Rabbi Shechter mentions that one of the three "dayanim" has already resigned from the beis din. I speculate as to the identity of the departed dayan.
It boils down to a one in three pick. My guess is that it's Rabbi Yosef Blau.
"Rabbi Simcha Krauss, who spearheaded the establishment of this beit din and serves as the av beit din", is the least likely to jump ship.
Rabbi Warburg's message is still posted on their website, which implies that he still desires to be affiliated with them. That leaves Rabbi Blau, "who presently serves as a dayan for the New York City beit din le’giyur under the aegis of the RCA, and formerly served on the Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzhak Elchanan’s beit din and on the Beth Din of America".
Rabbi Simcha Krauss, who spearheaded the establishment of this beit din and serves as the av beit din, presiding arbitrator received his yadin yadin rabbinical ordination (expertise in halachic family and commercial law) from Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner z”l, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin, and served on the St. Louis beit din for many years regarding matters of gittin.
Rabbi Warburg (the author) serves as director and a dayan of the beit din and serves as a dayan in the Chassidic, Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva communities in the NY-NJ area, and is the author of a forthcoming work, Rabbinic Authority: The Vision and the Reality, Volume 2, that deals with his beit din rulings.
Also serving on the panel is Rabbi Yosef Blau, who presently serves as a dayan for the New York City beit din le’giyur (rabbinical court for conversion) under the aegis of the RCA, and formerly served on the Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzhak Elchanan’s beit din and on the Beth Din of America.
I read Rabbi Schecter letter. He writes: “I come with this to urge to my friends and students not to rely on any halachic ruling from the above bait din, for they have no authority.”
All this forcing divorces on unwilling husbands should now be history. October 13, 2015 will be the ruling on Mendel Epstein et al. Surely no one today prenups anymore. Husbands and wives that did prenups should go to a rabbi/lawyer and cancel the prenups they did.
I quote Proverbs 17: 17-22 “A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel
Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears. Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows,
Is one who cheats his fellow and says, “I was only joking.” For lack of wood a fire goes out,
And without a querulous man contention is stilled. Charcoal for embers and wood for a fire
And a contentious man for kindling strife. The words of a querulous man are bruising;c
They penetrate one’s inmost parts.”
Yes, husband and wife will fight bitterly, but please don’t get passerbys embroiled in their quarrels, contentions and cheating and firebrands. By passerbys I include bait din, courts and police. Abuse? That’s different, but please not merely “he won’t divorce me.”
Does anyone know where these "tshuvos" by the IBD (I'm going to guess it was Warburg who wrote them) have been published? The english and Hebrew one, if anyone knows, I'm rather curious.
Mistaken mitchila ve'ad sof is quite a criticism. Must be some shoddy psak halacha going on there.
Both Schachter and Gedalia Schwartz are hippocrits. We all know that Gedalia Schwartz officiated on several annullments in the past. Schachter gives his endorsement to ORA who is responsible for many GET MEUSA. Thereby both of these individuals are not guiltless in their involvement of the Mamzer factory.
The point is, that if he allegedly resigned, he should/ would have asked that his name and association be removed from all media promoting their agenda.
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Senderovic is the rosh kollel of the Milwaukee Kollel, and the Av Beis Din of the Milwaukee Beis Din.
He is a renowned expert in hilchos Gittin, and and author of an acclaimed sefer שו"ת עצי בשמים on Even Haezer. [available here: http://62.128.54.227/wotzar/Book.aspx?179254&] (see the haskamos on his sefer)
I believe that the psakim posted to the website are English summaries, not the actual arguments, which are detailed in lashon hakodesh and apparently not posted to this site.
Reb Dovid Eidensohn once proposed an alternative option to the issue of agunos, was to have a no-nup, ie to not have proper kiddushin, hence relive the need for a Get. There is another option, which I propose, which a "kosher style" nup, ie to have the ceremony but do without witnesses. Again, no witnesses, no get required.
Ask Reb Dovid - he did make such a proposal, but was not as a standard, but in a last case scenario out of dread for those who fear agunah.
Sin is relative - the point being that it is a lesser sin than to produce mamzerim. The above proposal i made was tongue in cheek, but it is based on the problem of agunot and the lack of solutuions hence mamzerut.
Eddie, A person who will not honor kiddushin and make mamzerim should not make kiddushin. If there is no kiddushin but the live in an Orthodox neighborhood as man and wife that itself could create kiddushin, so marrying without Kiddushin doesn't really solve anything. Furthermore, Rav Henkin who Reb Moshe felt was greater than him, was surely of the opinion that marrying even without the customary witnesses could still be a serious problem. So I proposed that there is a shita, only a shita and not everybody agrees, that Pilegesh is permitted. It is important that when the couple behave as husband and wife that they clearly declare to a Beth Din that they have no intention at all of being married with Kiddushin, but want to rely on the opinion of the Yaavetz that it is a great mitsvah for people to practice, when it is really necessary, to marry with the status of Pilegesh. They must convince the Beth Din that they have absolutely not intent to attain the status of general Orthodox marriage and don't want Kiddushin at all. If the Beth Din accepts their claim and gives them a paper to prove that they are not married with Kiddushin and never intent to have Kiddushin in their marriage, then that Beth Din has taken the responsibility to approve this. I and no individual can really do this because even if today they want no Kiddushin, buty after they have five children they may want to have Kiddushin. And if people see them living together as man and wife this could make problems. I pointed out the important thing that such people should not have Kiddushin. But whether or not that is going to really happen and whether it is properly recorded for the community's sake is up to a proper Beth Din. Having said this, I also believe that when couples practice Shalom Bayis Beth Din as I have suggested in the past, there may be very little need to worry about Agunas. In such a case, we have less fear of making Kiddushin. But again, all of this depends on a proper Beth Din that will decide what level people are on.
Actually rav moshe is very clear that a couple living together (in a jewish neighborhood) without chuppah vekidushin should have a get if they separate, even if it involves money (perhaps not 'excessive' money.)
Obviously he is disputing the notion or implication that almost any YU and MO groom signs a prenup. Perhaps almost everyone Joe knows signs one. But that would be far from representative of MO grooms. Most MO grooms do not sign a prenup, The ones that do tend to make a big deal out of it. Even the RCA has publicly bemoaned that many RCA rabbis don't support the prenup.
"The Alleged Sabbateanism of Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto" apparently the Ramchal was [wrongly) accused of having sabbatean influence. http://traditionarchive.org/news/article.cfm?id=104372
“The scholars propounded: If she declared to her husband, I am defiled (טמאה) to you, [This refers to the wife of a priest] may she eat of terumah? [If it is true, she certainly must not. Yet the Mishnah in its second recession ruled that she must first prove it. Now the question arises, Do we disbelieve her in all respects, in which case she may eat of terumah, or only in respect of a divorce?] Shesheth ruled: She may eat thereof, so as not to cast a stigma upon her children [If she refrains, it will be assumed that she told the truth, in which case her children may be bastards.].”
This shows that in Rabbi Shesheth view that it’s extremely important not to cask a stigma [ספק ממזר] on children even from a wife who actually claimed to be unfaithful ! Beautiful. Passerbys should keep their mouths shut about ספק ממזר. Even should mind their own business.
the idea is not to abolish kiddushin, but as an option for those who might lead to adultery/mamzerut you obviously haven't read what Reb Dovid wrote on this. coattails or psak? http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/rav-sternbuch-avoid-marriage-if-it.html
What on earth does that teshuva of Rabbi Shternbuch have to do with doing away with kiddushin or doing marriages without witnesses, which is what you proposed? I would think you're joking, but having read enough of your dimwitted comments, I know better.
" In practice a number of gedolim in Israel have expressed concerns that they might totally reject halacha after the wedding such as on some kibbutzim where they swap wives. They have suggested that perhaps it is better to mislead them into thinking they have had a halachic marriage – by the use of invalid witnesses and by omitting G‑d’s name from the berachos – in order that they not have a problem of adultery."
He's answering the question of whether it's better to tell non-religious people to marry halachically or allow them to remain as they are. The issue is the serious sins they might become liable to through marrying halachically. He's not saying anything about telling religious men and women to marry without kiddushin or without witnesses in order to avoid the woman becoming an agunah later, which is what you (falsely) claimed. One has nothing to do with the other.
I don't need to mock you. You do a fine job mocking your own self with your every thought-free word.
Is there a reason why you feel a compulsion to be so rude to people with whom you disagree? Do you speak to people like this in real life as well, or only where you can hide l=behind a veil of anonymity?
Not that it's any of your business, but no, I feel no such compulsion. I do it entirely by choice. I've explained my particular distaste for Eddie elsewhere, and see no need to repeat myself for your benefit.
There is no discourse here, he simply is mocking Rav Eidensohn, Rav Shternbuch, and I won't mention others since he is a hater of of open minded orthodoxy. My very brief proposal is consistent with the opinions i have cited, hence he is mocking Talmidei hachamim. he reached this level by making it his yehareg v'lo yaavor to attack everything i say, so when what I say is backed by the Yaavetz, and rav Shternbuch, he loses the plot, and possibly his percevied oilam haba.
where did I say it is for religious people? You are falsely making up your own fiction. The idea was an alternative for the pre-nup, which is open to everyone, and the basis was what I read several years ago by Rav Hartom ztl, for the mainstream non-religious. In any case, the Yaavetz made the case for non kiddushin marriage, ie reviving the pilegesh. I am much happier to be in the company of the Yaavetz, than to receive false compliments from mr kiskhes.
You wrote that it's to fix the agunah problem, which is an issue for religious people only. The irreligious don't care whether or not they have a get. Do you even give a moment's thought to what you write?
he reached this level by making it his yehareg v'lo yaavor to attack everything i say
Not at all. I ignore most of your foolishness, and respond only to the most egregious of your comments, such as this one, which proposes to fix the agunah problem by having Jewish couples live together without benefit of marriage, or your earlier doozy, which claimed that many frum men rape married women. Of course, when challenged, you could not provide even one example, let alone many. Now you are again wriggling like a trout on the hook, trying to explain your silliness away. It's always the same dishonest game with you.
you are only showing your lack of knowledge and inability to think. Agunah is a problem whether or not you are "religious" as is mamzerut created by such. The poskim have to deal with situations for all people not just frum ones.
You gave no examples, and were called on it then. Anyone who likes can check the exchange and see for themselves who is actually telling the truth here (unless of course you start deleting and/or editing your posts, which I would not put past you). Blinded by your hatred for "chareidim," you write all sorts of untruths. When challenged, you lie.
What a load of nonsense. Irreligious women are not the ones complaining about an inability to extract a get from their husbands. The agunah problem, such as it is, is almost entirely among the frum crowd. You are dim or dishonest or both.
@kishkeyum - your pointed personal comments to Eddie are serving no useful purpose and will henceforth be rejected. At this point the general readership does not view them as appropriate criticism. I am aware that some of Eddie's points seem to be problematic distortions - sometimes he does it on purpose to stimulate discussion and sometimes it is simply a misinterpretation. In the future if you find an objectionable comment - please contact me directly and I'll deal with it.
@Eddie - I appreciate your efforts and contributions to the discussion - however as noted before you sometimes take a small point and overgeneralize. That can be a very useful approach to stimulate discussion - but as is clear it is increasingly is irritating some of our members. In the future if I miss a comment which strongly offends you - please let me know.
I respond mostly to Eddie's hateful statements regarding chareidim, of whom I am one. I disregard most of what he writes, but feel it important to call him out on his most egregious insults. In this particular case, the issue is not chareidim, but his indecent and wicked proposal that Jewish couples be encouraged to live together without benefit of marriage. This too I consider it important to oppose strongly. But of course it is your right as blog owner to reject my comments if you wish.
My original "proposal", which has no halachic force and is simply an idea for discussion , was to reverse engineer the idea of posul eidim. Since , as per the article posted on Rav Shternbuch's psak, we see that Yeshiva Bochrim were advised to abstain from being eidim at non-frum weddings, it seems this strategy has been around for some time. Since I am more inclined towards the Tzioni world Rav Hartom than the Eda, I am basically in agreement and of great respect of both Rav Shternbuch shlita and R' Hartom ztl. Any solution or proposal in the real halachic world required deep thought and a degree of acceptance across a reasonably wide spectrum of Poskim. My thoughts are just thoughts and hold no halachic status whatsoever, and nor do imagine them to.
"his indecent and wicked proposal that Jewish couples be encouraged to live together without benefit of marriage."
This "indecent and wicked proposal" has already been made by Rav Shternbuch, , Rav Dovid Eidensohn, and the Roshei Yeshiva that Rav Daniel cites when they discouraged bochrim from being eidim at non-frum Jewish weddings
No, you're mixing apples and oranges. Reb Dovid only proposed in very limited circumstances consideration be given towards pilegeshs. A pilegesh is not the same as no marriage whatsoever. A pilegesh is, under certain circumstances, permitted under Jewish law whereas cohabiting without any marriage or pilegesh or anything else is prohibited.
And Rav Shternbuch only proposed not turning a secular wedding ceremony into a halachic wedding because the secular couple tend to sleep around with people other than their significant other. So if they were married they would be causing mamzeirim when sleeping around with others. If they're not married, you avoid the mamzeirus, hence Rav Shternbuch's point.
You, on the other hand, are proposing wholesale permitting of Jewish couples, including frum ones, to cohabit together in sin without marriage (or pilegesh).
you claim I am making a wholesale proposal of non - marriage, but that is not the case. It is a reverse engineered proposal based on the fact that at least according to RMF, invalid witnesses invalidate a kiddushin. Pilegesh is a Torah law, and is not the same as Kiddushin, which is d'Rabbanan (as far as I am aware). Since the majority of Jews are not orthodox in practice, then your limitations of the proposal to secualrists is useless. furthermore, and this is where you miss the point by a country mile - it makes not one bit of difference whether people are frum or not - if they cohabit without a get, that is adultery, and the offspring are mamzerim. mamzerus is the big issue here.
My point was solely to avoid mamzerus and adultery, and even if my claim is not valid, it was solely for the purpose to avoid mamzerus, especially when poskim are machmir on Gittin. If there is any potential validity to the proposal, it is not to replace kiddushin, but to replace other problems that would lead to Gett m,oosa, or chas v'shalom niuf/mamzerus. If you are machmir with Gittin, then the risk is mamzerus. If you are meikil with gittin, there will always be someone who will find a flaw and a mamzer . Even, lehavdil, HaGaon Rav Moseh Feinstein ztl had certain kulos which were not agreed on by Rav Henkin ztl. They were the greatest, and i am a relative nobody.
Also David, since I prefaced my comment on Reb Dovid's own proposal, it should be obvious that the scope and audience that it would apply to would be the very same one as his, or to also include the secularists for whom, sadly, niuf is no longer a taboo.
Rav Moshe avoided the mamzeirus/niuf issue for seculars by showing their marriages are not halachicly valid marriages. So the problem for the non-frum is resolved by Rav Moshe.
So what are you fixing that Rav Moshe didn't already address with his teshuva saying the secular marriages are halachicly invalid?
Which couples are you suggesting live together without halachic marriage (i.e. with your idea of having invalid eidim)?
I think you are mistaken - the issue is not whether the people are frum/secular, it was those, eg Russians, who had civil marriages, but lived together. if a secular practicing couple marry in a halachic ceremony (their frum cousins are the eidim), then I doubt if Rav Moshe's leniency would apply. Please do not compare me to Rav Moshe, I do not require such an exaggerated ego boost.
which couples? Do you want names? The same type who are bothering Rav Dovid and Rav Shternbuch. ie where there is a strong risk of them producing mamzerim either without getting a get or by ill conduct whilst they are still married.
Your ridiculous proposal has been made by you only, not by anyone else you attribute it to. Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point of the teshuva you cited. This has been explained to you ad nauseam, but you persist in your misrepresentation of the teshuva.
I didn't compare you or your proposal to Rav Moshe. I asked and still haven't seen a response as to why you need any proposal if the problem you're purporting to fix was already fixed by Rav Moshe's and Rav Shternbuch's teshuvas.
The prenup only causes a problem if there's a divorce. Your proposal causes a problem for every "marriage" by proposing an illicit cohabitation in lieu of marriage.
Eddie says: “My point was solely to avoid mamzerus and adultery.” The Sages ruled no divorce on demand unless the wife proves her adultery. The rabbis encourage the marriage to continue showing that the rabbis are not so concerned with ספר ממזר and adultery. Of course individuals have to avoid ספק ממזר and adultery.
At a seyum in Bnei Brak last night we read of stories in the end of Nedarim how the wife is not believed that she is defied (טמאה) even though her supposed lover is there in the room or seen running away!
Nedarim 91b
“A certain woman shewed displeasure with her husband. Said he to her, Why this change now? She replied, You have never caused me so much pain through intimacy as to-day. But there has been none to-day he exclaimed. If so, she returned, [it must have been] the gentile naphtha sellers who were here to-day; if not you, perhaps it was one of them. Said R. Nahman: Disregard her; she had conceived a passion for another.
A certain man was closeted in a house with a [married] woman. Hearing the master [her husband] entering, the adulterer broke through a hedge and fled. Said Raba: The wife is permitted; had he committed wrong, he would have hidden himself [in the house].”
this is what you wrote: "So what are you fixing that Rav Moshe didn't already address with his teshuva saying the secular marriages are halachicly invalid?"
Assuming that the question you pose is correct, then you are implying that the mooted proposal of mine is somewhat (but not entirely) similar to R' Moshe's.
No, i said IF the pre-nup is akin to a mamzer factory - and that has not been established, then obviously it is better to have no marriage than to have mamzerim.
"Better" in the sense that is has less aveiros.
Again, IF you hold that the pre-nups create the problem of adultery and mamzerus, and in any case invalidate the halachic marriage, then it might be a lesser of 2 or 3 evils.
As I said, Eddie, nothing to do with R' Moshe or any other poseik. But no doubt you will persist in your delusions nonetheless. You are impervious to reason.
You are on one hand accusing me of promoting sinful cohabitation, but on the other hand you cite Rav Moshe and Rav Shternbuch who only did the same for secular couples. That is what the native Americans call "speaking with a forked tongue". So Hareidi Gedolim are wonderful tzaddikim, but I am causing the masses to sin. Nice logic "David".
Re: the pre-nup - if it is a problem or not is open to discussion, that is why I said it is theoretical and depends on the halachic risks. If some claim that pre-nups lead to mamzerus, then assume a 25% divorce rate (half the average in the West). That means 25% of the offspring in 2nd marriages of pre-nup women will be mamzerim. Is that a price worth paying? Again, this is not a psak, but a theoretical discussion, and all the permutations have to be looked at.
btw, if you are talking about reform/conservative marriages etc, then Rav Henkin held them to be valid, and opposed Rav Moshe. It is widely believed that Rav Moshe's leniency was to avoid the problem of mamzerus. think about the 2 different approaches. In fact, since R Henkin held these to be halachically valid marriages, and he preceeded Rav Moshe, then effecgively, RMF was turning them from "halachic" (as per R'H) to non-halachic marriages.
The difference , where you are correct, is that this was bedieved. However, it also means that from tha point on, what would previously have been called a halachic marriage (reform), would now be deemed as not valid. This is also the strategy reported by RDE. The Yeshivo bochrs were discouraged from serving as eidim. That means that the rabbanim and roshei yeshiva tacitly preferred a non-marriage to a valid one, where there is a risk of later adultery.
you comments are just your own imagination many non-frum people still observe certain traditions, including traditional weddings, bris, barmitzvah and levoyas. They also do need a get, especially if their next husband to be wants to have a shul wedding. Even in the cases where they do not protest, that makes not one iota of difference, since their offspring will still be mamzerim according to halacha. It is obvious that your fanaticism is not just opposed to myself, but it is a hatred for all people outside of your little world, and you care less for Jews or the problem of mamzerut.
Eddie, my little trollee, I love smacking you around, but it grows wearisome to engage with a person so lacking in sense and learning. Suffice that I have called attention to the stupidity of your indecent proposal. Blather on, dear Eddie! I'll catch you again at your next outrage.
Eddie: “Very good. Now you have to convince the Hareidi rabbanim, who are looking for technical mamzerus and invalid gittin.”
The rabbis of the Gamara look, even using pretexts however stretched, to keep marriages together and to rule not a ספק ממזר. Look at the last story of Nedarim.
Nedarim 91b:
A certain adulterer visited a woman. Her husband came, whereupon the lover went and placed himself behind a curtain before the door [So Ran. ‘Aruch: and placed himself in a concealed arch by the gate]. Now, some cress was lying there, and a snake [came and ate] thereof; the master [her husband] was about to eat of the cress, unknown to his wife. Do not eat it, warned the lover, because a snake has tasted it. Said Raba: The wife is permitted: had he committed wrong, he would have been pleased that he should eat thereof and die, as it is written, “For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands;” (Ezekiel 23:37). Surely that is obvious? I might think that he had committed wrong, and as for his warning, that is because he prefers the husband not to die, so that his wife may be to him as “Stolen waters are sweet, And bread eaten furtively is tasty.” (Proverbs 9:17) therefore he teaches otherwise. [Though this Tractate ends with a number of stories referring to adultery, these are not to be taken as reflecting general conditions. The strong opposition to unchastity displayed by the Prophets and the Rabbis, as well as the practice of early marriage, would have conduced to higher moral standards. V. J.E. art. Chastity.]
Of course rabbis have strong opposition to adultery and creating ספק ממזר. We don’t really know how rampant adultery and ספק ממזר was. Surely, adultery and ספק ממזר is far more prevalent today than in olden times.
@Chaim - obviously there is no Pew poll. Out of interest are you asking this question because you disagree or because you want to know how I know this obvious reality?
Rabbi Shechter mentions that one of the three "dayanim" has already resigned from the beis din. I speculate as to the identity of the departed dayan.
ReplyDeleteIt boils down to a one in three pick. My guess is that it's Rabbi Yosef Blau.
"Rabbi Simcha Krauss, who spearheaded the establishment of this beit
din and serves as the av beit din", is the least likely to jump ship.
Rabbi Warburg's message is still posted on their website, which implies that he still desires to be affiliated with them.
That leaves Rabbi Blau, "who presently serves as a dayan for the New York City beit din le’giyur under the aegis of the RCA, and formerly served on the Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzhak Elchanan’s beit din and on the Beth Din of America".
http://agunahandherget.com/message-international-beit-din/
Rabbi Simcha Krauss, who spearheaded the establishment of this beit
din and serves as the av beit din, presiding arbitrator received his
yadin yadin rabbinical ordination (expertise in halachic family and
commercial law) from Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner z”l, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva
Chaim Berlin, and served on the St. Louis beit din for many years
regarding matters of gittin.
Rabbi Warburg (the author) serves as director and a dayan of the beit
din and serves as a dayan in the Chassidic, Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva
communities in the NY-NJ area, and is the author of a forthcoming work,
Rabbinic Authority: The Vision and the Reality, Volume 2, that deals
with his beit din rulings.
Also serving on the panel is Rabbi Yosef Blau, who presently serves
as a dayan for the New York City beit din le’giyur (rabbinical court for
conversion) under the aegis of the RCA, and formerly served on the
Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzhak Elchanan’s beit din and on the Beth Din of
America.
Yes, I confirmed with R. Yosef Blau that he resigned some months before that was written.
ReplyDeleteHe is no longer listed on their website
ReplyDeletehttp://www.internationalbeitdin.org/staff
Do you know why he resigned?
I read Rabbi Schecter
ReplyDeleteletter. He writes: “I come with this to
urge to my friends and students not to rely on any halachic ruling from the
above bait din, for they have no
authority.”
All this forcing
divorces on unwilling husbands should now be history. October 13, 2015 will be the ruling on Mendel
Epstein et al. Surely no one today
prenups anymore. Husbands and wives that
did prenups should go to a rabbi/lawyer and cancel the prenups they did.
I quote Proverbs 17: 17-22
“A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel
Is like one who seizes a
dog by its ears. Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows,
Is one who cheats his
fellow and says, “I was only joking.” For lack of wood a fire goes out,
And without a querulous
man contention is stilled. Charcoal for embers and wood for a fire
And a contentious man
for kindling strife. The words of a querulous man are bruising;c
They penetrate one’s
inmost parts.”
Yes, husband and wife
will fight bitterly, but please don’t get passerbys embroiled in their quarrels,
contentions and cheating and firebrands.
By passerbys I include bait din, courts and police. Abuse? That’s different, but please not merely
“he won’t divorce me.”
For some reason, Rabbi Blau's name still appears here:
ReplyDeletehttp://agunahandherget.com/message-international-beit-din/
Does anyone know where these "tshuvos" by the IBD (I'm going to guess it was Warburg who wrote them) have been published? The english and Hebrew one, if anyone knows, I'm rather curious.
ReplyDeleteMistaken mitchila ve'ad sof is quite a criticism. Must be some shoddy psak halacha going on there.
Who is Rabbi Menachem Mendel Senderovitz?
ReplyDeleteThat's dated DECEMBER 01, 2014, so the resignation likely came thereafter.
ReplyDeleteBoth Schachter and Gedalia Schwartz are hippocrits. We all know that Gedalia Schwartz officiated on several annullments in the past. Schachter gives his endorsement to ORA who is responsible for many GET MEUSA. Thereby both of these individuals are not guiltless in their involvement of the Mamzer factory.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, that if he allegedly resigned, he should/ would have asked that his name and association be removed from all media promoting their agenda.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Menachem Mendel Senderovic is the rosh kollel of the Milwaukee Kollel, and the Av Beis Din of the Milwaukee Beis Din.
ReplyDeleteHe is a renowned expert in hilchos Gittin, and and
author of an acclaimed sefer שו"ת עצי בשמים on Even Haezer. [available here: http://62.128.54.227/wotzar/Book.aspx?179254&]
(see the haskamos on his sefer)
Good Lord...
ReplyDeleteI can't believe they're being matir eishes ish with these kinds of "tshuvos". This is just pathetic.
can someone who is a competent halachic scholar point out the problems with the psakim of the above BD?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the psakim posted to the website are English summaries, not the actual arguments, which are detailed in lashon hakodesh and apparently not posted to this site.
ReplyDeletethe Hebrew versions are available on the Beis Din web page - use the link at the top of the post
ReplyDeleteThank you
ReplyDeletebut isn't using the lack of witnesses a safe and acceptable strategy to annul the kiddushin?
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone I know in the YU/MO community signs a pre-nup
ReplyDeleteReb Dovid Eidensohn once proposed an alternative option to the issue of agunos, was to have a no-nup, ie to not have proper kiddushin, hence relive the need for a Get. There is another option, which I propose, which a "kosher style" nup, ie to have the ceremony but do without witnesses. Again, no witnesses, no get required.
ReplyDeleteReb Dovid never proposed anything of the sort as a standard for normative marriages.
ReplyDeleteAsk Reb Dovid - he did make such a proposal, but was not as a standard, but in a last case scenario out of dread for those who fear agunah.
ReplyDeleteSin is relative - the point being that it is a lesser sin than to produce mamzerim. The above proposal i made was tongue in cheek, but it is based on the problem of agunot and the lack of solutuions hence mamzerut.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteA person who will not honor kiddushin and make mamzerim should not make kiddushin. If there is no kiddushin but the live in an Orthodox neighborhood as man and wife that itself could create kiddushin, so marrying without Kiddushin doesn't really solve anything. Furthermore, Rav Henkin who Reb Moshe felt was greater than him, was surely of the opinion that marrying even without the customary witnesses could still be a serious problem. So I proposed that there is a shita, only a shita and not everybody agrees, that Pilegesh is permitted. It is important that when the couple behave as husband and wife that they clearly declare to a Beth Din that they have no intention at all of being married with Kiddushin, but want to rely on the opinion of the Yaavetz that it is a great mitsvah for people to practice, when it is really necessary, to marry with the status of Pilegesh. They must convince the Beth Din that they have absolutely not intent to attain the status of general Orthodox marriage and don't want Kiddushin at all. If the Beth Din accepts their claim and gives them a paper to prove that they are not married with Kiddushin and never intent to have Kiddushin in their marriage, then that Beth Din has taken the responsibility to approve this. I and no individual can really do this because even if today they want no Kiddushin, buty after they have five children they may want to have Kiddushin. And if people see them living together as man and wife this could make problems. I pointed out the important thing that such people should not have Kiddushin. But whether or not that is going to really happen and whether it is properly recorded for the community's sake is up to a proper Beth Din. Having said this, I also believe that when couples practice Shalom Bayis Beth Din as I have suggested in the past, there may be very little need to worry about Agunas. In such a case, we have less fear of making Kiddushin. But again, all of this depends on a proper Beth Din that will decide what level people are on.
Thank you very much for your clarification and detail.
ReplyDeleteActually rav moshe is very clear that a couple living together (in a jewish neighborhood) without chuppah vekidushin should have a get if they separate, even if it involves money (perhaps not 'excessive' money.)
ReplyDeleteNot true.
ReplyDeleteJust curious: How do you know if almost everyone "joe" knows in the YU/MO community signs a pre-nup?
ReplyDeleteI am a YU grad, learn regularly in the Gleuck beis medrish, and live in Washington Heights. I have a pretty good feel of the YU/MO community.
ReplyDeleteObviously he is disputing the notion or implication that almost any YU and MO groom signs a prenup. Perhaps almost everyone Joe knows signs one. But that would be far from representative of MO grooms. Most MO grooms do not sign a prenup, The ones that do tend to make a big deal out of it. Even the RCA has publicly bemoaned that many RCA rabbis don't support the prenup.
ReplyDeletetotally of the "derech" of this post
ReplyDelete"The Alleged Sabbateanism of Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto"
apparently the Ramchal was [wrongly) accused of having sabbatean influence.
http://traditionarchive.org/news/article.cfm?id=104372
Oh, so your brilliant idea is to have couples live together without getting married. The stupidity!
ReplyDeleteI, too, am a YU grad.
ReplyDeleteNedarim 90b (Soncino):
“The scholars propounded: If she declared to her husband, I
am defiled (טמאה) to you, [This refers to the wife of a priest] may she eat of
terumah? [If it is true, she certainly must not. Yet the Mishnah in its second
recession ruled that she must first prove it. Now the question arises, Do we
disbelieve her in all respects, in which case she may eat of terumah, or only
in respect of a divorce?] Shesheth ruled: She may eat thereof, so as not to
cast a stigma upon her children [If she refrains, it will be assumed that she
told the truth, in which case her children may be bastards.].”
This shows that in Rabbi Shesheth view that it’s extremely
important not to cask a stigma [ספק ממזר]
on children even from a wife who actually claimed to be unfaithful ! Beautiful. Passerbys should keep their mouths
shut about ספק ממזר.
Even should mind their own business.
so you mock R' Dovid as you mock me ?
ReplyDeleteDon't hide behind the coattails of others. Either defend your foolishness or admit it.
ReplyDeletethe idea is not to abolish kiddushin, but as an option for those who might lead to adultery/mamzerut
ReplyDeleteyou obviously haven't read what Reb Dovid wrote on this.
coattails or psak?
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/rav-sternbuch-avoid-marriage-if-it.html
What on earth does that teshuva of Rabbi Shternbuch have to do with doing away with kiddushin or doing marriages without witnesses, which is what you proposed? I would think you're joking, but having read enough of your dimwitted comments, I know better.
ReplyDelete" In practice a number of gedolim in Israel have expressed concerns that
ReplyDeletethey might totally reject halacha after the wedding such as on some
kibbutzim where they swap wives. They have suggested that perhaps it is
better to mislead them into thinking they have had a halachic marriage –
by the use of invalid witnesses and by omitting G‑d’s name from the
berachos – in order that they not have a problem of adultery."
do you also mock the author of these words?
You're a fool (which is not exactly news).
ReplyDeleteHe's answering the question of whether it's better to tell non-religious people to marry halachically or allow them to remain as they are. The issue is the serious sins they might become liable to through marrying halachically. He's not saying anything about telling religious men and women to marry without kiddushin or without witnesses in order to avoid the woman becoming an agunah later, which is what you (falsely) claimed. One has nothing to do with the other.
I don't need to mock you. You do a fine job mocking your own self with your every thought-free word.
Is there a reason why you feel a compulsion to be so rude to people with whom you disagree? Do you speak to people like this in real life as well, or only where you can hide l=behind a veil of anonymity?
ReplyDeleteNot that it's any of your business, but no, I feel no such compulsion. I do it entirely by choice. I've explained my particular distaste for Eddie elsewhere, and see no need to repeat myself for your benefit.
ReplyDeleteThere is no discourse here, he simply is mocking Rav Eidensohn, Rav Shternbuch, and I won't mention others since he is a hater of of open minded orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteMy very brief proposal is consistent with the opinions i have cited, hence he is mocking Talmidei hachamim. he reached this level by making it his yehareg v'lo yaavor to attack everything i say, so when what I say is backed by the Yaavetz, and rav Shternbuch, he loses the plot, and possibly his percevied oilam haba.
where did I say it is for religious people? You are falsely making up your own fiction. The idea was an alternative for the pre-nup, which is open to everyone, and the basis was what I read several years ago by Rav Hartom ztl, for the mainstream non-religious. In any case, the Yaavetz made the case for non kiddushin marriage, ie reviving the pilegesh. I am much happier to be in the company of the Yaavetz, than to receive false compliments from mr kiskhes.
ReplyDeletewhere did I say it is for religious people?
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that it's to fix the agunah problem, which is an issue for religious people only. The irreligious don't care whether or not they have a get. Do you even give a moment's thought to what you write?
he reached this level by making it his yehareg v'lo yaavor to attack everything i say
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I ignore most of your foolishness, and respond only to the most egregious of your comments, such as this one, which proposes to fix the agunah problem by having Jewish couples live together without benefit of marriage, or your earlier doozy, which claimed that many frum men rape married women. Of course, when challenged, you could not provide even one example, let alone many. Now you are again wriggling like a trout on the hook, trying to explain your silliness away. It's always the same dishonest game with you.
you are only showing your lack of knowledge and inability to think.
ReplyDeleteAgunah is a problem whether or not you are "religious" as is mamzerut created by such. The poskim have to deal with situations for all people not just frum ones.
again you lie as is your twisted nature. I gave a prominent example of one rabbi/rosh yeshiva, and there were several others discussed here.
ReplyDeleteYou gave no examples, and were called on it then. Anyone who likes can check the exchange and see for themselves who is actually telling the truth here (unless of course you start deleting and/or editing your posts, which I would not put past you). Blinded by your hatred for "chareidim," you write all sorts of untruths. When challenged, you lie.
ReplyDeleteHere's the link:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/08/baal-shem-tov-man-should-love-his-wife.html
What a load of nonsense. Irreligious women are not the ones complaining about an inability to extract a get from their husbands. The agunah problem, such as it is, is almost entirely among the frum crowd. You are dim or dishonest or both.
ReplyDelete@kishkeyum - your pointed personal comments to Eddie are serving no useful purpose and will henceforth be rejected. At this point the general readership does not view them as appropriate criticism. I am aware that some of Eddie's points seem to be problematic distortions - sometimes he does it on purpose to stimulate discussion and sometimes it is simply a misinterpretation. In the future if you find an objectionable comment - please contact me directly and I'll deal with it.
ReplyDelete@Eddie - I appreciate your efforts and contributions to the discussion - however as noted before you sometimes take a small point and overgeneralize. That can be a very useful approach to stimulate discussion - but as is clear it is increasingly is irritating some of our members. In the future if I miss a comment which strongly offends you - please let me know.
I respond mostly to Eddie's hateful statements regarding chareidim, of whom I am one. I disregard most of what he writes, but feel it important to call him out on his most egregious insults. In this particular case, the issue is not chareidim, but his indecent and wicked proposal that Jewish couples be encouraged to live together without benefit of marriage. This too I consider it important to oppose strongly. But of course it is your right as blog owner to reject my comments if you wish.
ReplyDeleteMy original "proposal", which has no halachic force and is simply an idea for discussion , was to reverse engineer the idea of posul eidim. Since , as per the article posted on Rav Shternbuch's psak, we see that Yeshiva Bochrim were advised to abstain from being eidim at non-frum weddings, it seems this strategy has been around for some time. Since I am more inclined towards the Tzioni world Rav Hartom than the Eda, I am basically in agreement and of great respect of both Rav Shternbuch shlita and R' Hartom ztl.
ReplyDeleteAny solution or proposal in the real halachic world required deep thought and a degree of acceptance across a reasonably wide spectrum of Poskim. My thoughts are just thoughts and hold no halachic status whatsoever, and nor do imagine them to.
"his indecent and wicked proposal that Jewish couples be encouraged to live together without benefit of marriage."
ReplyDeleteThis "indecent and wicked proposal" has already been made by Rav Shternbuch, , Rav Dovid Eidensohn, and the Roshei Yeshiva that Rav Daniel cites when they discouraged bochrim from being eidim at non-frum Jewish weddings
No, you're mixing apples and oranges. Reb Dovid only proposed in very limited circumstances consideration be given towards pilegeshs. A pilegesh is not the same as no marriage whatsoever. A pilegesh is, under certain circumstances, permitted under Jewish law whereas cohabiting without any marriage or pilegesh or anything else is prohibited.
ReplyDeleteAnd Rav Shternbuch only proposed not turning a secular wedding ceremony into a halachic wedding because the secular couple tend to sleep around with people other than their significant other. So if they were married they would be causing mamzeirim when sleeping around with others. If they're not married, you avoid the mamzeirus, hence Rav Shternbuch's point.
You, on the other hand, are proposing wholesale permitting of Jewish couples, including frum ones, to cohabit together in sin without marriage (or pilegesh).
you claim I am making a wholesale proposal of non - marriage, but that is not the case. It is a reverse engineered proposal based on the fact that at least according to RMF, invalid witnesses invalidate a kiddushin.
ReplyDeletePilegesh is a Torah law, and is not the same as Kiddushin, which is d'Rabbanan (as far as I am aware).
Since the majority of Jews are not orthodox in practice, then your limitations of the proposal to secualrists is useless. furthermore, and this is where you miss the point by a country mile - it makes not one bit of difference whether people are frum or not - if they cohabit without a get, that is adultery, and the offspring are mamzerim. mamzerus is the big issue here.
My point was solely to avoid mamzerus and adultery, and even if my claim is not valid, it was solely for the purpose to avoid mamzerus, especially when poskim are machmir on Gittin. If there is any potential validity to the proposal, it is not to replace kiddushin, but to replace other problems that would lead to Gett m,oosa, or chas v'shalom niuf/mamzerus. If you are machmir with Gittin, then the risk is mamzerus. If you are meikil with gittin, there will always be someone who will find a flaw and a mamzer .
Even, lehavdil, HaGaon Rav Moseh Feinstein ztl had certain kulos which were not agreed on by Rav Henkin ztl. They were the greatest, and i am a relative nobody.
Also David, since I prefaced my comment on Reb Dovid's own proposal, it should be obvious that the scope and audience that it would apply to would be the very same one as his, or to also include the secularists for whom, sadly, niuf is no longer a taboo.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe avoided the mamzeirus/niuf issue for seculars by showing their marriages are not halachicly valid marriages. So the problem for the non-frum is resolved by Rav Moshe.
ReplyDeleteSo what are you fixing that Rav Moshe didn't already address with his teshuva saying the secular marriages are halachicly invalid?
Which couples are you suggesting live together without halachic marriage (i.e. with your idea of having invalid eidim)?
I think you are mistaken - the issue is not whether the people are frum/secular, it was those, eg Russians, who had civil marriages, but lived together. if a secular practicing couple marry in a halachic ceremony (their frum cousins are the eidim), then I doubt if Rav Moshe's leniency would apply.
ReplyDeletePlease do not compare me to Rav Moshe, I do not require such an exaggerated ego boost.
which couples? Do you want names? The same type who are bothering Rav Dovid and Rav Shternbuch. ie where there is a strong risk of them producing mamzerim either without getting a get or by ill conduct whilst they are still married.
Your ridiculous proposal has been made by you only, not by anyone else you attribute it to. Unsurprisingly, you completely miss the point of the teshuva you cited. This has been explained to you ad nauseam, but you persist in your misrepresentation of the teshuva.
ReplyDeletefunny, since David is alleging that it is no different from Rav Moshe's and hence here is nothing new to the proposal!
ReplyDeleteHe said nothing of the sort, but I'll let him speak for himself.
ReplyDeleteI didn't compare you or your proposal to Rav Moshe. I asked and still haven't seen a response as to why you need any proposal if the problem you're purporting to fix was already fixed by Rav Moshe's and Rav Shternbuch's teshuvas.
ReplyDeleteThe prenup only causes a problem if there's a divorce. Your proposal causes a problem for every "marriage" by proposing an illicit cohabitation in lieu of marriage.
I had not implied your proposal is anything remotely similar to Rav Moshe's.
ReplyDeleteEddie says: “My point was solely to avoid mamzerus and adultery.” The Sages ruled no divorce on demand unless
ReplyDeletethe wife proves her adultery. The rabbis
encourage the marriage to continue showing that the rabbis are not so concerned
with ספר ממזר and adultery. Of course individuals have to avoid ספק ממזר and adultery.
At a seyum in
Bnei Brak last night we read of stories in the end of Nedarim how the wife is
not believed that she is defied (טמאה)
even though her supposed lover is there in the room or seen running away!
Nedarim 91b
“A
certain woman shewed displeasure with her husband. Said he to her, Why this
change now? She replied, You have never caused me so much pain through intimacy
as to-day. But there has been none to-day he exclaimed. If so, she returned,
[it must have been] the gentile naphtha sellers who were here to-day; if not
you, perhaps it was one of them. Said R. Nahman: Disregard her; she had
conceived a passion for another.
A certain man was
closeted in a house with a [married] woman. Hearing the master [her husband]
entering, the adulterer broke through a hedge and fled. Said Raba: The wife is
permitted; had he committed wrong, he would have hidden himself [in the
house].”
this is what you wrote: "So what are you fixing that Rav Moshe didn't already address with his
ReplyDeleteteshuva saying the secular marriages are halachicly invalid?"
Assuming that the question you pose is correct, then you are implying that the mooted proposal of mine is somewhat (but not entirely) similar to R' Moshe's.
No, i said IF the pre-nup is akin to a mamzer factory - and that has not been established, then obviously it is better to have no marriage than to have mamzerim.
"Better" in the sense that is has less aveiros.
Again, IF you hold that the pre-nups create the problem of adultery and mamzerus, and in any case invalidate the halachic marriage, then it might be a lesser of 2 or 3 evils.
As I said, Eddie, nothing to do with R' Moshe or any other poseik. But no doubt you will persist in your delusions nonetheless. You are impervious to reason.
ReplyDeleteYou are on one hand accusing me of promoting sinful cohabitation, but on the other hand you cite Rav Moshe and Rav Shternbuch who only did the same for secular couples. That is what the native Americans call "speaking with a forked tongue".
ReplyDeleteSo Hareidi Gedolim are wonderful tzaddikim, but I am causing the masses to sin. Nice logic "David".
Re: the pre-nup - if it is a problem or not is open to discussion, that is why I said it is theoretical and depends on the halachic risks. If some claim that pre-nups lead to mamzerus, then assume a 25% divorce rate (half the average in the West). That means 25% of the offspring in 2nd marriages of pre-nup women will be mamzerim. Is that a price worth paying?
Again, this is not a psak, but a theoretical discussion, and all the permutations have to be looked at.
btw, if you are talking about reform/conservative marriages etc, then Rav Henkin held them to be valid, and opposed Rav Moshe. It is widely believed that Rav Moshe's leniency was to avoid the problem of mamzerus. think about the 2 different approaches. In fact, since R Henkin held these to be halachically valid marriages, and he preceeded Rav Moshe, then effecgively, RMF was turning them from "halachic" (as per R'H) to non-halachic marriages.
ReplyDeleteThe difference , where you are correct, is that this was bedieved. However, it also means that from tha point on, what would previously have been called a halachic marriage (reform), would now be deemed as not valid. This is also the strategy reported by RDE. The Yeshivo bochrs were discouraged from serving as eidim. That means that the rabbanim and roshei yeshiva tacitly preferred a non-marriage to a valid one, where there is a risk of later adultery.
Very good. Now you have to convince the Hareidi rabbanim, who are looking for technical mamzerus and invalid gittin.
ReplyDeleteyou comments are just your own imagination
ReplyDeletemany non-frum people still observe certain traditions, including traditional weddings, bris, barmitzvah and levoyas. They also do need a get, especially if their next husband to be wants to have a shul wedding. Even in the cases where they do not protest, that makes not one iota of difference, since their offspring will still be mamzerim according to halacha.
It is obvious that your fanaticism is not just opposed to myself, but it is a hatred for all people outside of your little world, and you care less for Jews or the problem of mamzerut.
Eddie, my little trollee, I love smacking you around, but it grows wearisome to engage with a person so lacking in sense and learning. Suffice that I have called attention to the stupidity of your indecent proposal. Blather on, dear Eddie! I'll catch you again at your next outrage.
ReplyDeleteEddie: “Very
ReplyDeletegood. Now you have to convince the Hareidi rabbanim, who are looking for
technical mamzerus and invalid gittin.”
The rabbis of
the Gamara look, even using pretexts however stretched, to keep marriages together and to rule not a ספק ממזר.
Look at the last story of Nedarim.
Nedarim 91b:
A
certain adulterer visited a woman. Her husband came, whereupon the lover went
and placed himself behind a curtain before the door [So Ran. ‘Aruch: and placed himself in a concealed arch by the gate].
Now, some cress was lying there, and a snake [came and ate] thereof; the master
[her husband] was about to eat of the cress, unknown to his wife. Do not eat
it, warned the lover, because a snake has tasted it. Said Raba: The wife is
permitted: had he committed wrong, he would have been pleased that he should
eat thereof and die, as it is written, “For they have committed adultery, and
blood is on their hands;” (Ezekiel 23:37). Surely that is obvious? I might
think that he had committed wrong, and as for his warning, that is because he
prefers the husband not to die, so that his wife may be to him as “Stolen
waters are sweet, And bread eaten furtively is tasty.” (Proverbs 9:17)
therefore he teaches otherwise. [Though this Tractate ends with a number of
stories referring to adultery, these are not to be taken as reflecting general
conditions. The strong opposition to unchastity displayed by the Prophets and
the Rabbis, as well as the practice of early marriage, would have conduced to
higher moral standards. V. J.E. art. Chastity.]
Of course rabbis have strong
opposition to adultery and creating ספק ממזר. We don’t really know how rampant adultery and
ספק ממזר was.
Surely, adultery and ספק ממזר is far more prevalent today than in olden
times.
Out of interest - how do you gauge the views of the "general readership" of this blog? Is there a Pew poll that I don't know about?
ReplyDelete@Chaim - obviously there is no Pew poll. Out of interest are you asking this question because you disagree or because you want to know how I know this obvious reality?
ReplyDeleteThe latter
ReplyDeleteMore big new broke today on the Krauss so-called beit din for agunot:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york/leading-rabbi-deals-big-blow-agunah-court