Monday, August 29, 2016

Get on Demand זיוף התורה : Psak from R Hershel Schacter

זיןף התורה

The words highlighted above in yellow do not appear in the   רעק''א or in the שבות יעקב חלק א' סימן י''ד which the רעק''א is referencing.  The reason these words were inserted was that the author was trying to promote his agenda and give credence to a concept which he has fantasized. In order to explain why this forgery was perpetrated It is important to explain the agenda and why it is wrong.

A husband has the obligation of שאר כסות ועונה (שכו''ע) if the husband refuses to meet the obligation of עונה we say he is being מעגן his wife. We are also allowed to force him to give a get since he is violating the obligations of שכו''ע. In Siman 77 he is classified as a מורד. Until modern times a husband who did not want to go thru the GET process would just leave town and never be heard from again. This is what the שבות יעקב is addressing, the instance of a מורד. In the scenario of a GET ON DEMAND the husband is prepared to meet his obligations but the wife still wants to leave the marriage, there is absolutely no requirement for the husband to give a get, since he is not a מורד. Therefore it is 100% prohibited from applying pressure on the husband to facilitate the GET. This is a complete contradiction to the feminist philosophy of GET ON DEMAND

In order to pander to the feminist movement and not be considered old fashioned the author has created a pseudo concept which has no basis in HALACHAH. He has claimed that once a woman leaves a marriage and will not go back the marriage is broken. Since the marriage is now broken the woman is anעגונה   and now there is a Mitzvah for the husband to give a GET. They are using the שבות יעקב as the source for this. As explained in the previous paragraph this is a major mistake. They are also misclassifying the woman by calling her an עגונה In the vast majority of cases she is not an עגונה  but a מורדת. The HALACHA in these instances is that she has to be told to return to her husband. The reason we do not hear of this happening is because any Bais Din who told a woman that she must return to her husband would cause the stream of dollars from women seeking the Bais Din to assist them in leaving a marriage to cease. Since no one is willing to stand up to this crowd their fraudulent Halachas have propagated and are now affecting the Yichus of Bnei Torah.

In the instance of the woman claiming מאוס עלי and having presented it in a manner which is an אמתלא מבוררת ונכרת to a Bais Din she does not have to return to the husband. This is extremely rare and the reasons for the rarity are out of scope for this article. The Ramoh quotes the Tur on this scenario. I will quote the statement of the Tur on this to make it clearer. In Siman 77 it says as follows ובאר עוד בתשובה וכתב והסכימו חכמי אשכנז וצרפת שבטענת מאיס עלי אין לכוף לבעל לגרש לכן יזהר כל דיין שלא לכוף לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי וכן אין כופין אותה להיות אצלו There is no greater scenario of a broken marriage then one where the woman does not have to return to live with the husband. We still say that even in this scenario it is prohibited from forcing the husband to give a GET. This is a complete contradiction to what the GET ON DEMAND people are promoting.

1>  No external pressure is applied. The Bais Din tells the husband that he is obligated according to the Torah to give a get. He obeys the Bais Din and gives a GET. This is a classic case of a גט בטעות . If the husband would know that there is absolutely no obligation to give a GET he would never have given a GET. This is a statement from the חזון איש in EVEN HOEZER Siman 99 paragraph 2 on a similar scenario ועוד דחשיב גט בטעות דאילו הוי ידע שאינו חייב לא היה מגרש                                                          
2> Indirect pressure applied. There are too many variables involved so this is not in scope.        
3> Direct pressure applied. This would also invalidate the GET because it is  מעושה שלא כדין



No comments :

Post a Comment

please use either your real name or a pseudonym.