Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Chanukah and the claim that a woman has a right to a Get on demand

Guest Post
 
A Freilichen Chanukah to all visitors to this site, who come to hear what Da'as Torah has to say on various issues, 

Sholom u'Brochoh!

With the last rays of Chanukah flickering into oblivion, already searing through Chodesh Teves, the darkest month, along with the rest of the cold and dark winter, )in particular going with Rabbeinu Tam's zman shkiah,:-) I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to grab the opportunity for a "mesiba". What?? Yes, a get-together l'kovod Chanukah!

Compounding that with the minhag to engage in pilpul on Torah sheba'al peh, since Chanukah is a Yom Tov of Torah sheba'al peh - which brings me to the focal point: our enemies' intent on shikchas HaTorah.

Of course we know that the Yevonim would have let us *study* Torah, but we know that it was only tolerable as a *chochmoh*. To let us *observe* (pardon my *antics*) the Torah? Aha! That was a different story. Again here, we know that malpractice of Torah, despite preservation of the text, is nonetheless shikchas HaTorah.

Eras have come and gone with arising with various issues of threats to Jewish Identity. For example, the Reform Movement (whose founding fathers were very learned) that started out with the changing of direction of the bimah to face the kehilla, bringing in change after change, up to the point that there is virtually nothing that they observe.

We all know that on Chanukah, that we again ask the famous kashya of the Bais Yosef, dor achar dor, but here, appropriate for this site and more so, in the spirit of this site, we wish to, nonetheless, engage in a pilpul that has to do with Issues of Jewish Identity.

Unfortunately, we are exposed to secular society and to their ideas, causing us to adopt them as second nature. We are exposed to society that stresses 'women's rights' or 'equal rights'. We are pressured to find it unconscionable that a woman in the 21st century cannot free herself from marriageable bondage among our ethnic society, so we are thus compelled to go as far as administering forceful and dangerous coercion of a get, then, when that ceases to be an option, to just annul a marriage in order to not necessitate a get (without even hearing out the other party, as we know) - amounting to an alternate route to shikchas HaTorah.

Yes, some of may argue (with consternation) that this issue has been discussed quite some time before, but others, on the contrary, would (gleefully) want it revisited, as is perceived that the more it is discussed, the more we see ignorance on the basics of such a core issue, finding it imperative to one more time, lay out on the table.

Hence, without further ado, the shayla: is there any basis for get on demand? Are we halachically, ethically or morally coerce or pressure or coax or cajole a man to do so? After doing some research, or perhaps, iyun, and with pilpul chaverim, no one was able to indicate to me where it is brought al pi Shulchan Aruch that although when a get cannot be coerced, it is 'yashrus' to give one and that there is no need for any m'kor and that it should be done nonetheless out of common sense! I found it odd that such a vastly popular notion should have no mention in anywhere in Tanach , Shas or poskim.

Our Gemara mentions dinim we must do out Chassidus (Pirkei Avos is all chassidus). In nezikin there are things that's we may be potur b'dinai Odom and yet, chayav b'dinai Shomayim. There are halachos- al pi din, to do because of "v'osisoh hayoshor v'hatov" and in the Shulchan Aruch there instances where"hamachmir tovo olov brochoh". In short, we see many scenarios where we are to conduct ourselves beyond the letter of Law, and many times demanded so by Halacha itself! So again, and from new perspective - why is there no m'kor for get on demand, especially if it is such a fundamental?

Furthermore, perusing through teshuvos of igunah, we often find the classic case where we need to be mattir a woman because her husband disappeared. There are cases then where the husband is not well and physically or mentally incompetent to give a get due to illness. Does anyone remember where there was a teshuva how to get a woman out of a marriage because she simply wanted out because she didn't feel the relationship would work out?

After humbly expressing all formalities to all talmidei chachamim and ready to be shredded apart, (already putting forth an urgent request for anybody to come to my defense,) with ra'ayos back and forth, I put before you (albeit with great trepidation) my thoughts:

If I may, I bring a ra'ayah from Yevomos 106b on the Mishnah "Mitzvas chalitzah: bo hu v'yovimto l'bais din v'hain m'si'in lo eitzah hogenes lo she'nemar (translation: he and his yevomoh (- his childless brother's wife that he can marry - and by force) come to Bais Din), "v'koru lo ziknai iro". Rashi says on the words "eitzah hogenes lo" says: go to those who are comparable to you and do not bring in machlokes to your house. The Bartenurah elaborates a bit more: if he is young and she is old or he is old and she is young, they tell him that what do you need an old one for? What do you need a young one for? Go to those like you!

Question: isn't that common sense? And furthermore, why is there no counterpart to this Mishnah in Masechta Gittin that if she wants a get and he does not, that we tell him something like, 'Look, it's not going to work, you need to go on with your life'?

Perhaps I can answer that the Torah makes a distinction as follows: in yibum, the yevamah never agreed to get married to this man, who happens to be her deceased husband's brother, so *Da'as Torah* states (to the extent that it makes it to the Mishna) that although we can't control him, we at least advise him or steer him, but by gittin, since this bond was done with HER COMMITMENT, there is not even an *ethical* suggestion of advising or steering him, even in the most gentle way, to appease her.

One more ra'ayah (and hopefully others will construct (or perhaps even destruct) upon my cornerstone,): the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibiting one to divorce a wife against her will: is it not ethically wrong to force a man against his will to stay married to a woman that he dislikes? Apparently, this question is not asked nowadays, only the other way around : how can the rabbis force a woman to stay married to someone that SHE dislikes? (By the way, the Israeli Rabbanut has found by a poll that more women refuse a get than men.) We see from here that it is ethically perfect to l'chatchillah make a takanah binding (or 'enslaving') a man to his wife. Therefore, we see that the same would apply vice versa, binding a woman to her husband - especially that we don't find any ethical notion or suggestion otherwise.

Thanking you all for your audience and best wishes for wonderful winter,
May we take along the light and warmth of Chanukah.....

92 comments :

  1. Shiur hadevarim kach hu. If a man agrees to marry a woman, and the next day discovers that she has some defect, even very minor that he didn't know about, or even if she burnt his food or doesn't cook well, or if he finds a more attractive wife, he can request a do-over, and get out of the marriage and start over with someone else.

    But if a wife finds a defect, she is not entitled to a do-over. Of course, some will espouse family values, that for stability of family, she should stay. But pray tell, when a man finds a more attractive woman and leaves, why is that not an issue of family stability?

    So the marriage laws go against logical sevara. Therefore, in the interest of v'asisa hayashar vhatov, as the author so eloquently put it, and especially in our day and age, where we don't have kefiyas beis din, (and those who recently tried to institute such a system were roundly condemned and even put on trial) what recourse does a woman have, even in those extreme cases where gemara says one should force a man to divorce? Therefore, (and Reb Moshe explicitly acknowledges this as a factor in his teshuva) we have no other way to help such a woman, other than by mekach taus, when there are grounds to do so. Even with this leniency, she still is not on a level playing field with the man, as the standards are higher, but it is the least we can do to try to help her.

    This would be exactly comparable to the case in gemara where the worlers overloaded a hauling device, and it collapsed, causing huge loss of merchandise to the owner. The owner was upset, and wanted them to pay for the lost merchandies. The rabbis told him that although the halacha is that they are liable, but not only must he not charge them, but he even must pay them their day's salary because of v'asisa hayashar vhatov.

    Just because the halacha is a certain way, does not mean we don't strive to do better. The midrash says Lo necheriva yerushalayim ella al shehe'emidu divreihem al dinei torah. They did the bare minimum, and did not strive to do what is ethically correct.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This lacks intelligence and basic empathy that one would expect from any Ben Torah.

    All issues of coercion and annulments aside, we need to come to grips with the basic reality that there are, R"L, men who use the withholding of a Get as method of intimidation, blackmail and revenge. This a reality in our time and saying to a woman "live with it" doesn't make it better. The "chochmas" that the author attempts to propose are silly and not worth commenting on.

    I wonder what the anonymous author would say if his own daughter became a victim of such a man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gut gezugt. There is no moral imperative for a husband to divorce his wife simply because she wants a divorce even though she had no halachic basis to demand a divorce. And there surely is no legal one. In fact the Shulchan Aruch mention various cases where the wife demand a divorce and her request is outright denied.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your citation of Rabbeinu Gershom's ban against a husband divorcing his wife if she doesn't want to be divorced and prefers o remain married to him is a very apt comparison. R"G merely have the wife this same right the husband always had per Torah law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Look in the Ramban on Kedoshim Ti'ihyu and Ve'asisa HaYashar ViHatov and you have your answer.

    I am NOT claiming that it necessarily applies in this case, as there can be competing values, and compelling reasons, why Torah values would be opposed to Get on demand.

    But I am saying that these Ramban make your entire question meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Its not a poll, its an actual statistic, based on study of its cases.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why did the poster not quote the sugya of kofin ad sheyomar rotze ani. It seems pretty clear that chazal do think there are circumstances where she has the 'right' to a get. Obviously not for no reason. But the Torah itself says if a man is 'soyneh' his wife he should give her a get. Maybe the poster is correct that 'get on demand' is not a Torah value, but 'get when being mistreated' or 'get when the husband hates the wife' is certainly a Torah value to the point that a beis din can indeed apply pressure, including beating the yetzer hora out of him. Of course it has to end up being 'roytze ani' but as meforshei hashas explain, we assume he does want to be megaresh, just his yetzer hora is stopping him and we need to beat it out of him. In a situation where a man no longer wants to be married, but is withholding a get simply because of spite or as a blackmail, then yes she has a clear right (and beis din have an obligation) to beat the yetzer hora out of him and let his genuine desire to end the relationship be expressed in the get.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Judge Freda l. Wolfson says: “If a husband refuses to
    give his wife a get, the wife may sue for divorce in a beth din, which may
    order the husband to issue the get.”

    Alternatively, If a husband refuses to give his wife a
    get, the wife may file for a civil divorce and go Agunah Inc, Susan and
    Goldfein and pay $100,000. Judge Freda
    l. Wolfson ordered Goldfein to answer questions, presumably, who are the people
    involved in the payoffs.

    Breaking news:

    Selection from Pacer Judge Freda l. Wolfson Order
    filed 12/14/15 2 pages:

    “It is on this 14th day of December, 2015,
    Ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6003, that
    Fredric Goldfein provide testimony or other information which he refuses to
    provide on the basis of his privilege against sel-incrimination as to all
    matters about which he may be questioned.”

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're not addressing the guest poster's very logical argument that egalitarianism would demand equal rights for both men and women, and that's not happening.

    He states an argument that is strong, but not foolproof - men are also often forced to stay in marriages against their will: "the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibiting one to divorce a wife against
    her will: is it not ethically wrong to force a man against his will to
    stay married to a woman that he dislikes? Apparently, this question is
    not asked nowadays, only the other way around : how can the rabbis force a woman to stay married to someone that SHE dislikes?"

    Still, his argument isn't foolproof, supporters of get-on-demand respond that men can receive a היתר מאה רבנן even today and women can't.

    I think a stronger argument would be from יבמות סג: Here's Chazal's advice to men who would like out of a bad marriage, except that doing so would overburden them financially: TOO BAD!

    הנני מביא רעה אשר לא יוכלו לצאת ממנה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה {איכה א-יד} נתנני ה' בידי לא אוכל קום אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא בר חייא זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה

    So, we see that pain is part and parcel of this world, which the Rishonim call נוה התלאות ....

    So maybe the solution to this mess is about better communication and when that fails, finding alternative sources to happiness?

    Here's why better communication and alternative sources to happiness are a much better solution, than searching for that elusive "soul mate":

    Let's face it. Looking around the more egalitarian secular world where divorce is the norm, what do we see? A small minority actually find STABLE "true" love in their mates. A much larger percentage encompassing millions and millions are, are spending their lives preoccupied with finding - and failing to find - their soul mates. They're caught in a constant cycle of searching ... falling in love ... arguing ... fighting ... separating ... and starting all over again ...... until (in most cases) they're to old, tired or burned out to try.

    I think that in the current environment, women like Tamar DO get an emotional high from being labeled "Agunas", not because forcing a divorce gives them a guarantee to the "happy life", but rather because the SOCIAL SUPPORT gives them a sense of purpose and self-esteem.


    It's a pity that we've come to this...

    ReplyDelete
  10. where do chazal state that the husband is forced until he wants it? It is hard to have a meaningful discussion if the sources are not cited so we can all look them up?

    ReplyDelete
  11. " there are, R"L, men who use the withholding of a Get as method of intimidation, blackmail and revenge"

    Indeed there are. The problem is that very little is being done as to, a) Defining the derogatory terms you use. What preceded the perception that the man is engaged in "intimidation, blackmail and revenge"? b) Very little is done in cases where the woman engages in the same tactics and the man does not, c) very few people have the patience of digging though the details to find that "golden nugget", where the whole thing is based on inflamed emotions that blinded one or both parties to the reality that the other one really means well.

    Case in point - this is a TRUE story:

    About four years ago, I was asked to intervene in the case of a couple scheduled for a גט in בית דין the VERY NEXT DAY.

    Turns out the wife - an extremely intelligent woman (who later landed a prestigious job in "the city") felt she couldn't bear her husband any more... I'll skip the details and cut to the chase. It turned out that what set it all off was that money was tight (at that point both where job searching) and she asked to "eat out" in a restaurant. She asked to go to a certain restaurant, which was inexpensive. When they got close the restaurant, her hubby said they should keep walking .. to another certain restaurant (which happened to be more expensive).

    She "lost it", screaming that she wanted "this restaurant" .. he "never listens to her" ... etc. For the next two days they didn't speak to each other .. and finally agreed to "throw in the towel".

    She called her High School teacher with whom she was close, and that lady called me.. So I spoke to the wife a few minutes on the phone. All she could talk about was how mean her husband is and how controlling .....

    Turns out that hubby wanted to "treat her", because he knew money was tight and also that she liked the second restaurant ... She MISINTERPRETED his actions ... He felt bewildered and at a loss for words. She couldn't get past her emotions. Both felt there was no use trying anymore.

    I'll never forget the way she left my house with her head hanging ... like a child caught doing something VERY silly.

    And yes, they're still married. She still "loses it" sometimes ... and there is indeed a mismatch in "types": He's a very sensitive and intellectual type of fellow, she's on the emotional side and can easily forget about long-term repercussions.

    ... and I don't even claim any special skills in couples counseling!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is an interesting ma'amar. I didn't think of the Chanukah story being a parallel to secular ideas in general. It is perhaps a generalization, but it holds true in a number of areas. For example, the Yavanim would forbid Bris Milah, and the ultra secularists (including some "Jews") campaign to make it illegal for parents to do this to their sons! So there is some substance to your argument, ie secular ideas which may be more or less common, are like those of the Yavanim. In specific areas of Gittin, however, i leave that to the experts!

    ReplyDelete
  13. "In a situation where a man no longer wants to be married, but is withholding a get simply because of spite or as a blackmail, then yes she has a clear right (and beis din have an obligation) to beat the yetzer hora out of him and let his genuine desire to end the relationship be expressed in the get"



    Umm...? Meheichi Teisi? you just wholesale made up a new halacha, since when is having bad (even terrible) middos (ie. withholding get out of spite) a reason to force a get?!


    Sources would very much help in this context.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Barry writes:



    "if a man agrees to marry a woman, and the next day discovers that she hassome defect, even very minor that he didn't know about, or even if she burnt his food or doesn't cook well, or if he finds a more attractive wife, he can request a do-over, and get out of the marriage and start over with someone else."

    Not true. Dear Barry, I attempted to address this argument over a week ago, and I'm stilll awaiting your response. Here's what I wrote then:

    "I'm flabbergasted by this type of comment, which is ubiquitous in ORA supporters' arguments. I checked again today. This is not להלכה. See אהע"ז ס' קי"ט ס"ב that a man should NOT divorce his first wife unless מצא בה ערות דבר or they BOTH agree to divorce. The Rema notes that if doing otherwise מזבח מוריד עליו דמעות. ...

    I keep on going back to that סעיף in S"A and thinking to myself - I MUST be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is... Barry, please do me a favor, talk to your Rov and if I've learned the wrong pshat please come back here to set me straight, k?

    Additionally, Chazal are very even-handed in "spreading the misery" of being stuck in bad marriages. See יבמות סג: Chazal basically tell men who would have to take a large financial hit if they were to divorce their wives to basically smile and grin - "too bad", you're stuck:

    הנני מביא רעה אשר לא יוכלו לצאת ממנה אמררב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה נתנני ה' בידי לא אוכל קום אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא בר חייא זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה



    Practically speaking, I think you probably have millions of marriages that are in similar although not exactly the same situation. Many stick together not out of any affection, but because limited resources simply won't allow for two households and because they feel uncomfortable dealing with the scrutiny of grown children, grandchildren and of course neighbors and friends.

    The only excuse for ORA's misinformation campaign that I can think of is that they're not dealing in the realm of לכתחילה, but rather in that of בדיעבד. A husband "shouldn't" divorce אשתו ראשונה while a woman "can't".

    That itself begs the question. Why is ORA doing so?

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is a famous Rambam who asks why kefiyas beis din is not a get meuseh, and he answers that every Jew wants to do the ratzon hashem, but has a yetzer hara that prevents him. By using physical force on such a husband, his original ratzon to do the right thing becomes restored.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rambam is not Chazal and it is a minority view which is not halacha

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Reb Ploni, I wrote back then, which you note here at the end. Chazal instituted a Kesuva to prevent men from walking away so easily (financial pain), and also did not recommend divorce without serious reason. But nevertheless, a man is free to divorce on a whim. Certainly if he discovers a defect he can leave. But if a young woman with no experience in the world thinks she is marrying a person with certain qualities, and she misjudged him, now she is stuck for the rest of her life? How on earth do you understand or justify such a disparity?

    So Chazal in their times tried to limit it with Kesuva. Rabbeinu Gershom went further with his takanas, forbidding a husband from divorce without wife's consent and from engaging in polygamy.

    But the inequality still remains, and is worse today when there is no kefiyas beis din. I am not speaking of inequality because of feminisim. I am speaking because of the fact that it makes no sense and is completely unethical for someone to have to suffer a lifetime because of a misjudgment in not seeing or knowing about a major character flaw until after the wedding, having dated only a handful of times. Especially if a man in such a situation could easily get out.

    How do you justify this, and why is it not a moral obligation to help such a person because v'asisa hayashar vhatov?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am simply addressing the fact that there can be no mention of something in Chazal, SA, etc, and it can still be expected, even required, from someone who wants to do the Ratzon Hashem. And that things can change depending on society and situation.

    As the Ramban writes, the Torah could not have included every situation . . .

    Some things Chazal went ahead and legislated under Yashar V'Tov, others left for individual situations. Rav Asher Weiss has a nice piece on it where he explains that the ideal is NOT to have to legislate (this is certainly the correct understanding).

    Again, it all is in the details. And since it wasn't legislated competing values certainly can and should be included. But the premise of the post completely misses the point. There can be no mention anywhere, and it still be expected.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I raise a related point about the Chanuka argument. I heard many years ago, a younger Hareid Rabbi who was blasting German orthodoxy and how they led to the Holocaust. his claim was that some of them had a kosher meat substitute which tasted like pork (maybe vegetarian or so). The problem with this argument, is - a) to eat something that tastes like pork, one must be stupid, becasue (from having smelt it at a friend's house) it must logically taste like a toevah as well as smelling that way.

    b) even is someone does want to taste this [vegetarian], it is not assur in any way . The Talmud in Chullin tells us what Yalta says to her husband, Rebbi Nachman. For every forbidden thing, there is a permitted version which is kosher.

    c) the larger question follows from Yalta's other stories, was she a feminist of her time? certain things that are not in line with the conservative view (ie strictly traditional, not the American apikorsim), are still mentioned in the Talmud as valid options.

    d) there was in Israel a few years ago a kosher "shrimp", which was just a spiced up fish, which allegedly tasted like shrimp. It had a a small town Rabbanut hechsher, but the very big Kosher certificates refused to give their hechsher.


    I am arguing from the case of Yalta and permitted alternatives, to a general openess of halachic possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is this brought from Chazal, or are you just testing the literacy of the commentors?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Judge Freda l. Wolfson says: “If a husband refuses to
    give his wife a get, the wife may sue for divorce in a beth din, which may order
    the husband to issue the get.”

    I add words: If a husband, alive and well and free,
    refuses to give his wife a get, the wife may sue for divorce in a beth din,
    which may order the husband, alive and well and free, to issue the get. Ok?

    Judge Freda l. Wolfson says: “It is on this 14th
    day of December, 2015, Ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
    Sections 6002 and 6003, that Fredric Goldfein provide testimony or other
    information which he refuses to provide on the basis of his privilege against
    self-incrimination as to all matters about which he may be questioned.”

    I’m an economist, PhD, and an accountant, CPA. It looks to me Goldfein was doing money laundering,
    receiving $60,000 and depositing to Mendel Epstein’s shuls. Goldfein could reveal
    much about ORA, Beth Din of America, Agunah International activities. Yes?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Reb Ploni, I wrote back then, which you note here at the end. Chazal instituted a Kesuva to prevent men from walking away so easily (financial pain), and also did not recommend divorce without serious reason. But nevertheless, a man is free to divorce on a whim. Certainly if he discovers a defect he can leave. But if a young woman with no experience in the world thinks she is marrying a person with certain qualities, and she misjudged him, now she is stuck for the rest of her life? How on earth do you understand or justify such a disparity?

    So Chazal in their times tried to limit it with Kesuva. Rabbeinu Gershom went further with his takanas, forbidding a husband from divorce without wife's consent and from engaging in polygamy.

    But the inequality still remains, and is worse today when there is no kefiyas beis din. I am not speaking of inequality because of feminisim. I am speaking because of the fact that it makes no sense and is completely unethical for someone to have to suffer a lifetime because of a misjudgment in not seeing or knowing about a major character flaw until after the wedding, having dated only a handful of times. Especially if a man in such a situation could easily get out.

    How do you justify this, and why is it not a moral obligation to help such a person because v'asisa hayashar vhatov?

    I find it fascinating that in the case with the workers, Chazal flipped it backwards. The din is that the workers owed money to the owner. Chazal said, sorry, Charlie, we don't care what the halacha is, the owner must pay the workers. Imagine at that time if there were protestors who said Ch

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Torah and Halacha treat with disparities many different situations. Kohanim/Yisroelim, Husband/Wife, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "But nevertheless, a man is free to divorce on a whim. Certainly if he discovers a defect he can leave".

    As I quoted, not on a whim, only ערות דבר - serious defect.

    My point was to judge Chazal's INTENT, similar to what constitutional scholars do (to varying degrees) in judging the INTENT of the framers of the Constitution.

    When we judge intent, it becomes clear that the whole argument of gender imbalance is a distraction from the bigger issue which Chazal intended: Use the various tools they bestowed us for the purpose of better interpersonal relations and alternative sources of happiness so as to AVOID the mutual heartbreak that is usually involved with divorce.

    Same with the Gemara I mentioned about men stuck in bad marriages that don't have the financial means to pay off the large Kesuba. Here too, Chazal's INTENT is: Use the various tools they bestowed us for the purpose of better
    interpersonal relations and alternative sources of happiness so as to
    AVOID the mutual heartbreak that is usually involved with divorce.

    This might be why I thought you never responded. We where probably talking "around each others". My apologies.

    My point here too, was to understand Chazal's INTENT.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good point - and you will face a lot of opposition to say there are situations where we cannot find a Chazal to give a ruling on it. This seems to be what Ramban is implying, but the Torah also implies it in Devarim,
    כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט
    Rav David ben Chayyim says that Chazal is not a sefer, but it is a collection of rulings at the time , i.e. the Mishnah, Gemara etc. So there can be new rulings too. Practical question is whether we need a Sanhedin for such rulings?

    ReplyDelete
  26. קדושין נ ע״א: וכן אתה מוצא בגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני ואמאי הא בלביה לא ניחא ליה אלא לאו משום דאמרינן דברים שבלב אינן דברים ודלמא שאני התם *משום דמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים*

    רש״י שם: דמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. ואית לן לאחזוקיה בחזקת מקיים מצוה וגמר בלבו לקיים דברי בית דין

    ReplyDelete
  27. if you take that approach than I can say that Chazal and our rabbonim really don't provide any real guidance because the present situation is one they don't specifically address and thus I can make up whatever views I want and claim it doesn't go against our rabbonim. That is basically throwing out any concept of mesora and rabbinic authority in order to follow the current secular values.

    I

    ReplyDelete
  28. That is precisely why I prefaced my comment with "you will face a lot of opposition", and ended it with the question of whether we need a Sanhedrin before we can get new rulings.
    In any case, in the ideal world, there were always points that were not clear, even to Moshe, hence he had to ask Hashem for a specific Ruling. And D'Oraita we go to the Judge in charge. My question is what applies in an ideal world - eg Urim v@Thummim; Sanhedrin, and what applies today, eg poskim, shulchan aruch. And what happens when we cannot get a resolution?
    Your answer is a logical one, and my question is also a logical one. Ben Chayyim deals with issues like Kitniot, and finds rulings in the Yerushalmi. There is a shadow Sanhedrin today, which I think Rav Steinsaltz was involved in , and was backed by Rab Elyashiv. but that seems not to have an an iota of influence on halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Politically IncorrectDecember 15, 2015 at 7:51 PM

    That famous Rambam you are referring to, is in Perek 2 of Hilchos Geirushin. That applies to a case where the couple are not permitted to stay married, be it min HaTorah, (ex. Almonoh to a Kohen Godol, a gerusha or a chalutzah to a Kohen hedyot etc.,) be it mid'rabbonon, such as the instance of Adam Fleischer and Tamar Epstein AFTER she would receive a get from Aharon Friedman - any dissenters on that?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree. Except that the devil is in the details, and all too often, people prejudge and make up their minds without hearing everything and / or without knowing how to apply the Ramabn even afterwards.

    R' Sholom Serebrenick (co-founder of Arachim) told me he calls this the need for a computer (to hold all the data) and a good program (to analyze it).

    In Chazal's the "computer" is לכאורה the בחינת חכמה, while the analyzing is בינה ודעת.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Politically IncorrectDecember 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM

    Right, as I was thinking of your article written so eloquently at jewinthecity.com, as I think about it now and then. ...since I've seen it:-)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Politically IncorrectDecember 15, 2015 at 7:58 PM

    Da'as Torah and Eddie, isn't my answer just above to Barry the accurate one? Curious on your feedback. ..

    ReplyDelete
  33. the "Sanhedrin" is a very strange organization and I never heard that Rav Eliashiv backed it

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dear Reb Ploni, we both know the standard of ervas davar is not the real world situation, only an ideal. Beis Shamai held it lhalacha, but Beis Hillel said afilu hikdiach tavshilo, and Rebbe Akiva said afilu matza acheres naeh heymena. The halacha was not like Beis Shamai, although Shulchan Aruch mentions it as an ideal.

    There are divorces in Jewish community right and left. Some marriages only lasting a few weeks. Did they all involve ervas davar? I highly doubt it, they are from frum homes. Rather they involved some kind of personality clashes.

    I think you are very idealistic and have noble intentions to save as many marriages as possible. But that doesn't address the gross inequality for men and women in the divorce process. If the Torah felt divorce was never an option, it could have been like the Catholic religion, where I think it is always forbidden. But if a man can divorce upon discovering a personality flaw he did not know of, and cannot live with, why on earth is it not the same for women? So, as decent humans, we should try to save the marriage. But if not possible, then to allow women a second chance, just like men have. I don't see any moral principle here, and as in the case of the workers, morality may flat out contradict the basic halacha, and we do the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It was never backed by Rav Elyashev. The so-called Sanhedrin today no one takes seriously, except themselves and some Nationalists.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'll let DT answer that :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. yes it is a mysterious organization, which has very little impact. It seems that their attempt at reintroducing Semicha (Rav Beirav's initiative) had some backing from Rav Elyashiv,

    http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php/Sanhedrin_Initiative


    but the actual Sanhedrin didn't have his open support.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dov thanks for the source. I was responding to Dan's apparent general application of beating - which is more consistent with Rambam than the majority understanding of Chazal.

    You are correct that the rationale for hitting a husband until he says he wants to give a get can be learned from this gemora. But the Rambam uses it in cases(ma'os alei) where the vast majority of poskim says that not only can it not be used but that if used the get is posul. (get me'usa). Not sure whether the cases Dan mentions that even the Rambam would agree that beating is permitted.

    In sum, when beating is permitted the above is the rationale. However the majority of poskim disagree with the Rambam as to how general Chazal allowed beatings. The Rambam - not Chazal - is the source for the general application of force when a woman says she wants out of the marriage. But even the Rambam says she needs to say the thought of sexual relations with her husband disgusts her - but not in the case where she says I think I can do better. Not sure about the other cases mentioned

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rabbi Steinsaltz was Nasi of the so called, 'sanhedrin' from 2004-2008. I believe his AKA at the time was Rabbi Adin Even Yisrael. This sanhedrin was considered a joke. I remember being quite saddened and disappointed that an individual of the likes of R' Steinsaltz would step within daled amos of such an organization. If Rav Eliashiv had backed such a group, G-d forbid, perish the thought, the Torah World would have been wrapped in sackcloth and ashes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ploni,

    By applying my comment to a case of silly and immature married behavior, you miss my point.

    I am not talking about instant gratification, refusal to go to even basic counseling etc.

    I am talking about plain extortion and sadistic behavior. So let me give you some scenarios (names fictional):

    1. Chaim is caught by his wife having relations with a prostitute. She wants out - immediately, Chaim decides to make her life miserable for leaving him so he refuses to give a get while he continues to live a life of immorality.

    2. Baruch is a dishonest businessman. He has been squandering family money on gambling as well. His wife, Bracha, is done with his deceit. She wants out. Baruch agrees to give a get - when he gets a check for 100,000 dollars. Bracha and her family take out loans to pay Baruch off.

    3. Dani and Daniella have a terrible marriage. They went to therapists, rabbonim etc. It just isn't working. They agree to separate and share custody of the children, 50-50. A week before the get is to be given, Dani informs Daniella that he will only give a get if the custody agreement is changed and he is to pay no child support whatsoever, forever.

    If you think any of these are fictional, I suggest you speak to an experienced Dayan and Mesader Gittin.

    ReplyDelete
  41. is the rationale that we all want to keep the mitzvot, and the beating will bring him to his senses?

    I would venture another question to those modernizers who agree with the Rambam:

    Is religious coercion a good thing, or is it only when it comes to giving a get?

    declaration: I am a modernizer myself!

    ReplyDelete
  42. I did not mean to imply that this rambam can be used to justify forcing gittin in the cases you mentioned, just to provide the source from the Gemara that the rambam was working off. It seemed the thrust of some comments here was that this was one of the "made up" halachos of the rambam but like almost all of the places that people try and say this it shows us much more regarding the persons ignorance than the rambams creativity.

    ReplyDelete
  43. PQ, the husband cheating in business or even having cheated with another woman and certainly where only the spouses are bickering often, are cases that halacha does not permit beis din to force or demand he give a Get if he insists on preserving the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  44. My take: The actions of the husband in cases #1 & #2 are indeed disgusting if they are indeed true. Unfortunately, wild accusations are also common in B"D, so there needs to be REAL verification of the facts.

    In fact, a while back a prominent Mesader Gittin told me that he simply doesn't believe ANY accusations of sexual abuse that come up during a divorce process. I was more than a bit taken aback by his blanket statement and argued vehemently that EVERY case has to be investigated. I doubt I changed his mind.

    Snap decision making that makes life easier for the decider but not for the losing party goes BOTH ways - with many just following their preconceived notions and unwilling to listen to anything different.

    In case #3 I respectfully but strongly disagree. I'm very aware of what goes on in therapy and Rabbonim meetings. As things stand now, it's extremely likely לפענ"ד that representatives of either of these two groups that the couple met prescribed to the same שיטה of "snap decision" making, thus giving the aggrieved party plenty of תרעומות that hold back a final resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sigh.
    I KNOW THAT. I am not debating that fact.
    I am, however, pointing out that these are cases that I think most reasonable people would recognize are terrible situations and the wife is a victim of sadism, and/or extortion. These are real situations.
    So - agreed that Bais Din can't demand a get. Do we just shrug and say "sorry" to the poor girl?
    If any of these situations was YOUR DAUGHTER, what would you do?
    Bnos Yisroel are being harmed. We must come up with a solution Al pi Din.
    So much effort is being expended by the author of this blog on naysaying and de-legitimizing the annulment. That is his decision, his life and his time.
    I would love to see the author or other similar talmidei chachomim come up with a mechanism to spare Bnos Yisroel from this very real danger and pain.
    I am a simple yid, but I have seen the victims and they are real. We can't ignore that fact.
    Yes, there are brats who want out 1-2-3 and refuse to try to make Shalom.
    There are also victims who deserve to be free from their husbands who are rishoim.
    So, I ask all the bloggers who so frenetically rush to criticize the Kamenetzkys etc. ----- what ideas do YOU have to help klal yisroel and Bnos Yisroel?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dear R' Barry;


    It's a pleasure debating with you. No name calling, what a breath of fresh air!


    I think I really have to try and buckle down and "get to my point" ... writing a post (if RDE allows it) using some specific examples. Deconstructing those smelly socks you brought up might explain things better.



    You see, the reality behind the story with the smelly socks might actually end up being very different than what it seems.



    My idea of judging Chazal's intent really is not wishful idealism, but rather pragmatism that needs a nudge and some coaxing for encouragement... trying to bring into focus issues that fighting couples rarely notice or give much thought about, and when they finally do, they often wonder ... why was I so stupid to pick a fight? It won't eliminate all the cases, as PQ - like you - also notes.


    Did you see my story earlier in this thread about the restaurant fighted that almost caused a divorce?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Politically IncorrectDecember 16, 2015 at 12:52 AM

    An interesting phenomenon about this site: the more the issue of get-on-demand is broached, we consistently see the opposing philosophy get much argumentative ground such as m'koros al pi Torah, being in accordance with logic, case law and personal and/or interpersonal experience, while it's supporters miserably fail even once to set their case. And I don't think it is because their comments are being blocked.

    IMHO, It would be worthwhile to here note that the divorce scene and in particular, the Orthodox Jewish scene, especially the supposed agunah dilemma, shrieks as a floor model of where logic and political correctness are so *divorced*(pardon the pun) from each other.

    ReplyDelete
  48. PQ

    I happen to agree with you 100%. REALLY. Not in a callous and dismissive way, but out of extreme sensitivity.

    This definitely happens, from both sides of the gender divide. Since we seem to all be on the same side of the fence on the illegitimacy of forcing gittin in such cases, maybe PREVENTION is the key - training and teaching about the fine art of communication in the context of a Jewish home?

    I see a big problem in judging what's subjective vs. what's objective.

    Example: One spouse is the principled type who abhors long-winded Shabbos meals filled with all kinds of questionable speech and ביטול זמן, while the other thrives on community and friendship, and basically doesn't even recognize that there could be a problem.

    The idea is to delineate the objectively good and separate from the subjective, and encourage flexibility on the subjective while finding value in sticking to principals for the objective.

    I know you're talking about much worse - you're talking about really MEAN men. I get that. So why am I changing the subject? Not to deflect, but with the hope that if we start early enough in life to separate the objective from the subjective while giving a personal חשיבות in doing the "right think" as judged objectively, maybe there's hope to avoid some of what you talk about.

    The people on this blog probably stress the evil women more than the evil men, because this is one of the few safe places for them to vent. I'd like to think that the number of "evil' from both genders would be much smaller, with proper חינוך and real listening - minus the snap judgements I mentioned earlier.

    What about the intransigent few who are really unteachable? There is no easy solution. As I've quoted the Gemara in Yevomos,this also goes both ways and Chazal tell us to be מקבל באהבה our lot if so destined, of אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה.

    When nothing else is possible, it would be no different than the יסורים that the מחבר in סימן רכ"ב writes:

    חַיָּב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה בְּדַעַת שְׁלֵמָה וּבְנֶפֶשׁ חֲפֵצָה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה, כִּי הָרָעָה לְעוֹבְדֵי הַשֵּׁם הִיא שִׂמְחָתָם וְטוֹבָתָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמְּקַבֵּל מֵאַהֲבָה מַה שֶּׁגָּזַר עָלָיו הַשֵּׁם. נִמְצָא שֶׁבְּקַבָּלַת רָעָה זוֹ הוּא עוֹבֵד אֶת הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁהִיא שִׂמְחָה לוֹ.


    We usually say "I'm not at that מדריגה". fact remains that Hashem decides which מדריגה he expects from us, not we ourselves.


    Now, let me go practice what I preach. :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Actually Rav Sternbuch says the same thing. Not every problem has a nice solution

    ReplyDelete
  50. Politically IncorrectDecember 16, 2015 at 5:24 AM

    If I may add, Mr. Ploni, a heter me'ah rabbonim today can cost $20,000 (when it shouldn't) and yet still, he would encounter difficulty in finding a shidduch,
    it would be labeled as taboo,
    when a woman with a questionable get .....makes it through

    .......to the point that even a woman without a get gets...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Politically IncorrectDecember 16, 2015 at 5:37 AM

    Missed the point: you see that by yibum, where there is no issur min HaTorah nor mid'rabbonon to take her by force, yet, we advise him not to be 'mean', even though it can be argued that the same logic would apply to gittin and yet, such a supposedly 'serious' concern of 'abuse' is starkly absent in the realm of gittin.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Politically IncorrectDecember 16, 2015 at 6:12 AM

    PQ: This lacks intelligence and basic empathy that one would expect from any Ben Torah.










    Thank You for illustrating my point. Typical of all proponents of get-on-demand - no intelligence and no proof, particularly from Torah. ......I had to distance myself from such am ha'aretz'us.

    Thanks to the Medina. I meant Medinat_Hayam for the article he linked to his comment on this post, that in Eretz Yisroel (and I imagine here too) the Agunah figures as claimed to be in the"thousands" are the product of imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ploni and R' Eidensohn,
    I appreciate you sentiments, but as a poshut yid, I simply can not accept that all we have to offer a victim is "sorry, you have yissurim. live with it."
    There has to be REAL support for the victim (yes, both male and female!).
    Perhaps a Bais Din system that is thourough, tyrusted and empowered might work better.
    I wonder if the Chassidishe world, where the Rebbe hold the ultimate power, has these same issues.
    Bottom line - I would cherish a series of posts of how to stop this al pi halacha, l'kol hadei'os.
    Perhaps if we saw these victims as OUR sons and daughters, we would be more proactive.
    As long as we sit around our computers and Shabbos tables and bash what happened, we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Rav Eidensohn,
    I am not a regular reader of your blog. Perhaps you can comment on your understanding of Daas Torah on halachic prenups (RCA or otherwise)?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes, but my point (and the rabbanut's point) is that there are more 'agunim' than agunot.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Your empathy is sterling and your desire to "right the wrongs" is noble, but our hands are tied. Your approach has directly lead to the Rackmans and other breaches of Halacha of the world today, including our current situation.

    Generally though, why is this approach even a Hava Mina among our Machane? Rav Yoshe Ber understood this and addressd this approach in his famous RCA address in 1973:

    ...The Rav told the story of a young man and woman who sought his assistance. She was a convert who later fell in love with this young man, whose increased interest in Judaism she sparked. The two became engaged and he visited his grandfather’s grave, where he discovered that he is a kohen. What could the Rav do? A kohen may not marry a convert and therefore, tragically, this couple could not wed. However, we must unhesitatingly surrender to the will of the Almighty. With sadness in his heart, the Rav shared in the suffering of this woman who had to lose the beloved man she helped bring back into the fold. She valiantly walked away from him, surrendering to the Almighty’s will.

    Confidence in Torah
    We must also surrender our everyday will, the desire to survive and succeed, and instead embrace the Divine will. We cannot yield to social or scholarly critiques regardless of the apparent price. We must not only stand strong physically, refusing to act against the Torah in any way no matter how unpopular that insistence may be, but we must also resist emotionally. We dare not feel any inferiority due to our principled stance. Halachah stands on its own, and we are neither intellectually nor morally negligent for refusing to cooperate with modern intellectual trends that undermine it.

    Chiddush, innovation, creative interpretation, is the very heart of halachah. But chiddushim must be within the discipline, internal to the system of halachah and not originating from the outside.

    ...We stand proud of our mesorah, without apology or compromise. In the Rav’s opinion, Judaism “does not have to apologize either to the modern woman or to the modern representatives of religious subjectivism.” Despite the pressure we may feel, we cannot event attempt to nudge halachic norms toward what the Rav calls “the transient ways of a neurotic society.” We must recognize the fleeting nature of modern political and ideological trends as compared to the eternality of the Torah.

    ...Torah study is a yoke because we lack the authority to change its laws. Shinuy, change, is unacceptable. Chiddush, innovation, creative interpretation, is the very heart of halachah. It is the engine of halachic continuity throughout the ages. But these chiddushim must be within the discipline, internal to the system of halachah and not originating from the outside. They must soberly represent the humble and fearful surrender to the Torah we have learned from the Sages. They must respect the past and continue the mesorah whose responsibility of transmission rests on our shoulders.

    This influential speech was a watershed event in recent rabbinic history. With it, the Rav offered a brief but remarkable philosophy of creativity in Torah study and a guide for halachic change and conservation. We would do well to incorporate the Rav’s Torah philosophy into our own worldviews and allow his sage guidance to steer our way through the difficult situations we face.

    (link: https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/04/2013/the_rav_speak/ )

    ReplyDelete
  57. does anyone bring a rayah from the gemara in gittin 32a that the husband sends the get with a shaliach and then cancels in order to "le'tzuara k'mechaveyin", chazal was mesaken that the bittul hashlichus needs to be in front of eidim. doesnt the gemara seem to imply to withhold the get to cause anguish to the spouse is inherently permitted? am i correct in my analysis?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Let me add a number 4, which I think really happened. Avraham meets Esther and tells her is in medical school. She and her family are very impressed and like his bubbly personality, and they get engaged. Two years after the wedding, she somehow finds out that he was never in medical school, but was out roaming the streets every day, and would return late at night. She feels completely betrayed and disgusted with him, and wants out. He doesn't want to lose his wife, which is all he has going for him, and refuses a get. (Last sentence may be fictional.)

    ReplyDelete
  59. Politically IncorrectDecember 16, 2015 at 5:49 PM

    Oh, I wanted to tell you that I have desired for quite a while to find that information.
    Thank you so much!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thanks - didn't see that. Very interesting. Looks like a number of Talmidei Chachomim endorse the prenup, such as Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rav Osher Weiss. On the other hand, The articles that you wrote seem to make the case that it is a "Get M'useh". I wonder why they don't agree.
    Rav Shternbach is very clear that he holds that prenups are wrong. Rav Elyashiv is quoted, but did not write anything himself about it. I wonder why as well.


    Please don't get me wrong - I am really trying to wrap my head around this. I have seen too many terrible stories. Despite what some other commentators would like to say or bash, this is a real problem. What can we do (within halacha - of course) to help fellow yidden?
    The story from Rav Yoshe Ber is moving, but have we really tried everything?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Moving story, but has everything been tried? Really, truly?
    If it was, G-d forbid, your daughter who was in any of the above (not-so) hypotheticals, could you really tell her this with a clear conscience?

    ReplyDelete
  62. ... but once you're dealing with "mis"information .. facts don't really matter .... don't you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rav Elyashev has a written teshuva stating the so-called halachic prenup is invalid al pi halacha and causes a Get Me'usa.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think "Mefaresh's link to

    https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/04/2013/the_rav_speak/

    ... speaks volumes, and also explains to a large degree how the authentic YU perspective SHOULD be ...

    I sincerely hope it will somewhat lessen your pain.

    There's much more to say on the Hashkafic approach to such extremely painful situations without easy solutions, but it requires more thought... I hope BS"D to be able to clearly articulate more some day soon.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thank you for the excellent link!

    ReplyDelete
  66. It would be difficult, but as illustrated in the story with RYBS, it's the greatest sacrifice we can make.

    ReplyDelete
  67. 1) By Yibbum there is the idea that if not done for correct reasons it is "pogeya b'Erva.

    2) The fact that it is absent proves that B'zman HaGemara it was not a concern. That does NOT mean that it would no be a concern today.

    If a husband didn't let his wife out more than a few times a month in the Rambam's time and place it wouldn't be a lack of Yashar V'Tov. Today it certainly would be.

    Again, I personally have strong doubts if Get on Demand is proper, and if it would be a Yashar V'Tov Torah value. But there is ZERO proof from all the examples in the post that it would not be.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Politically IncorrectDecember 20, 2015 at 3:03 AM

    The poster has brought forth ra'ayos and logic to which you only responded with sentiment. If you search or ask a dayan, it is pretty certain that you won't come up with any proof for your stance, just as nobody has as of yet......for sure, solidly

    ReplyDelete
  69. Politically IncorrectDecember 22, 2015 at 11:00 PM

    Not sure why the points don't prove anything. Again, halacha says that I cannot force a yovom to not gather his yevomoh. We can and are encouraged to PLEAD with him and only in this case. In gittin, we don't even plead with him and obviously, forcing him would be out of the question.

    ReplyDelete
  70. And again, the fact that we didn't plead in the time of Chazal does not tell us that in today's day and age it wouldn't be the morally correct thing to give a GET.


    Halacha doesn't change, but, within a larger picture of Jewish values, moral decisions do change.


    An example: When there are brothers, daughters don't get yerusha. That's Halacha and nothing in the world can change it. But major, respected gedolim advise lichatchila to get around it in a way that a girl wil get some form of inheritance. One can scream (and some do/did) that it goes against Jewish values. But others disagree -- as times and situations have changed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Politically IncorrectJanuary 13, 2016 at 1:05 PM

    By Get, apparently, we don't even ethically ask him to divorce her since she entered willingly, unlike yibum, how does that reasoning change nowaday?

    ReplyDelete
  72. " Halacha doesn't change, but, within a larger picture of Jewish values, moral decisions do change."

    What is your source that moral decisions change? You provided no actual source for this contention of yours. Even your example of yerusha you admit that many dispute what is proper every changed for our times while "others disagree" and contend that they have. But according to those that even yerusha best practices didn't change, they certainly would similarly contend gittin best practices have also not changed, and more to the point that moral values do not change with time.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Politically IncorrectJanuary 15, 2016 at 7:24 PM

    Problem also would be that they go against another person's rights ( in this case the husband) even though the "times" that have changed don't seem to care....

    ReplyDelete
  74. Some form of "Yerusha" for daughters is also going against another person's rights, yet many posekim are in favor of it.
    But I agree you can't demand when it goes against others rights.
    The question I am dealing with is what is right for the Husband to do, and what society has a right to expect from him. And as proven by Yerusha for daughters, society and times change what can be expected.

    ReplyDelete
  75. there is no such thing as blanket change. Somethings are changed by legal fictions - such as selling chametz or greating an artificial debt when dealing with inheritance.
    That doesn't provide a blueprint for providing Get on demand. Prenupitals which seem similar are in fact rejected by most chareidi poskim. So you need a diffferent mechanism. Without the mechanism there is no change

    ReplyDelete
  76. My overall proof is the Ramban. My specific proof is the great posekim who say today we give some form of Yerusha to daughters.
    But correct, those who disagree by Yerusha would likely disagree here as well. My point is that great posekim, and common practice among pious Jews, shows that values change..I think this is clear and correct, but never claimed others don't, or can't, disagree.
    And as I said multiple times, far from convinced that values demand a husband to give a Get against his interests. Just pointing out that there is no proof that says that they didn't based on Talmudic times.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Not at all. As Ramban says, we check what is Yashar VaTov and Holy based on overall Torah values. But the specific ways they are carried out certainly changes.
    This is no major Chidush. In many ways, we do not follow Talmudic precedents in various areas, and specifically in Gittin, Kedushin, and Keduba. And I am talking about as practiced by mainstream Yeshiva communities.

    ReplyDelete
  78. you are greatly oversimplifying a complex issue. Each case needs to be looked at carefully to ascertain whether it in fact provides a blueprint. In most cases the answer is no because the underlying issue or the mechanism is not transferrable. We have dealt with this issue in the past.

    I also don't see evidence of your claim that values are changing and therefore the halacha changes. Rav Herschel Schachter has a good explanation of the parameters of change.

    ReplyDelete
  79. repeating yourself doesn't make it true. Please give specific examples.

    ReplyDelete
  80. If the father didn't write a will giving his daughter(s) an inheritance, then his daughters inherit nothing (other than if single there marriage costs may be covered from the estate.) So nothing changed with yerusha as far as halacha is concerned. The father always, even 1,000 years ago, had the option and ability to give his daughters.

    And no one, not today and not 1,000 years ago, could force the father to leave anything for his daughters. Similarly, no one, not today and not 1,000 years ago can force a husband to give a divorce if straight halacha does not require him to give a divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Yerusha. Women working out of home. The Kesuba as remotely being used as originally intended. Ma'asey Yadeah of an Isha. Hitting Wives and children. Numerous Darkey Hakinyanim in Choshen Mishpat (as discussed by Eav Asher Weisz, who also is in favor of the prenup). You are repeating yourself. I brought proofs you didn't address. You did not answer why Yerusha doesn't make my point. Why make this fictional debt? Indeed some say we shouldn't. But others disagree. Halacha doesn't change. I agree we cant force the husband. I agree each case needs to be judged. All I am saying that values and societies clearly change, this fact is the reality among mainstream Yeshiva communities, and therefore there is ZERO proof that holding back a Get is not going against the values of the Torah from the very fact that Chazal didn't force him. But for the hundredth time, I agree that there is currently no proof that Get on demand is a Jewish value. It certainly doesn't seem to be.

    ReplyDelete
  82. you are simply using a shotgun. Take each case and tell me the reason and the mechanism for change. Does anyone say that values have changed or that people expectations have changed and that if these expectations are not dealt with people will stop being observant? An emergency measure because of a threat from people in appropriate actions - does not mean that the Torah recognizes the validity of these values.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Would demand a full length article, maybe one day. But once I am using a ShotGun, let me shoot some more. Women Voting. Women Torah study. ShehaSimcha Bimiono. Since I am not currently writing the article, let's let the reader research any topic they wish. Look at the Rabbinic Literature from time of Chazal. Look at the Chareidi Literature from 75 - 100 years ago. Then look at same writers or schools of thought 30 years later. Women Voting and Schooling are particularly interesting examples. Then look at their writings today. Anyone who thinks that strongly held values didn't take 180 degree turn, is just not willing to look honestly. (Feel free to look even in communities that preach "Chadash Assur . . . "

    ReplyDelete
  84. Those examples do not demonstrate what you attribute to it and there's been no real changes in the Halacha or morality in the examines your cited.

    Yerusha I explained above how it hasn't changed. The kesuba in conjunction with women working out of the home is not a change either. Wives of kollel yungerleit today agree in advance to forgive her husbands obligation to support her. Wives had the same right to forgive that aspect 1000 years ago as well, although obviously fewer did. Ma'asey Yadeah of an Isha belongs to her husband today just as it did 1000 years ago. Indeed Rav Avigdor Miller had a shiur saying this explicitly. He days wives should hand their paychecks to their husband. (This was said before direct deposit became prevelant.)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Women voting is only a b'dieved so that we shouldn't lose half our voting power. Where do you see any gedolim day it is a l'chatchila?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Where have you explained that Yerusha hasn't changed? In any case, you are wrong, as posekim recommend davka giving some form of Yerusha to girls.

    I see you are a Rabbi Miller fan. Now things make sense :-) In any case, there always is a Halachic mechanism that needs to be used. But because of value changes, these mechanisms are used more than ever.

    But as to this original guest post, one doesn't even need to come on to value change. Levush 134:10 says we can do major Harchakos any time a women claims ma'os alai. This is even though we can't say he is obligated to divorce. Why does he allow them? One certainly can not do them to an any Jew. Why allow them here? Simple answer - because he is going against Torah values by not divorcing her. The fact that we can't obligate because of forced GET doesn't change that he is a bad man. So the whole premise of the post, and much that R' Eidensohn (both) have been claiming, is simply wrong. They are 100 perecent right that we can't demand or force, 100 percent wrong to claim that Torah doesn't have a value to divorce by a dead ma

    ReplyDelete
  87. This changed B'Dieved, that Sha'as Hadechak, this legal fiction, that legal loophole, yada yada. I agree. But bottom line so much changed. And you ignored the more difficult ones. But as I said, always indeed needs Halachic mechanism.

    And I am not looking to change. Just making a simple point. The fact that something was one way in Talmudic times is ZERO proof that it is so today. But indeed we can leave it to greater people to make the changes. But foolish to deny that things could end up changing.

    Yitzchok Oratz

    ReplyDelete
  88. If there is no moral demand, why does Levush 134:10 allow major Harchakos by every case where she says Ma'os Alai?

    Yitzchok Oratz

    ReplyDelete
  89. Today Posekim ADVISE to do so. Not so in the past.

    Yitzchok Oratz

    ReplyDelete
  90. What does "she'nemar" mean?

    ReplyDelete

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