Sunday, July 31, 2022

10K Christians Rip Greene's Christian Nationalism: 'Betrayal of Our Faith'

 https://www.newsweek.com/10k-christians-rip-greenes-christian-nationalism-betrayal-our-faith-1729377

"Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) just essentially declared that America has no place for Jews, Muslims, or the LGBTQ community when she explicitly stated 'we should be Christian nationalists,'" the introduction to the petition said. "Now she's even selling 'Proud Christian Nationalist' t-shirts with an ad that says 'Stand Against the Godless Left' and shows her fists violently raised. (So much for loving your neighbor or following the Prince of Peace.)"

Ukraine drone strike hits Russia Black Sea fleet HQ 'spoiling Navy Day' - so sad!

 https://www.jpost.com/international/article-713523

A senior official in Russian-annexed Crimea accused Ukraine on Sunday of carrying out a drone attack ahead of planned celebrations to mark Navy Day, injuring five and forcing the cancellation of festivities.

Friday, July 29, 2022

The New Proliferation of Female Pseudo-Orthodox “Rabbis” and More

 https://yated.com/the-new-proliferation-of-female-pseudo-orthodox-rabbis-and-more/

However, there is one notable exception to this trend: the ordination of female “Orthodox rabbis”. In contrast with an acute decrease in the ordination of male Open Orthodox clergy, the female side of this enterprise has quietly mushroomed both in Eretz Yisroel and in the US, as two seminaries and a network of pseudo-Orthodox congregations have been involved in trying to radically change the Orthodox landscape and its future leadership profile.

What Happens to the Brain in Alzheimer's Disease?

 https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-happens-brain-alzheimers-disease

Amyloid plaques

The beta-amyloid protein involved in Alzheimer’s comes in several different molecular forms that collect between neurons. It is formed from the breakdown of a larger protein, called amyloid precursor protein. One form, beta-amyloid 42, is thought to be especially toxic. In the Alzheimer’s brain, abnormal levels of this naturally occurring protein clump together to form plaques that collect between neurons and disrupt cell function. Research is ongoing to better understand how, and at what stage of the disease, the various forms of beta-amyloid influence Alzheimer’s.

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Dynamic shifts between Fox News, Donald Trump

 https://thehill.com/homenews/3577133-dynamic-shifts-between-fox-news-donald-trump/

Trump in a statement on Tuesday complained that Fox, the Journal and the Post “have always been against me, until I won.”

Settlers claim road terror in fatal West Bank car crash

 https://www.ynetnews.com/article/by4cp9y65

"We were driving along Route 60 on the way to a family meeting in the Ariel settlement," Rivka Zinman said.
"Suddenly a white Palestinian car appeared, driving fast from the opposite lane, I slowed down the car, but the Palestinian vehicle accelerated. I realized it was going to hit me head-on and I couldn't stop. The collision was at an enormous speed. I lost my son to Palestinian road terror," she said.
The Palestinians involved in the crash were moderately wounded and were evacuated to the hospital as well.

Trump Threatens To Sue CNN And Other Outlets For Dismissing His Voter Fraud Claims

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/07/27/trump-threatens-to-sue-cnn-and-other-outlets-for-dismissing-his-voter-fraud-claims/?sh=609e4c921add

Trump released a 282-page letter that his attorney, Jim Trusty, sent last week to CNN CEO Chris Licht demanding the network "immediately take down the false and defamatory publications" and issue retraction statements.

Trusty argued in the letter that CNN rushed to label Trump a liar for his unproven voter fraud allegations and "consistently fed a narrative that denounced President Trump's legitimacy and competency," among other claims he said constitute defamation.

Trump threatens CNN with lawsuit over ‘defamatory’ reporting

 https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3576663-trump-threatens-cnn-with-lawsuit-over-defamatory-reporting/

Former President Trump on Wednesday said he planned to file a lawsuit against CNN, alleging the network has repeatedly defamed him dating back to his 2016 campaign for the presidency.

“I have notified CNN of my intent to file a lawsuit over their repeated defamatory statements against me,” Trump said in a statement. “I will also be commencing actions against other media outlets who have defamed me and defrauded the public regarding the overwhelming evidence of fraud throughout the 2020 Election. I will never stop fighting for the truth and for the future of our Country!”

The 282-page letter from Trump’s attorneys to CNN executives, dated July 21, calls for the network to retract or correct numerous on-air statements and published articles about Trump that the lawyers allege are false and defamatory.

The letter goes on to cite dozens of examples, many of which relate to the network’s coverage of Trump’s repeated claims that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. CNN coverage frequently referred to those claims as “lies,” “false narratives” and “baseless theories,” among other terms.

Decades of Alzheimer’s research may have been fabricated

 https://www.wkbn.com/news/national-world/decades-of-alzheimers-research-may-have-been-fabricated/

Years of crucial research into Alzheimer’s disease may have been tainted by made-up scientific findings, a new whistleblower report says.

Vanderbilt University neurologist Matthew Schrag, in a bombshell interview with Science, laid out findings he made that showed over a decade of industrywide Alzheimer’s research may have been based on fabricated pieces of evidence involving a plaque protein found in the brain.

Shrag alerted his findings to the National Institute of Health and the Food and Drug Administration but also went public in the media with findings he believes will have a big impact on Alzheimer’s research, a branch of science that gets millions of dollars in funding every year.

“You can cheat to get a paper. You can cheat to get a degree. You can cheat to get a grant. You can’t cheat to cure a disease,” Shrag told Science. “Biology doesn’t care.”

Jewish communities grapple with addiction as fentanyl crisis ravages US

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-communities-grapple-with-addiction-as-fentanyl-crisis-ravages-us/

There is no reliable data on Jewish drug use, since official sources don’t track religion, and many people in the community hide their abuse, but treatment providers said rates are similar to other groups. Amudim has had over 2,100 opioid cases since 2014, said its CEO, Zvi Gluck. A UJA-Federation of New York survey on the impact of COVID-19 on Jews in New York City and its suburbs found that 10% of Jewish households reported a substance abuse problem. Nine out of ten of those households said they were not seeking help for the problem.

CUNY sued over failing to deal with antisemitic instances on campuses

 https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-713076

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed a Title VI complaint last week to the US Department of Education, alleging that the City University of New York (CUNY) has ignored a sustained pattern of antisemitic activity.

While the Department of Education is already dealing with complaints regarding individual instances of antisemitism, ACLJ “is focused on the overall environment at the University, and not just at one or more schools,” the complaint read.

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Marjorie Taylor Greene's words on Christian nationalism are a wake-up call

 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene explicitly labeled herself a Christian nationalist on Saturday. This shocking statement by a sitting member of Congress should serve as a wake-up call to everyone, and particularly, I believe, to Christians.
We all have work to do because it's not just the relatively few self-proclaimed Christian nationalists we have to worry about; it's the way the ideology infects so much of American politics and American Christianity often without us even realizing it.

US cardiologist falsely promotes Covid-19 vaccine recall

 https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32EZ82K

Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death. But a widely circulated video on social media claims the shots have been recalled due to more than 40,000 deaths worldwide. This is false; neither public health agencies nor manufacturers have recalled Covid-19 vaccines authorized in the US, and verified deaths resulting from the shots are exceptionally rare.

Another rabbi ignores halacha: "Withholding a Gett: Unjewish and Evil "

Update: Please read this lenient teshuva. I will be adding others which clearly indicate the complexity of the matter. Contrary to what Rabbi Brackman writes - that it is a clear cut moral issue - Rav Yosef says it is justified for some cases and some times in history - especially when there is a reasonable possibility that she will commit adultery. That is the view of the Tzitz Eliezar also. Other contemporary poskim don't accept the view that the husband can be forced to give a get to save her from committing adultery [to be continued]

Update Jan 17: Rav Sternbuch states that if it is clear to the beis din that there are objective reasons why the woman can't stand her husband and they paskened that the husband should give a Get - he says it is cruel and sinful for the husband to not divorce his wife out of spite and hatred. This is clearly not saying that a woman has the right to leave the marriage for any reason and that the husband must give a get immediately when the Get is request as R Brackman mistakenly states. If the husband is refusing to give a Get because issues have not been resolved - and not because of cruelty and spite - Rav Sternbuch,. Rav Ovadiah Yosef and Rav Eliashiv are not condemning such a person.

Force husband to prevent wife from committing adultery - not as a right to get on demand or because it is immoral to withhold a Get and only if he is objectively repulsive

Rav Ovadiya Yosef (Yabiya Omer 8:2.2): In previous generations the husband was given permission to take an additional wife if his first wife was declared to a moredes (rebellious wife). The first wife would remain an agunah for the rest of her life until she became an old lady with white hair as punishment for rebelling against her husband. An example of this is found in Shut Mishpat v’ Tzedaka b’Yaakov (2:36).... Similar cases are  found in other Achronim. Nevertheless our contemporary society has weakened and there is now a strong possibility that the agunah will deviate from religious observance because of her aguna status. This is a dissolute generation and people do not obey authority. And if the woman makes up her mind later to accept the get from her husband there is a clear concern that her husband will refuse to give her a get out of spite because he is already married to another woman and it is impossible to force him to give a get to his first wife and therefore she will just reject religion and go on a bad path. Because she is still married however, any children she subsequently has with another man will increase the number of mamzerim in the world. A possible solution is that before he can remarry he needs permission from the beis din and thus it is relatively easy to use that to influence him to deposit a get for his first wife with beis din. Only when he has deposited a get then can we give him permission to remarry according to halacha. After I thought of this, I saw that Rav Masas wrote in  his sefer Tevuos Shemesh (E.H. 30), “Even though in all the seforim of the Achronim concerning previous rabbinic courts (beis din), the beis din ruled that in the case of moredes she remained an agunah her entire life until she became an old lady with grey hair and the husband was allowed to marry another woman if he wanted – without first divorcing her. This was a common ruling and the first wife remained unable to remarry until the day that she died. However this approach was appropriate in previous generations when the spirit of Judaism permeated the people and there was no one who would dare do a serious sin – in particular not to openly transgress the serious sexual sins. But it is no longer true true in our day which to our great sorrow the spirit of individual freedom has become dominant and faith has weakened. We no longer have the power to have people properly comply with religious rulings and there is a great concern that people will go off the path of religious observance. There is no question that all our rabbis acknowledge that all efforts need to be made to have the get deposited with beis din...He concludes his words by saying that in the year 1950, all the rabbis of Morocco gather together and they made a decree through the official rabbinical confederation – that no man could remarry until he divorced his first wife who was a moredes and had declared that she couldn’t stand living with him (ma’os alei). This decree was accepted and it became a regular occurrence for the beis din to rule accordingly. This get that the husband was required to give before remarrying was not considered get me’usa ( a coerced get). That is because he had the choice of not remarrying and therefore he didn’t have to give the get. However with a moredes who simply wanted to afflict him and torture him and consequently refused to accept the get – there was no choice but to require that the get be deposited in beis din as we mentioned before....Click link for rest of the teshuva

See Rav Ovadia Yosef 3:20


Rav Ovadiya Yosef (Yabia Omer E.H. 3:18.13) : And in truth even according to the view of the poskim who hold that one does not force the husband to give a get when she claims ma'us alei, nevertheless there is a view that says there is a mitzva for the husband to divorce her and surely when there is a concern that because of the delay in get a get she will go off the derech. As we find in Shita Mekubetes (Kesubos 64)," Rabbeinu Yona wrote, "Even though we don't force a man to give a get when the wife says he is ma'us alei (disgusting to me) - that is only referring to forcing him by beating him with staffs. However beis din informs him that he has a mitzva to divorce her and they advise him to divorce her. And if he doesn't not in fact divorce her then this is a case of when a person transgresses the words of the rabbis that it is permitted to call him a sinner. However Rabbeinu Tam disagreed and said that even this we don't say to him but if he should come to ask whether he should divorce her without her getting the kesuba then beis din gives him the advice that he should divorce her immediately." Furthermore the Rema (Y.D. 248:20) writes that when the wife says ma'us alei the husband is obligated to divorce her. The Taz notes that the Rema here is only reporting the view of the Rambam but the Rema's true view is recorded in E.H. 77 where he doesn't mention that the husband should be forced to divorce her. But according to what we have said the words of the Rema (Y.D. 248.20) has a solid basis and that is the words of Rabbeinu Yonah. This is also noted by my friend the Tzitz Eliezar (5:26.4) based on the Noda B'Yehuda Kama (YD 68) who brings the words of the Rema as halacha l'maaseh and foundation principle. He notes that there is a basis to utilize this view at times of need according to the specific facts and needs of the time and appropriateness - depending on the evaluation of the beis din. I also say that in contemporary society with the degradation of the generations in free countries where every man does what he thinks is correct and there is a great increase in arrogance in the world and experience has taught that when a woman leaves her husband with the claim of ma'us alei and she is in limbo without receiving a get - that she will go and live with other men without the slightest shame or sense of embarrassment. As a result there is an increase in mamzerim in the world. In such a case we say that their degradation is to their benefit. This is expressed by the Ramban (Kesubos 63b), "Chas V'Shalom I am not arguing against the decree of the Gaonim to force him to divorce his wife and not only that but I strongly criticize those who say that it is not correct to follow their decrees but only the law as stated in the Talmud. In fact it is correct to listen to the Gaonim and to follow their decrees. Nevertheless now it is best to be very concern not to follow their decree because it has been abrogated because of the immorality of the generation." In other words in the time of the Ramban, even though women then had the brazenness to claim ma'us alei but they did not reach the extreme of chutpza to live with another man without receiving a get as we find in our days. But in the days before Moshiach as we are in now it is extremely relevant to considering returning to the decree of the Gaonim. And this is surely true when she is young and there is a real concern that she will go off the derech and there isn't much chance that she will return to her husband. Therefore it would appear that those who want to do something to force the husband to give a get have a solid basis for that decision. That is because the concerns that existed at the time of the Gaonim that the woman might go off the derech have returned. [In the time of the Gaonim the concern was that the woman would convert to Christianity for Islam rather than face end her days as an aguna]. Thus we see that whether the get should be forced or not is dependent on the particular time and era. And thus I have seen the gedol hador - Rav Chaim Palaggi in his Chaim v'Shalom (2:35) where he writes regarding forcing the husband that the view of a number of poskim including the Beis Yosef that the husband should not be forced to give a get. He writes, "Nevertheless according to everyone agrees that the woman is not forced to live with the husband. Therefore after a year or two after the time that they have separated from each other it would appear that he should be forced to divorce her. That is because there are two factors.  The man is not able to exist without a wife and the wife herself is not able to be without a husband. And this is surely true where she is young that we have to be concerned for disastrous results when she is chained as an aguna. Just look at how lenient the poskim are concerning preventing agunos in particular when she is young until they even go the extreme of relying on a minority opinion.  And surely the obligation lies on every dayan to be lenient is this manner in order to avoid trouble for both the man and the woman." Rav Chaim Palaggi is a great tree that one can rely on and surely in our day. And it is the same thing in cases where it is possible to combine various disputes of the poskim besides the claim of ma'us alei to be lenient. Also study Chaim V' Shalom (2:112), If there is a dispute between a husband and wife and the wife wants to be divorced and the husband refuses - one should establish a limited time for the matter to be resolved. And if we wait until 18 months  and we have despaired of reconciliation and it appears to beis din that there is nothing more than can be done for the marriage - they should separate the couple and force the husband to give a get until he proclaim,I want to give it.All of this that I have written is for the honor of G-d and His Torah." It is possible that Rav Palaggi is not talking about forcing with clubs but rather just calling him a sinner or similar techniques which is in accord with the view of Rabbeinu Yona and the Rema which we mentioned before.


Husband is not forced to give get when wife demands one- even if wife might commit adultery

Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 174): Question: We are dealing with a case in which it apparently has been shown that the wife hates her husband – heart and soul – because of his behavior which is simply abnormal. The woman therefore has the claim of ma’us alei with a clear basis. This couple has lived separately for over 6 years. The question is whether the beis din will comply with the request of the wife and require him to give her a get. Answer: Even if you grant that this woman has the status of one who says ma’us alei with a clear justification, that in itself does not require that the husband give her a get. Look at Shut HaRashba (# 135 - attributed to Ramban), Question: When a woman claims ma’us alei... is the husband obligated to divorce her....? Answer: ... You should know that she is not able to force her husband to divorce her since  a woman goes out of the marriage sometimes according to her desires and sometimes not according to her desires. On the other hand the man only leaves the marriage only when he want to leave it... From all these you see that when a woman claims ma’us alei we do not force the husband to give a divorce... Even though the Rambam writes that when a woman says ma’us alei the husband is forced to divorce her – the Rambam is not correct in this matter... Concerning the kesuba and dowry that she brought him – according to the din she does not lose anything unless she insists on being a moredes for 12 months and all these 12 months she is not forced... However if she remains a moredes for 12 months and her husband wants to divorce her – she loses everything.... That is her din when her husband divorces her according to his wishes after 12 months. But if the desire to divorce comes from her – as we said before – he is not forced to divorce her. The words of the Rashba imply not only is the husband not forced to divorce her when she claims ma’us alei but that he has no obligation to give her a get! This is also apparent from the words of Tosfos(Kesubos 63).... Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2): If she says that he disgusts me and I can not have relations with him – if the husband wants to divorce her she does not get any money from the Kesuba at all. Rema (E.H. 77:2)... All of this is only when she doesn’t give a reason and justification for her words as to why she finds him repulsive. But if she does give a reason for her words... And we don’t force him to divorce her  nor do we force her to remain with him. And if you want to claim that he must divorce her – it is obvious that since we don’t force her to remain with him then of necessity that there can’t be an obligation of the husband to give her a get. It is the same thing.

update Jan 17


Rav Sternbuch(5:345): Question:  A woman who has been separated from her husband for a number of years and she claims ma’us alei and there is a clear basis for this claim which has been verified. It is clear that there is no chance that they will reconcile. The husband is close to one of the chassidic rebbes who gives him great honor.  The beis din has met with the couple  many times and is firmly convinced that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Therefore they asked the husband to give his wife a get. However the husband has acted cruelly and refused. Even though I am presently traveling but since this is an emergency situation I will answer briefly.  You should know that many of the Rishonim including the Rambam and Rashi ruled that in a case of ma’us alei we force the husband to give a get. And some say that we force the get because of a decree of the Geonim. In contrast, Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri as well as other Rishonim disagreed and they held that a get can not be forced in a case of ma’us alei. The Rosh writes (43:6) that since there is a major dispute as to what the halacha is we don’t stick our heads between the great mountains. He also writes that whoever is lenient and forces a get results in an increase in mamzerim. The Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2) also says not to force the get. So even  though we agree that the halacha is that the get can not be forced when there is a claim of ma’us alei, nevertheless such a husband should not be given honor. Therefore it is necessary to inform the rebbe who is honoring him that he is giving the husband help to torment his wife which is a severe sin.

However prior to putting pressure on him through the rebbe, this the couple should be given 12 months during which efforts should be made to convince them to reconcile and expert marriage therapists should be used to deal with their issues. However when the beis din is convinced that there is no chance that they will reconcile and they paskened that it it appropriate for him to divorce his wife and not leave her an agunah – and nevertheless the husband refuses to divorce her. If we see there is no hope that he will give her a get – then his rebbe should be contacted and requested to stop honoring him. If he will listen to daas Torah he will not lose anything and one who observes mitzva will not know harm.

Rav Sternbuch (4:301): Question: I received a question from America where -  due to our many sins - it is common that women rebel against their husbands and afterwards go to secular courts - Gd forbid! The secular court makes a judgment in her favor - through coercion and not in accord with the law of the Torah. The judgment  obligates the husband to pay very high support payments and carries a penalty of prison for failure to comply. In addition she is typically awarded custody of the children. The husband is asking for a heter of meah rabbonim to be able to remarry without giving her a get since she is a moredes and has transgressed the religious laws. On the other hand she claims that the heter of meah rabbonim is not relevant since she in fact is willing to accept the get. She also claims that there are rabbis who support her position. So she wants to benefit twice by obtaining a get according to the Torah and also a judgment from civil court which steals money from from her husband even after the get. Answer: In my humble opinion there is no validity to her claims and therefore the husband should be given a heter so he can marry another woman. The only limitation is that he needs to deposit the get with beis din as is the established practice. The reason for this is complex. 1) first of all since they are coercing him financially not in accord with the halacha regarding the support payments which are much higher than the halacha - that constitutes theft. Thus the get itself is a forced get. The gedolei poskim are worried about get me'usa. Thus the get is not actually valid and we have the problem that she is still a married woman who thinks she can remarry. Therefore it is necessary to exempt him from all financial obligations that were done against his will in order that the get itself be valid. Furthermore if the wife refuses to go to beis din, then that itself gives her the halachic status of moredes as is clear from Divrei Chaim (E.H. 51) and he cites the Chavas Daas who ruled that a woman who refused to go to beis din  was a moredes and the gedolim agreed with him. ... According to this if she goes with him  only to beis din then he is obligated to give her a get. However when she goes to secular court in addition to make monetary claims - she is not able hold on to both sides. In other words she can't go to the secular court with monetary claims and at the same demand that he give her a get in beis din. If she forces him to accept the rulings of the secular court in marriage matters he has no obligation to give her a get. We need to state in addition that the essence of the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom was for the benefit of the wife.  However this benefit is only available when she doesn't abrogate her halachic obligations. But in the present case she has created serious devastation in the marriage in that she has rebelled against him and went to secular court where she received excessive judgements concerning maintenance and also the custody of the children. Her husband must give her a get in beis din so that she can remarry. So in the case of moredes the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom which was meant to benefit women was not intended and the husband can remarry with the heter of 100 Rabbis and he deposits the get with beis din until the judgment of the secular court is nullified. When that happens- if he has not yet remarried - then it is prohibited for him to do so until he gives his first wife a get.

In reality your question is a local issue of America and it is the job of American rabbis to decide. However my view is in agreement with the rabbis there who permit the husband to remarry without any difficulty and he needs to deposit a get with beis din. But when the judgment of the secular courts has been nullified then it is prohibited for the husband to remarry until he has properly divorced the first wife.

You should be aware that we are obligated to fight against her going to secular courts and we prevent her from remarrying if she does and if the get is given under these circumstances there is a suspicion that it was coerced (me'usa). Nevertheless in a case where she claims she can't stand him (ma'us alei) and there is no reason to believe they can be reconciled and the man is simply being cruel to her and is being spiteful by not to giving her a divorce - then even though it is prohibited for us to exert any force- G-d forbid! - nevertheless it is correct to notify the husband that the view of many of the gedolim (e.g., Rambam, Ravad, Behag, Rashbam, Rashi etc) is that he is sinning and they would encourage him to give her a get. Because even these poskim are concerned about creating [an invalid get] which would leave her as a married woman even bedieved - so G-d forbid that we should use any type of coercion. Regarding the issue of tormenting her and leaving her an aguna - it is correct for him to be concerned for her claim that she finds him revolting (ma'os alei) and it is prohibited for him to leave her as an aguna - even if she is not correct. But we are not to coerce him G-d forbid with any type of coercion that would possibly bring about a get me'usa. Rather [once we have informed him that it is wrong for him to withhold the get] he needs to come the the realization himself that he must conduct himself like a descendant of Avraham and the verse says that the ways of Torah are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace and that he will find happiness with someone else.

All of this we need to explain to the husband. That leaving her as an aguna is a transgression of a severe sin of onas  devarim - not to torment his wife. That refusing to divorce her serves no purpose except to get revenge against her. He doesn't want to live with her and he shouldn't think her life is worthless and he should be fully aware that in Heaven there is judgment and there is a Judge. He should also be informed that to many of the early gedolim it is correct even to force him to divorce. Unfortunately there are many beis dins that when they see that the husband doesn't want to divorce his wife they simply remain silent. But that is not acceptable. They must inform him that he is unjustifiably tormenting her and this is not correct. This of course is assuming that the beis din is convinced that there is no hope for reconciliation....
===========================

Rav Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 1:389): Question: A woman has suffered for a number of years from her husband who refuses to divorce her - how can he be forced to give a get?  

Answer: It is an established halacha that if the wife refuses to live with her husband because she claims he is disgusting to her (ma'os alei) that it is impossible to force him to divorce her. This is explicitly stated by the Rema (E.H. 77:3). And even if it has been a number of years that they have separated and he is being spiteful and cruel in refusing to divorce her it is clearly stated by the Teshuvos haRosh (43:6) that if we force him to give the get there is the concern that it is a get me'usa and therefore invalid and it only serves to increase mamzerim. However while it is stated in the Rema (E.H. 154:21) that nidoi (cherem) is considered force and is prohibited, nevertheless he says it is permitted to decree that no Jew should do him a favor or should do business with him or even to circumcize his sons or to bury them - until he divorces his wife. But the Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 154:30) says there these shunnings (harhakos) are equivalent to nidoi (cherem) and are not permitted to be imposed today and the only recourse is to tell him that it is permitted to call him a sinner  and he says it is best to be strict according to this opinion. This is agreed to by the Chazon Ish (E.H. 105:12). He concludes in the name of the Rashba that it is not permitted to humiliate the husband or to torment him - examine this well.

However it appears that what is prohibited is to humiliate him and to shun him in a manner similar to cherem - i.e, not to do business with him and not to do him a favor - and that is not done today. (Chazon Ish understands the Pischei Teshuva differently). But when he is not actively humiliated but that he is only not given honors for example he is notified that he will not receive an aliyah in his shul or any other shul and that he will not be allowed to be the shliach tzibor - then this is not like cherem at all even though it causes some humiliation. The only pressure permitted is that he should know that the community does not approve of his conduct of being cruel to his wife - but this is not called force at all.
I recall witnessing an incident involving Rav Yechiel Weinberg (Seridei Aish) concerning a husband who spitefully refused to divorce his wife after a number of years and he directed that it be known and publicized that this husband was not to get an aliya in the shul. That is in accord with what I have written that this type of pressure is not called force. It is also done here in Yerushalayim to publicize notices in the street that a particular person is a sinner and has made his wife an aguna. In my opinion 1) if she has solid justification for her desire to be divorced then it would be possible and appropriate to force him  actively with humiliations to give her a get. We learn from Kesubos (71a) if it is clear that he hates her then he is obligated to divorce her. 2) On the other hand if there is no apparent reason for her being repelled by him we can distance him.  I am inclined to permit humiliation in such cases but it is necessary for beis din first to be very careful and thorough in evaluating the situation as to whether it is appropriate. Similarly one should not spare any efforts to encourage that she live with him when she requests a divorce and there is no clear reason except she says she doesn't like him. 3) But if there is a clear reason - then even if we don't force him with a beating we are accustomed to be lenient to pressure him with notices  in shuls as I mentioned above.

This that the wife creates pressure with the claim that he is tormenting her and she can not stand the situation any more and that she is ready to go to "rabbis" who are lenient in divorce - that is still not justification for us to make rulings against the Torah. The ways of G-d are hidden and some suffer physically while other suffering financially and some suffer in their marriage. We need to hope to G-d that the end of suffering has arrived and that he will divorce her. On the other hand, to force him with high payments for food or to humiliate him when it is not permitted - it doesn't help because this pressure only produces a get me'usa - G-d forbid - which has no validity. But concerning cruelty and spite which is characteristic of Sedom - only Heaven can punish him.


Yachin uVoaz(1:124):[15th Century Algeria] You should know that there are two different types of moredes and they have different laws. There is a moredes who despises her husband and she asserts that he is disgusting to her. On the other hand there is a moredes who says she wants her husband but she wants to torment him In the case of ma'us alei the view of the Rambam is that the husband is forced to divorce her immediately and he learns this from a deduction from the gemora as the Rosh writes. The Rambam states in Hilchos Ishus  (14:8) that if a wife refuses sexual relations that the husband is forced to give a a get since she is not like a prisoner who can be forced to have relations with someone she hates. However there has long been an outcry against the ruling of the Rambam by all the commentators and poskim such as Rabbein Tam, Ramban, Rosh, Rashba and many others. They agree concerning forcing the husband to divorce. Whoever forces the husband to divorce in accordance to the ruling of the Rambam increases mamzerim in the world. And they reject the view of the Rambam with clear proofs from the Talmud as the Rosh does. And many proofs are brought to refute and reject the words of the Rambam. And even the Magid Mishna who normally devotes  himself in all places to justify the words of the Rambam and to firmly establish their validity with clear proofs - in this case he refutes the Rambam and goes into detail with proofs to contradict the Rambam's reasoning and to reject it. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. The halachic view that has become univeral is that one does not force the husband to give a get when she claim ma'us alei and we do not rely on the ruling of the Rambam nor others who agree with him in this matter. And furthermore that even if the halacha was in accord with the Rambam it would be correct to make a protective fence in this matter to prevent immorality amongst the woman because of the degradation of the contemporary generation. Because woman have become haughty and arrogant in their immorality. We are therefore concerned that a wife might have become interested in another man and she wants to discard her husband by declaring he is disgusting to me (ma'us alei). If it became known that that would be sufficient to have her husband forced to give her a get then it would surely cause problems. But in fact the Rambam is not the halacha because of the proofs that the opponents of the Rambam bring [And even in Algeria where they always follow the Rambam there are three exceptions and this is one of them and not those who agree with the Rambam...]. However I saw in the Rosh who writes that if in fact the psak of the Rambam was followed and the woman was divorced by force and she remarried - we don't force her leave the second marriage. However many others disagree with the Rosh and they say that if she remarries after a forced get - she must leave the second marriage.
==========================================
update: added my rebuttal in yellow

 I don't have time now to write a rebuttal of this article. Hopefully next week - but I thought it would be helpful to read this well written - though mistaken - piece. One of the comments summarizes the problem well.

Rivka Gornall Leiner · Top Commenter · Graphologist and Counselor at Self-Employed
Adds nothing but one more snowball in the avanche of one sided articles written by those who sleep quietly while female get refusal, child alienation, false abuse accusations, monetary extortion (on both sides) and cruelty play out because of the woman's spite or greed. This might help your rabbi points in feminist pc Denver but it ignores reality.
 ============================
Times of Israel    by Rabbi Levi Brackman

In my fourteen years of practicing as a rabbi I have been asked numerous times to offer counsel and support to couples in failing marriages. Despite the fact that it takes two to tango, often the breakdown of a marriage is more the fault of one party than the other. Yet, no matter how the marriage ends and who is at fault, if the husband does not actively agree to give a Gett (Jewish religious divorce) immediately after the wife requests it he is always in the wrong no matter what.

Why? That is clearly not the view of the Torah. See Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2-3). So what is meant by wrong no matter what? Does that mean that the husband should not request marriage counseling first? Does that mean a mistaken belief that the Torah requires a Get on demand? What if the wife takes the kids and moves to another state. He is simply supposed to give a Get and forget about his children? Or perhaps it mean that if all issues are settled, the is no basis for reconciliation and yet the husband out of spite refuses to give a Get that he is wrong? If it is the latter than I agree totally but if the former conditions - I disagree strongly.

From a religious perspective, the Torah is very protective about the feelings and dignity of women — even more so than that of men. The Talmud warns men to never hurt their spouses feelings and or cause them to weep. It cautions men to be exceedingly careful about their spouses dignity and honor (Baba Metzia, 59a) and to respect and honor them more than they honor themselves (Yevamot, 62b, Maimonides, Ishut, 15:19). These guidelines are based on Biblical sources and have been codified into Jewish law. Furthermore the Talmud tells us that in matters of worldly and household affairs the women’s opinion takes precedence to that of the man’s (Baba Metzia, ibid).

Yes it is true that the Torah is concerned out not hurting the feelings of others - especially one's wife. But the sources cited are not dealing with divorce - but rather the conditions for a viable marriage. Similarly it is well known that there are a variety of laws about not hurting other people's feelings. However there are also laws that require criticizing others as well as saying bad things about them - even if it hurts there feelings. We don't refrain from telling others not to steal because it might hurt their feelings. We don't refrain from punishing murderers - even though it hurts them and embarrasses their family. Chastisement is a mitzva as is loving your fellow man.  One can not legitimately claim  that the Torah categorically prohibits hurting the feeling of others - especially one's wife. If Rabbi Brackman has sources for doing so - I would appreciate see them. Like most things in life - the various Torah obligations need to be prioritized and balanced.

Clearly a man who refuses his wife’s request to give a religious bill of divorce for any period of time after it is made clear that from her perspective the marriage is over, is contravening these extremely serious sections of Jewish law in the most grievous manner possible. But refusing to give a Gett is also the mark of a man who lacks basic human empathy and common decency.[...]

The above statement is not supported by the gemora, Shulchan Aruch or poskim. As noted above - I would appreciate sources for what seems to be a declaration that the concern for a wife's feeling is more important than all the other Torah obligations and Torah rights that a person has as well as the welfare of her children. That simply is not so.

Some men hide behind Jewish law as a reason not to give a Gett. They argue that all aspects of the divorce needs to be settled before they are Halachicly (according to Jewish law) allowed to give the Gett. They then proceed to make any settlement as difficult as possible, allowing them to continue their abusive and controlling behavior. Tragically there are some Jewish courts that allow men to behave this way. Happily, however, most of the larger reputable Jewish courts will not allow narcissistic men to use religion as a tool to further abuse and blackmail their wives. The most obnoxious Gett refusers, however, seem to avoid reputable Jewish courts. As pernicious, are men who tell their wife, who is desperate for a divorce, that they “want to work on their marriage” and therefore won’t give a Gett. Again this ploy won’t work at most reputable Jewish courts.

Is Rabbi Brackman claiming that insistence that all aspects be settled before giving a get is not the halacha or is he saying that the halacha is unfair to women for requiring this? Or is he saying that women view this halachic fact as giving an unfair advantage to the men? Is he saying that some men take advantage of this halacha or that the wife often claims that they are - even when there are legitimate reasons not to. Again he is describing a complex situation in very simplistic terms and in addition is totally ignoring the possibility that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for continuing negotiations - even if it makes the wife unhappy. In fact it is clear from Rabbi Brackman's writing that he views the woman as inevitably the victim and the man the bully. That is simply an inaccurate picture and biased description. Likewise he fails to note that some courts are biased against men - and that men try to avoid using such courts - even though women prefer them. [...] 

Thus, in Judaism when a man refuses to give his wife a Gett he is taking away her most basic human right — her freedom to live and be who she wants to be. The moment the wife decides she no longer wants to be married to her husband human empathy and common decency dictates that he must let her free. By finding excuses for not doing so he is controlling her in a manner that contravenes every aspect of her basic human rights. There is only one apt description for that type of behavior — pure evil.
Rabbi Brackman's idiosyncratic understanding of get is well expressed  "in Judaism when a man refuses to give his wife a Get he is taking away her most basic human right — her freedom to live and be who she wants to be." He is conflating Judaism with secular values.  He does not show that the Torah requires Get on demand and in fact it doesn't. Obviously such a fact bothers Rabbi Brackman.
Western man places freedom to do whatever he/she wants as the highest values - but it clearly is not a Jewish values. I would like to see him present a source which says that Judaism says that man's most basic right is freedom to live and be who she wants to be. Judaism takes away the right of a married woman to commit adultery, of males to have sexual relations with males, of Jews marrying non-Jews etc etc. Why doesn't Rabbi Brackman explicitly acknowledge that the values of Judaism as defined by halacha and hashkofa - are simply not adequate for him.
In the final analysis, the refusal to give a Gett by a husband, for any reason, will cause pain to his wife and therefore is not only contrary to the spirit of Judaism it contravenes the letter of the law as well. But beyond that it is a terrible desecration of G-d’s name because it in essence is just another example of the cynical use of religion to hurt and control another human being. Tragically this is yet another case of women being especially disadvantaged in this regard. [...]

 The above statement as a categorically statement is false as is clear from the gemora, Shulchan Aruch and poskim.

As the Halachic Prenup, which ensures substantial monetary penalties for not giving a Gett, becomes more popular this problem will hopefully become a thing of the past. But until that happens there are still women who are chained and suffering and it is up to you and me to do all we can to ensure that their evil tormentors do not get away with it.

He fails to note that in the Chareidi world the prenup is understood to be an example of financial pressure and thus is problematic as Get Me'usa. If his intent is to proclaim that only the Modern Orthodox understanding of halacha is legitimate - then he should say so instead of giving the clear but false impression that all Orthodox poskim agree with his view
===============================

Finally Rabbi Brackman posted a statement on Facebook criticizing those such as myself who have a "mistaken" understanding because we don't agree with his views concerning Get. 

He fails to note that such disagreement is not just that of the simple people such as myself - but is in fact the normative view of poskim through the ages as I have shown in many posts on my blog [just search for term "get me'sua" (or "get meusa" or "forced get") in the archives.

https://www.facebook.com/levi.brackman/posts/10205684977302618
There we go, it was bound to happen, Daniel Eidensohn, in his Daas Torah blog read my article and characterized it as a "well written - though mistaken - piece" and me as a "rabbi ignores halacha." I wonder what part is mistaken or against Halacha?
Perhaps the line that: "The Torah is very protective about the feelings and dignity of women — even more so than that of men."
Perhaps he thinks this is a mistake: "Refusing to give a Gett is also the mark of a man who lacks basic human empathy and common decency"?
Or maybe he disagrees with this: "the refusal to give a Gett by a husband, for any reason, will cause pain to his wife and therefore is not only contrary to the spirit of Judaism it contravenes the letter of the law as well."
He probably disagrees with the general idea that men should not be allowed to use the Get to further control and intimidate their wives.
Whatever it is he disagree with, the fact that his opinion is shared by so many of his circle is deeply troubling. What on earth is wrong with these people. It boggles the mind.

Must husband be informed of wife's adultery IV - Rav O. Yosef

Rav Ovadiya Yosef (Yabiya Omer E.H. 2:2.13): Question: A man who had an adulterous relationship with a married woman and therefore she is prohibited to her husband and then he repented. Is he obligated to inform the husband in order that the husband divorce her since she is prohibited to him or is it possible to find a leniency not to tell him because of the damage this will do to the status of his family and the embarrassment this will cause?... Answer: We can conclude from this discussion that in order not to prevent a person from repenting that it is possible to be lenient and not require that the husband be informed to avoid degradation of the family and embarrassment. We don’t say that there is absolutely no benefit in the lover repenting as it seems to be saying in Chagiga (9b), “The crooked thing cannot be fixed – that is referring to a man who has an adulterous relationship with a married woman and she becomes prohibited to her husband and he is banished from the world and passes away.” That is referring to the fact that even if the husband is informed and divorces his wife – he still cannot correct the damage that was done as Rashi explains there. That is because she will always be irrevocably prohibited to her husband. Since there are views that whenever there are not witnesses to the adultery she is not prohibited to her husband – it is appropriate to rely on these authorities in situations of great need. This is so that it doesn’t seem as one who immerses in a mikve while holding on to the source of spiritual contamination as the Shaarei De’ah (2:81) writes. However the psak is different if this baal teshuva is a heroic man and has a courageous heart to completely repent. Then we let him know – but only as good advice - that if it is likely that when the husband of this woman is informed of the adultery he will divorce her because he believes him as if he were two witnesses – then in fact it is very good to inform the husband. In that way the burden of the prohibition of having intercourse with his unfaithful wife is removed from the husband. Furthermore this repentant lover should forever be involved in repenting and doing good deeds with all his strength and should rejoice when he suffers and he should fast according to his strength. Also look at the Genizei Chaim (150b). He should be involved in a great deal of Torah study. This will restore and cure him.

The Three Oaths - sources

Guest post by Dvar Torah - update with Rav Ovadiah Yosef
Click here for Rav Herzog's view



Breslov IV - Rav Ovadiah Yosef, shlita's opposition to going to Uman for Rosh HaShanna

Yeshiva World News reported and has video

Chacham Ovadia: Say’s No To Uman Rosh Hashanah

August 22, 2007

uman.jpgIn his weekly Motzei Shabbos Shiur, Hagoen Chacham Ovadia Yosef Shlita made his opinion very clear regarding the traveling to Rav Nachman M’Breslov’s Kever in Uman for Rosh Hashanah. Some quotes translated: “The Chassidim should be doing what they are doing. But the rest of the people going, are they Chassidim of Uman? On Rosh Hashanah everyone should be with their families, and not traveling to Kivrei Tzadikim…….Any person who is a Baar Daas, a Baar Sechel, should be Rosh Hashana night making Kiddush for his family. Families should be eating together, drinking together, and celebrate the Yom Tov together. This is what Yom Tov is all about. On Yom Tov what should we do? Go to a cemetery, or be with our families?”

Close to 22,000 people traveled to Uman last Rosh Hashanah.

Arutz Sheva reported August 2007:
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef against Masses to Uman

(IsraelNN.com) Former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, who also is the spiritual leader of the Shas party, has come out against the populist movement of visiting Uman for Rosh HaShanah, the Jewish New Year. More than 20,000 Jews from all streams of Judaism flock to Uman every year to celebrate the holiday near the grave of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, the founder of the Chassidic movement bearing his name.

"The Chassidim should be doing what they are doing, but the rest of the people going, are they Chassidim of Uman?" Rabbi Yosef said in his weekly lesson. "On Rosh HaShanah everyone should be with their families...who should be eating together, drinking together, and celebrate the [holiday] together."

Rabbi Yosef:Treating gentiles violates Shabbos

 This news item is very problematic Rav Yosef clearly has poskined in writing that it is permitted. See the teshuva below.

YNet [Rav Moshe Feinstein strongly disagrees with this view] What should religious doctors do if a gentile is injured in a car accident on Shabbat and is rushed to the hospital? According to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, this does not warrant violating the sanctity of the Sabbath.

During a class on Sabbath halacha relating to religious physicians, the spiritual leader of Shas said that while doctors are expected to do everything in their power – even if it requires violating the Sabbath – in order to save Jews whose lives are in danger, the same does not apply for gentiles.

"If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital – Israel must not treat him," he said, explaining that "if the particular procedures come from rabbis (de-rabbanan), then they might be permitted, but if they stem from prohibitions in the Torah (de-'oraita), then they are not allowed, as the Torah forbids to violate the Sabbath for gentiles."
====================
==========================
The above is a contradiction to what Rav Yosef has published. He clearly states, "the bottom line is that the straight halacha is that it is permitted for a Jew to treat a non-Jewish sick person - even if it involves doing Torah prohibitions."

שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ח - אורח חיים סימן לח
ח) מסקנא דדינא, מעיקר הדין מותר לרופא ישראל לטפל בחולים נכרים אפי' במלאכות דאורייתא, כל שעושה לכוונת הצלתו מעונש השלטונות, והצלת נפשות חולי ישראל המטופלים בבתי חולים נכרים בחו"ל. וכל מה שאפשר לו להשתמט, באופן שיוכל להתנצל שהוא עסוק בחולה יהודי אחר, חייב לעשות כן. ומה טוב אם הנהלות בתי החולים בארץ ידאגו שיהיו רופאים נכרים לצורך זה, וכן אחיות נכריות, כדי שיטפלו בחולי עכו"ם. ורופאי ישראל יטפלו רק באיסורי שבות דרבנן. וכאשר נוהגים בבתי החולים בירושלים שערי צדק וביקור חולים. ומכל זה יש ללמוד גם לענין טיפול בחולים חפשיים מחללי שבת בפרהסיא וכו', שמלבד מ"ש כמה אחרונים להתיר מפני שיש לתלות שהרהרו תשובה בלבם, (ע' בשו"ת מהר"ם שיק חאו"ח סי' קמ, ושו"ת מהרש"ג ח"א חאו"ח סי' נג, ושו"ת חלקת יעקב ח"א סי' מה, ועוד) יש להתיר מטעם הנ"ל, שאל"כ יש לחוש מאד שגם רופאים חפשיים יסרבו לטפל בחולים דתיים, ויבאו לידי סכנה. ולפ"ז ניחא גם לגבי אדם חילוני שנפצע מתוך חילול שבת ואיבד הכרתו (שאין לתלות שחזר בתשובה), שמותר לרופא דתי לטפל בו גם במלאכות דאורייתא מטעם הנ"ל. וכ"כ בשו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק ח' (עמוד פט). ע"ש. ונ"ל עוד לתת עצה לרופאי ישראל הדתיים והחרדים לדבר ה', שכאשר יש צורך לטפל בשבת בחולים גוים, או מחללי שבת בפרהסיא וכיו"ב, יעשו המלאכות דאורייתא ע"י שנים ביחד, וכדקי"ל שנים שעשאוה פטורים (שבת צב ב). וכיון דהוי איסור דרבנן שפיר דמי אפי' משום איבה בלבד. והן אמת שהפרי מגדים בספר תיבת גומא (פרשת פקודי אות ב) כתב, דהא דקי"ל שנים שעשאוה פטורים, היינו דוקא מכרת ומקרבן, אבל איסור תורה מיהא איכא. ע"ש. וכ"כ בשו"ת שם אריה (חאה"ע ס"ס צה) בד"ה ובאמת, שאפילו שנים שעשאוה יש עליהם איסור תורה, דכתיב וביום השביעי תשבות. (וע' ברמב"ם פרק כא ה"א), ושוב נזכר שכ"כ הגאון מליסא בס' מקור חיים (הל' פסח סי' תסו). ע"ש. וכ"כ הגאון רבי יצחק אלחנן בשו"ת באר יצחק (חאו"ח ס"ס יד) שיש עמו ראיות שגם בשנים שעשאוה יש איסור תורה. ע"ש. וכן דעת הגאון בעל אור שמח בספר משך חכמה (סוף פרשת בהר) בד"ה את שבתותי תשמורו. וע"ע בשו"ת ערוגת הבושם (חאו"ח סי' עח). ע"ש. אולם המדקדק היטב בלשון הזהב של הרמב"ם יראה נכוחה שאין בזה אלא איסור דרבנן בלבד. כי הנה ז"ל הרמב"ם (בפ"א מהל' שבת ה"ג): "ובכל מקום שנאמר שהעושה דבר זה "פטור", הרי זה פטור מן הכרת ומן הקרבן, אבל אסור לעשותו בשבת, ואיסורו מדברי סופרים, והוא הרחקה מן המלאכה". ע"כ. ושם (בפ"א מהל' שבת הט"ו) כתב וז"ל: "כל מלאכה שהיחיד יכול לעשותה לבדו, ועשאוה שנים בשותפות, כגון שאחזו שנים בקולמוס וכתבו, או שאחזו ככר והוציאוהו לרשות הרבים, הרי אלו "פטורים". ע"כ. ומוכח להדיא שאף לגבי שנים שעשאוה אין האיסור אלא מדרבנן, שהוא להרחקה ממלאכה. וכבר הבאתי ראיה זו בספרי יביע אומר ח"ה (חאו"ח סי' לב אות ז). ועתה מצאתי ראיתי בשו"ת אבני נזר (חלק יו"ד סי' שצג אות ט) שהוכיח כן מדברי הרמב"ם הנ"ל. ע"ש. וכן הוכיח במישור בשו"ת לבושי מרדכי מהדורא בתרא (סי' קלז אות ג). ע"ש. וכן העלה בשו"ת מהר"ץ חיות (ריש סי' טז). ע"ש. וכן כתב הגאון הראש"ל מהר"ח גאגין בשו"ת חוקי חיים (חאו"ח סי' ג). ע"ש. וכ"כ הגאון רבי מרדכי פרידבורג בשו"ת דברי מרדכי (סי' סב). ע"ש. וכ"כ בשו"ת תרשיש שהם (חאו"ח סי' יב) ובספרו שו"ת חמדת הנפש (סי' ב). ע"ש. וכן הגאון מהרי"א הרצוג בשו"ת היכל יצחק (סי' לב דף עז רע"א) הוכיח כן מלשון הרמב"ם הנ"ל. ע"ש. וכן בשו"ת מהר"י שטייף (ס"ס יא) יעץ בכה"ג לעשות המלאכה ע"י שנים, דקי"ל שנים שעשאוה פטורים, ואין בזה אלא איסור דרבנן. ע"ש. וע' בשו"ת חמדת ישראל (סי' יא אות ב). ע"ש. ומעתה נכון הדבר שכל טיפול בחולים נכרים וכיו"ב במלאכות דאורייתא יעשה ע"י שנים, שאז אין בו איסור אלא מדרבנן. והנלע"ד כתבתי. והשי"ת יאיר עינינו בתורתו הקדושה אמן. 

R' Tam allows only passive sanctions

Rav Schachter and his supporters keep insisting that Rabbeinu Tam allows all actions which are not physical and are not nidoi. Thus they claim that ORA public demonstrations where people chant "Give Tamar her get" are allowed by Rabbeinu Tam. Contrary to this understanding I have  not found a single teshuva from a major posek which describes Rabbeinu Tam as other than a decree on the community to withhold good. I have previously posted Judge Menachem Elon who states this clearly, the teshuvos of Rav Sternbuch who says it means social isolation and even  the word get should not be used and the teshuvos of Rav Yosef and Tzitz Eliezar.

For example Tzitz Eliezar (17:51) decrees: 
, על ידי כן שימנעו מלעשות לו שום טובה או לישא וליתן עמו עד שיגרש, כפסק הרמ"א באה"ע שם, וכאשר גוזר אומר על כגון דא, וכל כיוצ"ב, כאשר ניכר שסיבת דרישת האשה לג"פ הוא בגלל אשמתו של הבעל, בספר הישר לרבינו תם ז"ל בחלק התשובות סי' כ"ד ובזה"ל: "תגזרו באלה חמורה על כל איש ואשה מזרע בית ישראל הנלוים אליכם, שלא יהו רשאין לדבר עמו ולישא וליתן עמו להאריחו ולהאכילו ולהשקותו וללוותו ולבקרו בחלותו, ועוד יוסיפו חומר ברצונם על כל אדם, אם לא יגרש ויתיר אותו האיש את הילדה הזאת, שבזה אין כפיה עליו, שאם ירצה מקיים, והוא לא ילקה בגופו מתוך נידוי זה, אך אני נתפרד מעליו, וכל שיהא זכור בגזרתם וגזרתנו ישמור אותה, ואם יעבור שוגג לא תחול על השוגג".

Rav Yosef writes there
 ...   יש לנהוג בו הרחקה דרבנו תם. דהיינו: שעל כל איש ואשה מישראל וכל הנלוים אליהם, להמנע בהחלט מלדבר עמו כלל, ושלא לישא וליתן עמו במסחר ובכל משא ומתן של ממון, ושלא לארחו ולהאכילו ולהשקותו, ושלא לבקרו בחלותו, ושלא להושיבו בבית הכנסת, ושלא להעלותו לתורה, ושלא לשאול בשלומו, ולא לחלוק לו שום כבוד, ולהתרחק מעליו ככל האפשר עד אשר ייכנע וישמע לקול מורים ולתת גט לאשתו ולשחררה מעגינותה. 

The following is an excerpt from Rav Gestetner's Kuntres on Get Me'usa. Where are the teshuvos from the major poskim which contradict this understanding and give explicit permission to use active sanctions? Where is a single teshuva which permits public demonstrations and active attempts to degrade the husband

Rav Ovadia Yosef is claimed to approve EJF seminars


[in a press release apparently from EJF itself it is claimed that Rav Yosef approves of EJF seminars - but no actual letter was published]


Yeshiva World News

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef yesterday issued a halachic ruling that it is a "great mitzvah to conduct seminars for intermarried couples" interested in building a Jewish home.

Rabbi Yosef was referring to seminars sponsored by the Eternal Jewish Family for intermarried couples that include a non-Jew seeking a halachic conversion and a Jew who agrees to become a baal teshuva. Rav Yosef's ruling is consistent with many p'sakim of previous and contemporary Gedolei Hatorah who say that unlike ordinary geyrus, it is permitted to be "mekarev" such a couple, particularly where the Jew will be atoning for his/her mistake by becoming a baal teshuva. [...]

Rav Ovadia Yosef commented that conversion courts are too stringent

Jerusalem Post just reported the following. I personally find this item rather strange in that it doesn't directly mention what Rav Ovaida Yosef's view is in regards to the recent ruling concerning Rav Druckman's conversions. It is difficult to fathom the significance of this report - since what it says he said is not being disputed. Therefore the conclusions drawn are simply not justified. Any more comprehensive reports of the view of Rav Ovadia Yosef, shlita would be greatly appreciated. See Yeshiva World's comment.

=============================

"Conversion courts are too stringent"

Preeminent Sephardi halachic authority Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said this week that conversion courts were being too inflexible and stringent with potential converts, said sources close to the rabbi.

"Accepting the yoke of the commandments is essential for conversion," Yosef reportedly told a small group of Shas MKs and functionaries. "But we must not push off converts too much. It is not right to cause them pain by rejecting them."

According to MK Haim Amsalem (Shas), who was present when Yosef made the comments, Yosef quoted from the Babylonia Talmud to prove that rabbis should be lenient and welcoming when dealing with potential converts.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99-100) relates that the patriarch Abraham rejected Timna who wished to become his concubine. Instead, Timna married Eliphaz, Abraham's great grandson through Eisav and gave birth to Amalek, the Jewish people's archenemy.

Yosef said that from this passage in the Talmud we must learn to be more accepting of gentiles who wish to become a part of the Jewish people.

Yosef's comments come as a group of haredi Ashkenazi rabbis have launched an attack on the Conversion Authority, the official state-sponsored body responsible for conversions, for being too lenient.

Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar, who is responsible for conversions, has also been severely criticized by the haredi community for giving his backing to the conversion authority.

Amar, one of Yosef's protégés, has been under pressure to adopt more stringencies with respect to the acceptance of converts. However, Yosef's more lenient stance on the issue will give Amar the rabbinic backing he needs to stand up to this pressure.

Yosef's position also underlines differences in approach between Sephardi rabbis, who tend to be more lenient in their halachic rulings in comparison to haredi Ashkenazi rabbis.

How ‘Coward and Phony’ Tim Pool Became One of the Biggest Political YouTubers on the Planet

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-coward-and-phony-tim-pool-became-one-of-the-biggest-political-youtubers-on-the-planet 

Since then, Pool has discovered a style of commentary and audience where a lack of knowledge or journalistic skills might not prove an impediment to success. In some ways, incuriosity and incapacity serve as valuable attributes in this medium. Not solely because of the political valence but thanks in part to how YouTube itself functions: rewarding the kind of high-volume, sensationalized, and sloppy churn Pool specializes in.

Fox News Accused of Radicalizing Americans by Former Neo-Nazi Recruiter

 https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-accused-radicalizing-americans-former-neo-nazi-recruiter-1574330

Frank Meeink, once a prominent neo-Nazi, previously went to prison for kidnapping a man and beating another man unconscious. Although Meeink used to host a talk show called The Reich, he turned against his extremist views in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995—which was carried out by domestic white nationalist terrorists. Speaking to CNN in a Saturday interview, Meeink said the stuff he now hears on Fox News sounds like the things he used to say to recruit and radicalize white Americans.

"It's fear and narcissism. And that fake patriotism, that's just nationalism wrapped up again with worshipping an idol," Meeink said, commenting on what is driving the growth in domestic extremism within the U.S. "But, again, what we can do is with these people that are just continuously passing conspiracies, is we have to realize that Fox News, and I know that this is CNN, but Fox News has completely radicalized so many Americans," he said.

Rav Schachter’s Bright-Line Rule On Halachic Innovation

 https://cross-currents.com/2014/02/10/rav-schachters-bright-line-rule-on-halachic-innovation/

Rav Schachter begins with trenchant criticism of those who write teshuvos when they are not qualified to do so. Not everyone who has learned in yeshiva, or even in kollel, or received semicha, he says, is authorized to write responsa. To be considered the gemara’s magia le’hora’ah / one who has attained the stature and background necessary to pasken new questions, a candidate’s learning need be balanced. People who lean excessively to the side of kula, or to the side of chumrah, cannot properly write teshuvos.

This is the real intent of the gemara. When our souls are filled with enthusiasm to draw closer to Hashem and we hit upon activities that we think will best express our love for Him, we need to pause. Any such activity needs to be scrutinized by “recognized gedolei Torah.” They are the embodiment of the zikeinim that the gemara references in Shabbos. Without their approval, any such activity may be devoid of any real meaning.

‘Gedolim’ are human

 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/gedolim-are-human-456462

There seems to be a strong tendency and need, especially from members of the haredi and hassidic community, to view their religious and spiritual leaders as perfect and infallible. This enables them to place their complete reliance and trust in them and their decisions and increases their dependency on them, which to a great extent is facilitated and encouraged by the leaders.

Pesak, Gedolim, and Halakhah

 https://www.yutorah.org/_cdn/_materials/Handout-on-Gedolim-Pesak-Humanism-Halakha-546795.pdf

One of the most difficult questions in this field, relates to and encompasses the topic of our discussion: If there is no 'da’at', how can we have 'Da’at Torah'? To illustrate this, I will relate a story. Many years ago, I travelled to Bnei Brak to console my rabbi and teacher, Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt'l, in his mourning, when his wife had passed away. When I went to see him, I found him sitting alone. We had a private conversation, and this was conducted in a very open and honest fashion, from one heart to another. Rav Hutner told me that one of the talmidei chachamim who came to console him, tried to convince him and to 'explain' to him how his wife's passing was 'positive', inasmuch as she was now in the world of truth, a world which is entirely positive and other such nonsense… It is superfluous to state that saying such things is totally unsuitable. I remember that when Rav Hutner told me this, he raised his voice and he applied the following severe words of the Midrash to that talmid chacham (Vayikra Rabba 1): "Any talmid chacham who lacks 'da’at' is worse than a putrid animal carcass!"

Two Types of Orthodox Judaism

 https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/

To be sure, every movement, religious or otherwise, needs a level of hischadshus, innovation. But this problem is solved by the idea of Gedolim, the leaders and halakhic decisors who are the arbiters of the tradition and who determine what is and what is not considered an authentic part of Judaism. When the Gedolim, the masters of the mesorah, give their imprimatur to an innovation, the innovation becomes justified and validated.


US Justice Department probing Trump's efforts to overturn election

 https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-713159

The US Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump's actions in its criminal probe of the former president's attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

Jews, non-Christians not part of conservative movement - GOP candidate consultant

 https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-713128

Jews and other non-Christians are "not conservative" because it is "an explicitly Christian movement" and because the US "is an explicitly Christian country," said Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab and reportedly a consultant for state senator Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania, in a livestream responding to recent condemnations of Mastriano and Gab.

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Trump: ‘Fox & Friends’ has gone to the ‘dark side’

 https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3572831-trump-fox-friends-has-gone-to-the-dark-side/

Former President Trump tore into Fox News’s flagship morning program on Monday, lashing out at its hosts for their coverage of his polling as he eyes another run for president in 2024.

“@foxandfriends just really botched my poll numbers, no doubt on purpose,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, the social network platforming he started after leaving office. “That show has been terrible — gone to the ‘dark side.’ They quickly quote the big Turning Point Poll victory of almost 60 points over the number two Republican, and then hammer me with outliers.”

Gilboa prison pimping affair: New sexual assault allegation emerges

 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-713020?fbclid=IwAR0kjCpZuWe2zeJZrw587PjIE4WxLN0wEMLYv_yOAZDNLTK3yH1QT1trT8I

Judge Michael Karshan from the Lod District Court overturned the decision, allowing for some details to be published from Lahav 433, the National Crime Unit, Ynet added.
"If I could only tell you how terrible the acts committed against this poor soldier, you would be horrified," tweeted Levi after the news got out.

"They fought tooth and nail to stop this case from getting out. I wish they would fight that way for sexual assault victims."

Ben Shapiro and Har HaBayis: Why He Was Wrong to Go Up

https://vinnews.com/2022/07/25/ben-shapiro-and-har-habayis-why-he-was-wrong-to-go-up/

Recently, it was widely reported that Ben Shapiro and others travelled to and entered he Temple Mount. While the sentiment that lies behind his action is certainly admirable in that he wishes to ensure Jewish sovoreignty over har habayis, the action itself lies in stark contrast to the position of the great poskim of the generation, Rav Edelstein shlita, Rav Elyashiv zatzal, Rav Chaim zatzal, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, and so many others. What follows is a halachic analysis of why we should not, at this point, be praying on the Har Habayis. The author feels bad because Ben Shapiro is someone that the author admires greatly.

RABBI WEINBERG’S AGONY

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/06/rabbi-weinbergs-agony

Weinberg was a talmudic scholar of the first order, and his published volumes quickly assumed canonical status in the eyes of the Orthodox rabbinic elite. His halakhic rulings were closely attended to by all sectors of Orthodox Jewry, and as such played an important role in the evolution of Jewish law in the twentieth century. Weinberg’s death in 1966 was mourned by Orthodox Jews around the world as the loss of an exemplary religious personality. How is it then that this rabbinic giant penned a series of letters that give voice, as Schacter describes it, to a “lonely, frustrated, bitter, and tragic life?” How is it that this pillar of the Orthodox establishment wrote letter after letter in which, to quote Schacter again, he lashed out against the “hypocrisy, extremism, and unethical behavior he found within Orthodoxy”? Clearly there is a puzzle here, one that badly needs solving.


The conservative component in Weinberg’s stance as a rabbinic decisor is strikingly evident in his refusal, as late as 1960, to issue an unambiguous ruling permitting women’s suffrage. Here was an instance of rank discrimination against women. Here also was a situation in which Weinberg saw no direct halakhic impediment to a permissive ruling. Still, when he took up the issue in a published responsum, he waffled, taking note of those decisors who opposed suffrage for women on grounds of “female modesty.” Under the circumstances, Weinberg was only willing to suggest, as Shapiro puts it, that the “matter be left alone as it would eventually be worked out by itself.”

The Legacy of Yehiel Jacob Weinberg

 https://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=266

In the course of presenting the opinions for and against a lenient ruling, Shapiro informs us that Wein­berg’s opponents were, in large part, motivated by what he calls “meta-halachic” considerations. His use of the term, however, is so unclear as to be misleading.
Initially he characterizes “meta-halacha” as representing wider, subjective considerations, which are normally brought to bear in halachic decision­making: “Because such non-formal considerations are not grounded in explicit texts and cannot be refuted in the fashion of traditional halachic arguments, they may be referred to as ‘meta-halachic’ considerations.” Yet it is not long before Shapiro begins charging the term with a negative connotation: He distinguishes “meta-halachic” considerations, which are essentially “emotional and political,” from “pure halachic analysis.” The reader is left with the impression that Weinberg’s critics manipulated the halacha according to their own agendas, in disregard of the straightforward meaning of the textual sources.