The private court, headed by Rabbi Daniel Sperber and convened by the Center for Women’s Justice organization, dissolved the marriage on the grounds that the woman would not have agreed to the nuptials had she known of her husband’s criminal record, which included time in prison for assaulting his first wife.
Sperber said that his ruling did not conflict with the state-approved Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which has a monopoly on marriages and divorces, as he was not granting a divorce but rather invalidating the marriage in the first place.
However, Kobi Alter, the spokesperson from the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel, told The Times of Israel that the dissolution was not recognized
by the rabbinate and that the woman would not be allowed to remarry via
state authorities as she is still considered married.
So can you summarize the halakhic errors that Sperber made?
ReplyDeleteCan you summarize the halakhic basis for Sperber's so-called "annulments", where women with a presumed status of Eshet Ish, can brazenly remarry without receiving a Get from their husbands?
ReplyDeleteI would LOVE to hear that response!
ReplyDeleteNo, that's my point. Sperber is a talmid chacham. The Rav, zt"l, repudiated Rav Rackman with halakhic arguments, not "You so stupid!" shouts. So what did Sperber get wrong?
ReplyDeleteAn "argument from authority", is when writers or speakers claim that something must be true, because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. This type of argument can easily be rejected by someone who denies the authority of the source that was quoted.
ReplyDeleteI don’t consider HaProfessor Hagadol, HaMarbeh Mamzerim B’Yisrael, Daniel Sperber, to be a Talmid Chacham. It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know anything. It’s just, that a lot of what he knows; is wrong.
The burden of proof lies with the person seeking to undermine the staus quo of a current valid Chazakah. I have not seen any valid Halachic arguments from you or from anyone else, to remove the status of Eishes Ish from this woman.
1. Besides the fundamental controversy surrounding the feasibility of retroactively annulling a Kiddushin, based on the argument of Mekach Ta’us; even its proponents agree, that it doesn’t work in situations where a woman continued to live with her husband after finding out the so-called “blemish”, and did not IMMEDIATELY leave. Despite allegedly only finding out, after they were married, about her spouse’s violent past; the couple lived together for THREE years. Hardly supportive of a Mekach Ta’us claim.
2. All the allegations of “sadistic physical, mental, and sexual abuse at the hands of her husband, are worth nothing when it comes out of the woman's mouth, especially when it’s in the context of marital strife. There is also no mention regarding the collection of testimony, any in-depth investigation of the veracity of the woman’s claims, or the husband’s responses to these claims.
3. A definitive assessment and decision of person's character, to classify it as a pathological condition which supports a Mekach Ta’us claim, is almost impossible; certainly not for laymen in the field of psychology. All the more so, when the people on the annulment panel never even met the subject they’re passing judgment on.
Well put!
ReplyDelete