Reb Moshe's 40th Yartzeit and the Agunah Problem Rav Shalom C. Spira

 Today, 13 Adar 5786, marks the fortieth yartzeit of R. Moshe Feinstein. The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 5b derives from Deut. 29:3 that a student does not understand his teacher until after forty years. [This prescription is also inherent in Sotah 22b according to the elucidation of Tosafot, ad loc., as well as in Bava Metzi'a 33a according to the elucidation of Rabbeinu Chananel, ad loc.] Hence, the 40^th yartzeit of Rabbi Feinstein represents an opportunity to finally arrive at a true understanding on his legacy regarding the agunah problem.

    In Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim, IV, no. 49, Rabbi Feinstein dismisses those advocates who seek to change the laws of the Torah for the sake of satisfying the feminist ideology. Rabbi Feinstein explains that since the laws of the Torah are from the Holy One, Blessed Be He (as per Rambam's eighth principle of faith) and cannot change (as per Rambam's ninth principle of faith), it is therefore both silly and heretical for any human to advocate for halakhic reform. The responsum was written by Rabbi Feinstein in 5736, precisely one year after his cousin R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik announced ​the same in his famous "Gerus and Mesorah" lecture. Rabbi Soloveitchik delivered that lecture [available online at YUTorah Online ] in order to repudiate R. Emanuel Rackman's fraudulent proposal to [ostensibly] rescue agunot by allowing them to remarry without a get. 

    True to form, in a responsum composed on 7 Nissan 5730 (Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer, III, no. 49), Rabbi Feinstein summons a lady to respect the sanctity of her dysfunctional marriage. In the tragic case that Rabbi Feinstein adjudicated, the husband had been exiled to Siberia, then drafted into WWII, and ultimately declared missing in action by the Soviet government in 5703. Despite it now being 27 years later [and the husband possibly dead], Rabbi Feinstein concludes that the wife cannot remarry but must rather patiently continue to wait for her husband's return, the husband maintaining his chezkat chaim according to Torah law. This responsum clearly rejects the feminist ideology of self-determination by every wife, and instead illuminates the path for we as Orthodox Jews to uphold the Jewish faith, apropos Yehudah ben Teima's prescription (Avot 5:20) to "be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a deer and heroic as a lion, to champion the Will of your Father in Heaven." 

    It is therefore imperative to correct the agunah errors that have been attributed to Rabbi Feinstein by [a distinguished scholar who shares the same first name] R. Moshe Kurtz (be-mechilat Kevod Torato) in his recent article at Unpacking the Iggerot: Aiding Agunot - Tradition Online, as follows:

1. In paragraph 12, Rabbi Kurtz claims that Rabbi Feinstein "ruled that a man who is incapable of fathering a child possesses a categorical defect vis-à-vis marriage and that the couple’s union could thereby be dissolved retroactively (E.H., vol. 1, #79)."
   WRONG. Reb Moshe׳s responsum in EH 1:79 only nullifies a kiddushin when the bride did not realize that her groom is physically incapable of consummating the marriage even once. Reb Moshe infers this nullification from Bava Kamma 110b which he deciphers to mean that there is mekach ta'ut if the bride did not realize that her groom is afflicted with boils. Reb Moshe argues that a groom who cannot cohabit is the halakhic equivalent of a groom afflicted with boils. But if the groom can consummate the marriage even once, there is no comparison to Bava Kamma 110b, and hence the kiddushin is valid even if no child is ever born.
2. In paragraph 14, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "One of the most iconic instances that he [Rabbi Feinstein] employs kiddushei ta’ut regards a woman who discovers that her husband is attracted to men. Depending whether it is an occasional temptation or his primary preference would be key to determining whether it meets the qualifications for declaring the marriage retroactively void (E.H., vol. 4, #113)."
   WRONG. This responsum (EH 4:113) which is attributed to Reb Moshe [-see further that this attribution is contested-] only nullifies kiddushin if the bride did not realize that her groom actually engages in sodomy, not if the groom was merely attracted to other men. The distinction is essential. As per supra, point 1, Reb Moshe argued (EH 1:79) that where a bride who does not realize that her groom cannot cohabit even once, mekach ta'ut has occurred. Here, in EH 4:113, Reb Moshe is adding the further innovation [what can be termed "chiddush al gabbei chiddush"] that because a Jewish gentleman must commit suicide al Kiddush Ha-Shem rather than actually commit sodomy, a groom who actually engages in sodomy is the halakhic equivalent of a groom who cannot cohabit with his bride even once. [A dead groom cannot cohabit.] However, by contradistinction, the kiddushin of a groom who is unfortunately afflicted with a same-gender attraction, but who has the self-discipline to refuse to act on that attraction [and hence is not obligated, and indeed not allowed, to contemplate suicide], is a perfectly valid kiddushin even according to Reb Moshe's chiddush al gabbei chiddush. While superfluous in making the point, it should also be noted that the provenance of the entire volume in which EH 4:113 appears is contested by Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, VII, p. 150. [I.e., according to Rabbi Bleich, we are not necessarily compelled to even accept that Reb Moshe professed the chiddush al gabbei chiddush.]
3. In paragraph 17 and again in paragraph 19, Rabbi Kurtz cites an oral report claiming that Rabbi Feinstein allowed incarceration as a legitimate way of securing a get from a recalcitrant husband.
   WRONG. Reb Moshe actually acknowledges in EH 3:44 that incarceration of an innocent husband is a form of coercion that will invalidate the resulting get.
4. Also in paragraph 17, Rabbi Kurtz claims that if a penuyah (who is in collusion with an agunah) deceitfully pretends to propose a shiddukh with a recalcitrant husband and the recalcitrant husband therefore writes a get to the agunah (mistakenly thinking he will have a shiddukh with the penuyah), the agunah is thereby rescued.
   WRONG. That would be a get mut'eh and hence worthless as per Yevamot 106a, still leaving the agunah stuck.
5. In paragraph 18, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "In Iggerot Moshe (E.H., vol, 3, #44), he writes that the husband need not give the get out of a sense or moral duty, but even doing so to avoid financial penalties from the court would be sufficient. He elucidates that while a forced divorce is ineffective, in this case, he is seeking to alleviate the monetary pressure and the divorce is just the extrinsic means for achieving it."
   WRONG. Financial coercion invalidates a get coerced from an innocent husband, as per the Gemara, Bava Batra 40b that financial duress deprives the subject of free will. Reb Moshe's responsum in EH 3:44 is only referring to a special case where the husband already announced that he wants to divorce his wife anyway before the coercion was applied to him, and even there Reb Moshe has a safek whether this leniency [which he calls a sevara gedolah] is actually valid, meaning that Reb Moshe refuses to rely on the sevara gedolah alone. See Section K (commencing p. 59) of my essay Prenuptial Agreements | PDF | Halakha | Hebrew Words And Phrases .
6. In paragraph 21, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "Not only would the man be required to provide the aguna with the means she needs to survive but in a short, yet consequential responsum (E.H., vol. 4, #107), he [Rabbi Feinstein] even authorizes an additional stipulation in the tenaim documents that the husband will be penalized if he unilaterally refuses to issue a get."
   WRONG. Reb Moshe never authorized penalizing an innocent husband by way of a prenup. See Section R (commencing on p. 92) of my aforementioned prenup essay which clarifies what Reb Moshe actually intended with his prenup in EH 4:107. Importantly, Reb Moshe's responsum was published in two different versions, and the provenance of the entire volume of Iggerot Mosheh in which that responsum appears has been contested (as per supra, point 2). See also Yechezkel Hirshman's approach to Reb Moshe's prenup at Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta: Prenups X: More Trei Gadya - A Consumer's Guide to Halachic Prenuptial Agreements , which likewise contradicts Rabbi Kurtz.
7. In paragraphs 22-23, Rabbi Kurtz cites R. Yonah Reiss as ostensibly proving that R. Moshe Feinstein's willingness to apply financial pressure on innocent husbands served as the precursor to the RCA prenup.
   WRONG. Reb Moshe never authorized financial pressure imposed on innocent husbands (as per supra, point 6), and R. Yonah Reiss' academic dishonesty has been exposed by my article last year at Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity:  Shabbat Zakhor and the Agunah Problem by Rav Shalom C. Spira
8. In paragraph 26, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "The veracity of these accounts notwithstanding, an undeniable hallmark of R. Feinstein’s writings is his compassion and resolve to aid all agunot. In Iggerot Moshe (Y.D., vol. 1, #101), he vehemently insists that “it is forbidden for us to be from the ‘humble ones’ and to cause a Jewish woman to remain an aguna or to cause her to turn toward illicit deeds or even to cause the loss of a fellow Jew’s finances.” He proceeds to cite the account of R. Zekharya ben Avkulus, whose exceeding “humility” in halakhic decision making was credited with the ultimate downfall of the Temple (see Gittin 56a)."
   WRONG. Rabbi Kurtz is repeating the discredited canard of R. Michael Broyde and R. Shmuel Kamenetzky. This is because Reb Moshe (YD 1:101) is not talking about an agunah where a wife wants to abandon her husband. Rather, Reb Moshe (YD 1:101) is talking about a wife who actually seeks to live in harmony with her husband, but she can't immerse in a mikveh without a cotton ear plug. See my essay on Response To R. Shmuel Kamenetzky | PDF | Philosophy | History which explains this in detail.

   The Gemara, Yoma 86b, requires us to publicize scam artists in order to prevent a profanation of the Name. Indeed, R. Samson Rephael Hirsch comments (on Genesis 27:1) that this is what ethically empowered Rebecca to expose Esau as a scam artist by having Jacob masquerade as him. Now add to that calculation the fact that Rashi to Genesis 26:34 reports that Esau would steal wives from innocent husbands. Hence, on this 40^th yartzeit of Reb Moshe, we as Orthodox Jews must successfuly grasp what Rabbi Feinstein actually paskened and what he did not pasken regarding the agunah problem, so that we can distinguish true agunah experts from scam artists.

    May the light of Torah, so central to the holiday of Purim (as per Megillah 16b), help the bereaved children of R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt [who all pledged allegiance to Reb Moshe in their eulogies for Reb Nota] finally grasp that Ms. Tamar Epstein is indeed the wife of Reb Aharon Friedman according to the Jewish faith, as I have already established at Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Response to the Eulogy for Rabbi Nota Zvi Greenblatt by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira . Just last month, on 19 Shevat 5786, R. Menachem Zechariah Zilber's treatise to the same effect was published at HebrewBooks.org Sefer Detail: מקח טעות בקידושין -- זילבער, מנחם זכריה בן רפאל  .

Rabbi Spira works as Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research [a Pavillion of the Jewish General Hospital] in Montreal, Canada.

Loss of an Advocate for the Sanctity of Jewish Marriage: R. David Eidensohn zatza"l

 R. David Eidensohn has ascended to the Heavenly Academy. He was the brother of (yibadel le-chaim) R. Daniel Eidensohn, editor of Daas Torah blog, where I serve as an associate writer. See https://daattorah.blogspot.com/

It was R. David Eidensohn who originally sounded the alarm against the blood libel that was inflicted by R. Hershel Schachter (acting on behalf of Ms. Tamar Epstein) against Reb Aharon Friedman [falsely claiming that Reb Aharon is obligated to write her a get, a terrible violation of Exodus 20:14 by Rabbi Schachter]. And then, when thanks to the good advice of R. David Eidensohn, Reb Aharon refused to write any get, it was R. David Eidensohn who subsequently sounded the alarm against the fraudulent Kamenetzky-Greenblatt heter [directing Ms. Epstein to "remarry" with no get whatsoever], inspiring numerous batei din worldwide to declare that Ms. Epstein is still the wife of Reb Aharon, and further prompting the Beit Din Tzedek of the Edah ha-Charedit in Jerusalem to instruct all rabbis throughout the globe to protest the fraudulent Kamenetzky-Greenblatt heter. I have published several articles on this matter, including most recently at https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2025/03/shabbat-zakhor-and-agunah-problem-by.html [-and also regarding the tangential topic of blood libels at https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2025/04/a-passover-message-to-president-putin.html ].

I would like to follow up on the letter I sent the Rabbanan earlier this week (Tuesday, Sept. 9), inspired by the ascent to the Heavenly Academy of R. David Eidensohn, a scholar who defended the sanctity of Jewish marriage from the disciples of Saul Lieberman who sought to mislead every Jewess to receive a get upon demand and say shalom yihiyeh li ki bi-shrirut libi elekh (Deut. 29:18). [I personally consulted by long-distance telephone with R. David Eidensohn when I formulated my prenup at https://www.scribd.com/document/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements, and he is acknowledged in the credits.]

R. David Eidensohn identified three pitfalls that occur with corrupt mesadrei kiddushin today, including (a) those mesadrei kiddushin that will arrange a chuppah for the ex-wife of an innocent husband who was coerced by the 1992 New York Get Law [-forbidden by Maran Rav Bleich, and as mentioned this past Tuesday, Maran Rav Bleich also forbids the analogous situation where the 1990 Canada Get Law was used against an innocent husband. Not only that, but even in a case of seemingly remote doubt, where no secular court was involved and the couple divorced in Beth Din amicably, in an actual shiddukh with a divorcee that was proposed to me, Maran Rav Bleich denied me the right to pop the question to the lady, and this despite R. Ariel Wasserlauf's independent investigation (at my request), the results of which he generously shared with me, that the ex-husband was delighted to jettison the ex-wife in order to marry a second wife, to whom he is now happily married with five children. Furthermore, this father of five (from the second wife to whom he is happily married) currently serves as the ba'al korei of one of the Dayanim of the Jewish Community Council of Montreal R. David Rephael Banon, and in fact Rabbi Banon supervised the actual get in question, such that li-kh'orah "all systems go" and this was a glatt kosher divorce. No, Maran Rav Bleich holds I still have to be choshesh that the innocent ex-husband (who is not in the category of kofin le-garesh) was afraid of the 1990 Canada Get Law, and so better I should be stuck as a bachelor rather than risk even the possibility of adultery. See with your own eyes how serious this problem of the 1990 Canada Get Law has become.]; (b) those mesadrei kiddushin that will arrange a chuppah for the ex-wife of an innocent husband who was coerced by the 1993 Beth Din of America prenup [-an illegitimate and heretical prenup like that of Saul Lieberman, unlike mine which is recognized as valid by the universal consensus of poskim]; and (c) R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt who fraudulently arranged a pseudo-chuppah for Ms. Tamar Epstein who had no get altogether. Taking my cue from R. David Eidensohn [and after shimush with Maran Rav Bleich], I published a series of refutations to all of these corrupt mesadrei kiddushin, and as a result of this, I was able to ensure that a double get zikkuy was arranged for the agunah whose case I brought to the Supreme Court of Canada. Yodu la-Ha-Shem chasdo, ve-nifle'otav li-vnei adam (Psalm 107). 

R. David Eidensohn also tackled a fourth pitfall which I have never addressed in published form: The humiliation tactics of ORA as representing a form of illicit coercion on gittin [in the case of innocent husbands]. He discusses this here: https://torahhalacha.blogspot.com/2014/11/ora-mamzer-producing-organization.html#comment-form , and even mentions the case of Yisrael Meir Kin that I referenced in my letter earlier this week. In a very recent development, Maran Rav Bleich has also addressed the humiliation tactics of ORA in his latest two-part article in Tradition. I have not yet read the article as the journal has not yet arrived in any Montreal library, but I know from the summary published on the Tradition website that Maran Rav Bleich refutes ORA. Maran Rav Bleich also briefly references this two-part article in his recent recorded audio lecture (just two weeks ago) at https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1145961/Ervas-Davar-(Even-HaEzer-119)

I also draw your attention to a video that the late R. David Eidensohn published during his lifetime entitled "Reb Aharon Kotler - Do We Still Follow His Ways," warning the public about Ms. Tamar Epstein's false antics in claiming that she can remarry without a get [-this video was released in 2014 even before she actually went ahead a year later in 2015 and was makhshelet R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt in a berakhah le-vatalah at an adulterous pseudo-chuppah]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=83zRqBsWuU0 In the final segment of the video, Rabbi Eidensohn movingly says as follows (31:55 into the recording): 

"And those of us who remember Reb Aharon[*], who remember that there's such a thing as a Shulchan Arukh and that being a rosh yeshivah doesn't make you a gadol that you're bigger than the Shulchan Arukh. So, those of us - we're outnumbered badly, but there's plenty of us, and we have to unite and be strong and keep up the derekh ha-yashar in Torah."

[* = The reference is to R. Aharon Kotler.]

So this is why I am writing the present e-mail. R. David Eidensohn has left this world, but if we coordinate ourselves as he advocated, we can continue his legacy and rescue Klal Yisrael from a mamzer epidemic. "A conference of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world" (Sanhedrin 71b). 

This week, when we will read "a lady shall be betrothed, and another gentleman shall cohabit with her" (Deut. 28:30), I pray that tikhleh ha-shanah ve-kileloteha (Megillah 31b). 

Thank you,

Shalom C. Spira

Shabbat Zakhor and the Agunah Problem by Rav Shalom C. Spira

Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 685:7 requires all Jewish gentlemen [and according to some interpretations, Jewish ladies as well] to attend synagogue for Shabbat Zakhor, because the special maftir Torah reading constitutes a binding obligation on every individual. Remarkably, the haftarah reading from the Prophets that immediately follows this maftir, while not as weighty in terms of attendance duty, is of special interest to the agunah problem.

      "And Saul came to the City of Amalek, and he waged war in the nachal [wadi]" (I Samuel 15:5). The Gemara, Yoma 22b elaborates on "nachal" to mean that Saul's conscience struggled with the morality of waging war against Amalek in light of the mitzvah of the eglah arufah which is performed in a wadi called nachal eitan (as per Deut. 21:4). Specifically, says the Gemara, Saul contended as follows:

       "If for one soul [that is the victim of homicide] the Torah says to bring an eglah arufah, then how much more so for all these souls [in the City of Amalek]. And if the people sinned, how did the animals sin? And if the grown-ups sinned, how did the minors sin?"

      The Gemara concludes that a Heavenly voice answered Saul "do not be overly righteous" (Ecclesiastes 7:16). Namely, since the Holy One, Blessed Be He, specifically commanded Saul [via Samuel the Prophet] to wage war against Amalek [including children and livestock], therefore by definition the command is perfectly ethical.

      Now, by contradistinction, when we deal with the agunah problem, there is obviously no bloodshed in progress [witticisms about the sequence of Tractates Gittin and Kiddushin left aside], and hence it is fortuitously not as high-intensity an emotional drama. But the same answer that the Heavenly voice gave Saul indeed represents the appropriate repudiation to heterodox groups who insist on every agunah being entitled to leave her husband [no matter whether the husband is guilty or innocent of wrongdoing]: "do not be overly righteous." It is not possible to be more ethical than the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Who Has commanded us as Orthodox Jews to respect the sanctity of kiddushin. 

      There is, of course, a class of delinquent husbands who must be told or even coerced to deliver a get, as per Shulchan Arukh Even ha-Ezer nos. 77 and 154, but this concerns only some [and not all] marital discord situations. A qualified Beth Din must adjudicate these on a case by case basis.

      The above message is eloquently captured in the following 1975 remarks of R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik [recorded at <https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/767722/>], responding to R. Emanuel Rackman's ill-fated proposal to rescue all agunot by claiming kiddushei ta'ut:

      "The truth is attained from within in accord with the methodology given to Moses and passed on from generation to generation. The truth can be discovered only through joining the ranks of the chakhmei ha-mesorah. It's ridiculous to say 'I have discovered something which the Rashba didn't know, the Ketzos didn't know, the Vilna Ga'on had no knowledge. I have discovered an approach to the interpretation of Torah which is completely new.' [It's] ridiculous. In order to join the ranks of the chakhmei ha-mesorah – Chazal, Rishonim, Acharonim –  we must not try to rationalize from without the Chukei ha-Torah, and we must not judge chukim u-mishpatim with the secular system of man."

      Some confusion appears to have been generated by a recent article published by R. Yonah Reiss claiming that there is a tradition of numerous poskim to find an escape-mechanism for every agunah. In the text accompanying footnote 7 of  <https://bethdin.org/the-halakhic-prenuptial-agreement/>, Rabbi Reiss avers that:

      "For the past one hundred plus years, there have been sustained efforts by numerous Jewish law authorities to formulate a type of prenuptial agreement that would address an additional area of concern within the Jewish community, namely the problem of Agunot (women whose husbands refuse to give them a Get despite the non-viability of their marriage). Since there is a long tradition of employing prenuptial agreements for the protection of a woman’s interests, including sustaining a marriage when in her best interests, or providing support for a woman in a troubled marriage, it seemed logical to use  this time-honored device towards the age-old rabbinic desideratum of preventing women from being Agunot."

      The reference in footnote 7 for the above text is as follows:

      "See the lengthy discussion in the article “Ein T’nai B’nisuin” by R. Tzvi Gartner and R. Betzalel Karlinsky, published in Yeshurun, volumes 8-10."

      Alas, be-mechilat Kevod Torato, Rabbi Reiss is mistaken. The three parts of the Gartner & Karlinsky article [available at <https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20292&st=&pgnum=690&hilite=>, <https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20349&st=&pgnum=681)>, and <https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20399&st=&pgnum=723&hilite=>] actually demonstrate how the consensus of Gedolei Yisrael condemned innovations designed to automatically grant agunot a get [or freedom to remarry without any get whatsoever], and characterized these innovations as heresy. [Cf. R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim, IV, no. 49 who likewise describes as heretics those who attempt to reform halakhah for the sake of the feminist movement.] In my opinion, this also flows from the Mishnah, Yevamot 107a that "the daughters of Israel are not hefker." [N.B. Although Beit Hillel argue against Beit Shammai in that Mishnah with respect to kiddushin de-Rabbanan, the implication is that Beit Hillel concur with Beit Shammai regarding kiddushin de-Oraita, indeed the only form of marriage used nowadays. See also Rabbeinu Tam cited by Tosafot to Ketubot 63b that it is impossible that the Torah would allow an arrangement where every Jewish wife can leave her marriage whenever "she sets her eyes upon a different gentleman."]

      Importantly, Rabbis Gartner and Karlinsky cite (in footnote 103 of the second tier of their article) Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel, first president of Yeshiva University, as being one of the many rabbis who put a cherem on any mesader kiddushin, groom, bride or witness who participates in a wedding with the heterodox proposal of appointing a shali'ach for a future agunah-rescuing get at the time of the chuppah. This pro-familialism message of President Revel underscores the reality that an agunah who graduates YU has exactly the same halakhah as an agunah who graduates Lakewood or Kiryas Joel.

      To be sure, there is one prenup which the Oral Torah does authorize to help agunot, as I have showcased at <https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2023/07/tishah-be-av-and-agunah-problem-by.html>. Consistent with the aforementioned words of Rabbeinu Tam, any such prenup cannot grant an automatic "get out of jail free" ticket to every agunah. Rather, my prenup [if actually employed before the chuppah] improves the financial position of every wife, allowing her to negotiate with her husband and offer to pay him for a get if both sides can arrive at a common understanding.

      "There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against Ha-Shem" (Proverbs 21:30 cited by Eruvin 63a). The secular values of the street must necessarily defer to the sanctified values of Orthodox Judaism. It was my father's wish that his legacy be perpetuated through the recognition that the kiddushin which Reb Aharon Friedman offered Ms. Tamar Epstein was [and remains] valid, as discussed at <https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2025/01/a-eulogy-for-my-father-bt-av-shalom-c.html>. Let us remember this concept on Shabbat Zakhor.

Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, a Pavilion of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada.

A Eulogy for my Father by Rav Shalom C. Spira

  My father, Dr. Alexander Spira (Yeshayah Zvi ben Avraham Eliezer), ascended to the Heavenly Academy on 8 Shevat, 5784, and his aron was brought to Eretz Yisrael four days later on 12 Shevat. Hence, I recently completed the requisite twelve months of mourning with a eulogy delivered on this past Leil Asarah be-Tevet (corresponding to Jan. 9, 2025). The hesped, which took place at the beit midrash of R. Ephraim Chaim Crémisi [one of the dayanim of Jewish Community Council of Montreal] is audio-recorded at <https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wbzc0hqk46uz0k20qcyu2/Rabbi-chalom-spira.m4a?rlkey=zw5vcrv6idjzc0rfdwrif5uta&e=3&st=ho5y3pyg&dl=0>. Special thanks are hereby extended to Reb Shmuel Yisrael (Sheldon) Keesel for enhancing the eulogy with his Siyum Mishnayot Seder Kodashim [commencing at 39:52 into the recording.]

      My father was born on March 17, 1941 in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia. Miraculously, he survived the Holocaust with his parents and siblings (be-chasdei Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu, Yishtabach Shemo) and subsequently moved to Montreal, Canada, where my father overcame the foreign language barrier to become certified as a dental surgeon and serve the public oral health for 50 years. My father's commitment to loving Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu via the Maimonidean path of studying both Torah and science was recognized by the late R. Moses J. Burak in a personal inscription that I read at 13:46 during the eulogy (a photo of which accompanies this column).

 A true hero, my father ultimately gave his life al Kiddush Ha-Shem rather than accept a heart-transplant that could have reversed his terminal cardiac failure, for the reason identified at <https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2023/05/celebrating-siyum-on-sotah-managing.html>.

      My father also generously supported my publications analyzing the agunah problem, which have appeared on this blog. He enabled me to plead before the Chief Justice of Quebec to explain my prenup agreement that ameliorates the plight of agunot. Importantly, at 32:15 into the eulogy recording, I call the audience's attention to my related essay "Response to R. Shmuel Kamenetzky on the Methodology of Resolving Cases of Iggun." The essay was already showcased on this blog [at <https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2021/05/daas-torah-and-legacy-of-rabbi-joshua-h.html>] as flowing from the legacy of the late R. Joshua H. Shmidman [himself tangentially mentioned at 7:08 into the eulogy recording]. My father was indeed a devotee of the late Rabbi Shmidman. [To that effect, Rabbi Shmidman would invite my father to commence birkot ha-shachar on the Days of Awe, apparently because "all beginnings are difficult" (as per Rashi to Exodus 19:5), such that my father's musical talent was required to inspire the congregation to duty.] Hence, my father derived nachat ru'ach from my aforementioned essay which clarifies how the Orthodox Jewish faith considers Ms. Tamar Epstein as still being the wife of Reb Aharon Friedman. 

      As referenced in my essay, the Beit Din Tzedek of Edah ha-Charedit of Jerusalem has asked all rabbinical judges throughout the globe to announce the same. And on p. 15 of Contemporary Halakhic Problems Vol. 4 (which my father purchased for me as a gift soon after its release), Rabbi J. David Bleich identifies that Beit Din Tzedek of the Edah ha-Charedit as the gold standard Beth Din in the world. Ergo, pursuant to the Gemara, Kiddushin 31b that a son is obligated to honour his father even after the latter's ascent to the Heavenly Academy, the values of my father are now perpetuated by my essay which upholds the sanctity of marriage.

Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, a Pavilion of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada.

A Call for Hamas to Surrender by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira

          .The Gemara, Eruvin 45a, establishes that the Sabbath must be desecrated in order to defend the borders of a Jewish state from enemy incursion. That casus belli standard was [more than] adequately met this past Oct. 7, 2023. Hence, as elaborated by R. J. David Bleich, Be-Netivot ha-Halakhah, I, pp. 77-84, the Israeli Defense Forces enjoy moral authorization to wage a war termed “ezrat Yisrael mi-yad tzar” (rescuing Israel from the oppressor, a termed coined by Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:1). This means there is no guilt whatsoever for collateral damage caused by the IDF in its legitimate war of self-defense against Hamas. 

      In my opinion, Rabbi Bleich is supported by Tosafot, Yevamot 114b, s.v. zimnin, who write that it is the nature of war for projectiles to be launched from a large distance, with the combatants not knowing who will actually be hit by those projectiles. Ergo, we can extrapolate from Tosafot that once the Torah authorizes the Jewish army to engage in ezrat Yisrael mi-yad tzar, it means that the Jewish army is granted immunity from guilt over collateral damage. [And that which the Gemara, Gittin 56b, speaks of “removing the threatening snake with tongues while protecting the barrel of honey” is specifically referring as a critique against Vespasian’s invasive attack on the Temple in Jerusalem, a fundamentally different situation.]  

      In an effort to verify that my proof from Yevamot 114b is dispositive, I touched base with posek ha-dor Rav Bleich. On Nov. 18, 2023 [after havdalah], he responded by e-mail as follows: 

 

“The reference in the Gemara is to milchamah ba-olam. That doesn’t sound as if there was Jewish involvement. If so, Tosafot is describing conduct of non-Jews before the Geneva Convention.” 

 

      Nevertheless, even granted Rabbi Bleich’s caveat, the bottom line is that Tosafot seem to demonstrate that the nature of warfare is to precipitate collateral damage. Ergo, while warfare may well be forbidden to Noahides [as per my previous article at <https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-cri-de-coeur-for-russian-army-to_30.html>], when the same concept of warfare is suddenly authorized for Jews under the rubric of ezrat Yisrael mi-yad tzar, collateral damage should presumably become justified. 

      It is true that Siftei Chakhamim to Genesis 32:8 comments that Jacob was distressed at the prospect of defending himself in war against Esau, lest Jacob execute collateral damage. However, there the issue appears to be emotional discomfort experienced by the patriarch, rather than identification of moral transgression. Assuredly, any war represents a monumental tragedy, and so Jacob desperately yearned to avoid it. But it remains the case that a military campaign of ezrat Yisrael mi-yad tzar – once necessitated by enemy attack – is ethically correct. [And see R. Chaim ben Atar, Or ha-Chaim to Genesis 34:31, who comments that it would have been collective self-endangerment for the family of Jacob had it failed to rescue Dinah from Nablus.]

      Furthermore, in my capacity as the author of [what appears to be] the only halakhic prenup that is actually effective in [at least somewhat] alleviating the agunah problem [as recently publicized at <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2023/07/tishah-be-av-and-agunah-problem-by.html>], I contend that it is wrong for Hamas to prolong this conflict and thereby risk creating agunah cases among the wives of IDF soldiers. Rather, Hamas should recognize that “wisdom is better than weapons of battle” (Ecclesiastes 9:18), and surrender. 

            In attempting to appeal to the conscience of Gazans, the key issue at hand is how to properly channel the spiritual yearnings of Gazan society in a halakhically correct way. Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 10:9-10 rules that Noahides must not invent their own religion. Rather, Noahides are commanded by the Holy One, Blessed Be He, to observe the Seven Commandments identified by the Gemara, Sanhedrin 56b. If a Noahide seeks further spiritual enrichment, then he is welcome to choose to volunteer to perform any additional mitzvah [that would normally be directed to Jews alone] that he seeks, and he will receive reward as a volunteer for that mitzvah. The only exceptional mitzvot which Noahides cannot volunteer to observe are Shabbat and Torah study, as per the Gemara, Sanhedrin 58b-59a. [If a Noahide truly desires to observe even the latter two mitzvot, he enjoys the option of applying to a qualified Beth Din for consideration for conversion to Judaism.] 

            Now let us halakhically analyze the ways of many religiously fervent Gazans. They reject idolatry, insisting instead on worshipping the One and Only Master of the universe Who revealed Himself to Abraham. This represents a most impressive achievement, because it fulfills one of the Seven Commandments. Gazans also pray with devotion in Arabic, perhaps as much as five times a day. That’s wonderful, because prayer is a mitzvah that Noahides are either obligated or at least allowed to observe [-see Encyclopedia Talmudit, s.v. Ben No’ach], and prayer can be performed in any language, as per the Mishnah, Sotah 32a. Furthermore, when Gazans pray, they announce that “the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Is Great.” Well said: the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Is indeed Great, as per Deut. 10:17 [-a verse incorporated into the first paragraph of every Jewish amidah prayer for the past 2,400 years, as per the Gemara, Yoma 69b]. And the way that a Gazan should show that he truly recognizes that Greatness, is that the Gazan should observe the Noahide Code. Keep it at that, and thereby keep the peace.  

            Some confusion appears to have arisen from the fact that Gazan married ladies are scrupulously diligent to perform the mitzvah of kisui rosh (head covering). This may have led Hamas to the regrettable (mis)impression that it can therefore attack Jews. [To that effect, a recent statement by Agudath Israel, dated 17 Kislev, 5784, specifically asks all Jews (in the Hebrew version, though not directly translated in the accompanying English version) to strengthen themselves in kisui rosh. See <https://hamodia.com/2023/11/30/statement-from-moetzes-gedolei-hatorah-of-agudas-yisrael-on-yerushalayim-terror-attack/>.] 

            The reality that Arab civilization excels in kisui rosh was already known two millenia ago to the Sages of the Mishnah, as recorded in Shabbat 65a. Actually, the mitzvah of kisui rosh is primarily directed to Jews [as per the Gemara, Ketubot 72a-b], although one could hypothetically argue that it has bears a measure of relevance even to righteous Noahides, regarding whom we have an oral tradition that following the Deluge, they accepted upon themselves an enhanced dimension of respect for the sanctity of marriage. [See Rashi to Genesis 34:7 and Numbers 22:5, as well as Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggadot to Yevamot 63b, s.v. limsokh. And see Eruvin 100b which seems to indicate that Eve covered her head.] In any event, even if Noahides are not formally commanded in kisui rosh, a Noahide who volunteers to perform an extra mitzvah will certainly receive reward [as per the aforementioned Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 10:10], and so the Gazan married ladies deserve congratulations for their kisui rosh. Yet, at no time does the Talmud suggest that Arab civilization can therefore persecute Jews. On the contrary, Arab civilization – like all of humanity – is expected to seek spiritual excellence by specifically observing all commandments of the Noahide Code, and these commandments include refraining from murder and refraining from kidnapping.   

            Arguably [and as possibly reflected in the aforementioned Agudath Israel statement], there may be room for Jewish improvement regarding kisui rosh. Although R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer, II, no. 12 allows a wig, his responsum is challenged by a lengthy monograph of R. Nehorai Yosef Ohana, Zahav Levushah (Jerusalem, 5774), available online at <https://hebrewbooks.org/56098>. To summarize the hundreds of pages of refutation: Rabbi Feinstein claims that since a gentlemen can presentably groom his face with a scissors-like kosher shaver [despite his thereby becoming visually indistinguishable from someone who grooms his face with a forbidden razor], therefore we should extrapolate that a married lady can also don a wig [despite her thereby becoming visually indistinguishable from a single lady.] Alas, the extrapolation is questionable (with all due respect to Rabbi Feinstein) because the two cases are dissimilar in terms of how they apply in situations of life-preservation. Specifically, piku’ach nefesh indeed allows a gentleman to shave with a normally-forbidden razor [as famously occurred, for example, to R. Michoel Dov Weissmandl and the Stropkover Rebbe when they were hiding in a Bratislava bunker during the Holocaust; see the cleanshaven photos of them in Artscroll’s The Unheeded Cry, ch. 13], whereas even in a situation of piku’ach nefesh, a gentleman has a mitzvah to look away from a lady [other than for a purely functional recognition], as per the Gemara, Sanhedrin 75a. Ergo, it is logical to surmise that kisui rosh should operate with a more rigorous standard [and not be fungible with a wig], so as to visually distinguish the married ladies from the single ladies. Nevertheless, even granted this argument against Rabbi Feinstein, the forum for implementing this improvement is the Beth Din system which supervises conversions to Judaism [and hence can make a demand of prospective converts to accept upon themselves kisui rosh, as one can discern from <http://www.beisdinofsouthflorida.com/%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-conversion/>]. That is to say, this argument against Rabbi Feinstein [while valuable in its own right] does not exempt Gazans from their paramount obligation to uphold the Noahide Code, which includes refraining from murder and refraining from kidnap. 

            My late mentor R. Joshua H. Shmidman (previously showcased at <https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2021/05/daas-torah-and-legacy-of-rabbi-joshua-h.html>) would introduce the recitation of the sacrificial order within the Yom Kippur mussaf service with the following insight. The spilling of blood in animal sacrifices, when orchestrated in the manner prescribed by the Torah, serves as a kosher outlet for the worshipper to escape the inclination to spill human blood. As such, I would recommend for Gazans to read R. Binyamin Fuss, Torat ha-Bamah (Jerusalem, 5766), available at <https://hebrewbooks.org/47849>, a detailed Noahide Code treatise on how all humans [other than Jews] can bring animal sacrifices today. In other words, although Jews are barred from offering sacrifices until the Temple will be rebuilt in the messianic era, Noahides can indeed offer sacrifices today as a matter of practical Halakhah, following the guidance in this publication. This will afford Gazan society [and indeed any other Noahide society that so opts] an opportunity to spill animal blood as part of religious observance, without ever engaging in violence against human beings. 

      May we indeed see humanity embrace the Noahide Code, and thereby usher in an era of global harmony. And the first step in that direction is for Hamas to surrender. 

 

Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, a pavilion of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada. 

Clarification of R. Ovadiah Yosef's position

Today Kevod Torato ha-Rav critiqued Rav Gestetner regarding ma'eese alai (in a reprint from several years ago) at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/05/summary-halochot-on-mous-olay-and.html . However, I feel that, be-mechilat Kevod Torat'kha, this critique contains a misrepresentation of R. Ovadiah Yosef, a misrepresentation that originates with R. Michael Broyde at https://traditiononline.org/the-1992-new-york-get-law/ , text accompanying footnote 27. For there, Rabbi Broyde claims that R. Ovadiah Yosef, Teshuvot Yabi'a Omer, III, Even ha-Ezer nos. 18-20 allows coercion of the husband in many cases of ma'eese alai. No, unfortunately, with all due respect to Rabbi Broyde, that is a serious misreading of Yabi'a Omer. To understand this better, please see footnote 39 and accompanying text of my prenup essay at https://www.scribd.com/document/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements . Namely, as I elucidate there, Yabi'a Omer is addressing an extremely narrow case of a Yemenite lady who was forced under threat of physical violence to accept kiddushin from her Yemenite "groom", and soon after this charade-of-a-wedding, she ran away. So, the whole marriage never halakhically took place altogether [for a lady can only receive kiddushin by her free consent, as per the Gemara, Kiddushin 2b]. Still, rather than let the lady walk out without a get [which me-ikar ha-din would be the halakhah], Yabi'a Omer is a little extra-machamir to say "you're both Yemenites, so even according to the so-called groom who claims that a marriage took place [which it really did not], the groom should also accept to be punished with jail as the Rambam holds is appropriate until he writes a get." Now what happened? Rabbi Broyde saw this teshuvah and distorted it (be-mechilat Kevod Torato) as communicating "the Yabi'a Omer allows coercing husbands in many cases of ma'eese alai". So while Rabbi J. David Bleich [in his repudiation of Rabbi Broyde at https://traditiononline.org/communications-86/ ] did not specifically respond to this distortion of Rabbi Broyde, I do respond to this distortion in my prenup essay [so as to illustrate that Rabbi Bleich's repudiation of Rabbi Broyde is correct], and I point out that two volumes later, in Teshuvot Yabi'a Omer, V, Even ha-Ezer no. 14, R. Ovadiah Yosef forbids charging mezonot to a recalcitrant husband even in a case of ma'eese alai, since that would constitute coercion. [So, evidently, the general approach of R. Ovadiah Yosef is to forbid coercion (whether incarceration or financial) in a case of ma'eese alai, with the Yemenite groom from two volumes earlier representing a special exception that has no bearing on any case that would ever arise in New York state.] I feel that Kevod Torato ha-Rav must correct this for the sake of halakhic honesty.

Thank you,

Shalom C. Spira

Tish‘ah be-Av and the Agunah Problem by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira

    The Gemara, Ta‘anit 30a, prohibits most areas of Torah study on Tish‘ah be-Av. One of the few permitted exceptions, as identified by Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 554, se’if katan 3, is the passage in Gittin 55b-58a regarding the Temple destruction. The conclusion of that passage – an exposition of Micah 2:2 – is interpreted by Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggadot) as declaring that if even one husband is wrongfully pressured to divorce his wife [in violation of Exodus 20:14] or if even one marriage is poisoned by adultery – then the entire Jewish People is held accountable to collectively protest. Thus, it emerges that Tish‘ah be-Av is a time to reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of marriage – and to eschew half-baked solutions to the agunah problem – as I previously wrote at <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-legacy-of-rabbi-feivel-cohen-vis.html>.

      R. Simchah Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot al Mishnah Berurah Chelek Shishi, points to another exception presented by Mishnah Berurah, this time in se‘if katan 5. Where a halakhic verdict is urgently needed on Tish‘ah be-Av for a sick patient or for litigants in a monetary dispute (who cannot wait until tomorrow), a decisor may study the case as is necessary to provide immediate guidance. Rabbi Rabinowitz explains that this is what justified R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, Teshuvot Maharsham, I, no. 84, to formulate a responsum on Tish‘ah be-Av to permit an agunah to remarry. Indeed, Rabbi Schwadron concludes that responsum by citing Bach to the effect that rescuing an agunah is a spiritual achievement equivalent to rebuilding one of the ruins of Jerusalem. 

            Upon careful reflection, it emerges that there is no contradiction between the aforementioned Maharsha and Maharsham regarding the agunah-problem message of Tish‘ah be-Av [and, poetically enough, their works carry almost identical names]. Where the Oral Torah declares that an agunah can remarry, such as the case of Maharsham in which he discovered sufficient circumstantial evidence to presume the first husband to be dead, then it is indeed a great mitzvah to enable this remarriage. But where the first husband is demonstrably both alive and innocent of any wrongdoing, then Maharsha directs us to respect that first (and only) marriage. 

For this reason, R. J. David Bleich, responding to the 1992 New York Get Law [a well-meaning but unfortunately less-than-successful attempt to solve the agunah problem], comments as follows [available at <https://traditiononline.org/communications-86/> ]:

                "Regrettably, instead of serving as a panacea resolving the plight of the agunah, the Get Law has itself                       created countless agunot. It is precisely because of concern for agunot that the Get Law cannot                       be allowed to stand."

In other words, we must always take into consideration the Maharsha vs. Maharsham dichotomy, thereby distinguishing true from imagined solutions to the agunah problem. That is why my own prenup proposal [available at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>] contains a clause shielding the husband and wife from any secular court that might wreak havoc with a get. 

Prenuptial Agreements | PDF | Halakha | Hebrew Words And Phrases Halakhic analysis of prenuptial agreements, leading to a combination of two halakhically kosher prenuptial agreements to benefit the Jewish wife www.scribd.com



Continuing on this theme, I would like to highlight my recent exchange with R. Heshey Zelcer in Hakirah Vol. 28 (Spring 2020) [available at <https://hakirah.org/Vol28Letters.pdf>] regarding the [once again well-meaning] Yashar Prenup. I hypothesize that the poskim who are advertised as supporting this prenup (R. Moshe Sternbuch, et al, be-mechilat Kevod Toratam) innocently glossed over paragraph 16 of the agreement, which states as follows: 

 

           “At the initial session, Beth Din shall outline the issues between the Parties and make a            determination of the interim payments necessary to ensure that the lifestyle of the un-                                emancipated children of the household (if any) can be maintained, and that they can continue            to attend yeshiva.” 

 

 Rabbi Sternbuch et al do not raise an objection to this paragraph, presumably because it does not explicitly require the husband to pay the wife until he grants her a get. However, as one can discern from the aforementioned Hakirah exchange, Rabbi Zelcer effectively interprets this clause to in fact mean that the Beth Din will direct the husband to pay the wife until he grants a get. And so, the Yashar Prenup seems to present a problem that is essentially identical to that of the RCA prenup, the latter representing a prenup that Rabbi Sternbuch and others have identified would produce an invalid get. [See <https://hebrewbooks.org/60970>.] 

A careful examination of Rabbi Sternbuch’s letter of approbation for the Yashar Prenup [available at <https://yasharinitiative.org/docs/RabbiMosheSternbuch.pdf>] reveals that he is appreciative to the framers of the prenup for keeping the Jewish litigants out of secular court. However, Rabbi Sternbuch does not say that he permits charging the husband money until the latter grants a get, and – indeed – he could not permit such an innovation without contradicting what he wrote regarding the RCA prenup. [For a different perspective (than mine) on the Yashar Prenup, see Yechezkel Hirshman at <https://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2023/01/prenups-xii-straight-dope-on-yashar.html>. Hirshman does not believe that the Yashar Prenup actually costs the husband any money, yet he concurs in practice (with me) to keep the proposal on ice. See there for his illuminating approach.] 

      

Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute of Medical Research, a pavilion of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada.