Update Feb 25, 2015 -
--------------------------
update Feb 23 just added the RCA resolution against violence against a recalcitrant husband. There is no mention that using violence is most cases is against the Shulchan Aruch and will result in an invalid get - Get Me'usa! The only concern of the RCA is that is against the law of the land to torture husbands. Apparently the only problem the RCA has about using violence is getting caught. If this understanding is incorrect - please provide an authoritative statement from the RCA to the contrary. DT
"D. the Rabbinical Council of America calls upon our members to use all means at their disposal to persuade recalcitrant spouses to agree to a get."Guest Post One of the many remarkable aspects of Rabbi Schwartz's comments is it appears to imply that a Get obtained through violence would generally be valid. As Rabbi Eidensohn has repeatedly written, it is in only extremely rare circumstances that a get obtained through any sort of coercion, and especially through actual violence, would be valid. Does anyone know what he actually holds about violently obtained Gittin - in particular the Epstein-Wolmark approach?
http://www.rabbis.org/news/art...
--------------------------
update Feb 23 just added the RCA resolution against violence against a recalcitrant husband. There is no mention that using violence is most cases is against the Shulchan Aruch and will result in an invalid get - Get Me'usa! The only concern of the RCA is that is against the law of the land to torture husbands. Apparently the only problem the RCA has about using violence is getting caught. If this understanding is incorrect - please provide an authoritative statement from the RCA to the contrary. DT
NY Times .....
During the panel discussion at Spertus, a Jewish educational center near Grant Park in Chicago, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz, who is featured in “Women Unchained,” mentioned one possible hope for chained wives: an annulment.If a marriage began under false pretenses, Rabbi Schwartz said in a telephone interview, it can be considered never to have taken place. Such a case might involve a spouse’s failure to disclose homosexual tendencies, an abusive streak or a gambling addiction.“If he had this addiction,” Rabbi Schwartz said this week, “and he had covered it up, and once they get married, he goes through his money, his wife’s money, he cleans out her accounts, he’s gambling it away, he goes to the casinos, and back and forth — that’s a deception.”Rabbi Schwartz cautioned that for an annulment to occur, a spouse’s flaw must have been present but hidden before the marriage. In the end, the prenuptial agreement matters because a rabbi can do only so much.“I can’t break the law,” Rabbi Schwartz said — although others sometimes do. He said he had recently met a Russian Jewish immigrant from a “semi-Hasidic” community. “I was talking in his presence about the problem of the chained women,” the rabbi said, “and he said in Yiddish, ‘What’s the problem? We don’t have a problem! We beat them up.’ ”
update
| |||||
|
What's more interesting now is Rabbi Schwartz's involvement in the current Mendel Epstein saga with R. Schwartz having signed the Seruv against the fake husband created by the FBI.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Schwartz is over 90 years old. He lives in Chicago and has nothing to do with Weissmann's unilateral actions in new York at bda.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't sign anything.
The sole cause of the demise of beth din of america is they have an am h'oretz attorney- shlomo weissmann who is on a power rush and does whatever he fancies contrary to basic halocha.
He is worse than reform- at least reform we all know their gittin and gerusin are posul.
Wessmann has deluded himself and others into thinking that the orthodox accept and recognize his actions.
In eretz yisroel al the botei din have already paskened that his gitin and gerusin are posul- on par with reform.
Most of the American botei din have already paskened the same.
The FBI documents show that Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz of the BDA signed the Shtar Seruv.
ReplyDeleteRca (not bet din) policy http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105802
ReplyDeleteEssentially, they push their pre nup. Forced gitten are valid, but the forcing is not illegal under jewish law, except for issues of "dina demalchusa dina", meaning either don't get caught or farm / subcontract the forcing out to ... others ...
"..If she had these issues and she had covered them up, and once they get married, she goes through his money, she cleans out his accounts, she's spending it away, she goes to Bloomingdale's, and back and forth, that's a deception.."
ReplyDeleteOutside the monies and makot retsach, everything is fake. Rav G Schwartz, I am sure is aware of "harotse leshaker yarchik eduso". There is no need to have him sign a document hundreds of miles away when there are plenty rabbis available from closer up that can verify whether a ham sandwich even exists, let alone absentia. It seems that these docs have been fabricated, most likely at the tantacles of the Pro(u)dFather. Vehalo dvarim kal vachomer, if he can fabricate a recalcitrant husband yesh meayin, how much more so a domem procuring a piece of paper and rofl "signing" a Ketubah, HUH? This whole saga stinks from neveilo utreifo through and through and all for the MONEY. We yet haven't even touched the tip of the icebrg and the Titanic is s(t)inking head over heels. Hah! The champion of women's rights? Let's see if he can only free himself from this entanglement. Only in a body bag will you be able to be "FREE AT LAST". Didn't you say you are working outside of the law, if that isn't criminal intent, I don't know what is. The question is, how is he responsible for kidnapping a "VIRTUAL" husband that doesn't even exist? The answer my friend is, that the so called recalcitrant husbands that DO exist are here to testify and nail him to his coffin for good. And finallly, Hashem heard the "Tsaakas bnei Yisrael", as they say oso ve'es bno, "you are well done", good riddens!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your summary of the RCA policy. There is no mention of Get me'usa - only that force is against the law of the land. Which apparently means that the husband can be battered into giving a get- just don't get caught.
ReplyDelete" The only concern of the RCA is that is against the law of the land to torture husbands. Apparently the only problem the RCA has about using violence is getting caught."
ReplyDeleteThis is a non-sequitur, dina d'malchusa can be, and is, a halachic problem without regard to whether or not one gets caught. Your suggestion is not only a mis-characterization of the RCA's position but a mis-characterization of the dina d'malchusa dina in general.
What they ignore is that their position of beating the husband till he says i agree, is a: a minority view of only the rambam and no one else. And b: even the rambam only says tfys
ReplyDeleteAnd b: a get can only be forced if first a get is ordered (not recommended) and then refused, and only by a valid bet din that both parties attend; not a bet din that doesn't invite both parties, and both parties agree to that bet din's jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteThe BDA has a policy that it does not recognize any other bet din, thus it can order whatever it wants, without both parties. And it never "recommends" a get, unlike other batei din, it never orders shalom bayit (reconciliation), never orders marital counseling (it actually opposes counseling.) Which are required to be considered by halacha.
And it tolerates and or justifies forced gitten and or beating up husbands (but never wives; not that wives should be beaten up,but
It does not surprise me that Gedalia Schwartz would sign a seruv against a non-existent person. He did far worse in the seminary case.
ReplyDeleteTrst
ReplyDeleteDT, the great love and golden calf of the ORA/BDA supporters is the feminist police state where decent men are routinely stripped of any G-d given Torah rights and stripped of any constitutional rights.
ReplyDeleteThe ORA/BDA supporters constantly regurgitate the same nonsensical arguments about "dina d'malchusa" when they are attempting to legitimize severe Torah violations and suppression of Jewish men's halachic rights by women in archaos.
@Daas Torah, while I am no expert in dina d'malchusa dina the "bottom line" is it is not reasonable to infer a particular conclusion in absence of evidence (and certainly not from silence). This is a din in critical thinking and intellectual honesty. I also find it curious that appeal to the literature failed to reference, much less cite, that one may disobey dina d'malchusa dina provided one did not get caught. Even if there are such views it would be jumping to conclusion to ascribe it to the RCA without a evidence suggesting it was their view.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick survey off the top of my head, I apologize if any are imprecise:
ReplyDelete"I would suggest you study what dina d'malchusa is....."
Ad Hominem
"before you make such mistaken judgments."
Begging the Question
"One of my rebbeim stated simply that it is an obligation to be as compliant as the average citizen of the country." Appeal to Authority, Red Herring
"If you look in the literature you will see there are a wide range of views including that it only applies when the country is owned by the king"
Red Herring
"Bottom line - since the RCA's views on violent gittin did not include how they view "the law of the land" "
Argument from silence
- it is reasonable from the language used - that they hold that the real problem is getting caught rather than transgressing."
Non-sequitur
The ORA-BDA forced get advocates only pay lip service to the Rambam when its convenient, but really they don't hold by him at all. The Rambam clearly states in Hilchos Ishus 14:8 that the divorcing wife may not take any of the husband's property. She has to return her shoe, her head-covering, and any presents he gave her.
ReplyDelete@Yirmiahu - please reread the title of the post. You made a big song and dance - without contributing anything of substance to my original quesiton.
ReplyDeleteIt's a moderated forum, if you feel that some how what is said in a post is off topic simply because it isn't in the title or that asking a question gives you immunity for making unfounded assertions about third parties then by all means don't post my comments. As for a big song and dance, my points were pretty straight forward and narrowly focused. The only dancing I see is you jumping to conclusions and side stepping the issue when being called out.
ReplyDeleteActually what he did was show that your response was made up of a series of logical fallacies with no actual substance.
ReplyDeleteI find it intriguing that his response itself was a logical fallacy, namely "the fallacy fallacy".
In short neither side has yet put forth its best argument.
Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteThe RCA's own website refutes the attempts at obfuscation by yirmiahu and Tzadok. There seems to be almost no evidence that the RCA rabbis reject as halachically invalid a GET forced by physical or any other means.
Readers better copy the webpage link below because it probably won't be up for long:
"D. the Rabbinical Council of America calls upon our members to use all means at their disposal to persuade recalcitrant spouses to agree to a get."
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=101028
At your lies again I see. Once again misrepresenting people's statements and positions. How is it that lies come so easily to you?
ReplyDeleteI pointed out that Yirmiahu correctly noted that Rav Eidensohn used a number of logical fallacies. Please disprove this if you can.
However, I also noted that Yirmiahu used a logical fallacy, namely "the fallacy fallacy."
Clearly your simple thuggish mind is ignorant of what that means, so let me spell it out for you, "Presuming that because an argument has been poorly made, or because a fallacy has been used that the claim itself must be wrong."
Personally I await a smoking gun.
As far as your own take on things, need I remind you of how vocally you tried to claim that you alone had the proper understanding of the GR"A, and that I was intentionally misrepresenting him? That is until Rav Eidensohn told you that you were wrong. Then instead of apologizing for your many slanderous attacks you simply slunk back under your rock.
At your lies again I see. Once again misrepresenting people's statements and positions. How is it that lies come so easily to you?
ReplyDeleteI think it's time for you to get yourself a clear mirror, and take a good look into it.
There's quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty you've been posting. Your answer is usually to run to a different topic, mixed in with some ad hominem.
כל הפוסל במומו פוסל
If you're upset at a poster for something he said sever months ago, that is your prerogative. But please realize, that your comments will come through that way.
I assume you are talking about our discussion regarding how a B"D summons is supposed to work. Where you tried to claim a number of things that went against the Shulhan Arukh.
ReplyDeleteI will again state, please provide a halakhic source for any of your claims or withdraw your spurious accusations.
Tzadok, various alert persons have repeatedly exposed your numerous false and obfuscating comments on this blog. You have also made disparaging comments about numerous prominent Ashkenazi rabbis, including Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L.
ReplyDeleteI see you're at your lies again. Please cite any of my blog comments where I claimed I "alone had the proper understanding of the GR"A".
Typical.
ReplyDeleteRespond to an actual challenge with more lies and a change of subject.
R' Tzadok, the error that both you and "Truth Seeker" seem make is that I take a position on what the RCA's position is. So while the balance of your words are appreciated insofar as I do not make any inference other than the reasoning made was invalid I believe your application of the "fallacy fallacy" is misdirected.
ReplyDelete@ Shmilda - the RCA also has the Shulchan Aruch and poskim. The concept of Get Me'usa is not an esoteric doctrine only comprehensible after years of study. The parameters are fully discussed and acknowledged by all poskim. So it is bizarre that the idea is not mentioned at all in the RCA guidelines.
ReplyDeleteAlso concidering that Get Me'usa means the Get is invalid - the consequences of not be concerned with it are immense.
Your closing statement is incredible and I hope you weren't serious. If the Monsey butcher sold kosher meat 50% or even 90% - you don't think he should be condemned for the times he got it wrong?!
Whether their gittin should be announced to be problematic is an issue for major poskim - not for you and not for me to decide.
Obviously we all agree that "Get Me'usa means the Get is invalid," and yes, that can have dire consequences. What I am suggesting, in-artfully, is that whether a particular get is get me'usa is at times a hard question. And, I assume, when considering individual cases of mamzerus most poskim look for leniency.
ReplyDeleteTo take your example, once it became known that the "Monsey Butcher" was unreliable the public was rightly warned not to patronize him in the future. But what would it help anyone to loudly proclaim that every person who ate his meats over the decades he was in business ate neveilah. And given the numbers - rov, mi'ut matzui, etc, admittedly I am far from a possek or a lamdan - would it be prudent to announce that anyone who cooked with his meats over the decades he was in business needs to fully kasher their kitchens? (Maybe he only introduced non-kosher poultry, not beef. Maybe he only started selling non-kosher recently. Etc.)
My point is, there are many good reasons for the RCA not to pass a resolution stating that any get involving Mendel Epstein, or any get involving ORA, or any get involving any other group who claims to be frum - is passul. Individual cases should be decided, of course, but I don't see any good coming from a blanket statement disqualifying past gittin.
In the Monsey butcher situation, in fact, everyone who had used that butcher over the years was told to kasher or throw out their kitchen keilim.
ReplyDeleteI know of some very fine pure Zera Kodesh that have done some very nasty things in the name of purity. I think you need to read some Harry Potter to get a better perspective of reality. Yes Mamzeirus is a serious matter but excuse me for saying that you sound a little bit like a Nazi.
ReplyDeleteI hereby would like to challenge each and all that utilize force to extract
ReplyDeletea Get and consider it valid. Even according to the Rambam of which in any
case is in the minority, kofin oso ad sheyomar rotse ani works through the
interpretation and logic that the soul underneath it all, truly wants to
be compliant, therefore it is considered as if his own WILL, in spite it is
accomplished under use of force. There clearly is a world of a difference
between various categories of a person in accomplishing a task. There is a,
Shogeg, Meizid, Rotzon, Onnes, Mumer Lehachiss, Mumer leteiovon, and IYUM or
under "Threat of Life". Threat of life, which Talmud calls it 'MEAYMIM', even
the Rambam and ALL Poskim will admit that it is clear whatever the victim
directs under such circumstances SAHADEI BAMROMIM, is due to his fear for life,
and NOT the will of his soul to do so. There are two forms of THREATS of life,
one is Verbal only, and when taking it one step further, is actually acting it
out in stages whereby the victim is realizing the threat in midst of being
carried out, leading to believe that Death is imminent. This salami technique is
used in extracting information from terrorists etc. In such cases the WILL of
the person is totally DIMINISHED to being non-existent and whatever he says is
due and because of, he is at the mercy of his captor. Therefore, even the Rambam
will say that such Gittin are invalid. Indeed, that is the reason why the
Rambam uses the word "Kofin oso", and NOT "Meaymim oso". So there you have it
Goon Squad, waterboarders, bathtub drowners, karate choppers, electric prodders,
noose hangers, kill-him orderers, heart attack inducers, hooders, garbage bag
chokers, traumatic face beaters, hand cuffers, cemetery disposers, chair
binders, Kol dealim gvar'ers, yodayim yedei Eisav'ers, veal raglayim memaharim
loruts leRo'o, veal chatoim sheatem chayovim 'BITSDIYAS REYA", blood spillers, 5
Ton bull movers and all the rest that think they are above the LAW. You scum of
the earth, mamzerim manufacturers, you have no prayer. Ayin tachas Ayin, Shen
tachas Shen, kaasher zomam laasos. As for you bas sheva - bas bliya'al that
spilled Capo di tutti capi's do do on his head while cleaning his weapons, job
well done. For more on this story see Megilat Esther of what happened to Haman
and his 'ten' henchman.
@ to the graveowner with license plates disquas_YOi43tN6R9 a/k/a/ as the unknown soldier. I am not sure whether you are mizera Yisrael, but the Torah Hakdosha declares "Vihyisem li lisgulo mikol haamim" & "veatem tihyu li mamleches goi kodosh" for starters. There is also a whole Perek of Assara Yochsin in masechet Kidushin if you know what that is, dedicated and explaining the various Psulei chitun that entails 10 levels. Ezra sorted out of which should make Aliyah. Not everybody is born equal, some are born more equal. The only remedy left for them was for the so called Epstein treatment, Kessef metaher mamzerim. So much for name calling. Veidach zil ugmor, that is only if your'e Jewish, else no need to apply. - To a commentator that his comment never saw the light of day
ReplyDeleteHi Zbeng,
ReplyDeleteNice of you to write back. I am not sure what a/k/a as the unknown soldier is referring to or why you refer to the graveowner with the etc. I assume Daat Torah had his reasons for not publishing my comment. I admit, I was in a very low mood when I wrote my comment and probably the comment was not expressing what I wanted to express. Since you seem to have the privilege of reading unpublished comments, you saw that I basically agreed with you on the main part of your comment. What probably set me off was "They are polluting the Kosher gene pool of zera kodesh."
Why this set me off is irrelevant.
It is my hopes that you continue to be a Torah true Jew. May you walk in Moshe Rebbeno's footsteps who it is said about that he was the humblest of all humans, or Avraham Avinu who said 'Ani afer ve efer, or David Hamelech who referred to himself as a 'tolaat'.
May you have a nice week and please forgive me for my comment.
Daat Torah. my letter to Zbeng also does not to be published. But please show it to him. Thanks
ReplyDelete