Igros Moshe: Law requiring Get if civil divorce

This teshuva seems to make it impossible to justify publicly embarrassing a person solely for the purpose of giving a get - especially when he can not escape from the embarrassment by moving to a different neighborhood or community.

Igros Moshe( E.H. 4:106): This that there is an effort being made to pass a law in the state legislature that whenever a Jew becomes divorced in a secular court he is also obligated to give his wife a valid get in beis din – this is definitely a very major accomplishment. Such a law does not constitute an illegal coerced get (get me’usa) because of the involvement of non‑Jews. That is because the husband has the free will not to divorce his wife according to the secular law. It is only because he wants to obtain a secular divorce in order to be exempt from the financial obligations of his wife and that he will be able to legally marry another woman – and the secular government will not give it to him unless he has given a valid get to his first wife. Therefore he is giving the get of his own free‑will. This is exactly equivalent to one who doesn’t want to give his wife a get but when they give him thousands of shekel – suddenly he becomes willing to give it. This is not considered coerced (me’usa) since he has the free will to decide whether desire for the money is more important to him than the desire not to give the get. This is not considered coerced (me’usa) since he has the free will to decide whether the money is more important to him then giving a get. It is a daily occurrence amongst the Jewish people that a husband is given this choice.

The coercion which invalidates a get is when he is beaten or imprisoned or given some other affliction in order that she be given the get. Such cases are considered that he is being forced to give the get – only then is it in invalid. Similarly even in the case of financial pressure in a case where the government obligates him to pay as a punishment for not giving the get is considered as a get given with financial coercion because he doesn’t want to lose the money. An additional case is if someone takes a large sum of money from the husband and refuses to return it unless he gives a divorce – is also considered to be illegal coercion. [See the Shulcahn Aruch E.H. 134.4 in the Rema and Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 134.11)] In contrast if the husband is given money to motivate him to want to give the get – it is obvious that this is not considered coercion and it is a daily occurrence. So this concern for obtaining a benefit is exactly the same thing as giving a get in order to obtain a civil divorce. Even if he is imprisoned for a different matter and the wife has someone who is willing to intervene to obtain his freedom on the condition that he give her a get – this is not considered that he was coerced to give a get. That is because the cause of his suffering was not caused by his not giving a get – but because of an unrelated matter. The giving of the get only provides a remedy for removing the suffering. Therefore a get given to stop suffering from an unrelated matter is considered to be total free-will. This is quite simple and logical. This is a valid get even in a situation where he has no obligation to divorce her.

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