Tuesday, February 3, 2015

If wife went to secular court - husband does not need to deposit Get with beis din - unless he wants a Heter Meah Rabbonim

Rav Menashe Klein has a long teshuva (Misheh Halachos vol 14  1-11) where he states very clearly that a husband does not have to give his wife a get if she goes to secular court without the permission of beis din. He says this is the view of the majority of achronim - including the Maharsham (7:159) and Rav Moshe Feinstein. He also says that the husband does not need a heter meah rabbonim if his wife goes to secular court without permission - but that it is best for her sake to deposit a get with beis din because she might eventually withdraw from the secular court. None the less he notes it is the custom today to deposit a get with beis din when receiving a heter meah rabbonim [This is also the view of Rav Moshe Sternbuch (4:301)] Thus he claims the majority of achronim permit a man to remarry with a heter meah rabbonim if they deposit a get with beis din - to be given when the wife renounces the rulings of the secular court. If there is no heter meah rabbonim then there is no need to give a get. Thus there is no difference between the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Moshe Sternbuch in this matter.  See the discussion in the comments to the post about Yoel Weiss
================================================

שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יד סימן ז


עוד להנ"ל
אשה שהלכה לערכאות אי בעלה זקוק להיתר מאה רבנים, ולהשליש גט

ט) ולכן פשוט דאשה שהלכה בערכאות ועדיין עומדת במרדה בערכאות כל זמן שהיא עומדת בערכאות כתבו רבותינו האחרונים דאין צריך כלל להיתר מאה רבנים דעל כה"ג לא גזר מעולם רגמ"ה שלא יוכל הבעל לישא אשה ועם אשה זו אינו יכול לדור וגם אסור לו לדור עמה, שהרי כתב הרמב"ם (הנ"ל) שהיא גרוע מהעכו"ם ולכן ההיתר שנותנין לו הוא רק ליתר שאת ולהיות לו לכסות עינים בפני בנ"א שלא יראה כנושא שתי נשים, אבל מעצם דינא לא בעי היתר כלל וכ"כ הגאון הגדול המהרש"ם ז"ל (ח"ז סי' קנ"ט) שהאריך הרבה באשה שהלכה לערכאות כמה פעמים ומסרה את בעלה וכמה צרות והיתה מסרבת לבוא לב"ד ומסיק להתיר לבעלה לישא אשה בלי היתר מאה רבנים אלא שיעץ אותו הבעל שישא אעפ"כ רק בהיתר מאה רבנים ע"ש, וכ"כ האחרונים הלכה למעשה.

י) וכיון דלא צריך הבעל היתר מאה רבנים כ"ש דלא בעי להשליש גט בב"ד כיון דמעיקר דינא השלשת גט כמעט לא נזכר בראשונים אלא שהנוב"י (א"ע קמא סי' ג') כתב לא רצינו לבטל מנהג ראשונים כי אולי רגמ"ה התנה כך שלא יתירו רק בהשלשת הגט היכא דמתירין לגרש בע"כ (ועיין בי"ש וקצ"ע) ולא תקנו אלא היכא שהיא מסרבת לקבל גט שנמצא כמגרש בע"כ או שהיא חולה, אבל היכא דלא בעי היתר מאה רבנים לא בעי להשליש גט נמי לפי רוב האחרונים ז"ל וכמו שכתבנו לעיל בשם הגאון מהרש"ם זצ"ל וכ"כ הגרמ"פ זצ"ל.

ומ"מ לעצם הענין כיון דנוהגין כהיום ליתן היתר מאה רבנים מאן יקל ראשו להתיר בלי מאה רבנים וגם בלי להשליש גט יהיה מאיזה טעם שיהי', וכ"כ האחרונים הנ"ל דלכתחילה יש לקבל היתר של מאה רבנים אפי' בכה"ג. ולפענ"ד הוספתי דאפשר דכאן יש להשליש גט אפי' היכא דנושא בלי היתר מאה רבנים דהני תרי מילי נינהו ההיתר הוא שיוכל לישא וכיון שהוא מותר לישא בלי היתר א"כ ההיתר לא מעכב, ומיהו הגט שהיא לטובתה ואפשר שתתחרט ותחזור מהערכאות ותתרצה בדיני תורה ובגט ותקבל על עצמה דיני תורה, לכן יש לסדר גט בכל אופן ולהשליש.


62 comments :

  1. Not only is this the majority view of the Achronim, this is virtually their unanimous view. I have yet to see any teshuva from the poskim that says any differently than this. None of the gedolei poskim have paskened that in a case where the wife utilized arkaos (secular court) that a husband is obligated to give a Get (or that he can't obtain a heter meah rabbonim.) Every shaila that addresses this issue of arkaos in divorce proceedings concurs with the above psak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not only what you said, but moreso even if there are some poskim who dissent (and I'm not saying there are) and rule otherwise that a Get must nevertheless be given in an arkaos case or that a heter meah isn't made available in an arkaos case, in any event the husband is certainly free to utilize the psak of the poskim such as Rav Shternbuch, Rav Klein (above), and the Maharsham (and apparently Rav Moshe as well) that he is able to hold off on giving the Get (or he is able to obtain a heter meah) until his wife reverses the wrongful action she took and/or achieved against him in secular court.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since there was an extensive discussion of this issue in the comments of an earlier thread, I think it is a good idea to link to that thread:

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/02/weiss-files-motion-to-dismiss-rivkys.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who listens to rav klein? No-one listens to his psak on fertility treatment (absolutely forbidden), no-one in his right mind listens to his psak on child abuse (ignore it unless there are two kosher witnesses), not even the blog owner, so why should his psak in this realm be relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see that R' Menashe Klein claims that R' Moshe wrote that where no heter me'ah is required, it's not necessary to be משליש a get. He doesn't state that R' Moshe says no heter me'ah is required by arkaos (he says that from the Maharsham), but I accept that this is probably what he means.

    I'm bothered that he doesn't identify where R' Moshe wrote such a thing so we can check it out for ourselves. If he has a teshuvah to show, why not give us the mareh makom, as he does with the Maharsham? Was he relying on memory, and was his memory reliable? Who knows. It's strange that no mareh makom was provided.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Discuss - please stop the ad hominem arguments.You obviously didn't bother reading the teshuva. by Rav Klein - whether you like his psakim or not - knew his sources well. He says what he is saying is not just his view but that of the majority of achronim including the Maharsham and Rav Moshe Feinstein. It is obviously that of Rav Moshe Sternbuch. If you disagree please provide the sources where the Achronim did not agree with what he said!

    According to your "logic" - since Rav Klein paskened that you need to keep Shabbos as well as the other 613 mitzos - you obviously don't think these are relevant either and for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The difficulty with certain psakim of R' Menashe Klein is that his personal circumstances colored his views. Vehamavin yavin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would just abolish the ban of rabbi Gershon. That's easiest. Pity the rabbonim did not seize the occasion when the 1'000 years were over...

    ReplyDelete
  9. So you will forbid a whole series of fertility treatments (widely used in the hareidi world) because he forbade them? You will tell a victim of abuse to shut up because he does, if there are not two kosher eidim who saw the abuse with their own eyes?

    If he was the only possek to say that one should keep shabbat and mitzwot, this would not be sufficient to convince me to do it. It happens that he is not the only one on this matter. Your arguments are really, really twisted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Vilna Gaon in Ma'aseh Rav Hashalem (p. 276) writes:

    "If I would be successful, in accomplishing two things, I would be idle from Torah and Tefila and go from city to city [to get them accepted]. One is to eliminate the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom against taking two wives, for with this the Geula (final redemption) will become closer, and the second that they should have Bircas Cohanim every day."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Attention all ORA "agunot" activists (Moshe Ahron, etc.): If you sincerely seek to correct the fake "agunah" problem, please study carefully Rav Menashe Klein's tshuvah, and then implement its procedures.

    Rav Klein ZT"L offers a halachically valid solution that would eliminate most of the fake "agunos": First, the husband deposits a GET in a non-feminist, halachic Bais Din, the husband receives a HMR, and proceeds to remarry or seek marriage. Second, the first wife must withdraw from secular court, cease any persecution and harassment of her husband, and allow the Bais Din to resolve all issues.

    Rav Klein's system will most likely produce a kosher GET for the first wife, as opposed to the pasul GITTIN - virtual "agunos" being produced by the MO feminist activists like ORA and fellow travelers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Indeed, Rav Moshe Feinstein seems to say just the opposite in the tshuvah a pasted into the other thread. This isn't to say that Rav Klein or Rav Shternbuch and other posekim can't argue with him, but Rav Moshe's tshuva seems quite clear and unambiguous. But don't take my word for it, I pasted the whole thing on the other thread.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Rav Moshe's teshuva does not mention arkaos - but only financial obligation. We have gone through this a number of times. So no it is not clear and unambiguous. It is your assumption that finanical issues and arkaos are the same thing. It isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  14. fedupwithcorruptrabbisFebruary 4, 2015 at 4:41 PM

    I agree with Truth seeker, that a solution to the get crisis today is to a) deposit a Get early in the process, b) if the woman refuses to either settle, or to proceed to a Bais Din, then Bais Din should not release the GET. This system offers both sides fairness in Divorce. We all know that many civil courts such as we see in New York are terribly against a man's rights. They dont care if your child is 6, 12 or whatever, and couldnt care less about "VESHINANTOM LEVONECHO" and unfortunately a man will not have any say in raising his sons. In regards to forming an "honest Bais Din" , we must have a system of laws that all Bais Din's can conform with. They must rule based on authentic Torah principles and not by their whim. The problem is that too many rabbis today are allowing the women to proceed to civil courts immediately and later helping them extract gittin via forcible methods which violates not only a mans rights but violates the Torah in that such a GET is invalid and they are adding to the mamzer factory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As I noted above, R' Menashe Klein did not provide his R' Moshe source.

    DiscussName is correct in that he was never considered one of the A-list poskim by any measure.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "This system offers both sides fairness in Divorce." - Excellent point! Depositing a GET in a non-feminist Bais Din if/when the parties intend to divorce will protect the husband and will also protect the wife more than ORA feminists ever can.


    This procedure is not being followed today because, as you suggested, too many rabbis today are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the women instead of following halacha and promoting just divorce settlements.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rav Klein was a tremendous lomdan. Rabbi Avraham Blumencranz once told me that the reason he was not widely accepted as a top posek - was because despite his tremendous knowledge of Torah - he did not have a mesorah in psak and basically developed his own approach. It is absurd to dismiss the words of such a great talmid chachom by saying he wasn't an "a-list posek". The only way you can refute his view is by showing that he was wrong i.e.showing that the majority of Achronim did not agree with him. So far you have simply made a very questionable diyuk in one of Rav Moshe's teshuvos.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We differ as to the strength of my diyuk in R' Moshe's teshuvah. You deem it questionable; I disagree.

    R' Klein did not give the location of R' Moshe's supposed teshuvah, which makes me suspicious that he was misremembering.

    ReplyDelete
  19. More than a shul poseik, less than a top poseik. I often would hear his teshuvos referred to mockingly with the name Meshaneh Halachos.

    In America? Off the top of my head, I would nominate R' Bick. Certainly R' Henkin, although I'm not sure how long he is gone. I'd have to think about who others might be.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I took a look at the Maharsham's teshuvah. Very interesting case -- clearly, the wild stuff that goes on nowadays is nothing new.

    Maharsham does indeed say in that case that b/c she did mesirah by going to arkaos, the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom does not apply -- but I think his reasoning will surprise most readers here -- it's not like anything you'd imagine, nor anything like the sevaros I've seen people posting here in comments. Briefly, the idea is that someone who does mesirah will certainy end up being the victims of mesirah, in which case this woman who went to arkaos will be נתפס herself at some point, and it will cost the husband a large sum to free her, and he brings from Tosafos that a חשש of losing money is like דברים שבינו לבינה, and since even Rabbeinu Gershom never was מתקן that כח האשה should be greater than כח האיש (which is an underlying sevarah for much of the teshuvah), then just as we force a husband to be מגרש when he is מצער his wife, so too we allow the husband to be מגרש בע"כ when she is מצער him. He then adds other צדדים as סניפים, but this is the basic sevarah.

    This is only one point in a lengthy teshuvah, but he does say that for this reason alone he would be permitted to remarry.

    With regard to being משליש a get, Maharsham did require in that case that the husband be משליש a get, notwithstanding that she went to arkaos and cost him money in arkaos. He did not say the get could be withheld until she paid him back the illicit funds. To the contrary, he said the husband should be משליש various moneys of the kesubah for her along with the get. So in that respect, the Maharsham is not like the psak of R' Menashe Klein (although there are various differences in the cases, and one could perhaps argue that there's a difference .... it would need more עיון than I have time for now ... suffice to say, it's not so pashut, and it's strange that R' Klein did not take note of that part of the Maharsham, which seems to contradict the end of RMK's teshuvah).

    For those who are interested in seeing the teshuvah, it is here:

    http://hebrewbooks.org/1530

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not convinced of his lomdus. I recently read a teshuvah from him on harchakos where the reasoning was just laughable. I've read others where I was similarly unimpressed. [This is not the feeling you get when reading Igros Moshe.] I think his strength was less lomdus and more bekius in teshuvos sefarim. I don't claim to be a RMK expert, but these are my impressions from the small amount of his work that I've seen.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You don't have to agree with his sevaros, but 'laughable' is disrespectful.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Laughable? You mean you didn't agree with him. kishkeyum vs. RMK on whether the reasoning was sound.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So off the top of your head you have three on what you call the A-list for the last 40 years in America: Rav Moshe, Rav Bick and Rav Henkin. If you're talking the cream of the crop, the top of the top, the very select few, less than a handful that comes immediately to mind, I might agree that it is as exclusive as you might suggest. But Rav Klein is on a top tier even if not on the top tier.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Don't tell me what I meant. I meant laughable. Obviously, you don't have to accept my judgment, but I meant what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fine, so it's disrespectful. But it's the truth. It actually made me laugh a couple of times.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry, but I completely disagree. And I believe my opinion is widely shared, at least in the yeshivishe velt.

    ReplyDelete
  28. kishkeyum: Can you clarify some points that you wrote in your summary? Putting aside the reasoning the Maharasham uses to get to his conclusion, when you say that the Maharsham states that "the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom does not apply" when the wife is using arkaos, do you mean that the Maharasham is stating that the cherem against polygamy does not apply in his situation and he thus can remarry? Does he need a heter meah rabbonim or is the Maharsham saying he can even remarry without obtaining a heter meah?

    When you quote the Maharsham that "we allow the husband to be מגרש בע"כ", do you mean that we allow him to divorce his wife against her will despite the fact that Rabbeinu Gershom decreed against a husband divorcing his wife involuntarily? Or were you simply referring that he's permitted to obtain a heter meah?

    If he does elect to remarry, does the Maharsham indicate whether he must deposit a Get with the Beis Din? And whether the Beis Din will refuse to hand her the Get until she undoes whatever she gained in arkaos and rectifies her damages to him?

    What does the Maharsham state if the husband would prefer to not give a Get until his wife undoes the arkaos? (And he is not interested in getting remarried or getting a heter meah until the situation between himself and his wife is resolved al pi halacha.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. colored his views


    You would have to cite a little more than this type of reference. His psakim are quite consistent, across the board, to one who has actually gone through many of his teshuvos.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's not really a summary; there are several other parts of the teshuvah I didn't include.



    It's not so black and white, and there are details of the case and סניפים that he brings that complicate things. But to me it seems that Maharsham is saying that he can divorce her against her will, and then remarry. [In this particular case, as part of the details of the case, the husband had aready given her a get בע"כ at some point in the proceedings.] As for whether he needs heter me'ah to remarry in this situation of giving a get בע"כ, Maharsham brings a machlokes Acharonim about it. He concludes that in this particular case, even the machmirim would agree that he didn't need 100 rabbonim; rather, he was prepared to be מיקל to allow him to remarry with the haskama of two more rabbonim, provided the husband would be משליש by them a get for the wife along with her kesubah money and nedunya money.



    Note: He did not say he could withhold the get until the arkaos judgment was undone and the money returned To the contrary, he even required the husband to pay her the kesubah and nedunya! This is explicitly not like RMK and a number of the commenters, who say that the get can be withheld until the arkaos judgment is undone.



    With re. your final question, he doesn't address it. He was dealing with the opposite case -- where the husband wanted out and the wife was the one making difficulties.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Daas Torah,


    Did you ever ask yourself what is it about you that you attract crazies? This person is advocating polygamy! What does this say about you? As I said earlier in the week your opinions are on the fringe. Some of the people here are just plain nuts. Polygamy!!!. I know you are not the one who advocated polygamy, but these are your supporters and fan club. I suggest some introspection.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Don't be a putz, MA. No one here advocated polygamy. The entire comment consists of Torah sources and halachas. There's nothing wrong with citing the Torah and gedolim and shailos and teshuvos seforim about polygamy. THat doesn't make one advicating it or anything else. Just like if somneone posts what the Torah says about murder and discusses halacha seforim says about murder, doesn't mean he is advocating murder.


    Learning Torah is learning Torah. This is learning Torah. You should try it once in a while instead of beating everyone up who relates a shtickel Torah or Halacha or Divrei Chazal that you, Moshe Ahron, don't like and agree with so you demand the Torah and Halacha be changed to accommodate 21st century preferences that you pickup from television and secular values. Meanwhile you've been here on this website for weeks pontificating against normative halacha on things you don't like what halacha has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If he gets a heter meah or otherwise remarries, the Get and kesuba he gives to Beis Din for them to hold or they immediately give her the Get?

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Moshe Ahron - you have an incredible talent for distorting things. Of focusing on the sidepoint and missing the major issues. More importantly you have an agenda - to enlighten all of us primitive chareidim and try and convince us that while halacha is critical for a Torah Jew - it really doesn't compare to current secular values. Contrary to your understanding we are not cannibals living in the South Paciific and you are not the Great White Father that has come to rescue us and bring us into the 21rst century.

    I am sure there are some individuals somewhere else that would welcome your wordly views and your profound lack of awareness of what is important according to the Torah - but the readership of this blog simply is not interested in being converted to your understanding ofTorah that you have been trying to pass on to us.

    Further insulting and off the wall comments of this sort will simply be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  35. My intention is not to insult! My intention is to point out that this blog is not mainstream on any level. People here have discussed setting up a mamzer registry and permitting polygamy. If you look through the history of my comments I am always respectful, but in this instance my comments need to be harsher, as these ideas of a mamzer registry and polygamy are so evil and crazy that it needs to be emphasized.
    Why can't you answer my questions? Why can't you explain why you believe your positions are mainstream? Why the constant evasion? Why the arrogance in not answering my questions? Again and again, when I have asked you questions you have either ignored or responded something like "I already answered you". And when I ask "where" I get silence. The arrogance - this lack of character refinement - is what I find the most troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The prior commenter had written "I would just abolish the ban of rabbi Gershon. That's easiest. Pity the
    rabbonim did not seize the occasion when the 1'000 years were over..."
    That commenter was clearly advocating polygamy.
    I am not advocating to change the torah, Chas V'shalam.
    The Torah permits Kiddushei Ktana, but today it would be evil even according to the Torah. Same thing with Polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh no. I have to change my name again to "The Not Evil and Not Crazy David". Seriously, have a little respect. People come to this site to have healthy debate. You don't have to go and try to insult people you don't agree with. Why are you here? To save the world from the crazy evildoers?

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Moshe Ahron - no I do not read this as meaning that we should have households of one many and many wives. Why don't you ask you what he means instead of jumping and down screaming "you all are crazy!"

    If he meant it as you are claiming - I would disagree. so why don't you backup and simply ask him if he meant mulitple wife households?

    ReplyDelete
  39. That was two commentators prior - not the prior commentator who your previous comment was responding to. You need to be clear who you're addressing. You replied to the wrong comment addressing someone else without stating as such thus leaving it as if you were responding to a different comment.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Your brother wrote 2 days ago "Today, a large percentage of Orthodox people including prominent rabbis
    Roshei Yeshiva and Dayanim write letters telling people to coerce a GET
    whenever a woman wants it and breaks the marriage, even if she has
    children with her husband."
    I think your brother realizes that most Rabbanim don't agree with him. I believe that your brother's position is that the majority of the halachic sources agree with him, but the majority of the living Rabbanim do not agree with him.
    And that is what I have been saying. You might be right about the consensus of the halachic sources, but it isn't the consensus of living Rabbanim. Certainly not the way most divorces are treated in Israel and America.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I think we all agree that when approaching an issue we need to take into consideration:
    a) Halachic sources,

    (b) moral and ethical values and

    (c) what is wise and smart


    I think that on this blog there is not enough emphasis on (b) and (c). As an example, people are writing about Heter Meah Rabbanim so nonchalantly, without asking if it is wise and smart. How many girls do you know who would be willing to go out with a man who has a HMR?
    Most people in the Yeshiva community will be afraid for their reputation and give a Get as long as custody and money is "somewhat within the ballpark" of being reasonable. They won't risk their reputation to stick up for their rights! Their 2nd marriage prospects are too important to put at risk. They realize that it is not worth it. But on this blog this idea is not given any consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think you would improve the blog by criticizing those who are too much to the "right" as much as you criticize those who are too much too the "left".
    When have you ever criticized someone who was too much to the so called "right"?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Daas Torah wrote "you don't think that halacha is moral or beneficial"
    The halachos I am referring to are saying what you are allowed to do, not what you have to do. The next step is to figure out if it is the moral thing to do, and if it is the wise thing to do.
    As an example, the Hechsher on a restaurant, just says that it is kosher, the next step is to decide if it is the wise thing to spend that much money.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Moshe Ahron your comments are getting more and more absurd and detatched from reality.

    Please read my many comments regarding the "right" wingers and their understanding of how to deal with child abuse. That in includes criticism of the views of Rav Menashe Klein, Rav Belsky, Rav M Kotler etc etc

    There are many comments of the failure to use common sense, failurs of empathy. In short your comment is simply opening your mouth without bother to check if what you have to say is correct or intelligent.

    As I said please stop or I will simply block your comments. This is your last warning

    ReplyDelete
  45. What in my comment was insulting? I am not allowed to criticize you?
    And my criticism of you for not criticizing those too far to the "right" was in regard to divorce issues.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Moshe Ahron wrote: "The next step is to figure out if it is the moral thing to do"
    Are you saying that the Torah allows you to do things that are immoral? If yes, how do you determine which things the Torah allows are moral and which things are immoral? I can certainly understand your point on choosing the wise path, but this would be based on your personal situation - there is no one size fits all. I am having a real issue with your idea that things the Torah allows could be immoral. How exactly do you determine this? Please don't bring up the case of slavery or ketana again. This has been discussed over and over. I am more interested in the Get on demand issue. How did you determine that not automatically giving a divorce on demand is immoral? Keep in mind up until recently there was no acceptance of "no-fault divorce" in American law.
    Please just answer these questions. 1) Do you believe in Get on demand? 2) If yes, do believe anyone who doesn't give a Get on demand is acting immoral and how did you make this determination? Based on what sources?

    ReplyDelete
  47. That is not factually correct. R' Ovadia Yosef has prohibited polygamy for Sephardim. Teimani Jews in Israel do not have 2 wives. Polygamy is illegal in Israel. And there aren't many Jews left in Teiman.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It's your blog, so you're free to run it as you wish, but in my opinion, Moshe Ahron, while a bit excitable, has not crossed the line into egregious insult. Just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Polygamy is not immoral, it's just really, really expensive. Imagine having to feed two families, pay tuition and make simchos for two sets of children. And the time and effort it would require! I get exhausted just thinking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Kishkeyum - while we clearly have our differences - our debate has never ventured into the territory that Moshe Aharon dwells.

    He isn't arguing halacha or even facts. He keeps insisting that he is uniquely possessed of moral knowledge and he has come to save us and to educate us so we won't be crazy i.e., differ from him. If he posted once a week it would not be a problem - but he is very energetic and repeatedly tries with his many post to pound the message in that he is a superior being and we are inferior. Sometimes he adds that he is representative of the modern majority.

    In sum - his arguments are not based on anything that can be proved or disproved and thus are a waste of time. He doesn't seem to understand when someo of his question are repeatedly answered. In addition his language on occassion is abusive.

    ReplyDelete
  51. David wrote: "Are you saying that the Torah allows you to do things that are immoral?"
    Yes, that its what the Ramban says that there is a concept of a Naval B'Rishus Hatorah.
    At times the Torah says what you have to do, that is of course also be definition the moral thing to do.
    But sometimes the Torah just allows something - it is not recommending it or requiring it. Now you have to evaluate the action in light of the Torah's other Mtzavah's of "Loving your Neighbor", V'Halachta B'Derachav, "doing what is right and good" etc.
    Here is a simple example. The Torah allows you to go shopping in Walmart, but if you go shopping in Walmart right now it might be the immoral thing to do, if your wife desperately needed you to babysit the kids right now or if your grandmother is making a party that she wants you to attend.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Moshe Ahron - there is one major flaw in your argument. You need to find rabbonim who in fact state that certain behavior that is permitted is in fact inappropriate, wrong or immoral. That you have not done..

    Things like excessive eating or materialism are clearly condemned. What you have arguing regarding gittin is not the mainstream view amongst poskim

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chacham Ovadia Yosef actually supports polygamy. See Yabi Omer 5, Even HaEzer 1:8; Even Ha-Ezer 2). Rabbi Yosef permits a man whose wife refuses to allow him to divorce her to take a second wife. Chacham Ovadia Yosef also says Sephardim should do Yibbum and not Chalitza. (See Yabia Omer 6 Even HaEzer 14.) And the Teimani Jews living outside of Teiman (including Israel) also have more than one wife. Whether because they married more than one wife in Yemen and move out of Yemen with all his wives or because he married more than one outside of Israel.


    Also see some Israeli mainstream news reports that mentioned Chacaham Ovadia Yosef on this:


    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4100434,00.html


    "a quote from a halachic paper written by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef several years ago, which does not rule out the polygamy phenomenon: "Courts imposing aggravated punishments on Sephardim over this matter are wrong."


    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/New-Jewish-group-wants-to-restore-polygamy



    "a paragraph from senior Sephardi adjudicator Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s Yabi’a Omer treatise, in which he wrote that it is a mistake for non-Ashkenazim to follow Rabbeinu Gershom’s “stringency,” according to which it is prohibited for a man to marry more than one wife."

    ReplyDelete
  54. Are you purposely avoiding the other questions regarding Get on demand? Why do you demand answers from other people but don't answer straight forward questions addressed to you?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rabbi Michael TzadokFebruary 8, 2015 at 3:47 AM

    Chacham Ovadia Yosef actually supports polygamy. See Yabia Omer 5, Even HaEzer 1:8; Even Ha-Ezer 2). Rav Yosef permits a man whose wife refuses to allow him to divorce her to take a second wife.


    This statement is factually incorrect.

    The Beit Yosef 169:46 rules that we make a person swear not to take a second wife, and this is brought as halacha in several places in the Sh"A.

    The Yalkut Yosef(Rav Yitzhak Yosef writing with and in the name of his father) writes that this is the halakha and brings sources to show that this has been the custom amongst sephardim for hundreds of years, excepting those Yemenite communities that reject the Beit Yosef/Shulhan Arukh as a halakhic authority.

    The Yabia Omer that you mention is dealing with this vow, in regards to a wife that refuses to accept a Get, there he writes:
    יכולים בי"ד לפי ראות עיניהם לתת לו רשות לישא אשה נוספת, כיון שנוסח הכתובה הוא "שלא ישא אשה עליה כי אם ברשות בית דין"


    So specifically in the case of a recalcitrant wife, the Beit Din has the power to grant him the ability to marry another woman.

    This is by no means a blanket approval of polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Polygamy!!!" - Apparently you're still very confused about which religion you're practicing. Contemporary feminist religions such as ORA may consider polygamy to be utterly evil, but I haven't seen any statements in my Tanach or Gemara that condemn polygamy in any way, or consider it to be crazy or fringe. Polygamy may actually be beneficial to women in various societies, especially where shortages of men occur.

    Now don't you have some work to do saving "agunos" at ORA headquarters?

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The Beit Yosef 169:46 rules that we make a person swear not to take a second wife, and this is brought as halacha in several places in the Sh"A."


    Can you cite the passage where in S"A (rather than the B"Y) the Mechaber rules l'halacha that a person (non-Ashkenazi) is halachicly required (i.e. non-optional) to take a vow that he will not marry a second wife (i.e. even if his first wife is willing to accept a second)? I recall the vow being optional in some communities.


    My understanding is that if the current wife accepts her husband taking a second wife, then in many Sefardic communities it is permissible (meaning l'halacha, not necessarily civil law) for him to take a second wife.


    As far as any Sephardic community that does have a custom against plural marriage, where and when was such a custom instituted and by whom was it promulgated?


    As far as the Teimanim, they aren't Sephardim. Like the Italian Jewish community, which also isn't Ashkenazim (as well as any other communities that aren't either Sephardic or Ashkenazic), they presumably would all fall outside the edict against plural marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rabbi Michael TzadokFebruary 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM

    Shulhan Arukh EH"E 1:11.


    As to the rest of your questions see the Yalkut Yosef Huppah V'Kiddushin 9:24. He answers them all in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The Beis Yosef (Sh'eilos Ut'shuvos HaBeis Yosef, C'suvos, Sh'eilah 14) holds that as soon as an Ashkenazi has permanently moved to a place where the ban was not accepted, he is entirely free of the ban and may more than one woman. In that same t'shuvah, the Beis Yosef writes that in Salonika, Constantinople and Adrianople there were large communities of Ashkenazim and no one ever questioned the fact that an Ashkenazi could and would marry more than one wife. He also cites the case of an Ashkenazi talmid chacham in Jerusalem who had a wife and children and who married a second wife, and renowned Ashkenazi talmidei chachomim attended, coming from as far away as Tsfas and Egypt. The Ran demurs. It is his opinion that the ban follows the Ashkenazi wherever he goes.

    The Beis Yosef says that if the Ran had seen the t'shuvah of the Rashba, he would have agreed with the Rashba that the takonah is limited geographically. We thus see that the Beis Yosef did not hold of a ban against polygamy as a fixed feature.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "The Yabia Omer that you mention is dealing with this vow, in regards to a wife that refuses to accept a Get..."


    How can a wife refuse to accept a Get? The husband can simply give it to her against her will. (The cherem of RG that precludes ashkenazim from forcing a wife to accept a Get isn't applicable to to sephardim.)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rabbi Michael TzadokFebruary 10, 2015 at 7:27 AM

    You are conflating minhag hamakom and the B"Y's views on polygamy.


    He clearly felt that every community should make a ban, as he gave that as psak halakha in the Shulhan Arukh EH"E 1:11.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Nevertheless, the B"Y recognizes that a ban against polygamy is only minhag hamokem and is not binding on all Jews.

    ReplyDelete

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