- This year, it became clear that the rabbis who understand the crucial need to solve the ‘Agunah Crisis’, which leaves women in a state of limbo, and thus make every effort to free women who have been turned away by every other Beit Din, are illegitimate, “pasul“. They are not to be listened to, their decisions are INVALID. And yet, those who invalidate them offer no other solutions for these women…
- Horrifically, we watch as a sordid, vile saga continues to unfold surrounding a woman who was denied a get for years and eventually was given an annulment by a reputable religious court. We read the letters from rabbis calling one another traitors and ‘evil men’. We watch in disbelief as some rabbis declare her to still be married and her future children bastards. The obsession with condemning and harassing the woman who was given the ruling juxtaposed against the total lack of condemnation of the man who could end it once and for all by giving her a divorce is a sick and twisted perversion. It is painful. [...]
The state of Orthodox Judaism is crumbling, and it is because of women — but it is not their
‘foreign desires’, their shunning of tradition, or their unkosher
aspirations, rather it is their lack of options, opportunity, and
respect for their true needs that is causing the schism.
And the louder you shout about how we are shaking the foundations, the deeper you forge the cracks.
Well I honestly believe that Rav Shmuel never thought he would become the poster example for the "orthodox feminist movement. Of whom Rav Moshe in his teshuva calls them apikorsim.
ReplyDeleteBut this wont stop them. krum is Krum and will always be Krum
they care more about what the Yungeleit are saying in BMG
that scares them much more
this is an ad hominem argumnet, like the type you are criticising from the opponents' side. That an un-orthodox feminist is supporting these types of heter is not on its own a disproof of the validity of the heter. I once saw a Reform siddur. Guess what - it had quotes from major Gedolei Torah, such as the Chofetz Chaim. How does that say anything about the Chofetz Chaim?
ReplyDeletenu, so what are the yungeleit saying in BMG?
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly right. Open Orthodoxy goes on its merry way for many reasons but the writer's argument is emotionally powerful to many (but probably not us). Our team cannot hear them or speak to them.
ReplyDeleteTeshuvos in cross currents are a meaningless response much like telling followers of RSK logical arguments is a waste of time. Unless you got their emotions it won't work.
So what's the point? For the remaining little group of followers who might be influenced.
Wishful thinking! Veal kaze ne'emar Shebchol dor vador omdim oleinu lechaloseinu, veHakadosh Boruch hu matsileni miyodom. The Torah is here to stay AS IS, regardless of what you call yourself! You can even scream till you become red in the face, ein eitso usvino neged Hashem.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you can marry of your children amongst each other. There are Shadchanim with a mamzeirim list. Enjoy your Shabbos.
Thrilled to hear that from outside they hear the sounds of war and don't consider the Moatzes as being the central authority of Orthodox Judaism , correctly so and therefore their silence is meaningless
ReplyDeleteThat we don't know the full picture. That Rav Shalom has secret info that he can't share but that it's so explosive that it will silence all the naysayers.
ReplyDeleteWomen have the option of following the Torah and making their marriages work. They also have the option in the rare case of necessary divorce of making equitable arrangements with their ex husbands.
ReplyDeleteAre they really saying that? That there's secret info that was not in the letters that he sent around in trying to get the heter? Where would such an idea even come from?
ReplyDeleteAre the yungeleit really that naive/are they really so enamored with him that they're coming up with such explanations for this?
Most yugeleit in bmg are against the hetter
ReplyDeleteHow strongly are they against it? What do they hold of the people involved? Is it just "the psak is wrong but the Kamenetzkys are still ok" or is it going further?
ReplyDeleteThat is a common retort of the supporters.
ReplyDeleteR Shalom can't share this info because it was obtained illegally.
I was under the impression that the Torah commanded honesty and integrity - purposely misunderstanding and misquoting me is falsehood. Take the points I make and refute them if you can, but deal honestly or your entire premise is shown to be a lie.
ReplyDeletewhat was misquoted and misunderstood?
ReplyDeleteeventually was given an annulment by a reputable religious court.
ReplyDeleteWhich "court?"
What is the definition of "a reputable religious court?"
1- you left out most of the post
ReplyDelete2- the title isn't a brag it is a sarcastic response to the first rabbinic article I posted re: women's prayer groups being the end the of OJ
3- Your entire title is speculation
4- I would hope that any sincere Jew would desire to fix OJ and not just throw mud on those who argue with them. And yet that is all I see on this blog. I cannot fathom where rachamim has gone. for it is nowhere to be seen here.
Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll
ReplyDeletesays “I was under the impression that the Torah commanded honesty and
integrity - purposely misunderstanding and misquoting me is falsehood. Take the points I make and
refute them if you can, but deal honestly or your entire premise is shown to be
a lie.”
Ms. Shoshanna, what’s the problem? I quoted you
exactly, the same quote shown here, and then I added:
Terrible, radical feminists found a reputable religious court to give an annulment. Terrible, that reputable religious court will
not budge. I watch in disbelief. Yes, I
agree with calling rabbi supporters of radical feminists traitors and evil
men. Certainly she is still married and
future children from her new boy friend will be bastards. Why is she still married? Simple, because her husband is alive, well
and free and never gave her a divorce.
Why are rabbis that support what she’s doing traitor and evil men? They
fit
Sotah 37b:
“R. Judah b. Nahmani, the lecturer [It was customary
for a teacher to impart the lesson to a lecturer who delivered it to the
disciples.] of Simeon b. Lakish, expounded: The whole section [of the blessings
and curses Deuteronomy 27-28] refers to none other than the adulterer and
adulteress.”
Oh, Ms. Shoshanna, do you know Susan whom I divorced
2/17/1993? I’m having a dispute with her---over our house I bought and 55% of
my pension, all unrelated to divorce settlement etc. Can you help me? I understand that feminists value honesty and
integrity.
1) I generally post only selections from other published articles - but I provided a link so anyone could see the original. That is based on the fair use doctrine
ReplyDelete2) Your title does not come across as sarcastic. I would suggest you reread what you wrote.
3) My title is based on something that you clearly state in your article and which doesn't come across as sarcastic.
4) Your concept of Orthodoxy as broken and in need of fixing is perhaps the dividing line between us. You don't seem to be concerned with halacha but only that women are not being treated properly by Orthodoxy and that needs to be fixed.
It would be more appropriate for you to simply say that you don't agree with the traditional view of halacha or the process of understanding and applying it. Our differences have nothing to do with the issue of rachamim but the nature of the halachic process.
In addition your oversimplifiying and distorting the events connected with the Epstein "heter" doesn't earn you any points of being an objective reporter but simply an advocate who doesn't like the system as it exists.
I respectfully concur with Rabbi Eidensohns assessment of your article and its tone and connotation.
ReplyDeleteI also read the article In full and I did not perceive the tone
You're issues 1-3 are subjective depending on the readers understanding of your tone. In would humbly suggest that may stem from your own shortcomings as a writer. Or at least that is the more introspective perspective. I am unfamiliar with your other writings so please do not take what I am saying asna criticism.
Your fourth point I think is opinionated and thus subject to argument argument, as R Eidensohn legitimately notes in his response.
Have a wonderful week!
And all the info obtained illegally that he did share? Is that not a slight pircha to this story?
ReplyDeleteYou continue to say things I never have and of course that is the only way you can dismiss my valid concerns. You and the man above insist on calling me a radical feminist as a means of invalidating anything I have to say. I have no illusions that you are interested in actual conversation. Halacha is vital to Judaism. As always community needs are brought into it. Your vilification of any woman seeking a get and your lack of vilification of the men who deny them are more telling than anything you can say. If you sought to right wrongs, we would have what to discuss. You don't seek to make things right, but rather to 'be right'. I have no tolerance for this unJewish, unHalachic attitude. The title was based on the article by Gordimer and my tone is clear- as always you read what you want - including the names you call me in order to dismiss me.
ReplyDeleteShoshanna, despite your nonsensical whining about "honesty and integrity", you are simply a feminist propagandist and spin doctor.
ReplyDeleteWhen you and your feminist hoodies rant about "a woman who was denied a get for years", you demonstrate your utter lack of intellectual honesty and lack of halachic comprehension.
Tamar Epstein was never "denied" a GET, rather she refused to cooperate with a halachic Bais Din process that is a necessary process before a halachic GET can be accomplished. Tamar's blatant denial of halachic justice for her husband, her evil persecution of her husband (a very decent man) with the use of corrupt rabbis and feminist organizations (such as ORA), are the sole reasons she does not have a GET today. Tamar has no one to blame but herself.
Want GITTIN for women? Then start accepting that halachic justice is not only for Jewish women, but also for Jewish men.
Please stop with the screaming. Take responsibility for what you wrote. If you didn't mean what you wrote - so simply clarify what we are misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteI am not invalidating anything you say - but if you scream fire in a croweded theater - it doesn't help to say you meant to ask someone to move so you can sit down or to say you were just joking.
The facts you reported about Tamar Epstein are simply not accurate.
You are starting from the point that Aharon Friedman is wrong and that Tamar is correct - without explaining why. It is not self-evident accept according to the values of secular society. Can you conceive of the possiblity that Tamar is wrong and that Aharon is not a vindictive monster?
If you want a discussion - first we need an agreement what the facts are. Secondly the values and halacha. Simply saying that Judaism believes in mercy and kindness and therefore Tamar must be right - is nonsense.
Even your insistence that I don't seek to make things right - clearly indicates an assumption on your part that I must be wrong simply because I don't agree with you.
Please show me what unhalacha and what unJewish attitude I possess. You want to discuss halacha - what is your halachic basis? You accept Shulchan Aruch? You accept the major modern poskim?
Bottom line, you are stereotyping my response and ignoring what I am saying
"Halacha is vital to Judaism" - If you really believed this, you would urge Tamar Epstein to return to the Baltimore Bais Din and conduct a halachic divorce process. There is no reason to assume her husband would not give a GET after a halachic divorce process.
ReplyDeleteInstead I don't see any "agunah" activists telling Tamar to return to Bais Din. Evidently the goals of the feminists are to eliminate any halachic justice for men, and also eliminate even the GET procedure itself.
Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll says “You and the man above insist on calling me a radical feminist
ReplyDeleteas a means of invalidating anything I speak of. I have no illusions that you
are interested in actual conversation. Halacha is vital to Judaism. As always
community needs are brought into it. Your vilification of any woman seeking a
get and your lack of vilification of the men who deny them are more telling
than anything you can say.”
I wrote elsewhere in this blog:
“The radical feminists pushed the pendulum to the extreme
that the husband is the weak and oppressed. The wife ill-treats the husband for
no good reason.
I quote: “Why, everyone who uses proverbs applies to you the
proverb “Like mother, like daughter.” You are the daughter of your mother, who
rejected her husband and children. And you are the sister of your sisters, who
rejected their husbands and children; for you are daughters of a Hittite mother
and an Amorite father” (Ezekiel 16:44-45).
The Malbim explains that Ezekiel is giving a parable of a
debauchery mother-daughter.
Interesting, in Ezekiel’s parable, the wicked
mother-daughter reject their husbands and children. This implies that a woman rejecting her husband
and children for no good reason is debauchery.”
I speak from experience.
Susan, whom I divorced 2/17/1993 is a leading radical feminist. She rejected her husband (me) and our
children for no good reason. I spoke to Rivka
Haut a”h in the late 1980’s, vainly, to persuade her to have nothing to do with
women that reject their husbands and children for no good reason. Ms. Shoshana, surely you realize that there
are women that would say, e.g. “You took the car! How dare you! I now demand a get.” We need a proper bait din to hold a hearing,
to hear both sides. Fair?
Its been a long time since I've been gaslighted so blatantly. Its fascinating to watch myself be accused of all sorts of things including not believing in Torah, screaming, being a radical feminist, nonsensical and whining. No substance, just ad hoc character assassination. Anyway. its been fun. as you were
ReplyDeleteI feel it is necessary to point out that you pretty much came in to this forum guns blazing. Which I think if one were to look at it objectively, set the tone from the get go.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I honestly won't defend someone calling you names. For that I apologize.
Nonetheless Rabbi Eidensohn addressed your point succinctly and cut to the crux of the issue.
You inherently feel that Judaism and Halacha needs fixing. You scorn us for not partaking in your quest.
We disagree. The Halacha does not need fixing. I would suggest that basic knowledge not only of this saga, but of Halacha in general lends our perspective more credence than yours, as your unfamiliarity with the facts and Halacha is blatant in your article and comment above. I do not say that with malice. But it is a measurable fact.
Judaism needs Halacha. But Halacha is also a self contained body of wisdom that requires intimate knowledge of the body of law. Just like any other body of wisdom. I know absolutely nothing about quantum physics so although string theory or multiple universes sound absolutely crazy to me, I don't dare to propose to change the theory. Because I inherently accept its vast body of knowledge and my lack of familiarity.
As vital as Halacha is Judaism. It is more vital that the Jewish People have the proper attitude vis a vis the Halacha.
Have a wonderful week
personal attacks aside for the greater good. The system is broken. It needs to be fixed. I personally know 10 mesuraot get- the stories horrific children and women suffering. It is wrong and needs to be worked on so that when divorce happens it happens with no one being chained, no one running away and no one being allowed to use Torah to harm people. And the BD are often complicit. They do not serve chiyuvai get.... and enable abuse. its tragic and not Torah. it needs to be fixed and we all should care and want that.
ReplyDeletePLEASE FORGIVE MY ENGLISH. I'M AN ISRAELI.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to say something about Shoshana "vilifying" AF.
Regardless of the actual halachic issues, it is totally clear that AF is indeed evil. Not only in the eyes of man, but surely in the eyes of G-d too.
True. Hakodush Boruch Hu Gozered that marriage will be an act of kinyan by the man davka. Nevertheless, this does not give that man the zchus to use this divine gzeira to achieve his own goals, no matter what they are.
If a woman wants a divorce, and no shlom bayit is possible, the should give her the get. She is not his Shvuyat Cherev. If the man does not give a get, in order to bend her arm on some unrelated issues (financial, custodial etc.), he is using the power the torah gave him for maintaining the sanctity of Jewish family - for his own needs. He is "mishtamesh betaga" literately. All financial and custodial issues should be pursued with other means.
Indeed, due to the technical way in which Kidushin are performed, and hilchot Gittin, we are sometimes helpless in fighting evil men using their Get veto power wrongfully, trying to force the wife to agree to things in order for that Biryon to give her her freedom.
But that does not make him any less evil. In fact it makes him worse.
So it's obvious to me, that Shoshana needed not to dwell into the exact details of this saga, in order to "vilify" AF. The man is scum of the earth, without it. He might get away bedinei adam. But using the sanctity of Jewish marriage in to achieve his own personal goals (i.e. visitation right or w/e), will not go without answer bedinei shamayim.
Hi there:
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that if you sell a house and regret it several years later that you have a right to throw the new owner out?
Do you believe that when a woman (or man) chooses to marry that she has a right to unilaterally break the marriage several years later, without just cause?
What percentage of divorces are initiated by men?
What percentage of divorces are initiated by women?
personal attacks aside for the greater good.
If you would like to, you can edit your previous comments that seemed to personally attack people.
I would love to live in a perfect world too.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately people are mean.
Doesn't mean the system is broken. People are broken. Either because woman feel they can do better. Or because these men are horrobl people.
But that's why G-d gave us Bechira. And G-d doesn't try to regulate that.
Imperfect world. This is why I long for Moshiach, and I guess this is why you should too.
Your problem is that you don't like halacha and want to reform halacha. The Halacha is that a husband is not obligated to give a Get just because his wife wants a Get. Indeed by default a husband had no obligation to divorce. Only if he violated his wife's rights and refuses to rectify that and other very narrow halachic grounds exist that would compel him to divorce his wife if her wishes to remain married.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you believe that someone should be forced to remain in a marriage with someone they have no interest in being married to? What exactly will be solved by that? How do you envision a home like that looking? While it is probably true that some marriages are ended without the responsible parties doing their all to try to make things work, it sounds like you are of the opinion that a woman or man should be forced to remain in a marriage indefinitely, despite the lack of any hope for a meeting of hearts and minds.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Jaskoll,
ReplyDeleteWas Rabbeinu Gershom nasty to make edicts that a man cannot divorce his wife against her will? So than why is it unfair for the Torah to say that a woman cannot walk out on her husband?
Are you aware that there have been more reports, statistically (and fairly recently), that there were more women who refuse gittin than men? Where are all these benevolent organizations coming to their rescue? Why then do we need organizations to automatically and without any questioning, help one part of Klal Yisroel which will automatically be at the expense of the other?
Ms. Jaskoll,
ReplyDeleteWas Rabbeinu Gershom nasty to make edicts that a man cannot divorce his wife against her will? So than why is it unfair for the Torah to say that a woman cannot walk out on her husband?
Are you aware that there have been more reports, statistically (and fairly recently), that there were more women who refuse gittin than men? Where are all these benevolent organizations coming to their rescue? Why then do we need organizations to automatically and without any questioning, help one part of Klal Yisroel which will automatically be at the expense of the other?
What is two 50/50 partners in a business are fighting and both demand these other sellout his share since they don't get along?
ReplyDeleteSo, do you believe that someone should be forced to remain in a marriage with someone they have no interest in being married to? What exactly will be solved by that? ...... it sounds like you are of the opinion that a woman or man should be forced to remain in a marriage indefinitely, despite the lack of any hope for a meeting of hearts and minds.
ReplyDeleteAre you willing to have an open mind, or have you concluded the matter in your mind? Instead of saying what it sounds like or setting up straw men, why don't you ask what it is I said?
do you believe that someone should be forced to remain in a marriage with someone they have no interest in being married to?
How is that possible? Who forced them to get married? If a person chooses to get married, then they have a responsibility to make it work. Is it natural for a woman to swear off her husband at certain trying times? Absolutely! However, Hashem chose to not allow a woman to act upon those impulses. What percentage of women fully regret the divorce that they initiated within five years of their divorce?
Now think of the consequences of encouraging a woman to act on her natural impulses.
despite the lack of any hope for a meeting of hearts and minds.
Who decided that?
Before anyone answers your question, we must figure out what the Torah wants. Then, we can deeper contemplate what it is called yashrus and darkei Noam.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, there are some stark practicalities that are to be gained from following the Torah (in this area aside from all areas) that contemporary society lacks
......
What if the running backs' coach and the wide receivers' coach disagree about how a certain player should act on a certain play? What if they two mechanics at an about shop disagree about how to fix a car? What about if two chefs etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteThe point is not to come up with abstract analogies, but to realize that there are human beings here. I fail to see why if there is for example, a third year old who is in a marriage that is not working, and the couple has gone through therapy/counseling, brachas from Babbas, whatever, with no progress, why someone would think that the best course of action would be to keep the couple together in pain and suffering for another fifty years.
Not sure what you mean by keeping an open mind, but that phrase sounds out of character coming from you.
ReplyDelete"Forced to remain in a marriage" is not the same as "forced to get married." You say that if someone gets married, they have a responsibility to "make it work." That is silly. It is not up to one person to make a marriage work. If you would write that someone who gets married has a responsibility to explore every avenue to try to make a marriage work, I agree wholeheartedly.
No one is talking about "allowing women to act on their natural impulses." That is a straw man argument. I did not in any way indicate that I think that if a woman wakes up on Tuesday and says she wants a divorce, she should have one by Wednesday. I am talking about a case where the couple has undergone extended (even years) of counseling, without progress. As to what the percentages are of women who regret, within five years, divorces they initiate, I have no idea. Do you?
Not sure what you mean by keeping an open mind, but that phrase sounds out of character coming from you.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the:
1) Straw man
2) Ad honiem
3) deflect the question.
That is silly. It is not up to one person to make a marriage work.
Are you discussing cases where both parties are seeking to get divorced? Then we are not discussing the same thing. If, however, you are referring to a marriage where the husband wants to keep the marriage and make it work, yet the wife has decided it is "not what she wants", then your silly comment is inappropriate and intellectually dishonest. The husband wants the marriage to work. The husband surmises that the marriage can work - if his wife does not renege on her marital commitment.
When a woman makes a marriage decision and a marital kinyan, she accepts a partnership that she has no right to dissolve if her expectations are not being met. If her unfulfilled expectations are causing her unhappiness, then call it that. Do not blame the marriage; blame the expectations. If your unfulfilled expectations for a new Maserati are causing you unhappiness, you still are unjustified in hurting people that you've made a commitment to.
Can she adjust her expectations and deal with the realities on the ground?
No one is talking about "allowing women to act on their natural impulses." That is a straw man argument. I did not in any way indicate that I think that if a woman wakes up on Tuesday and says she wants a divorce, she should have one by Wednesday. I am talking about a case where the couple has undergone extended (even years) of counseling, without progress.
You would not be referring to ORA? As ORA has publicly backed several women who were in salvageable marriages. ORA does not have any sort of stipulation that they will only advocate for those woman who are in non-salvageable marriages.
You would not be referring to the RCA's prenuptial? The RCA's prenuptial does not contain a clause about therapy or other determinations on the ability of the marriage to survive.
Referring to the position of the BDA and ORA is far from a straw man argument.
As to what the percentages are of women who regret, within five years, divorces they initiate, I have no idea. Do you?
I have seen the study in the past, but did not find it now. Will try to post it when I locate it. Meanwhile please read this.
http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson4.pdf
why someone would think that the best course of action would be to keep the couple together in pain and suffering for another fifty years.
ReplyDeleteAre you speaking about normal men? Why don't the men agree to the divorce if it will save them from pain and suffering for the next fifty years?
pain and suffering
What is the primary reason for divorces? NEWSFLASH: It is "falling out of love." No, it is not pain. No, it is not suffering. Oh, yes, down the line after the good consultations with the Sister-to-Sister lawyers and other "activists," these claims may be made. But they are rarely made at the outset, before the good battle advice is given.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031952/Fewer-couples-divorce-infidelity-main-reason-falling-love.html
Was meaning for a while to say.......I once heard from Rav Elya Goldschmidt zt"l, that if you want to love someone, you will. ......
ReplyDeleteAlthough this does not answer your question, just One observation if may:
ReplyDeleteWhy is this question asked only in one direction- when the woman wants a divorce, why not ask on Rabbeinu Gershom for his decree that a man cannot divorce his wife against her will?
You set up a false dichotomy between "cases where both parties are seeking to get divorced" and "a marriage where the husband wants to keep the marriage and make it work, yet the wife has decided it is 'not what she wants.'" I am speaking about neither, rather cases where both parties have engaged in good-faith efforts to fix the problems that the marriage has, one party has come to the conclusion that the situation will not improve and they want to leave the marriage, and the other party does not see it that way and wants to remain married. It is in such a case that I fail to see what can be accomplished by chaining the unwanting spouse to the marriage. As I understand, your response to this is something along the lines of: Well, nobody forced them to get married in the first place, so they should just suck it up and deal with it, or to keep trying to make it work. To that I ask you: For how long? Five years? Ten? Fifty?
ReplyDeleteYou do not seem to accept the possibility that there is such a thing as a destructive marriage, one that deservedly should be dissolved even if one of the parties would prefer to stay married.
As far as ORA and the RCA, I have no allegiance to either. It may very well be that their broad solutions end up including cases where other courses of action would be more appropriate; I do not know.
Not sure what you mean by "ask on Rabbeinu Gershom," but I think that what I wrote would apply equally in either direction.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link (not). Somehow, I don't believe that those findings are particularly relevant to the Torah-observant community.
ReplyDeleteSo you disagree with Rabbeinu Gershom and his takana allowing wives to refuse to accept a Get from their husbands?
ReplyDeleteOf course it would apply in either direction, you realize that, you're a thinking individual, but for th typical fellow in the street, they only see the difficulty in one direction. ......the obvious beginning of the answer to your question would be to first sit down and acknowledge that the laws of the Torah trumps all our sentiments. If l'chatchilla" the Torah does not give a woman a right to divorce herself, it must also be ethically correct. And that would be especially true when we see that the Gemara doesn't make any ethical reference for get-on-demand. Compounded with that, Rabbeinu Gershom comes along and takes away a man's right to forcefully divorce his wife! Perhaps, we can deduce from here that al pi Torah, marriage must be a very sacred thing. ...... (whereas in this country, apparently, individual liberties, such as divorcing at whim, must be more sacred than marriage, which is more like having the other in th is case, the spouse, children and even society as a whole)as alluded to in Rav Sternbuch's letter against "prenups"..
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteHis takana gives a woman the right to refuse to accept a get. It does not dictate the circumstances under which a woman would be justified in exercising that right.
I concur fully with your analysis that al pi Torah, marriage is a very sacred thing.
ReplyDeleteI do take issue with your phrase (which I have seen elsewhere on this blog) of "get-on-demand." That phrase, which probably intentionally echoes the phrase "video-on-demand," connotes that a woman or man wakes up one morning and decides that they want to get divorced, and that their request is acceded to immediately. While there may be (in the frum community) very rare instances when that occurs, that is not the common scenario which needs to be addressed. The far more common scenario is when one or both spouses acknowledge shalom bayis difficulties, they undergo (in many cases for years) rabbinic counseling/professional therapy to try to eliminate or at least lessen those problems, and then one spouse decides that after so much effort and no real progress, further efforts are futile. It is in such a case that I am asking why anyone would think it is preferable to chain the unwilling spouse to the marriage against their will for years or even decades to come. I understand why the other spouse might want that, especially if they are in denial as to whether shalom bayis can be restored, but I think that in such a case, outsiders should assist both parties in settling the matter and rebuilding their lives.
So you agree with Rabbeinu Gershom and his takana permitting a wife to refuse to accept a Get that her husband wants to give her under the circumstances that Rabbeinu Gershom intended to allow her to refuse to accept a Get.
ReplyDeleteOkay.
Do you also agree with the equivalent Torah Laws permitting a husband to refuse to give his wife a Get that she requested of him under circumstances where Torah Law permits him to decline to give her a Get?
@Yehoshua, you are ignoring the fact that there are laws (halachas) addressing these scenarios. As a general rule, the law states that if one spouse desires to continue the marriage whereas the other spouse desires to divorce, the spouse desiring to continue the marriage prevails and the other spouse (who wished to divorce) must accept the continuation of the marriage.
ReplyDeleteYou might come up with all sorts of logical arguments why you don't think this will work. But this is Hashem's laws. The Torah says so regarding husbands who wish to continue the marriage, and Rabbeinu Gershom Me'or HaGolah extended that same right to wives.
It's more an echo of abortion-on-demand.
ReplyDeleteI guess that is where we disagree. Do you think that right continues for five years? Ten years? Fifty years? At a certain point, and I don't want to quibble about when precisely that point is, it would be better for all parties involve to work toward rebuilding their lives, not trying to build a life that they can never have.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, and this covers your comment about Rabbeinu Gershom, just because someone has the ability to do x does not mean that it is either the intelligent or moral course of action. Note that the U.S. has not used an atomic/nuclear bomb since WWII, and that no other country has ever used one.
I am not discussing what either respective party has the legal right to force upon the other. I am saying that at a certain point, the reasonable course of action is to attempt to rebuild one's life instead of engaging in an endless and futile effort to force the other party to continue in a marriage that they have no desire to continue in.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean by "agree with Rabbeinu Gershom" and "agree with Torah laws." Those entities exist, and it is irrelevant whether anyone today agrees or disagrees with them. What is relevant is the issue of whether it is the reasonable course of action for one who possesses a legal right to enforce that right in all circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI think our disagreement lies between what the spouses legal/halachic rights are and what may be the best course of action in a particular case.
ReplyDeleteI am pointing out that the spouse who wishes to continue the marriage, even though the other spouse is insisting on divorce, has the legal/halachic right to continue the marriage and not give/accept the Get despite the other spouses wishes. I am not sure if you are even disputing that he/she has the right under halacha.
You are stressing that under the circumstances of the various cases it is foolhardy for the spouse to continue pursuing shalom bayis if the other spouse is insistent on divorce. And it various cases I may even agree with you. It may be wise to counsel that spouse that it is even for their own benefit to accept divorce and move on rather than pursue an impossible dream when the other spouse isn't game. But if the spouse insists on pursing keeping the marriage alive, despite outside observers (including posssibly the beis din itself) deeming it foolhardy, he/she still has that right to pursue keeping the marriage alive and declining divorce.
The takana Rabbeinu Gershom implemented giving wives this same legal/halachic right I am describing in this comment (i.e. declining to divorce against their spouse's wishes) goes to demonstrate how strong this legal right it.
Agreed that it may be foolhardy for someone to insist on carrying out a legal right he possesses. But if he foolishly insists on carrying out his/her legal right, his/her legal right but be implemented and recognized even if it is foolish of him/her to invoke it.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is your opinion when the woman wants out when she thinks she can do better. Or shall we say bevaday nosno eineho beacheirim?
ReplyDeleteThose marriages that both parties give it their all and fail, are very few and far in between. Many of those that wait out years to prove and justify divorce, while not even doing the least effort to save the marriage, must be one of *those* that were never meant to be married to begin with. You can check it in their hormones.
ReplyDeleteIt is not measured in unit of time. Rather in units of contributing to shalom bayis. It is not fair for the umshildige children to breakup for convenience. Every house needs an overhaul and constant maintenance, even the Beis Hamikdash had a team of a Bedek haBayis unit, fixing cracks and a fresh coat of *SID* / paint. Some people have it naturally, some have seen it at home, and some need some coaching. Never throw out the baby with the bathwater.
ReplyDeleteThe TORAH HAKDOSHA IS PERFECT. Doesn't need fixing. This idea was invented by the REFORM. It is they that are mekatzetz binetiot, shuolim ketanim mechablim bakromim. They make it like a custom made suit to suit themselves. Lo bechinam does it state in Talmud, Nashim daaton kalot, and R' Yehuda was careful not to Darshen on shabbat for nashim hilchot Shabbat. Furthemore, kol hamelamed es bito torah keilu melamdo TIFLUS. And you are the best example why, and please do not reply. Thank you. Do us a favor, this a frum blog and cover your pelyichos, and wipe of that smirk. Remeber CHODOSH OSSUR MIIN HATORAH!!!
ReplyDeleteThe entire Bais Yaakov system relies on the Psak of the Chofetz Chaim (In his Haskamah to Sara Shneirer) that nowadays there is no issue teaching Torah to women. Perhaps this is based on what is clear from the nosei keilim that this is a metzius issue based on a ruba d'lesa kaman, and teva can change. The Rosh writes in a Teshuvah that the women in his day could not make Brachos and that it was a sorrowful thing.
ReplyDeletePlease don't mix Choshen Mishpat with Even Haezer. Your case is discussed at great length in Shas and Poskim, and it does not resemble marriage.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good comparison, but I give you my word that we won't pasken from it!
ReplyDeleteYehoshua, while I believe we both agree that each of the spouses has the power to bind the other, halachically, I also believe that we agree on another thing: that if we were to make up the Torah, we would certainly hold like you, morally, for sure (and probably legally too)......I, for one, can tell you with certainty that it is not brought down any hint of any ethical guideline to give a get on demand, that means, whenever it is demanded by either spouse. (If anyone finds me wrong, please tell me. ) Why is that? That's a different story. For starters? The Torah said so.
ReplyDeleteIf what you mean is that as long as a Beis Din has not ruled that there is a halakhic obligation to give a get, there is no halakhic obligation to give a get, I would agree with that.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think it is largely irrelevant. If a marriage is over, e.g., one of the spouses has moved out of the house and has no interest in reconciliation, I think that if the others spouse refuses to give/receive a get because they insist on remaining in some sort of pro forma status of being married to that person, they are acting in a totally unreasonable manner. The issur of lifnei iver includes giving bad advice. I believe that anyone who knows someone acting in that way and tells them "you have the legal right to continue acting this way" is giving bad advice.
This is referred strictly to Talmud, of which sharpens the mind thereby abusing the derech.
ReplyDeleteThe Sugya in the first perek of Bava Basra and Teromos Hadashan 336-337 say that a partner can force a division when the jointly owned object will not be significantly damaged by the division. Otherwise there is the question of good o' a'good. I would love to hear how we could apply this to a marriage! Drosh v'kabel schar!
ReplyDelete@Yehoshua, Okay. But if after beis din ruled that a halachic obligation to give/accept a divorce does not exist, but the other spouse (who does want the divorce) moves out anyways and refuses reconciliation attempts, but the first spouse (however foolishly and hopelessly) continues to sincerely insist on shalom bayis and reconciliation, and no one advises him/her to continue pursuing reconciliation - in fact all advise him to just move on and give/accept the divorce, but he/she nevertheless insists on pursuing shalom bayis and points out there is no halachic obligation to give/accept a Get, are you agreeable to al pi halacha he/she cannot be forced to give/accept a Get (or even pressured to more than private advice as a friend)?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what your question is. It sounds like you are asking: "If no Beis Din has ruled that there should be a get, should there be a forced get"? If no Beis Din thinks there should be a get, who exactly is forcing what?
ReplyDeleteIf you are asking whether or not communal pressure may be applied in such a case, that is a halakhic issue that I have not examined, so I don't know.
@Yehoshua, If beis din determined that halachicly no Get is required to be given by the husband, but the wife anyways still wants a Get after beis din said he isn't required to divorce and so she moves out and refuses any attempted reconciliation, do you believe any pressure can be brought on the husband to give a Get despite his unwillingness to?
ReplyDeleteSecret information being that since the diagnosis was obtained illegally, they can't share it. That bemes the doctor met with both. But it was illegal to share the information. So the story that is being put forward is that the dr. Only met with her.
ReplyDelete