Wednesday, November 26, 2014

R Rackman: The solution to Aguna is being able to annul any marriage without a Get

 The following are excerpts from Chapter 3 of One Man's Judaism by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman 

He states on page 244 that Rav Moshe's annulment marriages for preexisting conditions which a normal woman can't live with - is a good start but it is not enough. He raises the important question of whether the ability to help agunos is worth the price of
"making virtually all marriages easily annullable and such liberalism might destroy the sanctity of marriage - one of Judaism's most cherished values and desiderata. Rabbis and laymen would raise a hue and a cry that marriage bonds in Judaism are made of straw. The stability of marriages would be adversely affected. Instead of being viewed as indestructible, marriages would be regarded as ephemeral. That is why our Rabbis in the past so hesitated to suspend the requirement of a Get. That is why they so formalized the procedure for a Get. That is also why the forbade conditions and the inclusion of capricious agreements in the original marriage contract." 



Chapter Three
HALACHIC PROGRESS: RABBI MOSHE FEINSTEIN'S IGROT MOSHE ON EVEN HA-EZER

I
In contemporary halachic creativity rabbis are rarely daring. This complaint is often heard whenever Jews meet to discuss the present plight of Jewish law. It is, therefore, an event joyously to be hailed when so renowned a scholar as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein publishes a volume of responsa [Igrot Moshe on Even Ha-ezer NY 1961] which reveals not only erudition of exceptional breadth and depth but also courage worthy of a Gadol in an age of unprecedented challenge to our cherished Halachah. 

There is abundant authority in earlier respona of great scholars for all thus far reported from Rabbi Feinstein's volume. However, he deserves our approbation for reaffirming the rulings in our contemporary situation when Orthodox rabbis have become so panicky about liberalism that they have "frozen" the law beyond the wildest expectations of more saintly forebears. But there is one area in which Rabbi Feinstein forges ahead of predecessors. He permits husband or wife to remarry without a Get when there is reasonable assurance that if either had known some important fact about the other in advance of the marriage they would not have entered upon the marriage. Rabbi Feinstein has revived the Talmudic notion of "marriage by mistake," and he does not limit it, as the Tosafists of the Middle Ages did, to the period intervening between betrothal and consummation of the nuptials. According to Rabbi Feinstein, the spouse may avail himself or herself of the fraud or conThere is abundant authority in earlier respona of great scholars for all thus far reported from Rabbi Feinstein's volume. However, he deserves our approbation for reaffirming the rulings in our contemporary situation when Orthodox rabbis have become so panicky about liberalism that they have "frozen" the law beyond the wildest expectations of more saintly forebears. But there is one area in which Rabbi Feinstein forges ahead of predecessors. He permits husband or wife to remarry without a Get when there is reasonable assurance that if either had known some important fact about the other in advance of the marriage they would not have entered upon the marriage. Rabbi Feinstein has revived the Talmudic notion of "marriage by mistake," and he does not limit it, as the Tosafists of the Middle Ages did, to the period intervening between betrothal and consummation of the nuptials. According to Rabbi Feinstein, the spouse may avail himself or herself of the fraud or concealment at any time after the marriage. Thus a husband may remarry without a Get if he discovered that his wife could not bear him children because of an affliction that existed prior to the marriage. Similarly, the wife may remarry without a Get if she discovers that her husband is incapable of sexual intercourse or that he was committed to a mental hospital for a period prior to his marriage and became ill again during the marriage. The presumption is simple: She would not have married him had she known all the facts. 

What is especially noteworthy about Feinstein's desire to relieve anguish and pain is his readiness to ignore prior authorities when their conclusions are antithetical to his. Thus, with the zeal of a great humanitarian he cites the Ein Yitzhak who permitted a widow to remarry without Halitzah because he held the marriage of the widow to be a nullity, but he fails to cite the Shevut Yaakov whom the Ein Yitzhak cites and who unequivocally arrived at a conclusion opposite to that of Rabbi Feinstein in an almost identical case. Such is the power of Heterah (leniency) in the hands of a Talmudic giant! And we thought our generation was altogether bereft of them! 

It is also noteworthy that the eminent Rabbi Weinberg of Montrieux ended one of his responsa, published in Noam, with a prayer that one day some rabbi will be bold enough to rule as Rabbi Feinstein has. He lived to see his prayer fulfilled.
III
There is no doubt but that the liberalization of Jewish family law can best be done through the broader exercise of the inherent power of a Beth Din to annul marriages for fraud or mistake. Of course, the consequence will be that the issue of marriages subsequently annulled will be regarded as born out of wedlock. But in Jewish law this does not mean illegitimacy-or even serious consequential stigma. Altogether, to solve the Agunah problem without annulling marriages is impossible. Even in Israel, where coercion against the recalcitrant spouse is feasible, the court may be helpless if the recalcitrant spouse is in another jurisdiction or escapes there before the court's relief is sought. Furthermore, in the event of the husband's insanity the wife is absolutely without a remedy even in Israel unless the marriage can be annulled. An insane husband is not competent to delegate his authority or power to the Beth Din. For these reasons, as well as others, the abortive attempt of the Conservative movement in the United States to solve the problem with an eye exclusively on the Get was unfortunate. It seized upon the least progressive alternative (as did some American Jewish journalists) and placed in jeopardy the course Rabbi Feinstein is pursuing. 

The Talmud assumes in many of its tractates that marriages by mistake are void or voidable. Indeed, such marriages can be annulled not only because of facts known to one of the spouses before the marriage and concealed from the other, but also because of facts that no one could possibly have known in advance. Thus the Talmud queries why a widow who is childless cannot annul her marriage to her deceased husband on the assumption that she would not have consented to wed him had she known in advance that she would one day require Halitzah.2 [2. The Tosafists would limit the query to deaths after betrothal but before the consummation of marriage. Rabbi Feinstein does not make the distinction. ]  The answer is that we legally presume acquiescence on the theory that a woman prefers to be married even to a bad risk than remain a spinster. Yet this is a presumption as to a state of mind. And this state of mind is subject to change. Indeed, it has changed in our day. Most Jewish women today would never acquiesce to marriages which would ultimately involve them in an Agunah situation because of the husband's insanity, lack of masculinity, or recalcitrance to give a religious divorce. These are conditions which often exist potentially in advance of the marriage, albeit unknown to either spouse in advance. Certainly they are as much potential facts as is the subsequent death of the husband without children when Halitzah is required, and but for the presumption with regard to an older generation of females who preferred any kind of marriage to none, our Sages would have waived the requirements of Halitzah. Now, however, women feel quite differently. The lot of the spinster is not as pathetic as it once was and is preferred to that of the Agunah. The Agunah is far more miserable, and her lot is far less enviable. Ours is the duty to reckon with the change. 

Rabbi Feinstein hesitates to go so far. He did annul the marriage of a woman whose husband became insane after the marriage because he had been similarly ill prior to the marriage, and he so ruled even though the husband appeared sane at the time of the marriage and thereafter served for two years in the military establishment of the United States. Nonetheless, the subsequent development of the malady was enough to warrant annulment of the marriage. Insanity­ - actual or potential-is sufficient cause for either spouse not to want the marriage. Incompatibility, however, is not adequate. Sadism-even sadism in refusing to give a Get--is also not adequate. Why? We know now that almost all marital problems are due to one neurosis or another. The neurotic behavior and the circumstances that evoke it cannot be foretold. Insanity is only an extreme form. Yet if a marriage may be annulled because a woman does not want to cope with an insane husband, and" therefore, the presumption that she would prefer a bad marriage to no marriage no longer holds because the marriage is so bad, then in every case where it subsequently appears that latent neuroses make it impossible for the spouses to relate to each other as they should there ought also be a basis for decreeing that the marriage is annulled because of mistake. 

The obvious reply is that if one adopts this position one is making virtually all marriages easily annullable and such liberalism might destroy the sanctity of marriage-­one of Judaism's most cherished values and desiderata. Rabbis and laymen would raise a hue and a cry that marriage bonds in Judaism are made of straw. The stability of marriages would be adversely affected. Instead of being regarded as indestructible, marriages would be regarded as ephemeral. That is why our Rabbis in the past so hesitated to suspend the requirement of a Get. That is why they so formalized th« procedure for a Get. This is also why they forbade conditions and the inclusion of capricious agreements in the original marriage contract. 

However, there is another consideration to be reckoned with. The overwhelming majority of marriages will not be affected. Where the spouses continue to be decent, normal and humane, the Get is always available. The problem arises principally when one spouse becomes sadistic, vicious, or vengeful. And when we insist on the Get in such a case-­despite the discovery of indecent, abnormal or inhumane behavior in the intransigent one - are we promoting respect for the sanctity of marriage or undermining respect for Jewish law altogether? This is the issue. Which end are we to safeguard? This brings one to a consideration of means and ends in Halachah generally. Respectfully it is submitted that more Halachic experts of our day ought ponder this problem.
IV
From a philosophical point of view, can it ever be said that correct ends do not justify wrong means? It would appear that there can be no such thing as an ethical objection to the use of so-called wrong means for correct ends, because nothing can be regarded as evil except by reference to the ends involved. If we refuse to adopt a course which we regard as evil--even to achieve a worthy objective--it is because the means are evil with reference to still another end which ranks higher than the end for which we are considering the controversial means. […]

Rabbi Weinberg of Montrieux and Rabbi Feinstein of New York have opened the door. A courageous Beth Din must now restudy the situation and make choices. The worldwide Jewish community feels less bound by Halachah than ever before in Jewish history. Bastardy is, therefore, rifer than ever, and Jewish communal organization with internal discipline is virtually non-existent. Which is the more important Halachic end to be pursued in the present situation-the preservation of an ideological commitment to family holiness which concerns only a few who will not be affected by liberalism in the annulment of marriages, or to prevent the greater incidence of bastardy against which there can be no real protection in so mobile and fluid a society as ours now is? 

Needless to say, a minority among us will scream. But they need not suffer. Nothing will have been imposed upon them against their will. Jews always had small groups that were especially careful in matters of Taharah. as well as family background. There need be no insistence on uniformity or regimentation. Let there be standards of excellence here as everywhere. However, one must help relieve a situation which begs for correction. Most Jews will hail the effort. That Gedolim in the past hesitated to act means only that they mistook the gravity of the situation. They simply erred. With their rigidity they did not save. This was even true in Europe. In America conditions have become indescribably worse. 

What other alternatives are there? We can isolate all who are loyal to Halachah from the rest of the worldwide Jewry, outlaw their intermarriage with the rest of their coreligionists, and let those who suffer as Agunot because of their commitment to Jewish law resign themselves to their fate as the will of God. For those to whom these alternatives are not acceptable, the only available road is that initiated by two Gedolim. of our day

42 comments :

  1. The Rackman ideas of letting every lady divorce her husband without his consent has been fully rejected especially by leading modern Orthodox rabbis. I don't know the great mitsvah to give so much space to a person who is so utterly rejected. When a woman objected that if her marriage was negated she had children in sin, he created a new fact, as if it could be, that she was married until she decided to remove the marriage retroactively. Now this obviously has to do with quantum mechanics a world where impossible things do happen. But people are not parts of quantum mechanics. It is obvious that Rackman has been rejected, and it is also obvious that every Monday and Thursday a new quantum mechanics rabbis rises, such as the International Beth Din recently, that says that when the Beth Din says the husband wants a GET, even if he say she doesn't want it, he does want it, and the woman is divorced. That was also rejected. But the greater story is not what this fantasy says and what that fantasy says. The greater story is that this is never going to end. We have in Philadelphia major Rosh Yeshivas who obvious permit a woman to remarry without a GET. And what will be tomorrow?
    I therefore have proposed two things. One, that people who cannot tolerate marriage as it was given at Sinai, that is, the marriage of kiddushin that can only be removed with a GET or the death of the husband, may not marry. If they do, and then start finding excuses to remarry, they just make mamzerim and niuf. I have therefore in my blog recently posted a solution: People who cannot tolerate Kiddushin may not marry with Kiddushin. To remain alone is forbidden, see beginning of Even Hoezer that Beth Din in earlier generations would not let people remain unmarried. There is no good solution for such a person, but there is a possible alternative, available only for such a person who is forbidden to take Kiddushin, lest they make mamzerim, and that is marriage that is not kiddushin. I have a lengthy discussion of this in my blog www.torahhalacha.blogspot.com. At least from this, right or wrong, no mamzerim will result.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are R Moshe's conditions?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The great rejoicing that Rabbi Feinstein accepted the negation of a marriage made in obvious error with a condition that existed before the marriage must be tempered. First of all, everyone disagrees with him, for many generations. So who says that we do like his opinion in a sofek diorayso when a woman has chezkas aishes ish? Furthermore, I am a talmid of Reb Moshe and have a very strong semicha from him from his kind approbation of my sefer. And I know that when I proposed to him doing one of these great leniencies to save an Agunah it was completely rejected. I was told, "Just because it says that in the sefer, do we have to do it?" I asked Rabbi Avigder Miller zt"l what that meant and he explained to me that this happened and why. I understand from Rabbi Margolin the partner with Rav Henkin in Ezras Torah that the same thing happened with Rav Henkin. Just because it is there doesn't mean we always use it. That is what I heard and what I know. So all of this excitement may be premature. Also, Reb Moshe clearly states that he permits this only as a very last resort, such as when the husband will not give a GET under any circumstances. But in most cases, if the wife will agree to certain things, the husband will give a GET. If so, Reb Moshe did not permit his leniencies, because he knew that they were opposed by the vast majority of rabbis in the past generations. The idea that we find anyone who says something lenient and therefore turn the world upside down can promote tragedy. Reb Moshe was very strongly opposed on some of his leniencies. One of them was that a Jew can make a bank with ribbis for other Jews. In my teshuvose on ribbis I bring many proofs that this is wrong, and I understand that it made a huge outcry. Furthermore, some rabbonim permitted the bank but not for the reasons of Reb Moshe, but for other reasons that were accepted by several senior gedolim of the past generation. So if you start searching for a leniency and then accept it and then stretch it, you have Rabbi Rackman and his colleagues, and you have mamzerim. Reb Moshe's honor will remain forever, but those like Rackman that pop up every day with a new excuse for mamzerim have been rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  4. fedupwithcorruptrabbisNovember 26, 2014 at 4:14 PM

    Had we been equipped with Gedolim of the same calibre as we had in the 19th century, they would publicly brandish Rackman and Krauss as heretics. We see how the Rogatshover Gaon ridiculed such a Rabbi in Berlin in a previous blog:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-lonna-kin-trying-to-get-annlument.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Rackman is a reject in Orthodox Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Quote
    from previous Blog Post


    "The
    principle reasons that the woman never would have married her husband if she had
    known he would act in an abusive fashion during the marriage."

    1)
    "During the marriage", this alleged sadism was never an issue, it is not a
    stumbling block hindering the marriage, such an issue is born strictly and only
    when she wants to end the marriage, of which is not something part of the
    marriage, therefore, it is not a blemish within the marriage affecting the
    marriage. Indeed, sadism comes to light from the fact in and of itself by her
    own initiation of breaking up the marriage without good cause, thereby, making
    lebedige yesomim and a lebedige Alman, wallah - becoming a sadist, still and
    all, no one ever contemplated that because of such He can walk away without a
    Get. Furthermore, it is only Normal not to be willing to end a marriage for no
    cause, just because she asked for one, and that is absolutely nothing sadistic,
    nor any indication of such!

    2)
    This pesach for "Hatores Nedarim" concept is nothing more than a "Hetech
    petach". Had my grandmother have wheels, she could have been a bus. No one knows
    the future mazal, whether be rich, poor or healthy or any other wishful thinking
    that didn't materialize, therefore, that is not a criteria and cause to force a
    Get.

    3)
    Without husbands presence, you cannot even force/enforce a get - without
    explaining why he needs to give a get, (that is like saying, you must give a get
    because you don't want to give a get- chicken and the egg theory) without
    demonstrating his refusual altogether, then leapfrog to annul the marriage. If
    you do annul, then he no more is according to you a sadist, thereby, not anymore
    a kidushei taut, and goes on in an endless loop, 'vechozer vechalilo', lo raui
    ze keraui ze, velo raui ze karui ze, hatzad hashave shebahen, she remains an
    eishes ish, if she remarries her children are mamzeirim, veteitze mize
    umize.

    4)
    Protocol is as follows. You request from husband a get, because she asks for
    one. Asking is not one of the criteria listed in "Veili shekofin oso lehoytzi",
    therefore she never has any substance to merit a get, no chiyuv get, especially
    without din torah of chiyuv get, more so without his presence, no refusal, no
    sadist, no annulment, no nothing. It is more like condemning a ham sandwich by a
    Kangaroo court in absentia, from a pig that was never born, lo dubim velo yaar,
    neither boar nor bread, no nothing! It is what we call "LUFTGESHEFTEN".


    5)
    What happens if she refuses to accept a get, then she becomes a sadist, her
    marriage annulled, and what happens with the takonne of cherem deRabenu Gershom?
    Vechi may hoilu chachamim betekantom? If this should fly, isn't annulling also
    better than a Heter Meah rabbonim?

    6)
    The same philosophy applies to Get Meusse, no more such thing. Once he refuses
    upon her request, he is a sadist, you automatically annul, no more get
    necessary. Veim ken, lo hisharta kol biryah lehachyoso.

    Conclusion:






















    Vekosav lah Sefer Krisus, kmo shekosuv besefer, kedas Moshe
    vYisrael. No such thing as megaleh ponim baTorah, manufacturing mamzerim
    wholesale, and matir eishes ish lashuk.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Just because it says that in the sefer, do we have to do it?"
    Well this is the point Rackman is making - he is saying that it is there in the book, and is the only option, other than letting a person suffer.
    You have not provided a halachic solution for people who are locked without a Get. RMF did provide solutions in some cases. Rackman was saying that halacha is not just what is in the book, and is not just the current view of the Haredi or even MO gedolim. he was saying that Torah is Tzedek, and thus the Judge must work according to that Tzedek, and not according to the fear of being maligned by Yated, JO, etc.
    FYI, Rackman also oppose Ribbis, but he pointed out that many people who are "frum" use loopholes to get out of the issur.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I just want to add that I am in touch with people who are afraid of kiddushin. And because they are not married they are part of the singles scene. That is a treifeh scene, as I have heard. Large programs are held where anybody can come and do what their thing. This is kedusho? What kind of malach could survive a group of desperate people? If so, those who fear marriage, what can they do? Either marriage with kiddushin and maybe end up coercing a GET or going without a GET and remarrying and making mamzerim, or maybe marriage without any marriage, which is a great sin. This way, we have a solution strongly supported by the Yaavetz, and in the above circumstances, perhaps others.

    ReplyDelete
  9. These are all matters of boundaries, of the acceptable and non-acceptable. Even RMF had opponents on this, and other issues. Rackman stated that he had many experiences where he had to tell women there is nothing he could do for them, and this is why he sought change, ie pushing the boundaries. He wished to push the boundaries further than RMF, and knew he would be attacked for it. But since there are others who are taking up his cause, eventually the effort he made may become "legitimate". Remember, there were also voices calling RMF's psak as creating mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eddie,
    You miss the whole point of the "new ideas." Nobody says what they say. Nobody said that a woman who marries and years later wants a GET can negate the marriage, except Rackman. Nobody said that when a husband says he does not want a GET that the International Beth Din can determine that he does want a GET and so the marriage is gone. I have spoken to rabbis who are prominent Rosh Yeshivas and rabbis of large communities, but who have "new ideas." I never ever heard of one idea that is rooted in halacha with a source. On my blog www.torahhalacha.blogspot.com I have a few posts on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. fedupwithcorruptrabbisNovember 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM

    Rabbi Eidenson is right! "WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION" THEN YOU CAN RESEARCH OTHER METHODS. However in our generation you have men that in principle want to give a GET but are asking for fair equitable distribution, visitation custody and sometimes damages etc...but the women under the guidance of ORA are saying NO! therefore these are not AGUNOT BUT MOREDET and there is no halacha to find alternate ways to free them as they essentially have chained themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Eddie Conservative and Reform Judaism are also just a "mere" matter of boundaries. Do you think they will eventually become "legitimate"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. RMF said that people who lived together without Kiddushin did not need a Get. This was criticised, but quietly because of the great honour for RMF. So was this a mamzer factory or not?
    Let me ask you a question - if a Reform or Consrvative convert (whom you deem a goy) built the Beit Hamkidash, would it be acceptable? or would you still say it is assur to go up there?
    Let me remind you that King Herod did exactly that, and Chazal were full of praises for him!

    ReplyDelete
  14. What if they choose to follow the Rambam's view, that it is ok to beat a husband until he says he gives a get?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, agreed. And I am not a supporter of ORA. I don't think Rackman was suggesting that any marriage can be dissolved. he was saying that women had been denied a get, and many of them were already cohabiting or even married to new people, so at least there was a last resort to release these terrible situations. I agree in principle with both sides' claims, It seems they are saying the same thing. If a reasonable compromise , or even a bit of a concession needs to be made, thenit should be. But when someoen is left for many years and the husband is being unreasonable, then extreme measures should be at least considered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'll probably be shouted down but - shouldn't you seek the counsel of the present-day גדולי הפוסקים before you advocate this nonconformist solution? Are all the גדולי הפוסקים who you respect in the עולם האמת?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Eddie mamzerim are not produced by unmarried couples so how is it a mamzer factory?

    You can't generalize from Herod and Chazal' treatment of him. . It is obvious that if a goy built the Beis HaMikdash it would have the same status as a Disneyland reproduction.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If a couple live together, with a marriage certificate of some sort they are considered as married, so saying they can split up without a get has its problems. this was stated by R Henkin.


    So herod's BM was also Disneyland? I think you are confusing it with herod's hotel in Eilat.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I Like Reb Dovid's halachic innovations. As I said on a previous topic, you cannot be meikil unless you have a long beard and shtreimel. The same solution which Reb Dovid is making, an MO rabbi in Israel, R' Hartom considered, to avoid niuf and mamzerut, but was not bold enough to make such a drastic change. Same goes for Rackman. Apparently a RY in Philly, who has a long beard is doing the same (and getting away with it).

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Eddie we don't pasken like Rav Henkin. Rabbi Rakkeft has an excellent tape discuss the issue.

    No Eddie I did not say Herod's Beis Hamikdosh was Disneyland. Please reread what i said. I said you can't generalize from your understanding of Herod and Chazal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Eddie it is not the boldness to propose a solution that is critical but rather the widespread acceptance.

    There were ideas that were accepted simply because Rav Moshe said them - that another rabbi could not get away with.

    The RY in Philly is not making a proposal nor is he writing teshuvos for people to think about - he is simply supporting activity which he and his son refuses to discuss what it is. That is hardly the basis for change in Yiddishkeit

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...when someone is left for many years and the husband is being unreasonable, then extreme measures should be at least considered.

    What is the yardstick by which we measure "unreasonable"? Eddie, you seem to be an intelligent person. Don't you think that each side in a divorce case thinks that they're very reasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you are making a logical argument, then you have lost the line of argument, and entered a circular one.
    You are using your assumption as your conclusion. You say mamzerim are not made by certain types of marriages, and I brought an example of a serious opinion that they are. The issue is that since RMF pushed the boundaries, they became successful. So you are saying the orignal boundaries were not acceptable. That only makes my case stronger, re: Rackman.

    As for herod, you say we can't generalise, but you make statements about disneyworld. Is there a hilchot Disneyworld that I am not aware of? The Herod rebuild of the Beit Mikdash was first frowned upon, and then accepted. Herod was not halachically Jewish, but would be under reform. So again, your argument is not persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  24. OK, I accept your point on this case. He needs to produce substantial teshuvos before it can be scrutinized.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Eddie - Rav Moshe didn't take Rav Henkin's position and expand the boundaries. They had a fundamental disagreement as to what constituted marriage. Rav Moshe's position was accepted. Has nothing to do with Rackman's "psak".

    Eddie you either don't understand what I am saying regarding Herod or you are simply being silly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Chaim,
    I talked to major rabbonim before I went public. I told them that I don't want their open support at this point, because I just want to present the idea. Let's see how it works. I have some people who have asked me this or that and I think I have made my point. All of the rabbonim who are the major poskim today heard my points and none of them said I was wrong. The issue is only if this would make a problem for kiddushin and so I was careful to make this clear that not everybody can do pilegesh. Others told me that the Yaavets is not accepted by everyone and nobody heard of anyone doing such a thing but I asked them if I am right that we have to stop the mamzeruth and nobody argued that point. I believe that if any major Rov a Gadol would say what I say, the world would collapse. This can only be done on the Internet by somebody like me who can be taken or left without destroying the world. And that is how I want to do it. Nobody should back me, and if here and there somebody follows my advice, based on their rabbi's opinions or whatever, fine. But this limits the whole bilbul.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What i (mis)understand about your view on herod is that we cannot generalise from that into other areas such as Gittin. But if you are claiming that we cannot generalise from herod's temple to "Glick's" temple, or other views on rebuilding the temple, then I would reject it, since that is not generalising, that is using a case law. In terms of temple, there are not too many cases we can look back on.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I believe that if any major Rov a Gadol would say what I say, the world
    would collapse. This can only be done on the Internet by somebody like
    me who can be taken or left without destroying the world"

    R' Rackman ztl's book was called "One man's Judaism". This could be a title for your blog as well!

    ReplyDelete
  29. But the question remains - have these "major rabbonim" given permission to use their name as an endorsement when you join your first Pilegesh couple in holy Pilegeshhood?


    I also have 2 questions about (re)instating Pilegeshism:
    (1) Would such a system be available for those who wish to have multiple (permanent) sexual partners, as the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom about 2 wives presumably only applies to married women?
    (2) If so, then could a person use this system to live with a woman and her mother/daughter/sister, since these Issurim are also marriage-based (נושאין על האנוסה)?


    (By the way, the above questions are not הלכה למעשה - I don't have any women queuing up for me, and even if I did, I don't think my wife would be too happy...!)

    ReplyDelete
  30. In earlier times there were two periods when husbands were beaten when the wife demanded a GET. One was the very early period of the Geonim, who established this law exactly at the time of the Islamic revolution, for reasons we don't know. But this conflicted with the Talmud and was later overturned. Rambam had a different reason for forcing a GET because the wife is not a slave and if she hates her husband he must give her a GET. Rabbeinu Tam, the Ri and the French and German rabbis accepted Rabbeinu Tam's ruling that a husband cannot be coerced. The Rosh fled to Spain and established this there because if there was a debate such as this how can you take a chance and maybe make an invalid GET and mamzerim? The Tur was the son of the Rosh and next was the Beis Yosef who wrote the Shulchan Aruch. And the trend was to accept Rabbeinu Tam and the Rosh not to coerce. Thus, the Vilna Gaon in EH 77 #5 says that nobody disagrees with the finding the Shulchan Aruch and Ramo that we not coerce a husband to divorce when the wife demands a GET. That is based on the Rashbo and the major commentators in Shulchan Aruch who quote him..

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eddie,
    You say that people who live together without kiddushin don't need a GET only because of respect for Reb Moshe. Look at Shulchan Aruch 149:5 that when a man sleeps with a woman who was never his wife we assume that he did not do an act of Kiddushin and they are not married. Only with one's ex-wife who are together do we assume they married. Rav Henkin discusses these laws in his published sefer I:3 and he is strict.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eddie,
    Now you are touching sensitive areas. I thought Judaism belonged to me! And now you tell me...(-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. If I had a position that the community paid me, I would think very carefully what I say. Because such rabbis get fired very quickly. Actually, this issue came up years ago when Orthodox rabbis left the Conservative Seminary over the issue of women rabbis making Gittin. I went to speak to them and said, "You make kiddushin that is kosher but afterwards they divorce and do what they want in a way that could make mamzerim."
    I therefore suggested that they make some kind of ceremony that would not make a Torah kiddushin. The senior rabbi accepted my advice. Three rabbis I asked told me I was right. But the fourth one, a great Israeli Posek, was furious. I got a phone call that went like this. "Do you know what you just did? You said the same thing as the Chaifo Rov, and now everyone is made at him." The Chaifo Rov retracted under great pressure. But I was right, because I am not the Chaifo Rov. And if I can influence quietly a few people here and there, I am doing the right thing. But those who are in certain great positions and would talk about pilegesh would destroy the world.

    ReplyDelete
  34. King Herod didn't build a new bais hamikdosh. He rebuilt it, big difference. But why the strawman?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Chaim,
    it is obvious from the comments of the Yaavetz that he would go very far with pilegesh, even allowing people with no children to take a pilegesh. That is something else. I am not interested now in doing anything to help people other than the children who would be born mamzerim. For that I would surely advocate, and only for those who cannot tolerate Kiddushin. But the other things are a different world and I don't have anything to do with them. The Yaavetz in the final paragraph of his teshuva II:15 is very emphatic about new uses for pilegesh, but I am only involved now with saving mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Eddie,
    The Philadelphia case didn't begin like this. It began with the father K sticking his nose into the marriage because he was a close friend of the father of the wife. A campaign of terror was unleashed on the husband that caused him to be humiliated publicly by ORA and others, he could not doven in a shul on Shabbos because he was banished, and demonstrations took place against him. Such pressure can easily break even a strong man. But this blog saved the husband and took on the Kaminetsky mafia of people who attack a husband without talking to him or the Beth Din that had the case. As you can tell, this blog says it like it is. R. Kaminetsky does not know the laws of Gittin, as I know for a fact, and what he paskens is ridiculous. But all of his coercions didn't work. So now, he is stuck with this lady who trusted him to break her husband, and he isn't broken. So now, she just gets married with no GET. And guess what - if you don't read this blog, nobody protests.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree with your comments R' Dovid. I commented earlier that perhaps the get Zikui idea, where R' Goldberg retracted - or said his previous statement was not actual halacha, was due to pressure. My general point being that majority rabonim will not take action unless they have the cover of a major posek; others will take action on their own, and hope their idea will take off.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rav henkin included a Jewish couple married by a Christian priest in requiring a get, not just a civil marriage certificate.

    RMF says a Jewish couple that lives in the same house / apt in a neighborhood where some Jews live, require a get.

    ReplyDelete
  39. My name is Elizabeth, From USA ,and I’m happily married with a lovely husband and three children.I had a very big problem with my husband few months ago,to the extent that he even packed his things away from our house. He left I and and my kids for almost 1year, and i tried all my possible best and effort to bring him back.I discussed it with a very good friend of mine,and he gave me an advice concerning a spell caster, that he is the only one that can handle my situations and problem,that he’s always ready and able to do anything related to spell casting and helping of the needy, Please every every one i would like you all to contact him with his email address,which is as follows.”orikiolodumarespelltemple@gmail.com". I never believed in spell casting,but My friend convinced me and i had no choice than to follow my friend advice,because i never dreamed of loosing my lovely Husband. And i contacted him with his email address,and i discussed with him all my problems and worries and so surprisingly,he told me that I’ll get my husband back a day after. I didn't believed Him, until when i got home,the next day,my husband called me to inform me that he is coming back home…..So Amazing!! That’s how i got my back through spell casting and our relationship was stronger than ever. One of the price i was asked to pay was to tell it to the people around me that problems like this,can always be solved by Dr. Olodumare. So! my advice to you out there is to visit this same E-mail address,and tell him your problems too,if you are in any condition related to love issue or getting your ex back or and problem at all, please Contact him and have a happy life. you can contact him via email (orikiolodumarespelltemple@gmail.com )
    CONTACT HIM TODAY VIA THIS EMAIL ADDRESS: orikiolodumarespelltemple@gmail.com AS HIS POWERS ARE SO STRONG AND VERY EFFECTIVE AND HAS NO BAD EFFECT INSTEAD IT HAVE A VERY GOOD RESULT AFTER CASTING THE SPELL.

    ReplyDelete
  40. My name is Elizabeth, From USA ,and I’m happily married with a lovely husband and three children.I had a very big problem with my husband few months ago,to the extent that he even packed his things away from our house. He left I and and my kids for almost 1year, and i tried all my possible best and effort to bring him back.I discussed it with a very good friend of mine,and he gave me an advice concerning a spell caster, that he is the only one that can handle my situations and problem,that he’s always ready and able to do anything related to spell casting and helping of the needy, Please every every one i would like you all to contact him with his email address,which is as follows.”orikiolodumarespelltemple@gmail.com". I never believed in spell casting,but My friend convinced me and i had no choice than to follow my friend advice,because i never dreamed of loosing my lovely Husband. And i contacted him with his email address,and i discussed with him all my problems and worries and so surprisingly,he told me that I’ll get my husband back a day after. I didn't believed Him, until when i got home,the next day,my husband called me to inform me that he is coming back home…..So Amazing!! That’s how i got my back through spell casting and our relationship was stronger than ever. One of the price i was asked to pay was to tell it to the people around me that problems like this,can always be solved by Dr. Olodumare. So! my advice to you out there is to visit this same E-mail address,and tell him your problems too,if you are in any condition related to love issue or getting your ex back or and problem at all, please Contact him and have a happy life. you can contact him via email (orikiolodumarespelltemple@gmail.com )
    CONTACT HIM TODAY VIA THIS EMAIL ADDRESS: orikiolodumarespelltemple@gmail.com AS HIS POWERS ARE SO STRONG AND VERY EFFECTIVE AND HAS NO BAD EFFECT INSTEAD IT HAVE A VERY GOOD RESULT AFTER CASTING THE SPELL...

    ReplyDelete
  41. My name is Jennifer martins, from USA I never believed in love spells or magic until i met this spell caster once when i went to Africa in February this year on a business summit. I meant a man who’s name is DR.madurai he is really powerful and could help cast spells to bring back one’s gone, lost, misbehaving lover and magic money spell or spell for a good job or luck spell .I’m now happy & a living testimony cos the man i had wanted to marry left me 3 weeks before our wedding and my life was upside down cos our relationship has been on for 6years. I really loved him, but his mother was against us and he had no good paying job. So when i met this spell caster, i told him what happened and explained the situation of things to him. At first i was undecided, skeptical and doubtful, but i just gave it a try. And in 7 days when i returned to usa, my boyfriend (now husband) called me by himself and came to me apologizing that everything had been settled with his mom and family and he got a new job interview so we should get married. I didn’t believe it cos the spell caster only asked for my name and my boyfriends name and all i wanted him to do. Well we are happily married now and we are expecting our little kid, and my husband also got the new job and our lives became much better. His email is maduraitemple@yahoo.com :or call +2347067607073.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hello I am Janet ,I am out here to spread this good news to the entire world on how I got my ex husband back.I was going crazy when my husband left me and my two kids for another woman last month, But when i met a friend that introduced me to DR OYALO the great messenger to the oracle of DR OYALO healing home,I narrated my problem to DR OYALO about how my ex Husband left me and my two kids and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,24 hours later,My Ex Husband called me on the phone and was saying sorry for living me and the kids before now and one week after my Husband called me to be pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in a very big company here in USA were i needed to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact DR OYALO on his personal email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him direct on: dr.oyalospellhome@gmail.com and your problem will be solve...

    ReplyDelete

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