tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post985228562507869654..comments2024-03-29T12:21:24.976+03:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Rav Sternbuch: Get for civil & Reform marriages?Daas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-84862663554713913562012-06-24T19:28:09.172+03:002012-06-24T19:28:09.172+03:00You don't need to apologize to me that you tho...You don't need to apologize to me that you thought that I was capable of writing a teshuva like Rav Sternbuch. But it does indicate that you are not as familiar with the literature as you should be.<br /><br />The simple answer to your question is that if it were so obvious then there would have been no need for Rav Sternbuch to write a teshuva summarizing the views of those who take this issue seriously. You also might want to look at the dispute between Rav Henkin and Rav Moshe.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-55485890919799162602012-06-24T18:56:15.343+03:002012-06-24T18:56:15.343+03:00I apologize Rabbi Eidensohn,i was under the mistak...I apologize Rabbi Eidensohn,i was under the mistaken impression that these were your words,<br />just curious why would you find my conclusion amazing,<br />isn't it obvious that the HALACHA of her becoming an EISHES ISH is only an extention of him marrying her,<br />or better yet" let me ask you a simple question,what if a frum jew goes over to a woman and gives her a ring and tells her be my wife,but stipulates that i don't want any HALACHIK consequences to kick in at all,<br />wouldn't we rule that the KIDUSHIN is a 100% good one,<br />and what he stipulated is complete gibberish and we ignore it ala (MASNE AL MAH SHEKASUV BATORAH)<br />therefore a secular jew who marries a woman by giving her a ring and telling be my wife,even though he is completely ignorant of the religious ramifications of this marriage,why should we invalidate it?,why would it be worse than the above scenario when someone actually stipulates he does not want any HALACHIK consequences to kick in and we rule that the KEDUSHIN is a valid onechaim schonbrunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-17982494872060288322012-06-24T18:22:49.330+03:002012-06-24T18:22:49.330+03:00These are not my words but those of Rav Sternbuch....These are not my words but those of Rav Sternbuch. I find your conclusion amazing - considering the gedolim you are simply either ignorant of or you chose to disagree with themDaas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-20970147601187550422012-06-24T18:10:02.005+03:002012-06-24T18:10:02.005+03:00""however their words seem astounding,it...""however their words seem astounding,it is obvious that if a person gets a civil marriage and not a religious one-he is clearly indicating that he has no interest in a religious marriage,therefore how can you claim that such a person should be considered married ? ""<br />============================================================<br />Rabbi Eidenshon,with all due respect it is your words that are astounding,the simple fact is-that if someone goes over to a woman and gives her a ring or something of value and tells her i want you to be my wife,she is MEKUDESHES 100%,and it is completely irrelevant wether he meant a HALACHIK marriage or not,because the simple fact is that the HALACHA is only a automatic consequence of someone being MEKADESH a woman,in other words- the TORAH tells us if someone buys (MEKADESH)a wife there will follow HALACHIK consequences,she becomes an EISHES ISH and other pertinent HALACHOS.<br />bottom line is,someone who is MEKADESH a woman does not have to know that there are religious ramifications to his KEDUSHIN he just has to have the intention of her becoming his wife,and as she becomes his wife all the pertinent HALACHOS kick in automaticly,chaim schonbrunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-21233707151294560372012-06-24T13:40:17.432+03:002012-06-24T13:40:17.432+03:00Hmmm. It is the well known machlokes between Rav H...Hmmm. It is the well known machlokes between Rav Henkin and Reb Moshe.<br />However, times have changed.<br />Intercourse before marriage means very little now in terms of intention<br />Living together also means little. Davka they don't marry!!<br />De facto status happens now, but often with caveats which unlink the couple financially<br />Getting married via reform can also be viewed as a Jewish cultural ceremony as opposed to any religiously inclined intent. The person has no connection with the cheftza of kiddushin so how can we say they have a kiddushin intent. A Tous is a Tous and there is no Mekach, surely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-69079215858768575852012-06-24T13:30:27.156+03:002012-06-24T13:30:27.156+03:00There was a huge discussion in the poskim about Do...There was a huge discussion in the poskim about Dona Gracia Mendes, in the 1500s. The discussion was about yerusha and tenai keddushin, but in the teshuvos, they discuss the status of her civil marriage in Portugal, as there was no proper kiddushin. It is clear from R Yosef Karo, Mabit (Avkas Rochel chapters 80, 81), Maharshdam, and Maharibal (don't remember the simanim of their teshuvos offhand - though same case) that none of them held that she was halachikly married in any way.koillel nicknoreply@blogger.com