Minchas Yitzchok: Law requiring Get if civil divorce

This teshuva also would invalidate direct pressure to give a get by public humilation. The only pressure permitted is that which comes from something else which is alleviated by the giving of the get. If the sole reason for the pressure is to force the giving of a get - he says it invalidates the get according to all opinions.

Minchas Yitzchok(8:137): Question: There are frum people who are influential in the legislature who want a law passed that when a husband divorces his wife in secular court – that he would then be obligated to give a get in beis din. This suggested legislation is being done to benefit Jewish women so that their spiteful husbands should not be able to make them agunas. However you are concerned that doing so would invalidate the get as a get coerced by non‑Jews (get me’usa). In particular in cases where the halacha does not require that the husband gives a get. You also want to know if it is considered an illegal coerced get if it is given because the secular judge will require the husband pay additional money until he gives the get. Answer: This that the secular judge will keep adding the requirement to pay continually more money until the get is given – this causes the concern for a coerced get (me’usa) according to all opinion as is stated in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 134:4) in the Rema and commentaries. Look at Toras Gittin and the views expressed in Pischei Teshuva. I have seen in Minchas Meishiv (14) that he has searched for solutions in this type of case. In addition to the fact that his solutions are very complicated both in terms of halacha and in carrying them out – he ends up without a clear answer. The only possible solution in my opinion is to try and establish that the law does not explicitly require that a get be given. Rather it should be done indirectly by saying that as long as there is no valid divorce in beis din that there is no valid divorce in secular court. If done in this way, there is no problem of a get me’usa. This would be exactly equivalent to a husband giving his wife a divorce because he wants to marry another woman. Because of the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom it is prohibited to be married to two women so he must divorce his first wife. The giving of a get to avoid the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom does not constitute a get me’usa. That is because he has the option not to divorce his first wife and consequently he would not marry anyone else. And even if we would not be concerned for the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom but we are giving the get because of secular law which prevents marrying anyone else until the first wife is divorced – it would still be valid. See Aruch HaShulchan (E.H. 134:22), “ Even if he loves his wife but she hates him and torments him until he gives her a get – since the get itself is given of his free‑will and the pressure on him comes from a different direction – it is considered that he pressured himself. If you don’t understand it in this manner then the majority of gittin would be considered coerced and be invalid. That is because when a person gets divorced it is typical that there are various causes that he feels that he must get divorced. So therefore when the pressure is not on the giving of the get itself but from another source - it is valid.”

When does teacher's touch constitute abuse?

NYTimes

The New York City Education Department wanted to fire Michael Dalton, a music teacher in Washington Heights, after its investigators said that he had placed three third-grade boys on his lap in what they considered an inappropriate manner. 

He had tickled them in their midsection, the city’s investigative report said. He even cradled one boy, and cooed a lullaby, before kissing him on the forehead, the report said. 

But wait, said Mr. Dalton, when he finally had a chance to defend himself.  

“The facts regarding Mr. Dalton demonstrate a clear case of disparate treatment,” the arbitrator, Bonnie Siber Weinstock, wrote in July 2010. She ruled that the tickling and kissing were inappropriate, but not sexual. Ruing the lack of clear standards on what school employees could and could not do, she rejected the city’s attempt to fire Mr. Dalton and instead fined him $2,000.

Pesach: Minhagim regarding chametz

haaretz

Books with pages spread wide open, perched on balcony railings and shedding imaginary crumbs of not-kosher-for Passover food. Shelves covered in new paper, and masses of aluminum foil on kitchen counters and the stovetop. Signs on doors warning "Do not bring in hametz" - referring to leavened products - with several exclamation marks. All of these were signs in my childhood that Passover was approaching. Above all I remember the near-hysteria that overtook the women and girls in the house, which mounted as the holiday grew nearer while they, dressed in rags, pursued to the death every stain and crumb. 

I only understood the full depth of the madness created in people's hearts by this holiday when I watched my father and the man across the way standing balcony to balcony on the morning of Passover eve to scrutinize in the sunlight the leaves of lettuce that had previously sailed in the bathtub. As part of this essential activity, the two men - whose Passover chores consisted entirely of such washing of heads of lettuce, until the hametz inspection on the morning before the holiday began - made sure there was not the slightest suspicion of worms or other sorts of vermin on the leaves that were destined to grace the seder table as bitter herbs. When the examination was concluded to their satisfaction, they took clothespins and hung the leaves out to dry on the clotheslines.

Rabbis requesting psychiatric drugs for students

Haaretz  

[Update - new article from Haaretz]

This is not a reality show. It's a true story that's been going on for years. No one denies it, neither the psychiatrists nor their patients: Psychiatric drugs are being given to ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students, men, seminary girls and married women at the request of rabbis, yeshiva "supervisors" and marriage counselors. The furor that erupted recently after a psychiatrist prescribed pills to participants on the TV reality show "Big Brother" - apparently to help the production and not the patients - convinced some Haredi patients to come forward with prescriptions and documents attesting to a far broader practice. 

Haaretz spoke to psychiatrists and others knowledgeable about psychiatric treatment in the Haredi community, and collected testimonies from half-a-dozen patients and their families. About half of them are Haredi and the others have left the community. Each told a different story, mentioning the names of senior psychiatrists, rabbis and community functionaries.

Rav Schachter's "Daas Torah" letter:Context

Guest Post: Regarding Rav Schachter's Letter posted here

Epstein's abuse of the Beis Din process, Ora's lies and Rabbi Schachter

This is more general background, particularly points 2 -6.

1. Epstein violated the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case both before and after the case went to trial in June 2009. That Beis Din did not order a get to be given. At Epstein's urging the Court ruled that the child should remain in Pennsylvania because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had agreed to cancel an earlier trial set for October 2008 in order to bring the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din. This was despite the Court's finding that “both parties are fit and proper to have physical custody of the child” and that “[Epstein] has made minimal efforts to foster the relationship between [Friedman] and his daughter. The Court further finds that [Epstein]’s indifferent approach to [the child] having a mutually awarding relationship with her father is rooted in spite and is not beneficial to the child.”

2. At Epstein's request, the Washington Beis Din later sent Friedman several hazmanos. Friedman wrote back that Epstein could not involve another beis din after she had violated the orders of the Baltimore Beis Din thereby causing Friedman severe damage. The Washington Beis Din acknowledged in September 2010 that it could not intervene in the case.

3. Before even attempting to contact Friedman, Ora plastered Friedman's mother's neighborhood with flyers harshly condemning Friedman and containing pictures of Friedman and his family. This was on a day that Epstein (and presumably Ora) knew that Friedman would be at his mother's house with the child. This was in August 2010, before any beis din finding or seruv against Friedman. This makes a mockery of Ora's claim that it tries to handle cases amicably. (Jeremy Stern:

"When ORA takes on a case, we always try to solve it amicably at first, looking deep into its facts and following the paper trail, making sure we’re hearing as many perspectives as possible" -

http://blogs.yu.edu/news/2012/04/03/unshackled/)

4. Rabbi Schachter wrote a letter attacking Friedman (see attachment) in December 2010 (which Ora publicized, but is not currently (for some reason) on Ora's website) before any beis din had called upon Friedman to give a get, or otherwise found any wrongdoing on his part. The letter (especially in light of a speech by Rabbi Schachter, previously linked to on Daas Torah, see below) was a call to violence against Friedman.

5. The Union of Orthodox Rabbis sent Friedman one letter before purporting to put him in "seruv" - a letter that it did not label a hazmana but a "hasra'ah acharona." The letter was sent about a week before a civil court trial regarding custody to hear Epstein's contempt motion against Friedman demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits." So Epstein was seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of (at least) a third beis din (after the beis din chosen by both sides, and (at least) one other beis din chosen by Epstein, refused to order a get), while at the same time demanding in civil court that the child have only "supervised visits" with Friedman. Epstein extensively complained to the court about the get issue, essentially trying to use the civil court process to force Friedman to give a get - before any finding on this matter against Friedman in any beis din.

6. The Washington Vaad later seized upon the Union of Orthodox Rabbis action to issue its own letter harshly condemning Friedman, even though the Washington Beis Din had earlier acknowledged that it could not intervene.
---------------------------------------
One of the sources Rabbi Schachter cites in the December 2010 public letter against Friedman (Rabbi Akiva Eiger) is also referenced in the audio as grounds for beating someone over a get. (It is ironic that Rabbi Eiger writes about a husband who is leaving the city of the marital residence and that immediate action was necessary before it was too late, whereas in this matter it was Epstein who left the city of marital residence with the child and abused the beis din process so that her abduction of the child would be treated as a fait accompli in court.)

In the letter, Rabbi Schachter says that Friedman's situation is the same as "a slave whose master provides for him a Canaanite maidservant, that until now it is has been permissible, and now it is forbidden." In the audio, he explains that in such a situation the slave, or Friedman, as he writes in the letter, should be beaten, and that any person can take the law into his own hands to deliver the beating.

It is also very telling that at 42:45, Schachter says that in the case of someone desiring a get, it is wrong to pressure the other spouse without the orders of a beis din - when Schachter wrote the December 2010 letter, there was no beis din that had stated Friedman had done anything wrong or that a get should be given.

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/739308/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Options_for_Helping_Agunot#

see in particular:

4:00 - beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
4:30 - beat a slave for wrongfully remaining married to maidservant, analogizing this case to the get case, and that anyone can take upon himself to take the law into their own hands to beat the person
9:10 - beat someone up over a get
10:20 - bludgeon someone to death over a get
13:33 - have right to beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
26:50 - beating for a get with a baseball bat

ORA:Promoting chilul haShem in the media

ORA Free Tamar  (Partial listing)

• Guaranteeing a 'get' (Washington Jewish Week, 4 Apr 2012)Dave Camp: You Have the Right to Fire Aharon Friedman (Huffington Post, 30 Mar 2012)
• U.S. Congressman Embroiled in Tamar Epstein Divorce Controversy (Wheaton Patch, 29 Mar 2012)
• Congressman Refuses to Meet with Rabbis Over Staffer's Get Refusal (Failed Messiah, 29 Mar 2012)
• Panel on Agunah Crisis Tonight (Washington Jewish Week, 28 Mar 2012)
• Pressure on Rep. Dave Camp to Order Staffer to Give Wife Jewish Divorce (OpposingViews, 27 Mar 2012)
• Congressman's Aide Won't Divorce Wife (Drudge Report, 27 Mar 2012)
• To Give and To Get: Why a Congressman can't order his aide to give his wife a Jewish divorce. (Midland Online, 27 Mar 2012)
• Pressure on Rep. Dave Camp to Order Staffer to Give Wife Jewish Divorce (The Volkh Conspiracy, 27 Mar 2012)
• What should be done about Aharon Friedman's Refusal to Give His Wife a Religious Divorce? (Failed Messiah, 27 Mar 2012)
• Why a Congressman can’t order his aide to give his wife a Jewish divorce (Slate, 26 Mar 2012)
• This Year at the Passover Seder, Remember to Gossip (Huffington Post, 24 Mar 2012)
• Insisting on a Jewish Prenup (Forward, 21 Mar 2012)
• Petition for Freedom (The Missing Peace, 21 Mar 2012)

Burning chametz is dangerous for children

JPost

Last year in Bnei Brak and environs, 70 children were hurt while burning the remaining leaven (hametz) from their homes. On Friday morning, when the hametz is burned in a fire before Passover begins that evening, an effort is being made to prevent such accidents there and in other locations around the country.

Among the injured children that United Hatzalah of the Dan Region treated last year was a 10-year-old boy who was hurt when burning cardboard hit his face. A group of kindergarten children were injured when an inflammable spray can was “accidentally” thrown into the bonfire and exploded.

Child slavery in India is normal

NYTimes

After a firefighter rescued her, the girl described a life akin to slavery, child welfare officials said. Her uncle had sold her to a job placement agency, which sold her to the couple, both doctors. The girl was paid nothing. She said the couple barely fed her and beat her if her work did not meet expectations. She said they used closed-circuit cameras to make certain she did not take extra food. 

In India, reported to have more child laborers than any other country in the world, child labor and trafficking are often considered symptoms of poverty: desperately poor families sell their children for work, and some end up as prostitutes or manual laborers. [...]

“There is a huge, huge demand,” said Ravi Kant, a lawyer with Shakti Vahini, a nonprofit group that combats child trafficking. “The demand is so huge that the government is tending toward regulation rather than saying our children should not work but should be in school.”

An insider explains why the internet is harmful

McDonald's claims to be kosher for Pesach!

Netziv:Jews in Egypt did not keep Torah & Mitzvos

Netziv (Bamidbar 15:41): I am the L-rd your G‑d…I am the L‑rd your G‑d. This repetition is explained in Menachos(44a) as G‑d will give punishment in the future and He will give reward in the future. However according to the plain meaning it is describing two types of circumstances for serving G‑d. When the Jews were in Egypt there were some very spiritual people who were attached to G‑d and G‑d in turn watched over them in miraculous fashion according their spiritual level. In contrast the masses prior to being redeemed from Egypt knew nothing about Torah and mitzvos. Consequently they did not have Divine providence (hashgocha protis) as individuals for their deeds until they were actually redeemed from Egypt and accepted the Torah and mitzvos. After they accepted the Torah and mitzvos the nature of providence changed so that it was a direct result of their deeds – but it was concealed. That is why there is a repetition of this phrase. Corresponding to the first “I am the L‑rd your G‑d” it indicates that providence is a reflection of the individual’s deeds since it adds that the Jews were taken out of Egypt. The second time it states “I am the L‑rd your G‑d” without mentioning the redemption from Egypt and thus it refers to the relationship that existed in Egypt itself. Thus we see that hashgocha protis is dependent on observing mitzvos and is different for those on a high spiritual level…. In Egypt the Jews had not accepted the Torah and mitzvos and in fact did not know what they were – except for the greatest of the generation who had received the traditions from the Patriarchs. But in general Torah had been forgotten from the masses and those who wanted to serve G‑d did it according to what made sense or seemed nice. In contrast when they were redeemed from Egypt G‑d gave them all Torah and mitzvos…

[A related idea is found here ]

Chazon Ish (Letters I:208): Responded to the assertion that the Jews in Egypt were on the highest level in Torah, Mitzvos, faith and piety. The assertion was based upon the medrashism which said that the righteous women went to the fields and gave birth and left their children and there were many miracles done for them…The deduction being that surely because of these righteous women and these miracles – the entire Jewish people must of have been totally devoted to G-d and his mitvos. A further foundation of this assertion was the medrash which states that the Jews were only enslaved for 86 years and that this is insufficient time to become significantly dissolute and debased. The Chazon Ish said that these deduction have no basis since they are all against what Chazal themselves say on the subject.   He concludes that the assertion that it was impossible for the Jews to become ruined since they saw miracles is not valid. In fact the Jews saw miracles when they were redeemed from Egypt and at the Sea, as well as the Manna and at the giving of the Torah – and yet they made the Golden Calf. Furthermore there were 10 miracles at the Beis HaMikdash and many miracles and wonders done by the Prophets – nevertheless this did not prevent them from having free will to serve idols. one should not interpret the early generations in such a way that it is impossible for us to comprehend and learn from them. In fact they had free will and this is the main thing in avodas HaShem.

Rav Schachter: Withholding get is serious aveira

Plight of the Agunah - video

See from 40 minutes - 50 minutes where he states that not giving a wife a get in the case of ma'os alei is a serious aveira. That there are three levels of pressure - where the gemora says a divorce is required then the husband can be beaten. In cases where gemora doesn't say to force a get - you have the procedures  of Rabbeinu Tam - which is to put in him cherem and destroy his livelihood  - but that isn't done today. The third level is to humiliate him with demonstrations etc etc. He claims the 3rd level can be used in the case of ma'os  alei -where the wife simply doesn't want to remain married to him

Response to R' Jeremy Stern's criticism

 Guest Post:

If Jeremy Stern claims [noted on this posting] that there is anything false or misleading with the summary of the case as posted on this blog, or as described in greater detail with citations at stuffandnonsensesaidalice- let him say specifically what is not true. 

From the beginning of Ora's involvement in this case, Jeremy Stern has acted in a matter best described as immature, dishonest, inflammatory, and irresponsible, seemingly designed to achieve maximum publicity for himself and Ora. Indeed, one might question whether Ora and Jeremy Stern are acting with any regard for whether Tamar actually receives a get. Ora has done everything it could to turn a very personal matter that could and should have been settled privately into a national and international news story, without any regard whatsoever for the interests of the parties' child. He acts out of his own self interest and has twisted all the facts of this case from the beginning.

He also claims he has the backing of R. Schachter - This is true on paper, but R. Schachter made it very clear Thursday night at the YU symposium that he does not look into the details and basically lets Jeremy Stern do what he wants. The day after (Friday), after reading the article by the mediator Rosenfeld, R. Schachter told a talmid of his "maybe I was all wrong in the Epstein Friedman case - maybe I should have looked into the facts, and not just relied on R. Kaminetsky doing so" So much for completely destroying a person, and THEN looking into the facts.

Please see the following email (the text of which is still at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcor/message/2429) that for some reason, is not currently on Ora's website.

How can anyone believe that Jeremy Stern and Ora have any credibility whatsoever? He states clearly (see below):

 "From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media."

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Rabbi Jeremy Stern
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Response to the New York Times
To: Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot
Reaffirming Our Values:
A Response to the New York Times
Friday, January 7th, 2011 / ב' שבט תשע"א

Dear ORA Supporter, An article in the New York Times this week has brought national attention to the Epstein-Friedman agunah case and the plight of agunot. From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media. To that end, ORA did not solicit the article, we declined to comment to the reporter, and we turned down many requests for interviews from other major media outlets. The NYT article contains one important factual error that warrants clarification, available here. The article has provided us with an opportunity to reflect on ORA's core values. Though some non-profit advocacy groups are focused on promoting the cause, our concern at ORA is with resolving each case. With that in mind, we advocate and raise awareness according to what is most effective for the cases at hand. We work very diligently in every case to verify the facts and perspectives, under the halakhic guidance of our posek, Rav Hershel Schachter, shlit"a. Divorce is tragic and challenging under almost all circumstances, often entailing much he said/she said. However, as a matter of public policy, in order to preserve the beauty and integrity of our Torah, a get must never - under any possible circumstance - be used as leverage to negotiate the contentious issues of a divorce settlement. I want to personally thank you for supporting our efforts on behalf of Tamar and the 60 other agunot whom we currently are assisting. Please feel free to contact me via email or at our office (212-795-0791). All the best, Jeremy

Dana Melnik: It’s Not All About the Get

Guest post by Dana Melnik

The concept of a Get, a Jewish religious divorce, in today's day and age has intrigued enough people to make national headlines, such as the New York Times, but the media has lost focus of what is really important here.  The child.   I am not an expert on paper, not a psychologist, not a lawyer and I don't have any fancy degrees.   I write this as a mother and a daughter.  Withholding a Get has been used throughout history, the majority of the time, to oppress the woman in which case I support organizations, such as ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot), efforts and attempts to try and break this trend, but in the Epstein-Friedman matter this is not the case. The divorce rate today is high. It's unfortunate for the parents but even more unfortunate for the children. People fail to remember that when kids are involved, the stakes are quite high.

For the most part, growing up, my understanding of divorce was that when a mother and father split, the mother always got full custody of the kids with the father having visitation and maybe seeing the child/children every other weekend.  It seemed pretty straightforward to me.  The father wasn't as attached as the mother and he was simply able to pick up, move on and establish a new life with minimal contact with his children.  It seemed like the norm to me.  After all, I had friends and even family whose parents divorced and this seemed to be what always happened.  However, all that changed when it came to my own daughter.

I moved to Maryland from New York with my husband, for my husband actually, with our 6 week old daughter.  For whatever the reasons were, our marriage didn't work out and we began the process of separation. There was a lot going on at the beginning and of course things were tense.  They are ALWAYS tense at the beginning.  Separating and getting divorced is NEVER easy, and there were bumps in the road, but we were determined to work on a good schedule that would accommodate both of us for our daughter’s well being.  Of course, the thought crossed my mind numerous times to move close to family since I had no one here to help me out.  With a full time job and a toddler, things can get really difficult, but how was I going to move away, when she had a father who loved her so much.  How was I going to explain, when she got a little older, that I intentionally took her away from her father just to make my life a little bit easier for the short term? What goes on between husband and wife should not affect the relationship a daughter deserves to have with her father.  I can tell you from personal experience and seeing the way my daughter interacts with her father and the relationship I have with my father, that there is NO substitute for that!  The child deserves two parents, not necessarily who are together, but who realize the importance of keeping things amicable and working together to raise the child. There seem to be two main factors that come in to play when parents get divorced and children are involved. The legal aspect in the court system and 2)  The emotional aspect. Unfortunately many states and their court systems don't take the idea of co-parenting, shared custody, into account when deciding custody.  Family law has left a lot of room for interpretation on custody and what is really best for the child, allowing the Judge, in every case, to pretty much determine a child and parent’s destiny. This has become an issue which affects not only the parents in very long drawn out custody disputes but affects the child tremendously. The idea from the beginning should be to involve both parents in the child's life equally.  Ron Henry, a children’s advocacy attorney in Washington, D.C.,  has focused his efforts on trying to "demilitarize" divorce.  He works on the legal reform level to try and get laws passed which make courts start every custody case with the idea of co-parenting.  Unfortunately, every state is different when it comes to its family laws and no state is perfect in protecting the child’s right to have two actively involved parents but there has been progress. The District of Columbia, for example, has a statute that creates a presumption of joint custody that Mr. Henry helped to write.  Maryland has no such statute and judges sometimes allow one parent’s manipulation to squeeze the other parent out of the child’s life.  In the case of Aharon Friedman, Tamar, took their child to Philadelphia and the court allowed her to keep the child there, making it extremely difficult for Mr. Friedman to establish a relationship with his daughter or even a workable custody schedule (he works a full time job).  This makes no sense to me as a mother who understands that a fathers right to an equal amount of time should never be taken away from him barring egregious circumstances, which is not the case here.

The second issue here is the emotional aspect of the parents.  The consistent argument here is that this issue has inflicted emotional pain on both sides, thereby not allowing the parents to think clearly for the child and what is in the child's best interest.  To that my answer is, grow up!  If the court has limited the father’s time with the child it does not mean that the mother shouldn't see the consequences a weak relationship with the father will have on the child down the

Most mothers don't believe that I have shared custody with my child’s father.  Our child spends half the time with her father and half the time with me.  I know my child’s father is an excellent father and my daughter loves him, so why should I fight for having more time?  Because I want more child support?  Because I'm her mother so naturally she should be with me?  Is it for emotional reasons?  I can't separate from my child?  All these reasons are selfish.  Most mothers fight out of guilt.  If I don't fight for my child and have them a majority of the time, what kind of mother am I?    What kind of mother is able to be away from her child half the week and be okay with that?  Well, how about a mother who is confident the daughter is being well taken care of by her father and if she didn't have a strong relationship with both parents in her life there is the concern of what might happen down the line.  Children want love and need two parents.

Mr. Friedman is holding on to what he believes is his last hope which might allow him to establish a relationship with his daughter.  Who can blame him?   Every man is the "tough guy" until they are actually put in that situation.