I am reposting this because I am tired of the men and women who don't know either facts or the halacha but think they are being righteous or smart rabbis or gedolim whether in Lakewood, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia or Washington - for attacking Ahron Friedman or myself
there is only one beis din that both husband and wife agreed to accept their view and that is the Baltimore beis din
any idiot claiming he is obligated to give a divorce or that his wife claims he has an intolerable personality disorder or that it is just to force him to give a get should read the following very carefully
I'm a little surprised at the Baltimore Bais Din that they did not reach this conclusion BEFORE TAMAR REMARRIED! It is obvious that since kaminetsky looks so bad in the public eye that they will by default have to support aharon. Shame on the Rabbis for not disclosing their position sooner. It has an appearance of political overtures instead of being authentic!
ReplyDeleteTook him 5 years to be Modeh al Haeme
ReplyDeleteHodu Lashem Ki Tov
If you wait long enough the Emes always comes out. Remember Sheker has no leg to stand on.
NOTE: this letter has nothing to do with the current issue of a false Heter and Habkoas Kedushin.
To little to late, mamzer is on the way, shut up and eat drek hopefully Sam kam will choke on it
ReplyDeleteThis letter from the Baltimore Bais Din contains much significant information.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem apparent that:
1. ORA cannot be considered a halachically compliant organization. Despite ORA's spin machine that tries to provide phony cover for ORA's severe halachic violations, it is clear that ORA's defamation/persecution campaign against AF "far exceeded harchakos d'Rabbeinu Tam."
2. TE is not now and never was an "agunah". ORA's unqualified support for TE enabled her to become a self-made fake "agunah" as she failed to cooperate with the Bais Din to complete a halachic divorce settlement.
3. The AF/TE case is another case (among many) where ORA actually enabled the creation of a fake "agunah" while purporting to be saving the fake "agunah".
What a bombshell.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: this letter has nothing to do with the current issue of a false Heter and Habkoas Kedushin.
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do and everything to do. The people who advised TE, who are being criticized in this letter, are the same ones who orchestrated the heter. I'm sure it was the furor raised by the heter, and the attention it drew to the advisers' very questionable tactics, that caused the Baltimore BD to reexamine the case.
Wow!
ReplyDeleteTHIS is a kiddush Shem shomayim!
Reading this really made me cry
Gives me hope to pray
השיבה שופטינו
It's hard to really deduce point your 1st point from the letter as R' Heinemann who sits on the Baltimore B"D has actually endorsed ORA. Also, doesn't anyone here find it odd that this letter is missing R' Heinemann's signature? As well as the last letter regarding AF still being an eishes eish if my memory serves me correct.
ReplyDeleteRYGB had openly said many times be believes in Get-on-demand. So he'll say his halachas are different than the Halacha outlined by the Baltimore Beis Din in their above letter.
ReplyDeleteRav Heinemann was not a member of the beis din when it dealt with this case - if I recall correctly
ReplyDeleteThis letter is a bombshell and must be dissected apart and all the 'therefore.... specified.
ReplyDeleteTo start:
-To all those who claim AF is obligated to give a get.........
-To all those who are responsible for this whole horrific atrocity (T, her mother, family, ORA, her "Rabbis"
-To all those who tried interfering with the only legitimate beis din (kamenetsky, Goldfien)
-To those who participated in the Bogus Seiruv (Kamenetsky, Ralbag, Belsky, Shachter, Walmark and others)
-To ALL those who embarrassed AF in public (all of the above as well much of the Philadelphia and Silver Spring communities)
-To all those "Rabbis" who knowingly decided to support the side of lies, corruption, stealing, and falsifying our holy Torah
-To all those who tried to ruin the life of AF and AF's family (all of the above)
-To all those who participated in demonstrations and all other smear campaigns against the 100% innocent AF
-AND much much more .....
WOE IS TO THEM ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT
It seems to me the constant flow of support Mr. Friedman is receiving from the gedolei rabbonim, and now the beis din with jurisdiction of the case, is designed to pave the inevitable path to the upcoming withdrawn of Tamar's heter.
ReplyDeleteWhere is rabbi hopfer
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this has anything to do with negotiations for aron to give a get
ReplyDeleteYou know, my initial thought was precisely the same.
ReplyDeleteBut, then I thought better of it: WHO CARES?
Let him bury more of his comments in a thread from two weeks ago...he'll never be able to walk away clean from this one.
Whether based on normative halachic practice or not; RSK, ORA etc focus on the words of the letter that says "we did decide that DIVORCE WAS regrettably NECESSARY" and decide that she is an agunah even though the bais din doesn't think so.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important letter. First I am proud to see rabbonim admitting to a mistake publicly. This is very rare, and not because rabbonim are so perfect. Second, this explains why rabbis greenblatt, kaminetzky, etc issued the Siruv and heter, since they understood from the Baltimore Bais din that both of them were not cooperating with the Bais din. Therefore, Friedman was guilty of not giving a get. It is twisted in my opinion, since she is just as guilty, but it gives a half decent explanation and a nice way out of this mess for the kaminetzkys.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bombshell! Ashrei hador shehaNossi sheloi nosen LEV. A Beis Din TZEDEK of the likes of Yehudo ben Yaakov. Lo yosur Shevet miYehudo umchokek mibein raglov Ad Ki yovo Shiloh, Yodov *RAV LOI* vezer mitsorov tihye!!! Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, for being the Shlichim of * VehoElokim Yevakesh et haNIRDOF* !!! Thank You Gedoilei Uposkei UMEOIREI haDor, hen ba'arets vehen bechu"l uvchol hamkomos sheheim, for all your tireless efforts standing so Tall and being counted al Kvod HaToiro veal Kdushas Yisroel veal Acheinu Bnei Yisroel hanesunim batsoro ubashivyah. May haShem repay you all with GEFEN ad sof kol hadoros. And for you Dear R' Aron F, We The People are SOOO...)))) happy for you, just Like when the Yidden crossed the Yam Suf and sang Shirah. We wish you lots of Nachas from your precious daughter, bli metsorim nachlo and happiness forever after. May you never know from tsarot anymore. Amen. A gutten Shabbos
ReplyDeleteShuchatowitz definitely was not part of the B"D as he sits on strictly choshen mishpat inyanim. Just because the letterhead is the same is meaningless. There are several rabbonim who rotate on the B"D for various inyanim. And RAF is not one of them. R' Heinemann's signature is not there for a reason, since this entire thing has blown up he has clearly not been interested in mixing in. He signed on something from Tammuz but nothing since. Doesn't that tell you something??? As someone else pointed out R' Hopfer also has not said anything. And I have a good source that tells me that this is being given to help facilitate the gett, nothing else.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Rabbi Bechhofer, a man for whom I have much respect, is does he continue to believe that Aharon Friedman committed an evil act by not giving a Get. Aharon is apparently nothing more and nothing less than an honest, God fearing Jew that is willing to submit to the ruling of a respectable Beis Din. Why does RYGB expect any more than that? He should give the Get despite that the Beis Din told him otherwise? That would be foolishness on his part. He (AF) is supposed to know more than the Baltimore Beis Din about the laws of Gittin such that he should ignore what they tell him? Preposterous! I trust that Rabbi Bechhofer will take a step back from his heavy handed criticism of Aharon Friedman in this matter, certainly as it relates to his invoking of the term "rasha" as it relates to AF and/or his actions.
ReplyDeleteCan someone explain to me why Rabbi Feldman signed this letter after he declared that his first letter was inappropriately used by the blogs and caused a big Bizayon Hatorah? I don't have a problem with the Beis Din writing something but after the storm that his retraction made I would think he wouldn't want to go through that again.
ReplyDeleteYet he signed one of the earlier letters emanating from the Baltimore Beis DIn.
ReplyDeleteAnd are you trying to derail that?
ReplyDeleteI trust that ... will take a step back
ReplyDeleteDon't bet on it. His opinion is not based upon the facts; it is based upon emotion...
If BOTH were not cooperating with Bais Din, how does that give them reason to attack just ONE side?
ReplyDeleteI am sure the Bais Din was as shocked and surprised as most people were when Tamar committed bigamy. She had to travel 1,000 miles to do it by Greenblatt because not even the Kaminetzkys had the guts to perform the wedding in Philadelphia.
ReplyDeleteAssuming the information in this letter is correct, it is reasonable
ReplyDeleteto assume that both Aharon and Tamar believe that the Baltimore beis din would resolve the custody and visitation issues substantially differently to the court’s decision. While I am of course not privy to the details of the case, I wonder if the following psak din rabbani, which cites previous decisions of the beit din hagadol, implies that the rabbanut would have reached a similar decision to the courts here.
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1300
The psak din states, based on the Yaskil Avdi and others, that, in a case where a woman left her husband with her daughter due to a dispute, the beis din will not require the woman to move back to the husband’s vicinity, even when the wife has moved quite far away.
I am not claiming that the rulings of the beit din hagadol are dispositive (although its members are almost all renowned Charedi poskim), but it is nevertheless an interesting point of reference.
ראו בפסק דינו של ביה"ד
האזורי צפת־טבריה משנת תשע"ב בתיק 839795/8 אשר פסק כי אין להשיב בנים אל
אביהם במקרה שהאם עברה מרמת הגולן לאזור המרכז, מרחק של 170 ק"מ ממקום מגורי האב. על פסק דין זה הוגש עירעור לביה"ד הגדול בתיק מס' 887455/1, ביה"ד
הגדול דחה את העירעור ואישר את פסק דינו של בית הדין האזורי.
We have discussed this before. It is not relevant in this case because the distance and time factors are a significant impediment which apparently wasn't so in the Israeli case.
ReplyDeleteHow weird! When I click on the 2nd image and try to open it in a new tab, I get a completely different document!
ReplyDeleteThat psak mentions a distance of 170km (105 miles), which is not so near either.
ReplyDeletethe psak indicates it is not a major problem. In the present case it is
ReplyDeleteDoes he want the daughter to live with him?
ReplyDeleteDoes AF want the daughter to live with him?
ReplyDeleteMe too
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Just saying that this is not necessarily an admission that the heter is unfounded, rather an effort to do away with the "scandal" and hope that this dies down once a gett is given. If TE was right the heter is in place if it a bunch of bunk and AF is normal, well she will have a gett. And all those in Israel can put their pitchforks back in their sheds.
ReplyDeleteThe mentality of RYGB and his comrades the ORA fanatics can be understood this way:
ReplyDeleteIn any divorce dispute, whenever the husband is refusing to comply with his wife's demands (regardless of the halachic validity for those demands), the husband is a rasha and must be fully denounced and pressured to submit to his wife. The wife on the other hand, (regardless of her halachic violations) is a victim of evil misogynists who is deserving of full support by the frum community.
Fixed now
ReplyDeleteDoesn't sound like it. The demand says only that she live nearby in Silver Spring, not that he received primary residential custody.
ReplyDeleteSince he banished himself from this blog, but restricted himself to the post of Dec 28th that deals with him (eizehu chochom hamkir es mekomo"), why not experiment and project your question to him in our name, at least in most of our names, and see what he says!
ReplyDeleteThe botei din unfortunately understand the posuk the wrong way: "lo soguru mipnei ish- avul mipnei isha soguru"
ReplyDeleteOne can hardly blame the Kametskys and Rabbi Greenblatt, if the very beis din which heard the case was unclear on the facts all this time. How in the world were the matirim supposed to know better than the beis din, itself. (Assuming this new info is accurate.) So, at the very least, the matirim are owed an apology.
ReplyDeleteSecond, why didn't the husband bother to refute the claims, all this time? One can't blame the world for assuming shetikah k'hodaa. He had every opportunity to fully present his side in many forums, but was silent for years. He could have gone to the beis din and said I am here and ready to give a get any time. Please send a hazmana to Tamar, and let's work out custody and then I'll give get on the spot.
Something tells me that the situation is more complicated, or else it would have been resolved years ago, without need for ORA, the Kaminetzkys, attempted abductions, and who knows what else. There has got to be more here than meets the eye. Clearly, we don't have the full picture.
You are very naive or you simply haven't bothered reading the facts that have been presented. Rav Shmuel Kaminetsy issued a seruv despite the fact he had no jurisdiction according to halacha and demanded that a Get be given - when he had no such authority. That is not an innocent mistake.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of you comments just means regurgitating discussion that have been repeatedly presented on this blog. Your final statement is indicative of a major blind spot in dealing with these issues or just ignorance of the world.
You are very naive or you simply haven't bothered reading the facts that have been presented. Rav Shmuel Kaminetsy issued a seruv despite the fact he had no jurisdiction according to halacha and demanded that a Get be given - when he had no such authority. That is not an innocent mistake.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of your comments just means regurgitating discussion that have been repeatedly presented on this blog. Your final statement is indicative of a major blind spot in dealing with these issues or just ignorance of the world.
Has anybody heard from R Hershal Schecter? Real Gedolim have the balls to admit when they make a mistake.
ReplyDeleteThis letter should be posted (multiple copies) in every shul and mossad in baltimore and washington areas this week and next shabbat (baltimore and washington areas are snowed in now) for reaction and publicity.
ReplyDeleteThe$e rabbonim are not fools. Are you saying they didn't know what they were doing?
ReplyDeleteAnd when they were called on it, they not only refused to correct their past actions (which you admit was wrong) they compounded it by further improper actions, which they al$o knew was wrong.
Rabbi E Shilta
ReplyDeletePlease edit the coment
he meant to say Real Gedolim have the GUTS to admit when they make a mistake
Inappropriate
ReplyDeleteBarry - read the quote above from the Washington Jewish Week. R Shuchatowitz said 5 years ago the protests were uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteSee the original letter from the Silver Spring Vaad from 5 years ago where they also say that there was no obligation to give a Get and the rallies were wrong.
The Vaad only changed their decision because of pressure from their community and the bogus seruv gave them the excuse to do so.
How do you know that AF hasn't been refuting the claims all along, but only to the people who matter? It seems to me that the fact that he's not writing guest posts on this blog is a testament to the fact that AF is a mentch who doesn't want to stir the pot in public. I don't know him personally but I know people who do, and that's what they say about him. I admire the fact that he has kept out of it.
ReplyDeleteNot that I blame a fellow like Yoel Weiss. I may have done the same if I were in his shoes.
Can someone explain to me why Rabbi Feldman signed this letter after he declared that his first letter was inappropriately used by the blogs and caused a big Bizayon Hatorah? I don't have a problem with the Beis Din writing something but after the storm that his retraction made I would think he wouldn't want to go through that again.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, RSK ve'siyato should be banned from (rabbinic and networking and social) functions in baltimore / washington area. That includes activities of AJOP (no matter where held, as that is a baltimore based institution.), etc.
ReplyDeleteAF should be publiclly invited to every single shul in the area, and given an aliyah on shabbat (not lmidweek).
All of the sudden, after 8 years of no get, and 5 years after the courts issued the divorce ruling, the beis din suddenly decides to check the facts? What prompted that? Would it have anything to do with the heter?
ReplyDeleteThe only holdback in this case was a procedural error about which beis din had proper jurisdiction? Otherwise get would have been issued 8 years ago? It was a minor clerical error? Reb Shmuel Kaminetsky forgot to make a phone call to Baltimore beis din? The beis din forgot to call Aharon to ask him to give a get? The beis din forgot to tell ORA that they forgot to tell Tamar that all she needs to do is to show up, discuss custody, and she can receive the get? For 8 years everybody forgot how to handle a routine divorce?
Well, at least I'm glad that some people think this latest letter from the Baltimore beis din explains everything.
They're not discussing the Heter which they did not give , they're discussing the process in their court which has nothing to do with the RS K and gang, you and a few hold outs like salty K , are the only ones who can't come to peace with the fact that RS K perpetrated a hugh fraud .there is no hetter.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he meant to say that.
ReplyDeleteNot the FEMINIST RABBIS. They are short of the Halacha and nosei keilim. The Sar haSorisim... still holds on his own, that when Mekach taus is done in a certain manner, it's OK.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Hagaon Harav Aharon Feldman shlita signing this letter if he wasn't one of the original three dayanam on the original Aharon/Tamar case in the Baltimore Beis Din?
ReplyDeleteWho were the original three dayanam on the Aharon/Tamar case in the Baltimore Beis Din?
1. Yes, I personally believe that he has committed an evil act, and have not changed my mind on account of this letter.
ReplyDelete2. For several weeks or perhaps months, up to a year, I would expect nothing more. After issues have not been resolved for a year, the get should be given forthwith. While I advocate for "get on demand" it does not mean the next day - there are issues to be resolved - but a year if far more than enough time.
3. There is nothing in the laws of gittin that stop a husband from issuing his wife a get after she has requested it.
4. I haven't criticized AF all that much, but the term "rasha" is still applicable to this facet of his conduct.
I responded to Paul here. Perhaps it was a mistake and I should have responded on the Dec. 28th thread. Yesh tzdadim l'kan u'l'kan.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's painful to even think about all the unjust pain that Aharon was forced to endure, let alone have to live through it....
ReplyDeletestill; for the Baltimore Bais Din to be מודה על האמת is a True. Kiddush. Hashem.
Rabbi Bechhofer - I don't have a problem that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious and clear facts because you have free-will
ReplyDeleteI do have a problem with you passing judgment and using terms which are not consistent with the halacha - especially when they degrade other people unjustly.
If this were a case that he is refusing to give a Get out of spite or to cause her pain - you might have justification. But there are clear reasons which the Beis Din acknowledges and thus he has not obligation to give a Get at the present.
Please show me your heter for your pejorative descriptions because he has not yet given a Get when the Beis Din has considently stated that he has no obligation to give a Get? Perhaps I should start calling you a rasha because you don't agree with the my viewpoint? And then you would call me a rasha for saying that you are a rasha? And then every comment of every commenter would say that the one he disagrees with is a rasha.
שו"ע (חושן משפט - לד :ב) איזהו רשע, כל שעבר עבירה שחייבים עליה מלקות; ואצ"ל אם חייבים עליה מיתת ב"ד. ל"ש אם עבר לתיאבון, ל"ש אם עבר להכעיס: הגה - עבר עבירה שאין בה מלקות, פסול מדרבנן (רבינו ירוחם נ"ב ח"ד):
שו"ע חושן משפט (תכ:מב) אף על פי שהמבייש בדברים אינו בר תשלומין, עון גדול הוא; ואין המחרף ומגדף לעם ומביישן אלא שוטה רשע וגס רוח. וכל המלבין פני אדם כשר מישראל בדברים, אין לו חלק לעולם הבא:
Aren't you able to read? They're was and is no, zero, obligation for Aharon to give any get. None. Now the beis din would have told him to give a Get once custody was resolved n beis din, but custody was never resolved because Tamar tang away from beis din.
ReplyDeleteI am not entitled to take the position that someone who withholds a get from a woman for many years is performing an act of rish'us?
ReplyDeleteIf you object to me calling AF a rasha, you will note that in my response I did not call him a rasha "in toto". Only that "the term "rasha" is still applicable to this facet of his conduct." But this is similar to a meirim yad al chaveiro who is called a rasha.
If "avaryan" sits better with you, I can default down to that...
1) Rav Feldman has been heavily involved and talks with R' Shochotovitz constantly. 2)R' Shochotovitz, R" Hopfer, and R' Heineman. 3)They weren't silent; they protested in 2010. 4)You are not Halachically obligated to wipe your nose when it runs, but it is still necessary.
ReplyDeleteאף על פי שהמבייש בדברים אינו בר תשלומין, עון גדול הוא; ואין המחרף ומגדף לעם ומביישן אלא שוטה רשע וגס רוח.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly does this mean that YGB is?
as I said - where is you halachic justification not your imagined equation?
ReplyDeleteWhy is Hagaon Harav Aharon Feldman shlita signing this letter
ReplyDeleteHe is agreeing with their apology. Additionally, since this letter is makes it obvious that certain "gedolim" pursued an innocent person since were unaware of the halacha, Rav Feldman is here to defend their right to criticize. Don't worry, the K supporters will go to call Rav Feldman all sorts of names. I guess that he won't have his picture in the Yated either.
So why the their silence until now about the fact that the protests were effectively kefia (force) and were not Harchokos Rabbeinu Tam, but were more than R"T permits?
They were affraid of the consequences - the bullying and destruction that the K's would bring upon them. (A side benefit from this horrible saga is that this type of bullying will go join the same type of bullying that used to be in certain Hasidic courts.)
What does the Beis Din mean when they write (in Point 2 in the letter) that Aharon is not Halachically obligated to divorce his wife but that divorce is necessary? That sentence sounds contradictory.
Please reread the entire paragraph. Thank you.
You said to DT and I that you would stop using the term Rasha and switch to achzar. I regard that commitment as a מתנה מועטת upon which I was סומך דעת, so please stick to it.
ReplyDeleteSee my comment above and my response on your old page. I would like to add that in the AD page 524 he says according to RT calling the husband an "avaryan" is kefiyah. I would advise sticking to achzar like you previously committed.
ReplyDeleteHalacha? This is an ethical issue that transcends halacha. See:
ReplyDelete1. Tehillim 10:15 (worth seeing the who kapitel) according to the explanation of the Maharal, Chiddushei Aggados vol. 3 p. 163.
1. Da'as Chochma u'Mussar vol. 2 p. 18 (last paragraph).
2. Akeidas Yitzchak Parashas Nitzavim Sha'ar Kuf, cited in MME vol. 5 p. 255 ("Derech Resha'im").
Now, for some specific examples from Otzros HaMussar vol .2 p. 926. These are called re'shai'im, and the descriptions of at least two of these categories fits men who refuse to give their wives gittin when the marriage is over:
ReplyDelete1. Ba'al Machlokes (Bamidbar Rabba 18).
2. Az Panim (ibid. and BM 83b).
There are more, but they are not necessarily applicable to all situations, just most, ayain sham.
Now, without the specific term "rasha" necessarily appearing, there are sources that indicate that such is the status of such a person:
ReplyDelete1. Beitza 32b: v'kol me she'eino meracheim al ha'beri'os...
2. Yevamos 79a: Shlosha simanin yesh b'umma zu...
3. Kiddushin 71b: Im ra'isa shnei bnei adam...
4. Zohar vol. 1 p. 25 concerning "Amalekim" and "Anakim".
As I have noted, "rasha" is a term that applies to one whose middos are corrupt. "Avaryan" refers to someone who consistently commits a sin. Hence, avaryan is more severe than a rasha. See also the Maharal I cited elsewhere, that a "choteh" is worse than a "rasha".
ReplyDeleteMoreover, see the link between rish'us and achzari'us in Mishlei 12:10 . See also Mishlei 11:17. Also the Rashbam to Devarim 32:33 on the achzari'us of a "pesen".
But I don't mind sticking to "achzar" if RDE is happier with that.
I'm not sure RDE was ever in on the deal. If he's in, I'm in. In my defense, I was responding to the inquiries posed here that used the term "rasha".
ReplyDeleteBut, you're right, "avaryan" is an escalation from "rasha", so my offer was invalid.
ReplyDeleteGood point
ReplyDeleteHi ehud. I love your brilliantly written poetic comments kein yirbu.
ReplyDeleteAgain you are wrong. Please provide a source in the last 3000 years that says it is permitted to call a husband who has no chiyuv to give a Get according to the explicit statement of Beis Din - a rasha.
ReplyDeleteI have never seen such and I doubt you have either outside of the feminist literature
According to your sources and logic - someone who doesn't share his candy bar with me would also be a rasha
Rabbi Bechhofer I am embarrassed by your lack of awareness of what you are doing. Again - show me sources in the last 3000 years that say that a husband who doesn't give a Get and beis din explicitly says he does not have to at this stage - can be called a rasha.
ReplyDeleteIt shoud alert you on some level of conciousness that if there are no statements in the vast literature dealing with divorce that say you position i.e., " If within a year of being asked for a Get the husband doesn't give it - and it doesn't matter the reason - he is called a rasha. WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT IN THE POSKIM?
The absence of that rather obvious sanction indicates to me and it should to you - that it is not acceptable and prohibited to do so.
No it is a halachic issues with serious ramifications on both sides
ReplyDeleteHalacha? This is an ethical issue that transcends halacha
ReplyDeleteIt would do you well to see the Chazon Ish cited by the Baltimore Beis Din. If one does not know the halacha, they are liable to fight a milchemes "mitzvah" and commit all sorts of aveiros, all l'shem Shomayim. But had they know the actual halacha, as it pertains to that case, they would realize that they are the rodef, and that they should be fighting the other way.
Rabbi Bechofer: Assuming the facts of the case are as detailed by the Baltimore Beis Din, what would you advise the husband to do to ensure that he is granted satisfactory custody arrangments?
ReplyDelete1. On what basis have you determined that 1 year of refusal makes him a 'rosho'? Perhaps it should be 20 days? Or 20 years?
ReplyDelete2. Perhaps the BD should be the ones qualifying to be labelled 'reshoim' as they have not told him to grant a get?
3. Or perhaps she should be called a 'rosho' (?mirshaas) for refusing to cooperate with BD etc.
4. At what point does ethics become relevant vs halacha? Does it exist outside of halacha? Who has the right/obligation to determine if/when an ethical issue transcends halacha? On what basis? What if major poskim disagree?
Why does my regarding someone as committing an act of rish'us bother you so much? And, yes, under quite a few circumstances I would regard someone who does not share his candy bar with you as committing an act of rish'us.
ReplyDeleteYou keep assuming that we need to define a specific Halachic category. Go back to Yeshayahu perakim 58-59 and tell me that he is addressing very specific Halachic categories!
ReplyDeleteGive the get with the stipulation - not condition! - that custody arrangements to date have been unsatisfactory.
ReplyDelete1)Hi duvi,
ReplyDelete2)Hi goldie,
3)Hi feminist,
4)Hi all,
5)Hi whatever you r.
R u a
a) zachar
b) nekeiva
c) tumtum
d) androginus
e) all of the above
f) a birya bifnei atsmo
g) depending on time of month
you change names faster than people change their underwear to cover all bases posting your brilliant comments. R u a fillyite, ORAite, antisemite, or UNaphylliated. NNTR
"Halacha? This is an ethical issue that transcends halacha."
ReplyDeleteSo when someone violates your personal ethical red line you now become permitted to violate Halacha?
Rabbi beckhofer, did u ever hear of the word. "Ta iysi" I made a mistake I'm the only one on this blog trying to have a fair and open discussion with out all the name calling and grand standing and hyperbole normal with these types of situation and u are not being much of a help
ReplyDeletePlease, don't be embarrassed, and just let him continue. At this point, he is giving the rest of us a bird's eye view of the Rashi on אשר נשיא יחטא.
ReplyDeleteHe is calling the נרדף an עז פנים...and not the בעלת דבר (who signed a shtar berurin for litigation in a BD) that went running to ערכאות! Amazing!
A women takes the kid to a different state and engages all kinds of pseudo rabbis to play the husband, but our esteemed commenter refers to the husband as a baal machlokes. She hires goons to have him beaten, but he's the baal machlokes.
Come on RDE! Don't make him stop! I'm enjoying the comic relief.
You keep missing the point
ReplyDeleteAs the Chazon Ish noted you need to know halacha before you give mussar drashos
Has it occurred to you that I haven't missed your point, I reject it?
ReplyDeleteSeveral times on this blog I have admitted mistakes. When I am wrong, I try to be modeh al ha'emes. Not applicable here.
ReplyDelete1. You are right. It should be a shorter time frame. But a year is on the outside.
ReplyDelete2. That's not BD's job. It is a rabbi's job.
In RYGB's defense, he is drawing a distinction between calling someone a Rasha and saying that he is doing an act of Rishus, of which he will only do the latter from now on. Not in his defense: The Chofetz Chaim in Hilchos Loshon Hora does define a Baal Machlokes when he discusses the Heter to say Loshon Hora about one, עיין שם.
ReplyDeleteAnd that would help how?
ReplyDeleteRav miller
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit odd that the other members of the Baltimore BD have not signed this letter.
ReplyDeleteHow does that help? They will remain unsatisfactory.
ReplyDeleteI have heard the one-year measure in the name of R' Moshe, from a rav who discussed it with him.
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck is that supposed to mean? Give a Get with stipulation? The reshaes who took his his child would have just taken the get and laughed in his face for any remediation of the custody arrangements.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness, Miller and Salt are also joining the apology bandwagon. Why? Have they also wronged AF? Or is this free advertising?
ReplyDeleteCan someone explain?
Rabbi millers signature dosent appear
ReplyDeleteyou obviously didn't read what they wrote - they are not apologizing
ReplyDeleteDid he say it was one year after one party asked for a divorce or was it one year from the time the beis din says a Get should be given?
ReplyDeleteThe psak of Rav Elyashiv that this blog posted several years ago (Kovetz Teshuvos 174) disagreea with any timeframe.
ReplyDeleteSo in your view, it would be okay for one party to a divorce proceeding in a beit din, who doesn't like the way things are going to walk out of the beit din, engage in some less than honest tactics to get an advantage in secular court, litigate the case in secular court without a heter arkaos and using those less than honest tactics seriously harm the other party's ability to have a relationship with his/her child and then turn around and say I want a Get, but not at the bet din that we both agreed would have jurisdiction because that beit din might actually seek to rectify some of the harm I did? And to add insult to injury, if the other party, who did nothing wrong to date, says I am prepared to give/receive a Get and all you have to do is come back to the Beit Din with respect to which we both signed would have jurisdiction then he/she is a rasha? Does this really make sense to you?
ReplyDeleteEyin sosum Rav S. K. Clearly sees this case very diff than the Baltimore bd, however I just had a question how can a shota be a mesarev lodin
ReplyDeleteThey have to be consistent
What?! My wife signed a shtar birurin* and never followed up, I was soon in court with her claiming that they coerced her signature.
ReplyDeleteBefore that, she ran away with my children - very similar to here, they told me to give the get and that they are "working things out". I was just wondering why one runs away to 'work things out', shouldn't she come over to work them out? And the rest is [ongoing] history. .....
Rabbi Eidenson Keep up the good work. Your blog has become necsisary and relevant, because no one in the mainstream Jewish media has the guts or courage to discuss the recent events.
ReplyDeleteThe only recourse for the נחשון of our generation, aka Horav Shlomo Miller, to disseminate his position and the position of the גדולי הדור regarding this terrible פירצה is only on your site.
Although we have heard in the past from leadership that the Blogs, and specifically your blog Daas Torah is no good etc. Rav Miller has come to realize עת לעשות לה׳ הפרו תורתך.
Before they lacked guts, but by now as the public has realized that the emperor has been caught in public without clothes, they now have no impediment stopping them from taking such a step...
ReplyDeleteThis letter by the Baltimore Beis Din has nothing
ReplyDeleteto do with the question as to whether Tamar Epstein-Friedman is an eyshes
ish. It states that Aharon Friedman, her husband, is not a mesareyv
of an order by a beys din to give a get.
and therefore what?
ReplyDeleteRav Shlomo Miller is not adding his signature to the content and the specifics of the letter of apology written by Rabbi Shochotovitz of the Baltimore B"D.
ReplyDeleteRather Horav Miller is using this letter as a backdrop to illustrate that the Baltimore B"D always had sole jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings etc. as is apparent from Rabbi Shochotovitz's letter.
He writes in part, "The Baltimore B"D is the only B"D that both parties agreed to adjudicate in front of, and therefore it is incumbent upon us to accept all their words."
In contrast Rav Chanoch Zaltz with his added words. "״ להציל עשוק מיד עושקוis emphasizing the עוולה that was done to AF. He seems to be reffering to the Epstein and Kaminetsky conduct throughout the past eight years. It's also clear that Rav Zaltz knows this personally, otherwise he wouldn't be so emphatic about it.
They made a mistake and are acknowledging it. What does this have to do with saltz (no relation) or miller that they would sign on?
ReplyDeleteIs this free advertising?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, Horav Shlom Miller has no other option. The mainstream media and many people in leadership are beholden to the ruling class, and therefore Rav Miller who is fighting a war למען ה׳ ותורתו dosen"t have the requisite exposure through regular Chanel's.
The people assisting Horav Miller in fighting this מלחמת מצוה have no choice but to utilize this forum as much as possible.
Disgruntled phily guy aka Lakewood yeshiva guy ! Please don't stoop so low and start calling major rabbonim by there last name, you can respectfully disagree with their halachic opinion and even there tactics. And style. but please show basic respect for the rabbonim on each side, just like the phily alumni are demanding of the oiserim
ReplyDeleteyou reject the need for a heter to be able to call someone a rasha?! You feel that anyone's actions you dislike or don't display proper sensitivity you can call a rasha? That dispite the failure of providing even a single example in the halachic literature of divorce to call the husband a rasha for not giving the wife a get when she demands it - even when the
ReplyDeleteSo they're lacking paper to write on?
ReplyDeleteCan't they leave Rabbi Shoichetovich alone? i would think it's embarrassing enough for him to need to write such a letter, why does it need to be used as scribble practice by people who need to get their names on everything?
In BMG this whole saga has become more of a joke than a serious issue due to this exact point.
Yeshivaleit are not dumb. They know when someone enters a fight leshem Shamayim and when they do it for other reasons.
Please read wide eyed:he is as of now NOT OBLIGATED to give a get.
ReplyDeleteyou are not reading what they wrote and therefore you are puzzled
ReplyDeleteWe went through this on the previous thread. You are discussing obligation in the framework of Hil. Gittin. I am not.
ReplyDeleteA year from when they are separated. The length of time without reconciliation is evidence that the marriage is irretrievably dead.
ReplyDeleteNo problem if that is the case. Rav Sternbuch also agrees with that as I have published before.
ReplyDeleteIt is nice of them to wake up now and say they didn't have the correct information. How does that change the reason for the heter? It wasn't a precondition of the Heter. Once the Heter was issued he wasn't obligated to give a get either so what is the bold letters about?
ReplyDeleteHA! I suspect AF is now well versed on taking any more brilliant advice from rabbis such as yourself.
ReplyDeleteTypes like you gave him advice to postpone his court quest to get his daughter back. That worked out for him too, didn't it?
If anything, I hope husbands everywhere become educated on avoiding stupid advice like yours. A stip with the get? HA! The utter stupidity of such a recommendation should be called out to all.
Does Rav Shternbuch have a published teshuva to that effect that you've posted either the maare makom or a translation of? He also says 12 months from separation or from beis din's determination?
ReplyDeleteDoes Rav Moshe have any published teshuva stating what is being attributed to him insofar as length of separation and divorce obligation?
ReplyDeleteIt all makes sense to RYGB (and only RYGB).
ReplyDeleteIt most definitely is the way he sees it.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, the key is to educate all sides so that they can avoid toxic rabbis such as Mr. B. Aside from the sheer רשעות of their advice, women such as TE who take the advice end up in a much more complex (and usually worse) position.
Talk about destroying one's Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba ... that's what people like him peddle.
Thank you to all of this information written. I must stress that R'Herschel Schechter wasn't known as a meagen until recently, this has been misparsem.
ReplyDeleteHE already has a track record of trusting ORA and his little willy "talmid" jerry stern. This acthas been always against halocho and always in the political trend and proper feminism.
The Kamenetzkys are PERSONALLY related, and why they could be trusted on an issue that seemingly NOTHHING at all connected, calls into serious question the judgement of R'HS.
-from an ex-fan of RhS.
I don't know if it would or wouldn't, but that's all he can do if he is not willing to commit a ma'aseh rish'us.
ReplyDeleteThe perils of divorce.
ReplyDeleteHe can go to court like any American citizen.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteYou must remind me what I said about arrests, because I don't recall when and what I said.
ReplyDeleteI already committed to "yehoshua" to refrain from calling him a "rasha" but rather an "achzar" who is committing a ma'aseh rish'us.
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to point out that your rav freely bandies about similar terms without Halachic basis. See, for example:
בשיחתו השבועית בפני תלמידיו החשובים התייחס הגאון הגדול מרן הגר״מ שטרנבוך שליט"א ראב״ד העדה החרדית בירושלם עיה"ק, לנושאים העומדים על סדר יומו של הציבור החרדי, וביניהם סוגיית מתן ההיתר לעלייה להר הבית וכן אישור חוק הגיור כשהוא תוקף את העולים בחריפות רבה.
הגר״מ שטרנבוך שליט"א דיבר על כך שהבעיה הגדולה בסדום היתה העובדה שקבעו את הרשעות בתוך החוק, וזהו לדבריו המצב המסוכן ביותר משום שכל עוד עוברים עבירה בשל התאווה או משום שרוצים להיות ככל האומות הרי זה גרוע מאוד אך לא מסוכן כמו שמחוקקים חוק על העבירה שאינה עבירה ועוד הופכים זאת לשיטה.
הרב משה שטרנבוך שליט"א (הרב המתיר לחפור בבית שמש קברי ישראל) הוסיף כי כך היו אומרים "כל גדולי הדור" כמרנן ורבנן ה'חזון איש' ו'הבריסקער רב וכו' על המזרחים-העמלקים שהם המסוכנים ביותר לקדושת עם ישראל, וצריכים ללחום כנגדם משום שהם נוקטים בשיטה שבדווקא צריך לעשות פשרות ובזה יש ללחום עד הסוף.
וכאן הוסיף ואמר הראב״ד שליט"א: "ומה שראינו לאחרונה שמאות מזרחים-מזרע עמלק בחזקת ערב רב, הכופרים-בד' ובתורת משה, ועמי הארץ, ושפלים, נדחקים להיכנס להר הבית אפ' שזה "באיסור כרת" ואין מטרתם לתאבון להיכנס כתיירים בעלמא, אלא כדי להוכיח לעומות העולם שעל פי החוק הציוני והתורה-שלהם, הר הבית שייך שלנו, ועל דבר זה הקב"ה מאוד בכעס עליהם משום שאינם עושים עבירה לתאבון, אלא הם מדברים בשם התורה, ובאים להראות שח"ו ראוי לעשות כן, ומש"ה יכרתו ימיהם בקרוב. וכל זה מלבד מה שמביא לשנאה שכמה קרבנות לא עלינו לדאבוננו כבר נגרמו מזה, ועוד הודיעו הרשעים שיוסיפו עוד לגבות קורבנות רח״ל עד שיסלקו ידם מהר הבית".
בשלב זה התייחס הראב״ד שליט"א גם לחוק הגיור ואמר: "ובדומה לזה מה שחוקקו השבוע חוק על גרות שלא מספיק להם לחוקק שעל פי חוק המדינה מי שמתגייר כרצונם הוא יהודי, אלא הם רוצים דווקא שעל פי דת תורתינו הקדושה אנו נקבלם כיהודים ובזה הם יותר גרועים מהחוטאים לתאבון, או מאלו שעובדים עבודה זרה כדי להיות ככל העמים בעולם, שכיוון שקובעים בחוק לבטל חוקי התורה, אין לך עקירת דת כמוהו -כמו שיטת המזרחים, וזה היה עיקר הכעס של הקב"ה על סדום שלא די להם במה שהם רשעים אלא הם רוצים שהכול יהיה נחשב על פי חוק" וחייבים כרת. עליה להר הבית היא באיסור כרת כל עוד אין לנו אפר פרה אדומה שרק (מלך המשיח – בסיוע כהן) יכול לשחוט בהר הזיתים.
http://www.haokets.org/2014/11/10/שומרי-תורה-מול-שומרי-טורא-הר-הבית
Yet Rav Aron Feldman DID sign it, something that few have commented on, that is VERY significant because it clears up the confusion of his position that he was against it before he was for it and now by signing on to this letter of apology that he is against it again and is apologizing for the confusion HE created and for himself, that much is clear!
ReplyDeleteBTW, I have a strong sense of deja vu! We are no longer discussing "The Heter" nor even the controversy surrounding it. Rather, we are back in 2012 discussing using a get as leverage and whether or not that is a ma'aseh rish'us. I'm happy to get back to that if there is interest, but can we please make it a separate issue distinct from the AF/TE issue which it may encompass, but also transcends?
ReplyDelete"that used to be"???
ReplyDeleteWhy? Is everything fine in the present?
Why can't you make your points with clarity?
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, do it!
ReplyDeleteAs far as the aishes ish aspect is concerned, we have seen on this blog, maybe 2 months ago or less, that Tamar is an aishes ish. It is thus obvious that the reason Aharon is not obligated to give a get, is NOT because she is free.
ReplyDelete"Rav Shmuel Kaminetsy issued a seruv"
ReplyDeleteSince when do Livish Roshei Yeshiva in the USA do this? He is not Rav Moshe Feinstein who was the RASHKEBEHAG and was a preeminent Posek. Nor is this like Rav Yisroel Belsky who was always known as a Posek and was officially part of various Batei Din. Until this saga no one ever heard or regarded Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky as an official Posek or running a Bais Din, although years ago Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky sat with Rav Feivel Cohen on an ad hoc Bais Din to fix up the mess of the controversial R Matis Weinberg when he was fired from a Yeshiva in Israel based on accusations of inappropriate conduct and they concluded ("ruled") that R Matis Weinberg was not to be permitted to head an Moisad again, although he was not supposed to be heading any Moisad since the days he was booted from the now defunct Santa Clara Yeshiva where he was also accused of inappropriate misconduct. But Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has never been "Ongenumen" as a Poseik so why has he been issuing Seruvim?
Really strange - you are accursing someone of being a rasha who has not transgressed anything except what you perceive as ethical principles. And you are justifying that by saying that the terms is used against those who are accused of serious halachic violations which you claim there is no halachic basis for?! What halachic basis doesn't he have?
ReplyDeleteMy puzzlement is how do they think that by adding their signatures to every letter that comes out will get them to their goal of either a retraction or a Get? R Feivel Cohen doesn't need R' Miller's signature and the Baltimore Beis din doesn't either so what's the point? Miller and Saltz both stated their positions on their own. They aren't universally accepted Rabbonim or Gedolim that a Gam Ani Mitztaref will push this issue over the edge. I think you can agree that its a bit weird that every letter that comes out R' Miller puts his John Hancock on. Rabbi Feldman specifically said that his signing on this letter had nothing to with the heter but what transpired years ago from the Beis Din of Baltimore that he signed then and that's why he signed now.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that the letter/Pesak issued by Rav Feivel Cohen has had a sobering effect and has galvanized many Poskim, Rabbanim and Batei Din to act in opposition to the Heter. There wasn't a peeps out of Lakewood until Rav Feivel Cohen broke the ice. Now for the first time we hear that the heard of an important Bais Din in Lakewood is speaking up, albeit in a roundabout way in support of a Bais Din in Baltimore. But nevertheless very significant that the "code of silence" emanating like thunder out of Lakewood has finally been smashed, first with Rav Feivel Cohen based in Lakewood making his position very clear and that has encouraged another major Rosh Bais Din in Lakewood to make his voice clear. Not just that, but once Rav Feivel Cohen spoke with clarity it helped to buck up Rav Aron Feldman who started out strong and on the right path but who seems to have backed down and sent out mixed signals but has now corrected course and significantly joined a letter of apology from the Baltimore Bais Din.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the people in Silver Spring, or Rav Greenblatt or the Kaminetsky people or Tamar are waiting for? Don't they realize that with every passing day the correlation of forces is overpowering their besieged positions by the day as the signatures against them from the major Rabbanim keep rolling in like a steamroller?
Think of it, it is no longer just major Halachic voices from Eretz Yisroel like Rav Moshe Shternbuch and Rav Chaim Kanievsky and many others screaming out, but now their a growing alliance of major American Poskim and Batei Din that are demanding that the Heter be rescinded ASAP: Such as by Rav Feivel Cohen, the Batei Din in Baltimore and Lakewood, Rav Aron Feldman, and as should be VERY evident by now, as proven by the letter from Rav Yitzchok Scheiner that Rav Aron Schechter is doing everything in his power and sphere of influence, so far short of an actual letter and official declaration from him personally, that the Heter is a dead letter and needs to be buried and done with and renounced by those who manufactured it to order, ASAP before things go from critically bad to extremely dangerous!!!
We are on the proverbial cliff and about to fall down over it!
There is also no doubt at this point, again as made abundantly clear by Rav Yitzchok Scheiner's letter that Rav Elyashiv ZT"L the last RASHKEBEHAG would have stopped this Heter dead in its tracks from becoming the cancerous and malignant and festering and spreading wound afflicting the Torah Velt right now!
Vahayu Einecho Ro'os Morecha:
If there are any universally accepted poskim in the yeshiva world today, Rav Shlomo Miller is certainly counted among the most eminent of them.
ReplyDelete* How does that change the reason for the heter? *
ReplyDeletedear salty R' b'aas haya'ano
The acknowledged mistakes have no bearing on the ISSUR CHOMUR of such a bogus HETER for an eishes ish. Al the Issurim remain in place except for reinforcing and constantly adding more Gedolin Uposkim to this FIASCO. The mistakes that have been acknowledged are detrimental to AF ONLY, those are now being rectified. Indeed, R' AF has put out a letter that kol mi sheyesh lo yedia or have any suggestions or Eidus bedovor yovo veyagid, so that emes lemito could be hammered out. According to the BBD, a GET was to be followed only after TE complies to AF's legitimate rights of Custody. Till then they never paskened a CHIYUV GET, and there was none. Therefore, there never was a SERUV, and those trying to butt in e.g. the K's and the RHS's concocting an alleged SERUV are in violation of INTRUSION of which is against the HALACHA, ordering ORA to HARASS AF, is against Halacha. Those that claimed to put AF in CHEREM are in CHEREM themselves. On top of all falsifications they DECLARED A HETER, TAMAR IS FREE. FREE MY FOOT!!!
What you are trying to do is perform A BAS HAYA'ANOISM ACT, and it won't fly. Now you can go back to the letters and reread FROM ADAM!
Even the peoples votes reflect of rov minyan that it is necessary to post here.
ReplyDeleteThere is no basis in Halacha to call someone who goes into the "permitted" areas of HhB a rasha. Mistaken, wrong, yes. Resha'im? No!
ReplyDeleteThere is no basis in Halacha to brand all "Mizrochnikim" Amalek!
Do I really have to go on???
Thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteSince when is his opinion carrying weight even on an ethical level, if they didn't sign a shtar birurin by him, but by the Baltimore Bais Din!?
ReplyDeleteAnother point: according to him, the wife can reject a get when she wishes, but the husband can't!
ReplyDeleteTrue. However, the members of the BD are the ones to whom the letter is most nogea. It was they who judged the case. Yet, they have not signed. It cannot be an accident.
ReplyDeleteWhy didnt they publicize 8 years ago that it was Tamar that was holding up the process, not Aharon? Wouldn't that have saved everybody from a lot of grief? Sounds like an Agatha Christie mystery. All the clues point to one person, and then all of the sudden we find it was the butler.
ReplyDeleteThis is the craziest case I have ever seen. The entire world has been led to believe that Aharon was withholding a get. The only issue was how much pressure can be applied, and whether an extreme last-resort measure, an annulment, might be halachically possible. Then, lo and behold, he was never withholding a get to begin with, and it was actually his wife who was the no-show. Fooled all of us for 8 years. This is utterly ridiculous.
I am also reminded of the gemara (although don't have time to check whether applicable to beis din), Kol kminei? Keyvan shehigid shuv eino chozer umagid. A witness who has given testimony to a fact, cannot recant his testimony later on, and change the story.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Miller is of stature and an influence.
ReplyDeleteI dont know what yeshiva world you are talking about, In the us of a Rav S. Kaminetzky is very well regarded as a major posek. { a real posek learning the sugia from top to bottom and coming out with the true steimas haposkim, something that very few left can really do. Justa s an example I dont know rap under what rock u live under but in the Lakewood Yeshiva there is a very well respected posek by the name of RYA Hacoen F. Who deals with more shaylos Chamuros In a regular day than most major poskim deal with in a year , and who does he call? you guessed it he calls Rav Shmuel . So stop trying you usuall demagoguery and stop trying to rewrite history. Get It through your thick head " Rav Smuel K. shelita is considered from the poskie hador in America.
ReplyDeletep.s. i believe rav shmuels no good nick son sholam is the one hiding behind his fathers frak and using his father for this heter
The initiator is to bear the perils of divorce, not the victim, especially if he/she have grounds to refuse it.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. The 'rabbis' in my community, told me not to call the police for kidnapping, but instead will, as I've said, "'work things out'"...
ReplyDeleteNot to a kosher din Torah like a Torah citizen?
ReplyDeleteEhud I can't stop laughing!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm duvi husband of Goldie I was using my wife's account, than I realized someone might think I'm a woman so we changed the handle
Killing a terrorist to protect my life is a ma'aseh rishus? Is this passive inaction of not giving a get, more drastic than taking someone's life?
ReplyDeleteEven more so, Killing Tamar and Adam is a ma'aseh rishus? Doesn't it say, "Haboel Aramis, kano'in pog'in bo"?
More so, how is there a mitzvah to "free Tamar", if there is a mitzvah to kill her for adultery and besides that, for mesirah?
very well put
ReplyDeleteand if it is not known what areas are permitted?
ReplyDeleteBottom line I don't see the justification to what you are doing
Does anyone know whether Rav Shmuel is sometimes mesader Gittin too, or only mesader Kiddushin ?
ReplyDeleteZe Keli veanvehu. Berov OM hadras melech. The more signatures, the merrier. It is time for them to throw in the towel, the alleged HETER is HOIROSO VELEIDOSO BEISSUR. Stop the flow of money to Yeshivos that are MATIR DOMON SHEL YISRAEL! ROSHO LOMO SAKEH RE'ACHO!
ReplyDeleteBarry Jacobson says
ReplyDelete“Why didn’t they publicize 8 years ago
that it was Tamar that was holding up the process, not Aharon?
I’ll tell you why. This is the key to the radical feminists:
never, put the least blame on the woman. Always blame and holler at the man,
even if that may cause a divorce. Even
now that Tamar is in big trouble and the beis din apologizes to Aaron, the
radical feminists and their supporters will still throw, at least some, blame
to Aaron. They’ll always say: see, the
man should’ve done what she demanded, the get, with minimal delay. That violates
The wisest of women builds her house, But folly tears it down with its
own hands. He who maintains his integrity fears the Lord; A man of devious ways
scorns Him. In the mouth of a fool is a rod of haughtiness, But the lips of the
wise protect them (Proverbs
14:1-3).
Malbim on Mishley, by Wengrov p. 142: “Moral wisdom is
symbolized as a woman, ready to learn from and obey her lord, the higher
intellect, which bestows insight and truth.
Folly and skepticism are akin to immoral women who perversely seek fatal
escapades.”
משלי פרק יד פסוק א
חַכְמ֣וֹת נָ֭שִׁים בָּנְתָ֣ה בֵיתָ֑הּ וְ֝אִוֶּ֗לֶת
בְּיָדֶ֥יהָ תֶהֶרְסֶֽנּוּ:
מלבי"ם משלי פרק יד פסוק א
חכמות נשים, החכם יצייר את החכמה והכסילות כשתי
נשים, ידמה את החכמה כאשה, כי הנפש המקבלת את החכמה היא מקבלת אותה מן השכל העליון
המשפיע, והנפשות הלומדות ומשכילות הם הנשים הטובות נשי חיל השומעות לבעליהם העליון,
והוא שופע עליהן מרוחו להשכילם באמיתתו, והנשים הכסילות והאולת הם הזונות מתחת בעליהם
ללכת חשך ללא אור אל דרכים מעוקשים דרכי מות,
Sorry but get your facts straight before go on a long ramble, both R' miller and his henchman saltz signed letters against the Heter way before R Feivel wrote his letter. They are all posted if you look.
ReplyDeleteMy original statement was only a quote from R Aron Feldman when asked why he signed on to the Baltimore Beis din letter.
ReplyDeleteYour story has repeated itself many times over. And the rabbis went running for the exits when she violated all agreements and did whatever she wanted. Eventually, they give up and tell you to 'go to court'.
ReplyDeleteNot a problem. You don't even have to thank me. People (mostly husbands) need to be warned away from types like you, who are מעוות אח הדין. I'm happy to do so.
ReplyDeleteI hope this will also shed light to the injustice committed against another man namely, Meir Kin who resides in Las vegas. ORA got the local Chabad shuls to eject him from their shuls as well as the community Kolele joined ORA in their past rallies. Here you have a case again where ORA , RHS, Rabbi Union and Sauer from the California RCC put a false seiruv on him. Lonna Kin went to the civil courts against halacha, had a gag order done to prevent him from revealing relevant facts in a bais din etc.. and he left her a Get at his Bais Din. Once again the man is attacked, villified and left Michutz Lamachane. We need to wake up and disband these illegal feminist business driven political machines that run ORA and most ad-hoc bais dins. They do not follow authentic torah principles and destroy lives in the process. What most of you dont realize is that Tamar and Lonna BOTH COULD OF HAD A GET BY NOW IF THEIR EVIL ADVISORS WOULD OF NOT GIVEN THEM BAD ADVICE! HENCE ITS THE RABBIS AND ORA THAT ARE CREATING THE AGUNAS TODAY!
ReplyDeleteBut it is known which areas are permitted. And, regardless, those individuals who go up are following the psakim of their rabbonim. So, while I too am opposed to going up to HhB, to label such people resha'im is utterly non-Halachic.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think we need to get into the issue of branding whole groups of observant Jews as falling under the non-Halachic category of Amalek.
Bottom line, if your rebbe engages in such categorizations, I don't see the justification in your position.
Reb ruvain is saying it how it is finally someone with gutsso many raabonim and askonim just hear one side and get involved
ReplyDeleteDid Rav Shmuel not learn the halacha about signing onto a Seruv? Did he not know the consequences of supporting rallies to publicly destroy a man's reputation ? Did he not realize when he wrote that there was a chyuv to give a get? Or was it Shaloms fault then also?
ReplyDeleteRYGB is not a mainstream chareidi person. He is certainly not a posek. What he says matters not at all. I do give him credit for standing up and being the resident foil (troll?), but his comments are mostly cryptic nonsense designed to make himself look clever. Very rarely does he back up his pie-in-the-sky baloney with anything substantive (unlike Barry, who actually does engage in intelligent conversation).
ReplyDeleteFortunately, he's not taken seriously anywhere when it comes to psak. As I've said before, we may as well ask Avi Weiss to give us his opinions on this matter.
What the letter from the Baltimore Beis Din does say, is that RSK issued a false siruv and violated many other Torah principals in his disgusting pursuit of an innocent man. Consequently, RSK in Cherum for having issued a false siruv as paskened in SHulchan Oruch.
ReplyDeleteA person who is in cherem for his actions in case like this, is certainly not trustworthy of a secret "psak" in this very same case. Face it, it is over.
Rav S. Kaminetzky is very well regarded as a major posek.
ReplyDeleteA posseik who is in cherum for his violation of halacha!!
Why didnt they publicize 8 years ago that it was Tamar that was holding up the process, not Aharon?
ReplyDeleteTo quote the famous menagein R' Yoel:
I'll tell you what it means
Pressure
Pressure
we all respond to
Pressure
Pressure
That cuts all ways and explains away every wrong, a husband's as well as a wife's.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea.
ReplyDeleteReb salty K , your constantly grasping at straws and making off points , refusing to get the heart of the issue. It is not important why this person signed on which paper or what his exact wording was etc .are you soon going start quibbling with grammar and spelling too? . Facts are the the K's Were mattir a aishes ish, and now it's the entire world's responsibility to clean their mess up , despite the fact that they in their arrogance refuse to own up. We are all trying to avoid a new brand of mamzer, the "kamenetzky mamzer"which will rival the lefkowitz esrog, in popularity for generations to come
ReplyDeleteYou obviously are not paying attention to the Philly boy mentality they simply don't have in their universe anything but Philly and that is why they're so unsettled nothing else exists although they do believe there is life on other planets but they look at them actually us as UFOs . Definitely not worth their respect
ReplyDeleteMore BAS HAYA'ANOISM! Read R' Ruven's letter.
ReplyDeleteONLY BBD has Jurisdiction over AF & TEF's case, and he signed it, and never said that there is a chiyuv Get. No one has a right to BUTT IN, NO ONE has a right to order a chiyuv Get, NO ONE has a right to declare a SERUV, NO ONE has a right to declare a HETER of which in any case is NOT ACCEPTABLE, MORE SO WHEN IT'S BOGUS, NO ONE Has a right to be MATIR DOMOM shel YISRAEL bludgeoning anyone to DEATH with a BASEBALL BAT, LO BE'AKIFIN VELO BEMEISHORIN. It is strictly and only the TURF of the original BD, namely the BBD, where both parties have been heard, and both have signed Shtorei Beirurin. Only what *THEY* say GOES.
Those that declare CHAROMIM asher lo kosuv baTorah, umafkirim DOMOM shel Yisroel, va'asher lo ushru beBeis Din asher yoshvim al haMODIN betsem hadovor hazeh - heim haMACHRIMIM *beAtsmom BECHEREM CHOMUR*, Veheim beAtsmom domom beroishom, yedeihem mleim dam vedinom keROIDEF. Ta'anotehem ta'anat HEVEL, veDAM ACHINU TSOAKIM ELENU MIN HA'ADAMA!!!
I used to have respect for YGB until I read his remarkable comments on this blog. I now realize he is a radical feminist and RSK lackey. I no longer have any respect for his opinion and ignore his comments.
ReplyDeleteBecause he was Bullied and Threatened by Blackmailers. He now is in safe turf with more reinforcement, and those GUNS of NAVARONE are BLASTING FULL FORCE, and are invincible. Especially with R' Ruven's WMD's, afilu kol ruchos shebeolam ein meizizin oiso. vehadovor poshut
ReplyDeleteHe does not at all address the validity of the hetter itself
ReplyDeleteSo is R' Reuven Feinstein telling Rabbi Miller as well not to be making public declarations about this case? Maybe you should re-post the letter that Reb Shmuel sent to the Gavad where he says the exact same thing? The place for this to be decided is by those that know all the facts not bloggers and uninformed individuals? the REsponse will be of course not! The Kaminetskys are the only ones that don't know the facts everyone and their grandmother that have a little fluid in their cranium can bash and bash and bash as long as its anti Kamentsky your an authority in this case.
ReplyDeleteI think Rav Reuven's signature is an indication of Rav Dovid's support, as the two are close and would certainly consult each other prior to issuing a major proclamation like this.
ReplyDeleteThe two dayanim that were hearing the case are the only relevant ones. The others didn't hear the case, don't have first hand knowledge of the issues. (The original third dayan, i am told, is no longer with us, not in tihs world. Side question: who appoints a replacement, if necessary?; TF will not willingly agree to any replacement, using this as a bargaining chip, if the bet din allows her.)
ReplyDeleteVery clear: shabbos aliyah. Correct transliteration error.
ReplyDeleteThe point is the rabbonim and the local vaad are the ones who should be posting, behind glass displays.
ReplyDeleteDarn right.
ReplyDeleteUntil a competent BD issues final rulings that can't easily be challenged in court, one would have to be insane to give a get. I don't know RYGB personally but i can only surmise that he must not have too much experience in these matters if this is his opinion.
My experience has taught me to never give up the one thing that sometimes serves as bit of an equalizer between the feminist leanings of most courts and BD and the reality that a father may not be taken to the cleaners or deprived of a meaningful relationship with his children. The Get will work in six months, a year, or two years just the same. When both parties act in good faith, there's no reason not to work out the details and then give the get and let each party get on with life.
Has nothing to do with the issue at hand
ReplyDeleteRYGB is Modern Orthodox. He grew up and went to Akiva MO schools and today he teaches in MO school. He wasn't and isn't Chareidi.
ReplyDeleteSo why does any chareidi ben Torah care what he says?
ReplyDeleteRespect is nice, but I teach HS, so I am used to not getting it. Not a problem.
ReplyDeleteNot at all, beside the fact that itbhas NOTHing to do with the hetter
ReplyDelete