We have discussed the annulment of a marriage by declaring that it was a mistake - mekach ta'us. We have also mentioned that the Krauss Beis Din annulled a marriage because a witness was disqualified because he wasn't Shomer Shabbos. Rav Gedilia Schwartz also does that. The question is if there are other people at the chasuna who are religious - the marriage would still be valid. In the following letter Rav Schwartz says he annulled the marriage because he has two witnesses that one of the two official witnesses was and is not Shomer Shabbos. However he doesn't say that he has established that there were no frum men at that wedding who also witnessed the marriage. Can it be assumed that he went through the wedding photos and established that there were no frum men there?
Here is the letter declaring that the marriage was invalid and she does not require a Get to marry.
======================Here is a second case - details unknown ===
But DT, you often tell a story of how when you were in Yeshiva, the Roshei Yeshiva told the talmidim not to be Eidim at secular or non frum weddings.
ReplyDeleteEddie you left out an important factor. We were told not to be there during the Chupah so that there would be no kosher witnesses. It was not just to avoid being asked to be a witness but being there and witnessing it.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Rav Moshe pasken along the same lines when Rav Moshe rules weddings of Conservative and Reform and secular Jews are invalid and she does not need a Get?
ReplyDeleteIf they aren't meyached aidim, why isn't there a problem of nimtza echud maihem korov o posul. If any of the non frum participants want to be involved in the aidus, it's posul and the kidushin is not valid.
ReplyDeleteThe letter is not showing up in the browser.
ReplyDeleteAlso, is this a true problem if there is a specific "yicud eidim" where one says "atem eidai"? Do people there still become witnesses if they are not being asked to be witnesses? I believe without a specific yichud of eidim we run into problems of relatives and other psulei eidus being part of the eidus and passul the whole eidus lekiyumei.
where is the letter of this article?
ReplyDeleteWhich teshuva of R Moshe is he referring to?
ReplyDeleteThanks DT for all your efforts. Perhaps it would be wise not to let the Memphis issue slip by....
ReplyDeleteit should be mentioned that RAV Henkin and the Rogatshover rov held that a non frum Jewish couple that live in a community where people recognize them as living as "man and wife" even w/o kosher kiddushin require a GET. Therefore to be lenient in these matters sets a dangerous precedence.
ReplyDeleteSo does RMF, but he writes in case you can't get a get, do the (new) chuppah veKiddushin anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou probably should mention that we're meyached eidim at a wedding to avoid the problem of having a karov or pasul. I don't know enough of Even Haezer to tell you the exact rules, but I imagine that Rabbi Schwartz would tell you it doesn't matter if there were kosher witnesses in the crowd since they were not appointed as eidim. When you come guns blazing at a Rav accusing him of incorrectly annulling a marriage you should probably back it up with a more sophisticated analysis.
ReplyDeleteעי' בפ"ת סימן מ"ב ס"ק י"א, בשם שו"ת חתם סופר, דמ"מ חלים הקידושין ב עד עם הכשרים, כיון שדעת החתן והכלה על הכשריםשהרי הם רוצים בקידושין, והוא כמו שייחדו הכשרים לבד עיי"ש
ReplyDeleteAt my Chasuna the Mesader Kidushin pointed to the Aidim and stated, "to the exclusion of everyone else". Good very we'll be the same happened here. So no prob! True Rav Henkin held living together makes Ishus and Reb Moshe was Makpid to try to get a get if possible. But did not insist on a get. So no issue here.
ReplyDeleteSome / many C and R rabbis announce two witnesses underthe chuppah, and add 'to the exclusion of all others', which rules out anyone in the room. (Always wanted to ask a C or R rabbi why they do it.)
ReplyDeleteSome litvish rabbonim do that too (that i know is specifically to exclude prob of a mixed 'kat' of eidim.)
I was once told (by a leading feminist, the founder of JOFA, the one from riverdale) that she knows of many people who purposely use unqualified 'eidim' (relatives, etc).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, that is a 'waiver' of the disqualification, i.e., by purposely using unqualified witnesses, they are indicating they don't mind, and want the kiddushim anyway. Claiming they are unqualified later would not be a valid claim.
thank you for that!
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe disagreed with Rav Henkin on this point.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you've now appointed yourself a posek too. It appears you've never heard of the Mahari Weill's ruling, cited by many poskim lehalacha. Poorly researched posts such as this one do you no favours. You should be far more careful on matters as serious as this.
ReplyDeleteYes, but RMF was lenient in these matters
ReplyDeleteWhy should it be mentioned? R' Moshe's pesak to the contrary has been accepted both in Eretz Yisrael and in chutz la'aretz.
ReplyDeleteI guess there is only Rabbi that can do no wrong and whatever he says is God said and he is Rav Moshe Sternbach. Who is the next Rabbi you will be going after?
ReplyDeleteRelevant to this discussion perhaps is Rav Aharon Walkin, famed rov of Pinsk's Teshuva on the subject, It's in אהע"ז ח"ב סקי"ד.
ReplyDeleteHe comes out very vehemently against such things, both based on the פסול itself, and also because of the precedent and the intent..
Among other things, he wonders why the Rabbonim in America who know about how common it was to have עדים of questionable backgrounds in those days don't seem concerned with עדים פסולים in order to CORRECT the problem and have the קידושין redone with עדים כשירים ... they're only worried about it in order to find as קולא.
He also notes that in times that פריצות is widespread we need "לחזק ולאיים חומר אשת איש", and not the opposite.
What I just mentioned is in http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=834&pgnum=164 Please see ד"ה ומתחילה.
found it in R' Toledano's שו"ת משיב משפט סכ"ד, available at http://hebrewbooks.org/52532
He has a thorough examination of the issues...
It's available for download at http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=834&pgnum=164 and http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=834&pgnum=165 and http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=834&pgnum=166
You are absolutely correct, he reiterates the status of a conservative kiddushin as being on par with a reform kedushin, in אבן העזר ח״ג סי׳ מה׳ and in ח״ד סי׳ עח׳. I would also reference the case in ח״ד סי׳ מו׳ as relevant even though the issur dealt with there is לינשא לבועל, as he says there you don't have to suspect the congregants of being kosher witnesses. (He also makes this point in the other responsum).
ReplyDeleteSinai temple is and was a Conservative congregation.
More and more this just looks like some kind of personal vendetta or crusade on Eidensohns part.
R' Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteYou are doing an excellent job and I very much appreciate your efforts in bringing these scandals to light. However, I agree with your initial feeling - the focus now ought to be on Tamar's heter and exposing the lies, corruption and abuse of standard halachic process by SK that led to that heter.
The rest of this stuff is a distraction right now, and while it should be dealt with in due time, the focus now must be on the bigger fish to fry, which is the Tamar heter, rotten to the core, and really reaches all the way to the top of the pyramid.
Milton - the only guns that are blazing are yours. I presented a case where Rav Schwartz said there was no kiddushin and that it was because one of the witnesses was not frum. I raised a number of relevant questions . I made no statement of condemation in the post.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Cohen and divorcee - I simple reported what various rabbonim have said and the fact that his psak was widely objected to by the rabbis of Toronto. I posted a letter I received from a person who knows the situation well and which was sent to me by by a well known rav.
J it seems that you like to complain about things I never said. No where did I say that I am poskening. I presented the letter and raised a number of questions - all of which have possible answers within the realm of legitimate halacha.
ReplyDeleteThis post was not presented as a mongraph on invalidating kedishin - it is a presentation of a psak by Rav Schwartz and with some relevant questions.
Before you turn on your righteous anger - you should pay attention to whether the words are as you imagined.
Wrong again. You wrote the following, which, according to many poskim, is simply wrong:
ReplyDelete"The question is if there are other people at the chasuna who are religious - the marriage would still be valid."
See, for example, this teshuva in Shaarei Tzion, to which Rav Ovadiah Yosef appended his signature to:
http://goo.gl/Aic8f1
I would like to add further details on this case from a reliable source. 1) this remarriage that gedalia Schwartz allowed without a get,involves a woman who was previously married for 17 years and her marriage ended because she had an extramarital affair with the now new husband.The whole LA knew of this affair. The real husband was willing to give a get,but the wife did not want a get ad this would be detrimental to her new marriage of her lover as he is a cohen.so the woman got gedalia Schwartz to annul the marriage do that the cohen lover is not marrying a divorcee. So it turns out that gedalia Schwartz permission to her has caused 3 sins. 1) allowing a woman to marry without a get. 2) allowing a adulteress to marry an adulterer against halocho. 3) a divorcee marrying a cohen.so gedalia Schwartz came out with a brilliant plan to avoid any problems. He arranged for an annulment!!. Additionally and ironically, the letter is addressed to their Rabbi Avner Weiss who himself was a cohen until he decided to marry a divorcee, so he announced publicly that " he just found out that he was never a cohen!
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe reiterates the status of a conservative kiddushin as being on par with a reform kedushin, in אבן העזר ח״ג סי׳ מה׳ and in ח״ד סי׳ עח׳. I would also reference the case in ח״ד סי׳ מו׳ as relevant even though the issur dealt with there is לינשא לבועל, as he says there is no need to suspect that there were kosher witnesses.( he makes this point in the previous responsum too).
ReplyDeleteThe Sinai temple was and is a Conservative congregation.
What this is, is just a plain old witch hunt.
J - I didn't write a psak I wrote a halachic view which raised a question. I didn't say it was the only valid halachic view and I nowhere stated that what Rav Schwartz did was wrong.
ReplyDeletethere are issues being dealt with now in the background
ReplyDeleteYou wrote straight out, "the marriage would still be valid". That's not raising a question.
ReplyDeleteMreld - the halachic issues you raised are clearly relevant and valid.
ReplyDeleteIf you take the trouble to reread the post - it was not condemning Rav Schwartz for invaldiating the marriage it was raising some questions
If he had stated as you do that basied on the Igros Moshe the kiddushin was not valid - I would have raised no questons nor bother posting this.
J please read the whole sentence and stop splitting hairs
ReplyDeleteTo add a bit more context to this case, based on the letter of R Schwartz. I am shocked that even one of the eidim was kosher at a wedding performed at sinai temple, a non orthodox house of worship where no frum jew sets foot in. Just wondering if it was abner weiss that was mesader kidushin. btw, was the wedding even kosher food? we dont have enough information to get excited bout here. Its not the worlds biggest chiddush to passel a kidushin by non frum people who got married by a less than orthodox rabbi.
ReplyDeletenope!
ReplyDeleteHmm....can both be posted simultaneously in accordance to their priority?
ReplyDeleteI read the whole post and I stand by what I said. It is shameful to start casting aspersions against a wholly normative psak for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lukeford.net/blog/?p=3444
ReplyDeleteלרווחא מילתא
this is who the letter is to
The question is if there are other people at the chasuna who are religious - the marriage would still be valid.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about that. What exactly does an eid who is kosher have to see? Obviously, if he is right up front and sees the man give the ring to the woman and say "Harei at mekudeshes li" etc. then it is a valid eidus. But I have been to many weddings where I did not see that -- all I saw were a bunch of people standing around under the chuppah, a rav is called up to be mesader kiddushin, they do something, and then everyone says mazel tov. Sometimes you hear the "Harei at," sometimes you don't.
If I am in the 10th row, and all I saw was the backside of a rabbi in front of the chassan and kallah (or, for those who do it the other way, the backside of the chassan and kallah), and then some mumbling, and then "Mazal Tov," is that enough? Obviously I pretty much know what happened, and since the mesader kiddushin is generally a talmid chacham, I would assume he did it correctly, but is that eidus le kiyum ha davar?
Rabbi Eidensohn.
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I'm wrong, but he DOES reference Rav Moshe and other poskim at the end of the letter.
It's not a problem because we do not pasken like the ritva. We are meyached eidim as a chumra bi'alma.
ReplyDeleteHe does say what he did was based on many great rabbinic decisions, including those of Rav Moshe - and therefore what?
ReplyDeleteHow do you know it is a "wholly normative psak"?
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore you shouldn't have raised questions or bother posting this, as you just said before, contingent on Rav Schwartz saying that he based his psak on R' Moshe.
ReplyDeleteDisagree with your conclusion. He also claims to be based on Rav Moshe for his psak regarding the Toronto marriage
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteI think you are splitting hairs here. There is a well known p'sak from Rav Moshe ZTL and Rav Schwartz mentioned Rav Moshe in the letter. What more would you like?
Because it does not significantly depart from the principles elucidated by some leading poskim on this issue, in my view.
ReplyDeleteWasn't going to mention it, but the r weiss personal issue is more complicated than what you say. Let's just say strong 'raglaim le'davar'' i am told ROY was involved in his remarriage.
ReplyDeleteAndr weiss hasn't been rabbi in LA for at least a decade, when he made aliyah.
It seems that you are the only one splitting hairs. Maybe admit that you were totally off - or is it unfair to ask of you what have been asking of RNG and RGDS regarding their errors?
ReplyDeleteSo you're claiming that he is some sort of liar now, even though I just showed that he has plenty on what to rely on?
ReplyDeleteI really must be missing something.
You just said that if he based his psak on R' Moshe your post would be null.
To which I showed you that he clearly did.
And now what? Even though he clearly has sufficient bases even according to your own above stated criteria, it's not enough.
I'm baffled.
is it only more left wing poskim that rely on Rav Moshe's psak these days? I say "left" to include RSK, since they seem to be into Torah im Karate, so it is kind of left wing.
ReplyDeleteYou are baffled because you are trying to put things into boxes that don't fit what is going on
ReplyDeleteThe letter is not a halachic teshuva. He doesn't go into detail what statement of Rav Moshe he is using and why it is relevant.
Your anger at me because you have concluded that what I did was wrong- is preventing you from understanding what I am saying. So yes you are missing something and as a result this is not a conversation or discussion but just a series of angry outbursts from you.
just some more details. As is clear in the cases we have been discussing lately - Rav Moshe Feinstein has been declared to be the basis of the psak. According to you - once that magic name is mentioned there is nothing more to say and everybody "just knows" that the psak must be correct.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is whether the facts are such that Rav Moshe Feinstein would have agreed with what is said in his name? In the Tamar Epstein case the answer is clearly no! In the Toronto case the answer is clearly no! In this case I haven't heard enough to be able to decide.
or are you saying like Rav Greenblatt that it doesn't really matter what the truth is. Since he followed procedure of stating what the halacha is for the facts that were presented to him - the psak now exists independent of the facts!
And that is the point.
ReplyDeleteIf it is not a halachic teshuva, and there is nothing to scrutinize, then maybe, just maybe you should dan the Rabbi L'kaf zechus that the above mentioned, very relevant pesakim from Rav Moshe were utilized.
I am having no angry outbursts.
I am just pointing out a witch hunt when I see one.
Perhaps you are the angry one?
Contrary to what RNG and RGDS have stated - I have no problem if it turns out that Rav Schwartz is 100% correct in this case and I have no problem saying " He is right"
ReplyDeleteYou consider that I am being 100% off by raising some elementary questions? If I had declared in the post that RGDS is clearly wrong and is destroying the world - and then it turns out that he was correct (which I fully admit is possible) - then you could claim I was totally off. But i made no such statement.
What if it turns out that 70% of poskim would agree with him but that a determined 30% disagree - would you still claim I must be totally off? In other words are you claiming that the mere fact that I have the chutzpah to raise any questions about this psak - means that I am totally off?!
this has nothing to do with what I am asking of RNG and RGDS regarding their errors - nor of Rav Shmuel and Rav Shalom Kaminetsky
Nope I am not angry - just calmly defending myself against a lynch mob
ReplyDelete>>>The real husband was willing to give a get,but the wife did not want a get as this would be detrimental to her new marriage of her lover as he is a cohen
ReplyDeleteIf this was the actual situation, then the "psak" in the letter is based on a lie since it says the husband "adamantly refused to give _____ get"!
It says he refused to give a get unless he received certain financial gains which Rav Schwartz said constituted extortion
ReplyDeleteAderaba. If you are not meyached then anyone who wants to be an aid is and if he is posul nimtza echud mayhem korov o posul aidus shebatla miktzasa batla kula.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your view. RDE is correct to raise questions. The metzius in this case does not, at face value, necessarily fall within the parameters permitting such a psak. Even if the theoretical underpinning of the psak itself could be utilized in the correct circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSo what would satisfy you?
ReplyDelete1. If he quoted the specific Teshuva from Igros Moshe?
2. Perhaps you are looking for the "gory details" of the p'sak? I'm not sure that we can expect a Rov to make public all the gory details of every p'sak that he writes. Perhaps you feel differently?
3. Something else?
I'd like to understand better.
Stan,
ReplyDeletethe marriage was in a non Orthodox Temple, hence was not valid according to GadolHador HaGaon Rav Moshe Feinstein ztl.
You could make the same slanderous claims abotu Rav MOshe, since he wished to minimize adultery/ mamzerut in the refrom/conservative world.
There is not much different in what RGS seems to be saying. Perhaps the Hollywood version you bring you got out of a movie that you watch in Nittel.
what is your position about the Eptsein heter? Abut the Toronto case?
ReplyDeleteThen perhaps I can see what you are interested in knowing?
R Avner/Abner Weiss was/is also a KOHEN who got a "heter" to become a Yisrael so he could marry Gerusha who is also a psychologist (after he left his wife). He is one of those charismatic "kabbala" rabbis heavy on MAHARAL), see the link below to another blog. Weiss is very controversial person who is proud that he has converted MANY, some say in the thousands, and has been the center of controversy for years. He preceded Avi Weiss as rabbi at Riverdale and then as rabbi at a big LA shull till he was bounced but he is a THERAPIST and rabbi in CA (no not Canada, California, two places with huge problems!) now and still the center of controversy. Now is someone going to complain about these obvious facts also?
ReplyDeleteI can live with your disagreement.
ReplyDeleteGood. I can live with your disagreement
ReplyDeleteEddie please point to the teshuva where Rav Moshe says that anyone who was married in a non Orthodox Temple does not have a valid marriage?
ReplyDeleteNope. You clearly do not know the sugya and rishonim on this inyan. Just because two people witnessed something together does not make them be mitztaref to a kat. This is only true according to the ritva but we don't pasken like that and the ritva himself contaedicts this and says it's not a problem in kedushin.
ReplyDeleteeddie thinks i;m STAN BUT YOU ARE WRONG!
ReplyDeleteand to add to what you say, I dont believe any posek would allow an anuulmment if a GET was offered even with extortion. We all know that feminists call any financial demands extortion even if the man is asking to reccoperate his losses in the court which the wife caused
ReplyDeleteRMF was not lenient in cases where a man is willing to give a GET
ReplyDeleteRDE, can you make a new post detailing what Rav Moshe paskened about non-Orthodox marriages - and Rav Henkin's psak disagreeing?
ReplyDeleteThis is discussed by R Jachter
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tabc.org/kol-torah/article/index.aspx?pageaction=ViewSinglePublic&LinkID=865&ModuleID=43&StartDate=9/28/2013&NEWSPID=1
Not eery marriage, but where there are nto kosher eidim and they do not follow the Kiddushin with intent, eg the double ring practice.
In the article by Jachter, he mentions r Asher Weiss. Is this related to the Avner Weiss mentioned above?
Epstein and Toronto - 1) I have very mixed feelings about both. I suspect there is much more at play then what people think they know and 2) I know that I am an Am HaAretz and not qualified to pasken unlike many other bloggers/commentators who all feel that they are above established poskim, despite the fact that they know so little.
ReplyDeleteI am, however, curious and fascinated by what seem to be major issues for klal yisroel, p'sak and mesorah.
I understand the tummel over the Epstein heter as it has massive ramifications. Like I said, I think there is so much more at play, but I understand the fury.
In cases like this post, I wonder why we subject a posek to questioning and demand to know the reason behind his every move. It seems to me that it is taking it too far. A posek does not have to share every detail with every concerned layman (or perhaps not even a concerned Talmid Chochom). At what point do we invoke trust and recognize that we do not know, nor should we know the details of the every maaseh?
Stan,
ReplyDeleteIf your statements are factually correct, ie the wife commited adultery, then my understanding of halacha is as follows:
a) the first husband must give a get to her immediately
b) she is forbidden to marry (in halacha) the 2nd man
if the above are correct, why has there not been objections raised by other rabbonim about this?
I never said that there were absolutely no poskim who disagreed but its pretty clear to most people what your intentions were with todays post. And if i may say you failed miserably both initially and in trying to cover up for your failed attempt at finding a fault with RGDS in this case. He very goo basis to not have to look through photos of the wedding. Based on the info in the original post there is no reason to say he was not within halachic parameters. Perhaps you are blinded by your end goal of marginalizing RGDS? If your issue is why a heter was issued when the parties involved were involved in adulterous relationship, maybe that should have been the subject and not on the actual halachic basis.
ReplyDeleteBut is that true? Or was that said by the woman in order to motivate Rav Schwartz to find a heter?
ReplyDeleteEddie the sources I have seen state that there was no proof- only rumors
ReplyDeleteMichoel wrote:
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of Reb Moshe allowing a new kiddushin without a get.
Only bedieved, after the kiddushin happens, one can sometimes allow the
children to marry.
Rav Schwartz refers to two reliable witnesses saying that the eidei
kiddushin were not shomer mitzvos. But these two reliable witnesses
were there. Are they shomer mitzvos? And if not, why are they
reliable?
I thought that Rav Henkin's p'sak was just l'chumra........
ReplyDeleteThe strategy behind that was, in case there would be a divorce, that she won't be bound by kiddushin?
ReplyDeleteThere are indeed cases where a husband does demand outrageous sums to extort a Get. But the proper halachic remedies that are available to deal with those rats through Bais Din unfortunately are not followed. Instead gangsters like Jeremy Stern and ORA make mockery of the halachos of Shulchan Aruch - Yoreh Deyah siman 334
ReplyDeleteRabbi eidenson, the real problem that we have today began many years ago in the 50s when some ppl crowned rabbi Finkelstein as posek hador, he had an extremely lax attitude toward the most severe halachot, and what Greenblatt and Schwartz are doing, is simply following in his footsteps, for more information see how his son reb Duvid deals with these issues, the rest is history
ReplyDeleteThis operation isn't so brilliant after all. It is the epitome of NAVAL birshus haTorah. The ANNULMENT is to circumvent all the ISSURIM SHEBATORAH trying to outsmart the RIBONO SHEL OLAM KIVYACHOL!. The issur of a NOEF to marry his ZONA is a punishment and KNAS so shelo yehe choteh veNISKAR. Comes along Mr. Matir Assurim and shows chaza"l a BIG FIG in your face, I'll show you that I can have both my cake and eat it too! He is considered a Beis Din CHOTZIF and a ZAKEN MAMRE. He has no business in meddling in Jewish Affairs, period! HE SHOULD RESIGN EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
ReplyDeleteThis pipsqueek Mr. rabiner avner weiss just found out he is not a Kohen, hey', I have news for you, I just found out that your'e not even a Yisroel. All this chaziray iz nisht gutt fir Yidden, we must clean house from top to bottom. We must create a NEW WORLD ORDER! All smichas must be renewed at least once a year, and only the fittest survive. The shuls must have filters on their screen doors and those Rabiners that ein tocho kebaroi al yikones leBeis haMidrash. WE the people should not buy aliyas, kibudim, donate any monies, so that veyoveish Gilod (gelt) and close shop. The same with phily, it's time to close shop, veal yevakshu Torah mipihu. Does he think we are Meshuga of toit? We can't take this anymore. Even idi amin dada, President for life was aus President. Yes, we CAN make hatoras kaporas on these rabiners, we can mafkia all their Psokim lemafrea, retrieve their smichas retroactively and turn back time so that they were never born, aus-kapluchmacher. They pull out aces from under their sleeves, so can we. These mekach taus rabiners are Taus Soifer.
Read more carefully. He does not say that those witnesses were there. He said that reliable witnesses said that one of the eidei kiddushin was not a shomer Torah umitzvos.
ReplyDeleteyes
ReplyDeletethere is a 2nd letter abotu a case from iran, where a marriage was dissolved without a Get. Yet we see no details of what kind of marriage it was, whether it was doen halachically etc. So we need to know what were the circumstances of that marriage?
ReplyDeleteSome of the Jews in Iran had become totally secular; others had been forced to convert to islam and lvied as marranoes. There were even intermarriages. So we need to know what the background was to this psak, which are not detailed in tis letter.
You can add one more. Isho zona vachalolo lo yikoch.
ReplyDeleteRe: the second letter.
ReplyDeleteThey were married for twenty years. Can't really claim child bride.
Who verified the facts? Rabbi j, or someone else?
Was the ex husband refusing a get, or was it just problematic?
Who wrote the 'responsum' to rabbi j?
Did any poskim agree?
Did anyone disagree?
Without even getting into what the reasons for the 'hetter were.
This is an earleir article abour Rav Shternbuch's psak
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/rav-sternbuch-avoid-marriage-if-it.html
Now it does nto go into detail about what makes a valid Kiddushin, eg a reform one. I presume it is doubtful that a Conservative kiddushin is kosher, just like a conservative giur is not kosher.?
Because it does not significantly depart from the principles elucidated by some leading poskim on this issue, in my view.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case, simply state your view without calling Rabbi Eidensohn's writings shameful. Please realize that your view does not mean that there is "no legitimate reason whatsoever." Thank you.
Rav Asher Weiss a well know figure in the Torah world with an array of sefarim. No relation (I doubt any familial relation either).
ReplyDeleteAs for R' Jachters article, presumably Daas Torah here feels that RMF always made sure that there was 1) a double ring ceremony 2) or they reached out to the husband to find out if he had intent to acquire his wife with the giving of the ring, c) the wife claimed that she never let him acquire her. And perhaps RMF also leafed through the wedding albums as well in his downtime.
The ערוך השלחן disagrees with you. ערוך השולחן אבן העזר סימן מב
ReplyDeleteוהשלישית דלכמה פוסקים כשקרובים עם רחוקים רואים איזה עדות נפסלים גם הרחוקים כדין נמצא אחד קרוב או פסול וכשמייחדים עדים אין הקרובים פוסלין אותם
It's not just the Ritva and if the Ritva said it's not a problem there would be nobody left.
First of all it is far from clear in that aruch hashulchan that he actually paskens like that. He seems to also be saying it as a Chumash.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all though this was understood but when I said *we* don't pasken like that I did not mean that no posek in history ever did so, rather that (just as it means regarding every other Halacha) we as klal Yisroel today do not pasken like that and have not accepted that ritva however generally a mesader kedushin will have the chosson be meyached the eidim as chumra. Please take a look at all the responses to the ibd which tried to be matir an eishes ish based on this if you don't believe me.
I never said the ritva doesn't hold from it. I said there is a stira in ritvas.
But the proper halachic remedies that are available to deal with those rats through Bais Din unfortunately are not followed.
ReplyDeleteWhich proper halachic remedies would those be? How does Beis Din force compliance? Please enlighten us.
in the case of the second letter, i know first hand that husband and wife were married by conservative/ reform Rabbi. The wife later turned Orthodox.
ReplyDeletenot all cases get public media attention. Thanks to this blog things are publicized so that upstanding rabbonim,can protest.
ReplyDeletesources please
ReplyDeleteThere are halachos of excommunication that unfortunately are not followed properly by Jewish organizations & communities. For example, even though the seruv on the so-called rabbi of Young Israel of Las Vegas state "ALL THE LAWS STATED IN THE CODE OF JEWISH LAW (YOREH DEYAH SIMAN 334) APPLY TO YITZCHOK WYNE", the Rabbinical Seminary of America established a Kollel in his temple and they even signed an agreement with him IN A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THOSE LAWS that they would ONLY daven in his synagogue! Even if there is no English translation of Yoreh Deyah siman 334 the laws of Excommmunication are stated clearly in English in Rav Aryeh Kaplan's Me'am Lo'ez, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ScYXrihyug0/VVPNmpg1L9I/AAAAAAAAATw/GEkawwITX34/s1600/ExcomLawsV.jpg
ReplyDeleteMany orthodox couples get married in C or R temples. The question is who was 'mesader kiddurhin' performed the ceremony. And or were there SS jews who witnessed the ceremony (i.e., the exchange of the ring (double ring ceremony does not necessarily invalidate the kiddushin ceremon) though the question of unofficial witnesses may or may nnt be relevant.
ReplyDeleteThen why doesn't RGDS's letter say so, instead of a disfavored hetter of invalid witness?
ReplyDeleteIf one of the two designated witnesses is Possul, it appears that the Kiddushin should be invalid. This is because the mesader Kiddushin explicitly states that the designated witnesses are the sole witnesses to the marriage. Everyone else is just there to 'watch' and not to witness.
ReplyDeleteThis is based on the Gemara Makkos 6a, מה יעשו שני אחין שראו אחד שהרג את הנפש. The Gemara says that the witnesses are asked if they came to witness or just to watch.
You're a piano with one note. Everything comes back to the Las Vegas YI. Has it perhaps occurred to you that not everyone shares your obsession?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, as I thought. You have nothing to offer. The batei din in fact cannot force compliance, so what are you going on about?
I have no problem admitting that my preoccupation is with the crookedness of Young Israel particularly with their Las Vegas branch AND their hypocrisy regarding their Sharon, MA branch which has a Women's Tefilah Group in defiance of Young Israel's own bylaws..
ReplyDeleteThe fact Batei Din cannot enforce compliance is no different than we are unable to enforce compliance of Shabbos laws. But we still try to by speaking out about it. So too does this Daas Torah blog speak out about issues of Jewish identity. Would you prefer those of us who see Chilullei Hashem and distortions of Torah remain silent? I did. I did not speak up against the distortions of Torah by Barry Freundel after I left Washington DC. In retrospect I should have spoken LOUDLY! Then maybe some or even all those women he leered at might have been spared the trauma he caused.
He also called down a Cohen from Toronto so that he is not muchzek as a Cohen in LA and mekach Taused his kahanus and made him aus Kohen so he can marry ...... He also advised that he shouldn't daven with his other family members where they Duchen, cuz it'll look like tartei desosrei. bet you dollars to doughnuts that he pull a bird out of hat, and reverse a chicken into an egg.
ReplyDelete