Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg denies supporting the Kraus Beis Din for Agunos

The following claim of Rav Goldberg's support for the Kraus Beis Din was reported here. 
Jewish Week     In what appears to be a major breakthrough in the long, tortuous effort to solve the problem of agunot, or "chained wives," an international religious court is in formation, headed by a highly respected Orthodox rabbi, with the goal of freeing women trapped in broken marriages.

Blu Greenberg, a longtime activist on this issue and founder of JOFA, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, announced at the group’s international conference this week that Rabbi Simcha Krauss, former rabbi of the Young Israel of Hillcrest and now living in Israel, has agreed to serve as the head of an independent rabbinic court in formation seeking “systemic halachic solutions” to the problem.

A major figure in centrist Orthodoxy who was president of the Religious Zionists of America, Rabbi Krauss made aliyah in 2005 and is affiliated with Yeshivat Eretz HaTzvi in Jerusalem. He is well respected for his Torah knowledge and integrity by a wide swath of the Orthodox community.

But the key to the new court’s success may well rest on one of the two leading Israeli rabbis associated with the haredi community who have given their imprimatur to Rabbi Krauss. Most significant is Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, a rosh yeshiva, posek, or religious decisor, and chief justice of the rabbinical high court in Jerusalem.
===========However Rav Zalman Nechmiah Goldberg says the claim is false =====




[On his letterhead]

27 Kislev 5775
I hereby let it be publicly known that I have absolutely no connection with the International Bet Din for Agunot, and all mentions of my name as if I agree to them are a complete falsehood.

I have already written in [the journal] Techumim, which is published annually, that chas veshalom (G-d forbid) one should not use Hafka'at Kiddushin (retroactive annulment) to allow a married woman to remarry, as it will cause, chas veshalom, her [subsequent] children to be mamzerim.  The same applies to the other methods which have been mentioned in regard to the new Bet Din.

One should be very cautious and stay far from this Bet Din, who [by their statements] are suspect in every way. It is incorrect to use them, and even a regular Get that they issue is suspect that it was done improperly.

Whosoever can protest [this Bet Din] and nullify their plans should do so, and may they be blessed for this.

Signing With Pain,

Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg

53 comments :

  1. Thank you for posting this. This is a very sharp letter calling for the complete dismantling of this "beit din" comprised of Kraus, Blau et al. Nothing they do can be trusted.


    Is it so unbelievable how people can be such blatant liars,yet still have the unmitigated chutzpa t call themselves a "beit din".Unbelievable!

    ReplyDelete
  2. How does Kraus explain how this falsehood was perpetuated?

    ReplyDelete
  3. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 28, 2015 at 4:03 PM

    What a fraud perpertrated by Krauss, Warburg and yosef Blau! Additionally Ora on their website reportedly claim that Zalman Nechemia Goldberg supports the PRENUP see: http://www.getora.org/#!endorsements/cff0
    could this be a lie too?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simple. "Rav Goldberg - who is a very brave and great man - is really pushing me to this sham beit din, but he is really a very fickle and weak person who is backing down due to pressure from fanatics." Such insanity! Liars do not allow the inconvenient truth to hinder their self-declared "altruistic" goals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Old news: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-road-paved-with-good-intentions.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very strong letter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This was the subject of a number of posts on Harry Maryles' blog on January 5, 7 and 8, including formal responses and one guest post by Rabbi Blau. Rabbi Blau backtracked on some of the more aggressive statements including that this beit din has any formal support from RZNG, however he still asserts that they have discussed issues with him and that he is not formally opposed to what they were doing. Rabbi Blau was cryptic about a number of issues and also avoided answering a number of respectful questions posed to him which does raise some concerns with me considering that transparency is one of the stated goals of this beit din and also it seems suspicious when someone who is discussing an issue on a public blog refuses to answer simple, direct and non-personal questions. I can't say for sure whether the approach this beit din is following is correct, whether their motives are pure or whether they are being honest with the public. I do however hope that they understand that any viable solution to the agunah issue must be one that is generally accepted by the poskim. This is not an issue to play cowboy with.

    separate from the above (which is based on the ambiguity about the methods this beit din will follow ) i have two key concerns with this beit din. 1. While the agunah problem, no matter how small, is a problem and there are definitely some men who abuse the system and their actions are inexcusable, there are women who abuse the system as well. When you establish a beit din whose stated goal is to solve only one problem I question whether that beit din can be impartial (and as a result kosher ). 2. The goal of every beit din should be to pursue justice (justice being defined within the parameters of halacha). in the case of a true agunah, to the extent there is a viable and accepted solution within the bounds of halacha every beit din should pursue that. So by establishing a beit din that they assert will be substantially more successful in addressing the agunah issue they are esstially saying that either (1) other batei din are corrupt, (2) they will follow solutions not generally accepted by poskim or (3) they have unique tools available to them that is not available to other batei din. The only acceptable option in my opinion is option 3, but they have not provided any rational reason why option 3 exists. (The members of the last beit din that could rightfully claim to have an option 3 - which may have actaually been options 2 and 3 combined - are currently sitting in jail awaiting trial for kidnapping and assault.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Harry - thanks for the link to your post and discussion of this issue.

    Could you please summarize your present view now that you have read Rabbi Openheimers comments and have had several weeks to digest the feedback on your blog?

    Furthermore are you aware of any meaningful response from Rabbi Kraus and his dayanim either confirming or denying what Rav Goldberg's letter said?

    ReplyDelete
  9. In your blog article first you stated that an agunah "is not sure if her husband is alive or dead." OK, this appears to be consistent with the authentic Torah mesorah. But then you make feminist political statements - "In our day the term Agunah is most often used to describe women whose husbands refuse to grant them a Get.", and that you would you like to see "100% of all Agunos" freed.

    Your comments indicate that the MO rabbis are in effect reinventing Judaism to make it conform to the contemporary feminist political agenda.

    There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Torah observant men to sacrifice their G-d given rights on the altar of feminism. I really think its time for all self-respecting Jewish men to leave the politicized MO shuls. I'm sure you can find a "heter" to count women for your minyanim.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I found three posts on Harry's blog from early January discussing, R. Blau responding and R. Openheimer responding to Blau:

    http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-road-paved-with-good-intentions.html

    http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-international-beis-din-responds.html

    http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2015/01/rabbi-oppenheimers-response-to-rabbi.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope it's alright if I share something else which is old news, but I think has a bearing on the discussion.

    Over a year ago, Tamar Friedman, through the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA), declared, "Tamar is Free". I contacted ORA, and they told me that Ms. Epstein is no longer an Aguna. I contacted Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, whose Yeshiva is in Philadelphia, to find out more. Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky advised me to call his son, Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky. Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky indicated that Ms. Epstein is free to remarry.

    I contacted Rabbi Ralbag who contacted Rabbi Belsky, whose Yeshiva is in New York City. Rabbi Ralbag told me that Rabbi Belsky said Ms. Epstein's husband has to give a Get.

    It seems Ms. Epstein is single in Philadelphia, and married in New York. This suggests a new category of marriage: geographic monogamy. Historically, some Jews in Europe lived in Ghettos. As long as Ms. Epstein, if and when she remarries, remains in the Get-to of Philadelphia, she should be free of any unpleasant ramifications due to her remarrying without a Get. Could geographic monogamy be the beginning of a comprehensive solution for other women who have not received the Get they desire?

    That's my satirical take, at least. My straight talk is that what is required is a conference of Rabbonim discussing and deciding to implement Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn's protocols for Shalom Bayis Batei Din and for Pilegesh Marriages. If all the people who are pushing for this new Bais Din would instead make a united front to bring husbands and wives to the negotiating table to work out their differences so the wife can receive her Get, then my feeling is that most, if not all, outstanding divorce cases could be quickly resolved. We don't need another Bais Din. The Halacha as it stands is sufficient to end the distress of women demanding, but not receiving, a Get -- as long as there is communication and cooperation between those who want to help women and those who know what the Torah allows and does not allow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think it's still up in the air. But I would not recommend using this BD precisely because of that.


    Very sad situation. There is no way a Get should ever be used as weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Harry - do you mean you reject the idea that there should be a beis din that automatically take the women's side in divorce cases?

    ReplyDelete
  14. DT, Harry's comments imply that its "very sad" that halacha does not accept "a beis din that automatically take the women's side in divorce cases."


    Harry and the "agunah activists" have set up a straw man argument about men allegedly using a GET as a weapon. Perhaps the "agunah activists" need to consider instead that its very fortunate that halacha does not allow divorce on demand.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Any Beis din that does that is automatically Pasul.

    ReplyDelete
  16. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM

    From the words of Rabbi Goldberg "One should be very cautious and stay far from this Bet Din,
    who [by their statements] are suspect in every way" indicates to us that not only has KRAUS, WARBURG, BLAU misrepresnted the true facts and lied about his endorsement, but Rabbi Goldberg warns all of us to stay clear away from them BECAUSE THEIR IDELOGIES ARE HERESY IN THEIR WAY OF APPROACHING TORAH PRINCIPLES!

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Harry does that mean that you view a beis din such as the Kraus beis din inherently pasul because its avowed purpose is to provide a get on demand to all women who ask for one?

    Clearly they assume that the man is at fault and they automatically takethe women's sid.

    ReplyDelete
  18. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 29, 2015 at 4:37 PM

    To Harry Maryles and other pro ORA activists: You all think that a woman is given a GET when she demands it. This is nothing short of "the feminist agenda" and has nothing to do with Torah. The only absolute thing is GOD. When women are being told today by the Rabbis, and I dont care if its Belsky or Kaminetsky, Ralbag or Herschel Schachter, to proceed to the Civil Courts and take everything away from the husband and then will help you receive a GET, THAT IS HERESY . The TORAH and not just the sages prohibit this action! Therefore these women are MOREDET. They lose their rights to A GET until they answer to their mistakes and return what has been illegally taken from their husbands forcibly. Therefore the real extortionists are the women who are using Civil Courts to extract from their husbands rights their children, monies and even their freedom. Therefore know that there is a growing movement now to assist men in resisting these phony bais din's false seiruvim as well as other schemes such as ORA tactics and to once again try to reinstate TRUE TORAH PRINCIPLES the way Jews are supposed to Divorce. Now that Mendel Epstein is "out of business" you frauds out there are out of options! Return to the Torah and do Teshuva as this will be a better way to achieve true resolutions to the ever growing divorce situations .

    ReplyDelete
  19. An original observation: Why are so many people scared of a world where a woman could leave a marriage whenever she wants? Getting divorced is no fun, and a woman would have a lot of difficulty remarrying, embarrassment, financial issues, etc. I would assume that the vast majority of woman would only take that step if they were in a really bad marriage. The pain of divorce is inherently very high.
    So my question to my friends is, why aren't you confident that you could treat your wife well that she would never consider divorce?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't know if that is Kraus's mission statement, but any BD that makes such a statement , eg they will find for one side of the dispute, is in my humble opinion, corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Moshe Ahron - your original observation is astounding. Perhaps you will remember that Chazal "were scared of such a situation" where a wife left a marriage because she found another man more interesting.

    Perhaps you will think about the harm to children if their mother - instead of working out differences with their father - simply leaves when the going gets tough and says " I know I can do better - why should I waste my time on you." as she slams the door.

    In short - your comment is incredibly naive about the nature of marriage and is not informed by elementary discussion found in Shas and Poskim.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So my question to my friends is, why aren't you confident that you could
    treat your wife well that she would never consider divorce?


    My, but you set the bar low. If your reason to treat your wife well is so she will not consider divorce, you're a sad case.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Moshe Ahron wrote
    " I am just saying that I find this fear of "easy divorce" to be overblown."

    Yes it is obvioius you don't take "easy divorce" seriously - despite Chazal's and Poskim's comments to the contrary. I think you are naive about what goes on in the world

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Why are so many people scared of a world where a woman could leave a marriage whenever she wants?"


    Simple: Because the Torah says a woman cannot leave a marriage whenever she wants to.

    " I would assume that the vast majority of woman would only take that step if they were in a really bad marriage."

    Oh, boy, you could not be more mistaken.

    "The pain of divorce is inherently very high."

    Most only realize that after divorcing. And then greatly regret divorcing. Studies have borne this out. Most second marriages are not better than the first.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maybe Chazal were concerned about it because they are concerned if even a few cases occur.
    In your opinion, do you think that there are a significant number of woman who are living with their husbands who are thinking that they would be happy to get divorced if only their husband would give them a Get?
    We all know of the shidduch crisis where it is so hard for girls to even get dates unless they have money and are pretty.
    How will a divorced girl with kids get a date? Unless she is really gorgeous and has wealthy parents.
    What you are saying is true - it could happen.
    All I am trying to say, is let us keep this in perspective. This might happen, but it isn't common. The people that I know, their wives would not be running to get a Get even if they would be able to receive one with a simple request. I don't believe that my friends live in fear of their wife demanding a Get.
    There is so much embarrassment with friends, neighbors, shul people, family. This is a huge factor. People don't respect them. And so many monetary problems. And custody issues. It is such a hard life for a divorced woman.
    And like you mentioned the mother herself will be extremely concerned with the harm to her children's shidduch chances if she divorces.
    Do you really think that if the Chareidi poskim allowed the halachic prenup, divorce would increase considerably? I am not using this as an argument for a prenup, I am just saying that I find this fear of "easy divorce" to be overblown.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am not arguing that we should have easy divorce. And I am not saying it is right halachically or morally.
    I am saying that even if there would be easy divorce it wouldn't happen so often. The people I know wouldn't be sweating at night even if it was easy for their wife to obtain a Get.
    Most people I know, when they heard about the NY Get law, they weren't thinking "oh no, maybe there wife will demand a Get".
    Their only concern was that in general they want to make sure that Gittin in NY would be kosher. They were not afraid it would happen to them! Because they know that they are decent husbands, and their wife is normal.

    ReplyDelete
  27. " I would assume that the vast majority of woman would only take that step if they were in a really bad marriage."

    Oh, boy, you could not be more mistaken.



    It certainly might be true of the vast majority of married women in general. But we're dealing with the subset of women who seek divorce. Within that group, I highly doubt the "vast" majority are in "really bad marriages" (however that is to be defined).

    ReplyDelete
  28. Three points:

    1) As you are a professional dealing with Shalom Bayis issues, you see more problem cases. Like a kidney doctor who thinks "everybody" has kidney disease. Without any studies, as a non-professional I might have a more realistic guess of the percentage of kidney disease in society. And I might have a more realistic sense of the percentage of woman who would ask for a Get if it was easy to obtain one.


    2) I am not sure how a Posek is in a better position than anyone else to know the likelihood of a woman divorcing just because it is easy

    3) If easy divorce causes a demand for a Get, then wouldn't men be more likely to demand a Get and wouldn't men be running to divorce? It is certainly easier for a man to give a Get, than for a woman to obtain one.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Your point isn't clear. But I certainly will maintain that the majority of divorces -- that happened -- were unnecessary and the marriages could have been saved.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If there is easy divorcing there certainly will be a lot more unnecessary divorces than if there is no easy divorcing. Even with easy divorcing most couples (Baruch Hashem) would still not be getting divorced. But a lot more would be than would have otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Women are by nature more prone to make a finicky and rash request for a divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Straw man arguments. You invent the "fear of easy divorce," and then spend a few paragraphs demolishing it. It's all your own invention.

    ReplyDelete
  33. why are you being ridiculous? You are obviously twisting my words. You should treat your wife as a queen because
    (1) Hashem wants you too
    (2) She deserves to be treated like a queen
    (3) because you love her

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not sure what you're upset about. You're the one who equated good treatmen with avoiding divorce, not me.

    I could quibble with your reasons, but why bother. So long as you agree that the original statement was kind of silly.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Psst. Moshe Ahron. It's Joe. Over here. Shhh! Quiet. In reality, Halachic divorce can be easy. I've witnessed it. It works like this.

    (A) Wife moves out.

    (B) She remains nearby, renting within walking distance to her husband

    (C) She remains calm.

    (D) She shares with the raising of the children, including finances.

    Get is forthcoming. I challenge anyone to find one case where that approach didn't work. Might take some time before the divorce is finalized, not going to minimize that. But it's easy compared to organizing rallies, and/or luring the husband to an abandoned warehouse, spending years in court, spending years in prison, etc.

    Our secret.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "why aren't you confident that you could treat your wife well" - Your mind is obviously so corrupted by feminism that you automatically assume that the non-feminist, pro-Torah bloggers here have no ability or interest to treat their wives well.

    Your constant knowledge of women's feelings and mentality suggests that you are actually a woman using a male ID, or else you may be a man suffering some type of gender identity confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "It is such a hard life for a divorced woman." - The more I read your comments, the more I suspect you are a feminist MO woman trying to bamboozle the male Chareidi "misogynists" on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  38. FUWCR, you are making excellent points. Many Orthodox divorce cases would probably be peacefully resolved, with the wife receiving a kosher GET, if feminist rabbis and activist groups like ORA were not providing unqualified support to women violating halacha and using archaos, while persecuting the women's husbands at the same time.


    Instead we have a situation where these women are being used as puppets and actually being prevented from receiving kosher GITTIN by the "agunah" activists.

    ReplyDelete
  39. fedupwithcorruptrabbisJanuary 30, 2015 at 4:11 PM

    @Joseph Orlow You are so right that divorce in most situations can be solved amicably. But why would a husband give her a GET so easily after she tortures him thru the ORA /JP machine or thru other public humiliation techniques? Therefore I announce to these evil wife advisers that it is you that holds back the GET and not the husband. I announce to all husbands "The time has come for you to uphold your halachic rights and never cave in to pressure, humiliation tactics and in the end they lose. Lets learn from the brave Meir Kin who stood up to Lonna Kin for violating his Torah rights. He withstood pressure, he deposited a GET at his Bais Din and was then granted a Heter to remarry which he Thank God is happy and moved on with his life.The evildoers thought that they can torture him more and expelled him from his local shuls, he didnt give up, but plowed forward and opened up his own shul! This story has a happy ending for Meir. Lonna who refuses till today to come to terms for all the damage she created has brought her own fate to herself. She now faces her only choice and proceeds to the international Bais Din to get her annullment papers. Ladies and gentlemen(Sof Dovor) the end of the story shows you the beginning of the story! You have a woman fighting for a GET for 10 years and all of a sudden goes for an anullment? My point is there is no more yiras shomayim, the Torah is no longer important to her, but what matters is the easiest and quickest way out!. So Moshe Aaron here you have it for some of todays women who wear shaitels as if that is a torah obligation to fulfill, but receiving a GET the kosher way is not obligatory?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Are you so against "archaos" for religious reasons or because it suits your purposes now?
    Do you get so angry about all other violations of halacha?
    Are you medakdek in all other halachos?
    Are you just an opportunist who focuses on this halacha prohibiting archaos?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The problem is that it is unreasonable to expect the first part to happen. No normal regular woman would be willing to give up her house. Your typical brooklyn, monsey, lakewood frum lady will never do that. And you wouldn't either if you were in their situation. Let's put aside right or wrong for a second - it is just unreasonable to expect any woman who is not on the level of R' Yisrael Salanter to give up her house. Peaceful divorce could only happen if they agree to share all assets 50/50.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I disagree. I believe that the comments on this post and other posts imply that Get-on-demand
    (a) is wrong halachically
    (b) is wrong morally
    (c) is a danger to society, as it will destroy a significant number of marriages


    It is item # c which I have been addressing in these comments. Item A and B - if true - are valid reasons to be against Get-On-Demand. I just don't think item "C" would qualify because I don't think a significant number of woman would run to be divorced even if a Get could be obtained easily.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "keep the house and money 100% for yourself" - You are setting up your usual straw man here. My opposition to use of archaos has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal benefit I might or might not realize by implementing Torah law instead. I don't believe that most Jewish men in Bais Din will be awarded 100% of the house and money, despite your ignorance in halacha.


    I am opposing use of archaos by Jews because it is a severe violation of Torah law, because archaos judgments are corrupt, totalitarian and unjust, and because abuse of archaos is a major factor in causing protracted divorce conflicts.


    These protracted divorce conflicts in archaos are often the major cause of the fake "agunah" problem. Anyone screaming about an alleged "agunah" problem, while refusing to condemn Jewish women who use archaos, is simply a political feminist, and not a Torah authority.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Let's see if I follow you, Reb Moshe Ahron. Wife wakes up one morning, turns to husband, and says: "You've been a dear husband. But I don't I love you anymore. Please don't take it hard. No tears, now, it might adversely affect the psychological emotionally health and wellbeing of my children, errr, I mean our children, your ex-children, whatever. That's better. Oh, and be the sweetheart you've always been. After you leave this morning, call the locksmith to change all the locks."

    And then the husband says: "Of course, hon--, I almost said honey, please excuse my indiscretion. Please, tell me one thing, though."

    And she says: "Yes...?"

    And he says: "Do you want your Get this morning or can it wait till the afternoon?"

    In other words, to you divorce always means the husband gives the get and then is told to get lost. This has nothing to do with the Torah no matter how much you might like it to. And I don't mind debating people till I figure out where they're coming from and they figure out where I'm coming from. But you and I have now reached that point. Debate over. I'm right. You're wrong. If you have something to say that truly adds to the discussion -- by all means, let's have it. But at this juncture it seems apparent you have an agenda and your "points" are just camouflage for promoting it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Joseph Orlow,
    My goal was not to endlessly repeat an old debate and debate under what circumstances a Get should or should not be given.
    The purpose of my comment was to address one narrow aspect of what you mentioned. You can't say that you have come up with a solution how to keep Halachic divorce easy, and it just involves one "minor" detail that the woman loses the house.
    And from my very unscientific survey, in 2 recent divorces that I am aware of - in yeshivish circles - the wife kept the house. (I am sure the husband received other assets to compensate). It looks like in Yeshiva circles there is an understanding that the wife should receive a good portion of the assets.

    ReplyDelete
  46. What are you talking about Moshe Ahron? Aside from the halachic wrongness about the wife keeping the house (and it is certainly an important and overriding point that halacha says the house is his [unless she owned it from before the marriage]) , even from a practical matter why should the wife automatically keep the house, as you insist, rather than the husband? That's completely absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Whether it is 80%, 90% or 100% does not change my essential point. My understanding is that under strict halacha, as a general rule the woman will usually only keep the assets that she brought into the marriage.
    In secular court it will be usually ballpark 50/50, child support (and from what I read many states are either eliminating or limiting alimony).
    Nothing that you wrote contradicts my essential thesis that this is the only halachic violation that you get angry about. Your anger is not motivated by fear of G-d, it is just for your personal benefit.
    Just answer the question, are you medakdek in all other halachos?
    By the way, did you remember to repeat Krias Shema on Friday night once it was dark enough, and shabbas morning before davening? Do you do Shnayim Mikrah V'Echad Targum every week? Do you use salt every time you eat bread?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Moshe Ahron, don't be foolish. A) You have no reason to think that TSJ is less than observant in any or all other halachas B) Whether or not he is machmir in any or all other halachas is irrelevent regarding the necessity of keeping these halachas regarding ownership of marital property. If someone is not careful with his clothing and violates halacha by wearing shatnes that in no way, shape or form means that one can or should violate other halachas.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Take this case. Husband and Wife jointly own a house and they have a child. Husband and Wife are in agreement that they each own half of the house. They are both in agreement that if they split, they will divide the house 50/50. Wife agrees husband is the best husband: she finds him attractive in every way possible. He provides her with all the money she asks for. He's a good father. She's had seven years of the happiest, most enjoyable, pleasurable, and satisfying marriage she could have hoped for or even imagined. Just that now she wants to "find herself". She got married at seventeen, and never had a chance to develop her own identity. It's been "Us" for seven years, and now she wants it to be all about "Me". She's ready to travel all over the world, get a degree in journalism, become the great writer she feels she has the potential to be.

    According to Moshe Ahron, Husband must move out of the house, half of which he owns, and give Wife a Get. Pronto.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I once had a Rebbe who encouraged us to pick one halacha to be extra perfect in. We chose davening with a minyan, not talking during davening, or some other halacha. But if a boy was the oldest in his family and he chose the halacha of honoring your older brachah and then tried to get his siblings to comply with this halacha - my Rebbe would not have been too impressed.

    I don't doubt that he is a Frum person. But this is the halachah that he is extra medakdek in. The level of anger that he and others have against "Archaos" is not stemming from fear of heaven it is just opportunism. He doesn't get angry about any other halachic violations! This is the halacha he adopted to perfect himself in - something that would benefit himself! If he would be as medakdek in all other halachos then we could assume that his anger is stemming from fear of heaven.

    This situation is similar to someone jumping up an down about being more careful about bugs and then it turns out he owns a lettuce company profiting from his frumkeit. Imagine if a Rav went from shul to shul giving speeches about bugs, and then it turns out he owns the company that would benefit from his mussar.

    And when someone has all these other ulterior motives there is a good chance they are not applying the halachah within the correct parameters, and they are a bad spokesman for the cause. It is a complete Chilul Hashem and personifies what Pirkei Avos says "don't make the Torah a spade to dig with"

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dear Moshe Ahron: I assure you with complete certainty that if after you told your rebbi that the mitzvah you chose to be extra machmir in is davening with a minyan but then added that since you're being extra machmir in this you're also going to then be a little "meikel" and wear shatnes once a month, your rebbi if he didn't smack you first would certainly tell you to much better daven at home and not wear shatnes.


    You, sir, are advocating r'l spitting at the Torah, using it as your doormat and throwing out the parts of it you don't like since it doesn't work out well in the 21st century.


    Secondly, you keep making up and inventing this false assumption that the people you are talking to and are relating these Torah Halachas that you don't like are otherwise not machmir about other aveiros and don't get angry when other aveiros are committed. Even if that were true it still doesn't justify your point of throwing out other mitzvos. Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if someone is doing another mitzvah wrong doesn't therefore justify ignoring another part of the Torah. Furthermore, you are claiming false ulterior motivations and assumptions that the people relating these positions to you aren't as careful in other halachas as they are in this halacha.


    P.S. I tell you this with complete ahava. Please forgive my strong words. I intend them only to stress the point. You could not be more wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am making these accusation after reading numerous posts from these gentleman that lead me to believe that I understand who they are.
    And Rabbi Reis of Bais Din of AMerica has written the same thing in a Jewish Action article (linked a few weeks ago on this blog). He said that his Bais Din has seen men who are just opportunists who advocate halacha after they discovered they could do better in Bais Din.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rabbi Reis doesn't take the position you do nor support what you are saying. In any event, putting aside those people you are exchanging comments with on this issue and rather looking at it from a neutral standpoint, the bottom line remains the Halacha and Torah needs to be followed. On this issue and all other issues.

    ReplyDelete

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