Monday, April 16, 2018

הדיינים לאשה שנישאה לגבר מתעלל: "את לא נשואה"

פסק דין ייחודי של אב בית הדין הרבני בתל אביב וטיפול חילץ עגונה שהושאה בעל כורחה בילדותה בתימן למבוגר שהתעלל בה, ניסה לרצוח אותה, התאסלם ונשאר בתימן • בפסק הדין הייחודי נכתב: "הגברת... דינה כפנויה והיא מותרת להינשא לכל מי שיחפוץ ואפילו לכהן ודינה כאילו מעולם לא נישאה"

18 comments :

  1. She married in Yemen. She makes Aliyah. The man remains in Yemen and pretends that he is a Moslem. I assume that the man doesn’t write to the court, to give his side. What else could the bait din do? Surely, the bait din must free the poor girl. See the difference of this Yemenite girl versus Tamar, I quote:
    (internet 2012):
    “Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the bullets have been fired."
    I ask, who showed Rabbi Kamenitsky a phony/fake PhD psychology report that Aaron is insane and that Tamar can marry with a get? Was it Susan of Agunah International and an ORA supporter?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Has anybody seen his alleged halachic basis for this, or is he hiding it?
    How many new "mamzerim" will now be born?

    ReplyDelete
  3. the marriage was forced, hence it is not a marriage. Nothing controversial, Rav Moshe posulled many marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that what you're saying could be the case here. We don't know the story. We don't know whether after she became an adult she still stayed with him willingly for a time, or not. Unfortunately in the world of kalus rosh we live in, people aren't so quick to be sure that the hetairim issued are legit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Israel Reader asks? “Has anybody seen his alleged halachic basis for this, or is he hiding it? How many new "mamzerim" will now be born?”
    The first question is fine “Has anybody seen his alleged halachic basis…” but the second question violates
    ויקרא פרק יט פסוק טז
    לא תלך רכיל בעמיך לא תעמד על דם רעך אני יקוק:
    Sanhedrin 30a:
    Mishnah. How are the witnesses examined? They are brought into a room [most ed. omit a room], and awe is instilled into them [lit., frightened, to tell the truth]. Then they are sent out, [that is the reading of Alfasi and Asheri. also J…] save for the oldest [witness] to whom they [the judges] say, tell us, how dost thou know that so and so owes [money] to so and so? If he answers: he personally told me: I owe him [the money], or, so and so told me that he owes him, his statement is worthless [lit., he has said nothing.], unless he declares, in our presence [i.e., in the presence of himself and another person], he admitted to him that he owes him two hundred zuz [i.e., intending, by so doing, to recognize us officially as witnesses]. After that the second witness is admitted and similarly examined. if their statements tally, they [the judges] proceed to discuss the case. should two find him not liable and one liable, he is declared not liable; two liable, and one not liable, he is declared liable; one liable, and one not liable, or two either not liable or liable, while the third is undecided [lit., ‘Says, I do not know.], the number of judges is increased. When the verdict is arrived at [lit., when the matter is finished.], they [the Talmud discusses to whom they refers] are readmitted, and the senior judge says: so and so, thou art not liable; or, so and so, thou art liable. And whence do we know that he [one of the judges] when leaving, must not say, I was for acquittal whilst my colleagues were for conviction, but what could I do, seeing that they were in the majority? Of such a one is it written: “Do not deal basely with [others go about as a talebearer among] your countrymen. Do not profit by [lit. stand upon] the blood of your fellow: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:16). And “13A base fellow gives away secrets, But a trustworthy soul keeps a confidence.”(Proverbs 11:13.
    See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22005
    “We’ve been conditioned, by the media, to prefer malicious talebearing over legitimate news. That’s our loss. The New York Times and the big three networks will usually lead with a porn star’s reckless and unsubstantiated accusations against Trump”

    ReplyDelete
  6. If she was a "ketana", then the Torah granted her father the legal authority to marry her off to whoever he sees fit, and she is considered married to him, regardless of her disdain for him.
    If she was a "gedola", she is also married to him, because she stayed and had six kids with him.
    RMS would NOT have disqualified such a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see on bhol…:
    פסק דינו של הרב אבירן יצחק הלוי משתרע על פני 250 עמודים שהם כמעט ספר שלם הכולל מאות מקורות ומבוסס בעיקר על פסקי דין של הרב עובדיה יוסף, חיבורי שאר גדולי הדורות ופסקי דייני ישראל לדורותיהם.

    The judgment of Rabbi Aviran Yitzchak Halevi covers 250 pages, which are almost a complete book that includes hundreds of sources and is based mainly on the judgments of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the works of the other great rabbis and rulings of the Jewish judges throughout the generations.
    I have not seen the halachic basis of Rabbi Halevi’s heter for the girl to remarry. This is world’s apart from the K-G heter for Tamar to remarry. The K-G heter is a total joke, just feminism gone wild. One must study Rabbi Halevi’s 250 book and notes---before asking How many new "mamzerim" will now be born? Yes?

    ReplyDelete
  8. She stayed and had SIX kids with him.
    I find it hard to believe that she never had a good moment with him, from the moment she turned into a "gedola".
    It was always rape?
    IMHO, RMF would NOT have disqualified such a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I find parallels to the Friedman case, in that the status of a person's marriage, is being decided by people, without the subject of the deliberations being present, or having even heard his arguments.

    What else could the bait din do? Halachically, not much, except for publicizing that this person is a slime-ball for leaving his wife in such a predicament.

    Poor WOMAN (not girl). This is no excuse for permitting an "eishes ish" to remarry without a Get.

    ReplyDelete
  10. With facts like you say, which I wasn't aware of, you are probably , almost certainly, correct.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My dear Gerald, you are the one who has accepted the slander against the HUSBAND, hook, line, and sinker.
    A married woman who was known to be married, is presumed (חזקה) to be an "eishes ish", unless there is a concrete reason to change that presumption.
    A halachic ruling that is kept hidden from public scrutiny, doesn't sound very "concrete".

    ReplyDelete
  12. The burden lies on the "beit din", to PUBICIZE their ruling.
    A rabbi who makes an unusual permissive ruling, is obligated by halacha to clarify his ruling. This does not stem from a stringency. This is actually based on a leniency suggested by the Shach. I will explain.

    As per the Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) a rabbi is NOT allowed to permit something that people perceive as being prohibited. Period.
    However the Shach, in his commentary, formulates a leniency, in a case where the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.

    A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "eishes ish" to remarry without having received a Get, qualifies as an "unusual ruling". As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for their leniency (as per the Shach).

    The public is waiting to hear the defense of this unusual ruling. The burden to explain such a ruling lies on those who made it. Until they do so, the ruling is allowed to be criticized. In fact, it MUST be criticized, since this is part and parcel of the halachic process.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Israel Reader, you’re spreading slander. Plainly, she was not married to him.
    פסק דין ייחודי של אב בית הדין הרבני בתל אביב וטיפול נמרץ של אגף העגונות חילץ עגונה שהושאה בעל כורחה בילדותה בתימן למבוגר שהתעלל בה, ניסה לרצוח אותה, התאסלם ונשאר בתימן. המדובר בילדה שאביה השיא אותה בשנת 1993 בעל כורחה בנישואי חילופין לפני 25 שנה, למבוגר אלים שהיכה, התעלל וביצע בה מעשים חמורים שוב ושוב. במהלך מורכב יחד עם הסוכנות היהודית וגורמי ביטחון ותמורת כסף רב חולצו האישה וששת ילדיה מתימן לארצות הברית ומשם לישראל. הבעיה שנותרה בעינה היא בעיית העגינות: האישה שעודנה צעירה רצתה לפתוח בחיים חדשים אך כבלי הנישואין שלא הותרו מנעו זאת ממנה.
    Google translate
    A unique ruling by the head of the Rabbinical Court in Tel Aviv and the intensive care of the Agunot Department rescued an agunah that had been forcibly carried out in her childhood in Yemen to an adult who abused her, tried to murder her, converted to Islam and remained in Yemen. This is a child whose father, in spite of her will, forced her into marriage 25 years ago, to a violent adult who beat, abused, and committed severe acts over and over again. In a complex operation with the Jewish Agency and security forces, the woman and her six children were rescued from Yemen to the United States and from there to Israel. The problem that remains is the problem of agunization: the woman who is still young wanted to start a new life, but the bonds of marriage that were not permitted prevented her from doing so.
    Oh, she had sex with that man in Yemen and had 6 children with that man the father---but was she married to him as in Kiddushin 2a?
    Mishnah. A woman is acquired [in marriage] in three ways and acquires her freedom [lit., acquires herself] in two. she is acquired by money, by deed, or by intercourse. By money: Beth Shammai maintain, a denar [v. Glos.] or the worth of a denar. Beth Hillel rule, a perutah or the worth of a perutah [v. Glos.]. And how much is a perutah? an eighth of an italian issar [v. Glos…]. And she acquires her freedom [lit., acquires herself] by divorce or by her husband's death. A yebamah [v. Glos.] is acquired by intercourse, and acquires her freedom [lit., acquires herself] by halizah [v. Glos.] or by the yabam's death [v. Glos.].
    בסופו של דבר הצליח הרב לבטל את טקס הנישואין על בסיס לא פחות מתשעה עשר נימוקים הלכתיים ועובדתיים מבוססים. בין השאר הוא מצא פסול בכשרות העדים, באופן ובמהלך הקידושין, בכשרותו וכשירותו של מסדר הקידושין, בעובדה שהבעל המיר את דתו והתאסלם וכמובן בטענת האישה לנישואין בעל כורחה.
    Google translate
    In the end, the rabbi succeeded in canceling the marriage ceremony on the basis of no fewer than nineteen halakhic and factual reasons. Among other things, he found fault with the kashrut of the witnesses, in the manner and during the kiddushin, in the kashrut and fitness of the wedding order, in the fact that the husband converted to Islam and converted to Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Israel Reader, you’re spreading slander. Plainly, she was not married to him."
    Let's start with the second statement.
    The alleged dispensation reportedly covers 250 pages. K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). If it is so plainly obvious that she was not married to him, why does it take 250 pages to determine that? Hmmm. Maybe it isn't so plain.
    Regarding the first statement, about spreading slander, who am I slandering?
    A married woman who was known to be married, is presumed (חזקה) to be an "eishes ish", unless there is a concrete reason to change that presumption. What concrete reason can you point to? A reported ruling that is being kept under wraps, because it might not sustain public scrutiny?

    ReplyDelete
  15. You could have known this fact too. It was in the Hebrew article, which is linked to in this post.
    במהלך מורכב יחד עם הסוכנות היהודית וגורמי ביטחון ותמורת כסף רב חולצו האישה *וששת ילדיה* מתימן לארצות הברית ומשם לישראל.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If it were that PLAINLY obvious, why did all the other "batei din" who heard the case, refuse to permit her to remarry?

    If it were that PLAINLY obvious, why did it take him 250 pages to reach that conclusion?

    Maybe Rabbi Halevi should have consulted with you, a self-proclaimed expert on Hilchot Ishut and Hilchot Kiddushin, who feels that he's qualified to rule on a case, even when he didn't even hear both sides of the story.

    What's bothering me, is that he allegedly refuses to publicize the basis for his decision. This is mandatory in Halacha, as I demonstrated elsewhere on this page, based on the Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) and the Shach.

    What's bothering me, is that allegedly the husband claims that he's Jewish, and is ready to give a Get, as per a financial settlement.

    What's bothering me is that your star, Rabbi Halevi, allegedly pulled the same stunt with this woman's sister, and permitted her to remarry with out a Get (fornicate as an eishes ish). His past ruling was ripped to shreds by halachic experts, even though the woman went ahead and remarried, which explains why Rabbi Halevi might be afraid to publicize this newest "winner".

    ReplyDelete
  17. Filtered internet, can't get links.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes I support Rabbi Halevi’s ruling. Our sages made a rabbinical degree concerning מיאון a right of refusal that annuls the marriage. Here’s a gamara discussing מיאון
    Yemamoth 12a:
    Wherein, however, does the refusal of a husband differ [From that of the levir]? Obviously in that she thereby annuls the original marriage; but when she refused the levir she has also annulled the original marriage! [It differs] in respect of what Rami b. Ezekiel had learnt. For Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If she [A minor who was married to a stranger] declared her refusal against the husband she is permitted to marry his father [Her declaration of refusal having completely annulled the original betrothal, she is no more his daughter-in-law]; if against the levir, she is forbidden to his father [Her former marriage having once subjected her to levirate relationship, she must be regarded as the levir's father's daughter-in-law. V. infra 13a]. From this it clearly follows that from the moment she becomes subject to the levirate marriage [lit., falling] she is looked upon as his[The levir's father's] daughter-in-law; similarly here also [In the case of the rival of one's daughter who made the declaration of refusal] she is looked upon as the rival of his daughter from the moment she [the daughter] becomes subject to the levirate marriage.

    ReplyDelete

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