tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post147364319018003444..comments2024-03-28T21:30:33.665+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: ORA: Private coercion or Beis Din?Daas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-79961271011556284282012-05-07T17:37:38.636+03:002012-05-07T17:37:38.636+03:00Binyamin, what would be the point of printing a se...Binyamin, what would be the point of printing a seruv if no one is allowed to continue to publicize it? That would be rather pointless.Herbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-20651241088659901962012-05-06T20:22:18.545+03:002012-05-06T20:22:18.545+03:00Binyamin,
http://torahmusings.com/2012/04/protest...Binyamin,<br /><br />http://torahmusings.com/2012/04/protesting-without-coercing/comment-page-1/#comments<br /><br />See Gil's comments beginning 3/24 11:57AMJamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-20861133532681411282012-05-06T20:07:47.762+03:002012-05-06T20:07:47.762+03:00The Baltimore BD accepted the Epstein-Friedman cas...The Baltimore BD accepted the Epstein-Friedman case, had several hearings into the case, and said that it would issue an opinion on custody after Pesach 2009. The BD did this even though the BD was<br />informed by the parties that the case pending in the MD civil court.<br />Anyone who thinks this was wrong under halacha should take it up with the BD, but that is how the BD handled the case.<br />Before the case went to trial in civil court, Friedman ultimately agreed to the Baltimore BD's orders regarding dismissing the civil case, while Epstien refused. Friedman agreed to the Beis DIn's orders<br />regarding dismissing the case despite the extreme prejudice this posed to him. This was because even if the BD would have ruled in his favor, Epstein would have been able to challenge any BD decision in<br />court, and the longer the child were to remain in Pennsylvania (to which Epstein had abducted the child), the more likely the court was to rule that the child remain there,<br /><br />The court ruled in July 2009 that the child should stay in Pennsylvania because Epstein had abducted the child in April 2008, and Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 court trial to bring the case to BD. Epstein specifically told the court that the delay should be prejudicial (and the abduction treated as a fait accompli) because Friedman had canceled the October 2008 trial to bring the case to beis din. And Epstein's supporters claim that her actions are kedas ukedin,Alannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-41980157922784348992012-05-06T15:06:05.838+03:002012-05-06T15:06:05.838+03:00Only the Baltimore BD heard both sides. Rabbi Bel...Only the Baltimore BD heard both sides. Rabbi Belsky's BD did not hear both sides.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-28331988673144043392012-05-06T10:19:25.297+03:002012-05-06T10:19:25.297+03:00James, can you post a link to Gil's post on th...James, can you post a link to Gil's post on the topic?<br /><br />Belsky's personal opinion on whether or not Aron should give a get has not halachic status. He is free to speak to Aron and encourage him to give a get, but that does not mean Aron is required to do so.Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03968756160388984974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-11784653964930586932012-05-06T04:50:27.673+03:002012-05-06T04:50:27.673+03:00Larry,
R' Dovid has disclosed that he spoke t...Larry,<br /><br />R' Dovid has disclosed that he spoke to Aharon and I would assume that had he spoken to Tamar he would have disclosed that as well.<br /><br />Rav Belsky's Beth Din heard both sides. Rav Belsky got involved to prevent ORA's actions and ended up deciding that Aharon was wrong and had to give a GET. See G' Gil Student's blog for more details.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-66819520390560217792012-05-05T22:06:25.013+03:002012-05-05T22:06:25.013+03:00No that B"D ordered that Aharon Friedman dism...No that B"D ordered that Aharon Friedman dismiss his court case against his wife before they would hear anything. Something that Aharon Friedman has so far refused to do.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-54357908211283789892012-05-05T21:31:17.754+03:002012-05-05T21:31:17.754+03:00I would also add (and I think this can be debated)...I would also add (and I think this can be debated) that ORA's actions are not those of BD and that distinction is crucial. Saying otherwise would be to say that I, as a private individual not acting at the behest of a BD, have the power to invalidate a GET simply by protesting.<br /><br />I am glad that RYGB agrees with that sevara.<br />==================<br />Interesting and counterintuitive chidush - which the Lechem Mishneh and Chazon Ish explicitly reject. I will be making a separate post on RYGB's position.<br /><br />I suggest you look at the gemora the Rambam is based on Gittin 88b where it is clear that only beis din or its agents have the possiblity of forcing a get. RYGB's chidush is that only beis din is limited to following the law of forcing but individuals can force without invaliding the get - just the opposite of pshat in the gemora.<br /><br />so yes you as an individual can clearly invalidate the get and this is exactly where the whole discussion started a long time ago.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-34989246550827349852012-05-04T22:02:29.973+03:002012-05-04T22:02:29.973+03:00Yes, the BY in 154 says we do not practice like th...Yes, the BY in 154 says we do not practice like the Rambam and I agree. But, the SA seems to state that meikkar hadin, the Rambam is correct. We just dont follow him because of the severity of the matter.<br /><br />My objection is to extrapolating from SA77. I think the operative siman is 154 and that siman 77 is not intended to mean that the GET issued is posul.<br /><br />All of this, however, is completely irrelevant. ORA does not claim to follow the Rambam. The only two relevant issues are:<br />1. Do we use RT?<br />2. Does ORA fit under the rubric of RT? <br /><br />I would maintain that the answer to both is YES.<br /><br />I would also add (and I think this can be debated) that ORA's actions are not those of BD and that distinction is crucial. Saying otherwise would be to say that I, as a private individual not acting at the behest of a BD, have the power to invalidate a GET simply by protesting. <br /><br />I am glad that RYGB agrees with that sevara.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-85160404160473236432012-05-04T20:00:03.178+03:002012-05-04T20:00:03.178+03:00Only one BD, the Baltimore BD, heard both sides an...Only one BD, the Baltimore BD, heard both sides and that BD did not order that a get be given. <br />And if Tamar decided very quickly that she wanted out of the marriage, why did she choose to have a child after having made the decision to leave the marriage?<br /><br />How do you know what RDE or RDE know about how Tamar felt about Aharon?Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-40169877478255835812012-05-04T18:29:24.189+03:002012-05-04T18:29:24.189+03:00Binyamin,
I am not looking at the issue from that...Binyamin,<br /><br />I am not looking at the issue from that perspective. <br /><br />No one on this blog is privy to the private conversations, interviews, and research of the Beth Din.<br /><br />Rabbis Kamenetsky and Belsky determined that the marriage was over. They are not feminists. They have a decent understanding of what the institution of marriage is and how halacha defines it.<br /><br />Tamar has said that she realized very quickly that she didnt wanted out of the marriage. She has NOT told us why. We dont even know that this is a case of maus alei. Neither RDE nor RDE know how Tamar reached her decision or WHY she realized she could no longer be married to him. <br /><br />The only ones who do know the answers to that question are the rabbanim on the BD that issued the seruv. They, and not me, determined that the marraige was over.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32128826723549341472012-05-04T15:15:24.674+03:002012-05-04T15:15:24.674+03:00Thank you Binyamin - you've shined a great spo...Thank you Binyamin - you've shined a great spotlight on the dark fog of halachic disinformation and intellectual dishonesty being generated by Schachter, Berger, Tzadok, Bechhofer, etc.<br /><br />Both frum men and women are openly acknowledging that many or most Orthodox divorce cases in the USA are being litigated in non-Jewish courts, these courts being quite favorable to women. Therefore maus alai is completely irrelevant in the vast majority of cases.EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5706011391171419792012-05-04T11:22:11.147+03:002012-05-04T11:22:11.147+03:00this point is discussed by Rabbi Gartner in the su...this point is discussed by Rabbi Gartner in the summary I just posted.<br /><br />http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/05/agnuna-what-are-possible-solutions.htmlDaas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-29252036010559204852012-05-04T09:56:47.246+03:002012-05-04T09:56:47.246+03:00James, you seem to be looking at the issue from th...James, you seem to be looking at the issue from the perspective that once a marriage is over there is no excuse to withhold divorce, and that when the wife has moved out and finished a civil divorce, the marriage is as dead as can be. This common view influences a lot of people in the discussion, since the halacha makes little sense when you look at the subject of divorce this way.<br /><br />Try to consider the wider implications of supporting free and easy divorce for women. What happens if we allow women to take full advantage of secular divorces, and then force men to finalize it? Why might it be that the halacha makes divorce dependent on a man's free will to give it?<br /><br />If you can understand what the institution of marriage is and how the halacha defines it, it will make a lot more sense to you. The halacha does not make any sense when seen through the popular modern view of marriage and divorce, but this modern view itself makes no sense from a social and moral standpoint.Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03968756160388984974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-51335765434716437822012-05-04T09:55:21.022+03:002012-05-04T09:55:21.022+03:00James the B"Y in 154 says that we do not foll...James the B"Y in 154 says that we do not follow the Rambam to beat the husband, and quotes the Rashba. Though he does say that other forms of pressure may be used, including beating his father with sticks until he tells his son to give a Get and then beat his son until he does what his father says.<br /><br />Though the same Beit Yosef, does say that if the son were beaten or somehow forced by Jews, or by non-Jews on the word of Jews, then this is only a Get Meusa M'd'rabbanan, and that if there is a Bitul Modaah, then it is a sofek d'rabbanan, which opens up a whole new can of worms.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-55935191407311990352012-05-04T09:39:31.128+03:002012-05-04T09:39:31.128+03:00James,
First, maus alai means that the women said...James, <br />First, maus alai means that the women said she has no interest in benefiting from having been married to him - "not him, and not his ketuba", and she has to return everything she got from him. (see rambam and SA, and rashi in kesubos 63b)<br />A woman who cashes is in on the marriage the secular courts cannot claim maus alai afterward, so this whole discussion is irrelevant in almost all aguna cases. IT is a very rare aguna who actually wants out with no benefit<br /><br />Second, look at the magid mishna on the rambam(Ishus 14:8), and in Tur/Beis Yosef (77). They all state very clearly that the Rambam is not an accepted psak.Binyaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03968756160388984974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-21224804144922857972012-05-04T07:53:09.514+03:002012-05-04T07:53:09.514+03:00James you don't need logic - this is repeated ...James you don't need logic - this is repeated over and over again through the rabbinic literature - including Otzer haPoskim - which is the most authoratative summary. Anyone who doesn't know this elementary reality has no business making pronouncements about get me'usa or criticising the views of others in this matter. This is the the gemora in kesubos. <br /><br />The gemora says in a case of ma'us alei that she is not forced to live with him - Rambam says that means that he must be forced to give a get. The other view is that the gemora simply means she doesn't have to live with him - but he has no need to give her a get because the gemora mentions nothing about him giving a get.<br /><br />Bottom line - if you really believe your assertions - you are simply wrong because it is a universally accepted fact. Please go learn the gemora or at least go through the first few pages of Otzer haPoskim on E.H. 77Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-22749620791885065402012-05-04T05:13:49.358+03:002012-05-04T05:13:49.358+03:00hen, while ORA's fake "agunot" rob t...<i>hen, while ORA's fake "agunot" rob their husbands blind in ARCHAOT</i><br /><br />Why is it Ok by you for a man to go to arkaot against a woman, but not the other way around? Why have you not condemned Aharon Friedman for going to Arkaot if this is such an issue for you? You show your misogynistic hypocrisy clearly with this.<br /><br /><i>the ORA apologists Berger, Tzakok</i><br />I'm not an ORA apologist. I think that ORA is acting outside of halakha. <br /><br /><i>Do Berger, Tzadok, Bechhofer also hold by the Rambam's PSAK that a man can marry more than one wife?</i><br />I cannot speak for the rest, but yes I do. However, the Ashkenazim have something in place called Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom. Also by Sephardi tradition it is written into the Ketuba that a man needs permission from both his wife and the B"D.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-78596493560177371662012-05-04T05:07:51.944+03:002012-05-04T05:07:51.944+03:00Mike: Rav Moshe issued no psak in the Chaim Berlin...<i>Mike: Rav Moshe issued no psak in the Chaim Berlin case.</i><br /><br />Try again. <br />http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com/2007/12/torah-never-forgets.htmlRabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-61127654846338029732012-05-04T04:25:49.015+03:002012-05-04T04:25:49.015+03:00RDE,
You seem to be misreading a very simple hala...RDE,<br /><br />You seem to be misreading a very simple halacha. SA 77 stands for one very simple principle, namely that a woman who claims (מאסתיהו)loses her right to her Ketuba. The Ketuba was designed to protect a woman against being left penniless by her husband and is thus, not required in this case. <br /><br />The SA says nothing about Gittin. Why would he? This is a siman in Ketubot. You are saying that from the lack of explicit permission to beat the husband that the SA rules against the Rambam. That is a leap of logic I am not willing to take.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-78748303009761390212012-05-04T01:50:50.106+03:002012-05-04T01:50:50.106+03:00Daas Torah, don't allow the ORA apologists Ber...Daas Torah, don't allow the ORA apologists Berger, Tzakok, Bechhofer etc. to convince you that they actually hold by the Rambam. That is simply not the case. <br /><br />ORA's henchmen selectively quote the parts of the Rambam that can be manipulated to justify the ORA Reformadox agenda. Then, while ORA's fake "agunot" rob their husbands blind in ARCHAOT, ORA's apologists delete the remainder of the Rambam's PSAK in Hilchos Ishus (14:8) - "she (the wife) is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should return even the shoe on her foot and her head-covering that he gave her ..."<br /><br />Do Berger, Tzadok, Bechhofer also hold by the Rambam's PSAK that a man can marry more than one wife?EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-69319752288139976352012-05-04T00:32:54.991+03:002012-05-04T00:32:54.991+03:00"once he signed a piece of paper saying he wa..."once he signed a piece of paper saying he wasn't going to be providing onah"<br />Exactly who signed such a piece of paper?puzzlednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-79857826974949322832012-05-04T00:09:11.241+03:002012-05-04T00:09:11.241+03:00Thank You Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn for clearly prese...Thank You Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn for clearly presenting the halachic sources and explaining them so well, demonsrrating the correct approach to this issue.Telnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-50120601456295341272012-05-03T23:54:58.711+03:002012-05-03T23:54:58.711+03:00YGB: DT has refuted all your points in his respons...YGB: DT has refuted all your points in his response to Micha below.Telnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-29939754999664011942012-05-03T23:53:02.964+03:002012-05-03T23:53:02.964+03:00Mike: Rav Moshe issued no psak in the Chaim Berlin...Mike: Rav Moshe issued no psak in the Chaim Berlin case.Telnoreply@blogger.com