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"
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:
ReplyDelete(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?
Has anybody seen his alleged halachic basis for this, or is he hiding it?
ReplyDeleteHow many new "mamzerim" will now be born?
the marriage was forced, hence it is not a marriage. Nothing controversial, Rav Moshe posulled many marriages.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteIsrael Reader asks? “Has anybody seen his alleged halachic basis for this, or is he hiding it? How many new "mamzerim" will now be born?”
ReplyDeleteThe 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”
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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
I see on bhol…:
ReplyDeleteפסק 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?
She stayed and had SIX kids with him.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWhat 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.
With facts like you say, which I wasn't aware of, you are probably , almost certainly, correct.
ReplyDeleteMy dear Gerald, you are the one who has accepted the slander against the HUSBAND, hook, line, and sinker.
ReplyDeleteA 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".
The burden lies on the "beit din", to PUBICIZE their ruling.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
Israel Reader, you’re spreading slander. Plainly, she was not married to him.
ReplyDeleteפסק 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.
"Israel Reader, you’re spreading slander. Plainly, she was not married to him."
ReplyDeleteLet'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?
You could have known this fact too. It was in the Hebrew article, which is linked to in this post.
ReplyDeleteבמהלך מורכב יחד עם הסוכנות היהודית וגורמי ביטחון ותמורת כסף רב חולצו האישה *וששת ילדיה* מתימן לארצות הברית ומשם לישראל.
If it were that PLAINLY obvious, why did all the other "batei din" who heard the case, refuse to permit her to remarry?
ReplyDeleteIf 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".
Filtered internet, can't get links.
ReplyDeleteYes 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
ReplyDeleteYemamoth 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.
Gerald, you are a professor of accounting, not an expert on Even Ha'ezer. Please spare yourself the embarrassment of taking on subject above your pay grade.
ReplyDeleteYou are implying that the basis of permitting this woman to remarry is due to the Halacha of מיאון. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you remotely aware of the halachic parameters of מיאון?
Are you aware how ludicrous it is to suggest that it applies to this case?
Why don't you respond to my other comments? Is it because you decided that Rabbi Halevi is right, even without knowing the details of the case, nor having seen his written ruling?
Israel Reader says “His past ruling was ripped to shreds by halachic experts…” Really?
ReplyDeleteI seek a basis in our holy Torah. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights [or ointments]. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
Today I sent a UPS letter to 6 parties: NYS Ct of Appeals, Brooklyn Supreme Ct, Susan, TIAA, NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, and NYS Office of the Inspector General for Bias Matters:
6. I'm complaining today that Judge Prus and Susan and non-judicial court officials choose silence on my requests for a copy of the (fake/fraudulent) 1995 Judge Rigler Order of Separation… Here's a sample of Susan choosing not to send me a copy of the critical document I requested, among other Susan lies, January 4, 2015 NYS Ct of Appeals Opposition to Motion for Reargument:
“\P3. Mr. Aranoff's statement in paragraphs 1 and 7 stating that Judge Rigler never referred to his Judgment of Separation is meaningless... A judge has no obligation to restate or refer to his/her previous rulings. \P4. Mr.\ Aranoff's repeated assertions that the Hon. Judge Rigler's March 7, 1995 Judgment of Separation is a sham is absurd…The Hon. Judge Prus, after being handed a copy of Judge Rigler's Judgment of Separation states: “Let the record reflect that a judgment of separation was issued by Judge William Rigler on March 7, 1995…”
7. In the Talmud (shtika kehodaah) and common sense, choosing silence when faced with an accusation is an admission of guilt. Proverbs 6:26: The last loaf of bread will go for a harlot…
The opposite of rape isn't consummation, but consent.
ReplyDeleteIf her father married her off against her will, after her coming of age, and she thinks he had a right to do that and the issue never came up again, the "good moments" may be "B'eelot Znut", no matter how many there were.
Did she accept כסף קידושין from the husband, or did her father accept it? How old was she at the time?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the meaning, when the article says that:
ילדה שאביה השיא אותה בשנת 1993 בעל כורחה בנישואי חילופין
You're grasping at straws.
ReplyDeleteFirst it was מיאון, that was the magic word.
Now it's אמה עבריה?
“If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her” (Exodus 21:8)
ReplyDeleteHertz Chumash:
“Espoused or, designated. The master had intended her for himself, not for his son (v. 9); but finding her displeasing to himself, he must allow her father or relatives to buy her back. A foreign people. The master must allow either her to be redeemed by her relatives, or he must keep her. The abominable practice against which this law is directed was not confined to Hebrew masters or to ancient times. Thus, William of Malmesbury, speaking of the days before the Norman Conquest, complains of the horrible custom of Saxon masters who, after associating with their maid servants on their estates, sold them to a life of shame or into slavery. He shall have no power. The Talmud refers he to both the master and the father; the master has acted deceitfully in that he has not kept faith with her; the father in that he sold her at all. Dealt deceitfully with her. By not carrying out the purpose for which he had acquired her.”
The poor girl’s father acted horribly to sell/force her to a marriage in Yemen. The man in Yemen who bought/took her acted horribly by abusing her and not carrying out the duties of a husband to a wife etc. On this we all can agree, yes?
Did the father act in accordance to his Torah given rights?
ReplyDeleteIf yes, she is an "eishes ish", regardless of how horrible the husband may have been. Last I checked, being a slime ball, is NOT grounds for nullifying the status of "eishes ish".
Israel Reader says “In the absence of such information, the presumption is that she is still married to him.”
ReplyDeleteSee https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/tehrans-dangerous-yemen-game/
“Tehran has been involved with the Houthis in Yemen since at least as far back as 2009, when then-President Saleh publicly accused Tehran of supplying the rebels with weapons and money. In mid-2014, a group of Hezbollah operatives was arrested in Yemen for training Houthis,”
I love Yemenites. My dear wife, Yemima is a sabra Yemenite, whom God sent me shortly after I divorced Susan 2/17/1993. These fellows in Yemen, the girl’s father and the man she was “associated” with, using Hertz Chumash’s word instead of sex, I pray for them. Rabbi Halevi found 19 halachik reasons to annul the wedding. B”H for the girl. What more information do you have? This is an interesting case. In the absence of more information from you, the presumption is that Rabbi Halevi ruled properly, yes?
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?
ReplyDeleteA rabbi who makes an unusual permissive ruling, is obligated by halacha to clarify his ruling. This is mandatory in Halacha, as I demonstrated elsewhere on this page, based on the Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) and the Shach.
Israel reader says “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?”
ReplyDeleteThe girl was never known to be married. In those years, 1993, the Jews in Yemen rarely were observant. Observant and normal Jews in Yemen long since left Yemen. We, as lay outsiders and not the judges, must accept a judge ruling that the wedding was a farce, a joke. That’s the meaning that Rabbi Halevi found 19 halachic defects. Plainly she’s not married. The husband, her father, and witnesses and documents are not here to assert that she was properly married in 1993 in Yemen. Our sages in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch go to great lengths to find a way not to rule mamzer. For example, a woman is not believed that her offspring is a mamzer, merely on her say so. She needs evidence, such as the husband was outside the country for over 12 months etc. In the Friedman case you commented on, the phony/fake PhD psychology letter proves that Rabbi Kamenistky committed a crime to rule that Tamar could marry without a get.
I don't know, but your questions are irrelevant to my post.
ReplyDeleteMy claim is only against the implication of your post, that a good moment, following an invalid wedding, creates a valid marriage.
Not that simple. There might be issues of קידושי ביאה.
ReplyDeleteBut the point is moot, because we don't really know the exact details of the case yet.
Agreed. That's why my question includes "she thinks he had a right to do that and the issue never came up again".
ReplyDeleteZev_disqus says: “If her father married her off against her will, after her coming of age, and she thinks he had a right to do that and the issue never came up again, the "good moments" may be "B'eelot Znut", no matter how many there were.”
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21932
“How can it be that if God had not brought our ancestors out of Egypt, we and our children and our children’s children would still be subjugated to Pharaoh in Egypt ? I heard an explanation. “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt.” Pharaoh owned us as a master owns his slaves. If the slaves rebel and run away, the owner still owns them. The Israelites could have easily walked out of Egypt with all their animals and assets during the ten plagues. In the plague of darkness the Egyptians couldn’t move for the first 3 days. Moses wanted Pharaoh to free the Israelites”
Slime balls in Yemen made the girl a captured slaved. Yes “she thinks he had a right to do that and the issue never came up again” Did Pharaoh have a right to work us to death and not give us straw and then kill babies if we didn’t meet the quota? Pharaoh was more than a slime ball.
Rabbi Halevi freed her. Bravo Rabbi Halevi.
I agree that we should be diligent not to declare "mamzerim" unjustly. However it needs to be within a halachic framework, not by twisting halacha like a pretzel.
ReplyDelete19 x 0 = ZERO.
The woman's sister was also permitted to remarry by this character, despite the fact that she was an eishes ish. I have seen his "ruling", and the rebuttals, including the evidence that it was based on erroneous information. Yet he refuses to retract.
Contrary to your suggestion that the parties in question were not observant, the transcript that I saw suggests that the parties in question were observant.
Israel Reader says “I agree that we should be diligent not to declare "mamzerim" unjustly. However it needs to be within a halachic framework, not by twisting halacha like a pretzel.”
ReplyDeleteNo. The Schulchan Aruch requires proof, two witnesses etc, for declaring mamzerim and warns against declaring mamzerim without proof. One must ignore mere rumour קול that is not substantiated by a beit din Many places e.g. שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות פריה ורביה סימן ו סעיף ה
וכל קול שלא הוחזק בב"ד, אינו קול לחוש לו.