that prenup so enthusiastically.

    ReplyDelete

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