Friedman-Epstein: What halachic justification?!

Despite all the fanfare and international publicity about the "aguna" Tamar Friedman, the halacha basis  for the conduct of her rabbinic supporters as well as the aguna defense organization Ora's tactics against Aharon Friedman is  embarrassingly anemic and simply unsupported by any elementary reading of the sources. Briefly the case involved Tamar's decision that she didn't want to remain married to Aharon. She has never made any claims of abuse or misbehavior just she thought she might find someone better. She left their home taking their daughter without his consent. There was the Baltimore beis din which they both agreed to abide by its decision. Its work was not brought to a psak. Secular court was involved and a secular divorce. There was some involvement of the Washington beis din - but that was incomplete and it never heard both sides. Finally there was a hazmana from the beis din of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis which Aaron did not respond to. That beis din issued a seruv signed by Rav Kaminetsky, Rav Belsky, Rabbi Ralbag and also Rav Schachter. The seruv states that whatever can be done to bring about a get should be done. ORA - with Rav Schachter's support and encouragement has gotten involved and has had public demonstrations and repeated distribution of posters demanding a get which targeted Aharon and his family. They also had a strong publicity blitz in all the major secular newspapers as well as a conference at Stern College and a major campaign directed at Aharon's boss Congressman Camp - all with the stated goal of forcing Aharon to give Tamar a get. So far there has not been a beis din that heard both sides and issued a psak that Aharon must give a get.

My concern has been to try and find a halachic basis for use of public humilation in a very weak case of ma'os alei - where Tamar has apparently never said anything stronger against her husband than that she realized that she didn't want to spend the rest of her life married to him. When I spoke with the head of ORA I asked him about this and he said that Tamar had a right to privacy and didn't have to explain why she wanted to leave. Aharon has apparently never said he wanted to end the marriage. Thus the case consists of Tamar's assertion of ma'os alei because she doesn't want to remain married. She is also a moredes who left their home. She turned to the secular courts - a huge problem - and as a result a custody arrangement was set up and a civil divorce was obtained.

A basic summary of the halacha is found here:

Be'er HaGolah (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 77:6): In the case where the wife claims ma’os alei and therefore refused to have sexual relations with her husband] The view of the Shulchan Aruch [which modified the language of the Rambam that "the husband can be forced to give a get" to "if the husband wants to divorce her"] is that of the Ramban and Rashba that one cannot force the husband to give a get [in the case of ma’us alei]. The husband can only be forced to give a get in those cases where Chazal said force can be used. [Which is either from a prohibited relations such as a cohen to a divorcee or a major defect such as severe disease or disgusting skin condition]This is stated in the Magid Mishna (Hilchos Ishus 14:8]. The Tur says the same thing in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and his father the Rosh. The source of this view is Kesubos (63b), What is the case of moredes (a rebellious wife) ? Amemar said it is a woman who says she wants to stay married and she want to torment her husband. However a woman who says ma’us alei (he disgusts me) we don’t force her to be with her husband. Mar Zutra said she should be forced and there was an incident in which Mar Zutra forced the wife to be with the husband and they had a child R’ Chinina Mesura. But that is not the normal consequence – they had special assistance from Heaven and we can’t learn from that case.

A review of the recent teshuva literature, inclduing the rulings of  Rav Eliashiv, Minchos Yitzchok, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Tzitz Eliezar, Ben Ish Chai and Rav Sternbuch as well as the various public shiurim that Rav Schachter has given on the topic of aguna, - have indicated that there is not a single source that allows the type of public humiliation ORA is using in order to force a husband to give a get. There are sources which allowed indirect pressure such as preventing the obtaining a civil divorce unless a get is given. But not a single use of direct pressure because of the universal concern in the Achronim for a get me'usa (an invalid forced get). Sources such as Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Rav Chaim Pelaggi were also studied - but they also do not provide a ready and acceptable basis for what is going on with ORA.

[update reply to James in Comments section]

James you obviously have inside information - the beis din issued a seruv for not appearing in which they poskened that a get had to be given. They did not explain their reasons nor did Friedman participate - so they only heard one side. Is that correct? Simple question is how can a beis din posken without hearing both sides? And if it isn't a psak but only a seruv for not showing up so how can they issue a ruling that it is a mitzva to give a get? Besides that level of confusion Rav Shachter has written clearly that he is totally relying on Rav Kaminetsky for his understanding of the case. So apparently it is irrelevant to him whether there is a psak or just a seruv. The only issue is the daas Torah of Rav Kaminestky. He then authorized ORA to attack Aharon and his family. Correct? The Beis din did not say anything about ORA nor do they appear on ORA's list of rabbis. Thus you are insisting that everyone involved agrees that ORA is doing the right thing. I am simply asking for some evidence that ORA actions are approved by Rabbis Belsky and Kaminetsky and what the basis of the psak of the beis din was. It is not clear that saying that it is a mitzva to give or obtain a get justifies what ORA is doing.

So we are still discussing this because of the apparent bizarreness of this case on the level of halacha. It doesn't require a gadol to understand the halachic issues or the halachic rulings going back to the gemora. I simply want to know what halachic understanding justifies the chain of events leading to ORA's demonstrations and pressure. It shouldn't take a talmid chachom more than 5 minutes to rattle off the necessary information. The fact that that ORA through Rav Shachter based on this beis din - has been producing a disturbing spectacle in the secular media - justifies me asking an explanation. If ORA wasn't involved then this would have remained a private issue. But it clearly isn't and I'd like to understand. this is Torah and I need to learn.

Charedi employment is on the rise

YNET

A recent study conducted by the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry predicted that Israel will see a 6% drop in its workforce within 20 years, especially due to the growing ultra-Orthodox and Arab population shares. But activists in the religious sector dismiss the forecast, noting the growing rates of employed haredim.

"I don't see the pessimistic predictions coming true," said attorney Yoav Laloum, chairman of the Noar KaHalacha, an organization that advocates against discrimination in the haredi sector.

Baltimore Patrol members on trial

Baltimore Sun

Having family who lives in the area and having recently spent a lot of time there - I fully understand the problems and dangers the Werdesheim's were facing in patrolling that area.

The incident occurred in November 2010, with charges brought against Eliyahu Werdesheim in December and, later, against his brother, Avi. There are some parallels - vigilantism, race, and self-defense - but also major differences - most notably the fatal outcome in the Florida case but also the handling by law enforcement.

With the trial scheduled to begin, here's a refresher on some of the facts in each case.

-The Werdesheim brothers were members of a group called Shomrim, Orthodox Jewish volunteers who patrol their Northwest Baltimore neighborhood. The group has meetings and bylaws, as well as radios and matching jackets, and for years was praised by city officials and police for their efforts. In Florida, shooter George Zimmerman, described as white-Hispanic had helped set up a neighborhood watch program with the assistance of the Sanford Police Department and had been appointed the "captain" of the program, according to reports. Both have been accused of being overzealous - Zimmerman had called 911 dozens of times before the shooting incident, while some black Baltimore residents and even police officers said Shomrim members sometimes took their role too far.

-Eliyahu Werdesheim worked for a security company and claimed to be an former Israeli special forces solider; Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer, having attended a four-month course at the local sheriff's department and enrolled in a local college and took law enforcement courses.

Rabbis requesting psychiatric drugs for students II

Haaretz

As a result of the Haaretz report two week ago   ("Rabbi's Little Helper," April 6 ) - about the conferral of psychiatric medication at the request of rabbis and Orthodox activists, for purposes described as "spiritual" rather than medical - a number of persons turned to Haaretz with their personal stories. 

The Gur Hasid trembled in pain as he spoke about a family gathering held at Purim. One daughter in the extended family, a married woman with children, attended the big holiday meal after a long period in which she had remained secluded in her home. "We were shocked," the man recalled. "At the beginning, we could barely identify her. This is a woman who has always been blessed with a lively, expressive personality, but now it looks like pills have finished her off. We met an apathetic woman who has a solemn, stony face; a woman who has had the life sucked out of her."

The ultra-Orthodox man says the woman's husband belongs to a well-connected family in the Gur community, and so the man's family attached "responsibility" for the situation in the house to the woman, and demanded she receive medication. "She was told that the Gur Rebbe wants her to take medication, and that the pills would restore order to her home. Nobody knows whether the rebbe really said that, but this is what persuaded her." 

The Hasid from Bnei Brak presented his story as part of a trend of Orthodox referrals to private psychiatric clinics as a result of internal communal issues - typically family cases. Such referrals often override the patients' own desires; usually, he patient does not really understand the nature of the treatment. Psychiatrists and psychologists also approached the newspaper, and reported cases of unethical uses of medication.[...]

Shach: Forced divorces not permitted

שו"ת גבורת אנשים סימן עב

ונראה לפי מה שהעליתי לעיל סי' מ"ב דאין לו גבורת אנשים אין כופים בשוטים להוציא, ה"ה דאין לנדותו עד שיתן גט. ואף על גב שהבאתי לעיל סי' ט"ו דברי הרא"ש פ' הבא על יבמתו דמשמע מדבריו דאפי' היכא דאין כופין בשוטים מנדינן ליה. מ"מ אין נראה כן הלכה למעשה, דהא אמרינן בעלמא [פסחים נב ע"א] דשמתא קשה מנגדא. וגם הרא"ש גופיה כתב בפ' החובל [ב"ק פ"ח סי' ב] שאין לך גוביינא גדול מזה, דמשמתינן ליה דלנקטיה בכובסיה עד דשבק לגלימיה [עי' שבועות מא ע"א]. וכן כתב המרדכי [סי' רד] והגה"ת אשר"י [סי' יט] פ' המדיר וכתבו שמעשה בא כן לפני ר"ת שנידו לאחד ליתן גט ונתן גט, ופסל ר"ת את הגט וצוה לעשות לו גט אחר. וכן הסכמת רוב הפוסקים דהיכא דאין כופין אין מנדין אותו ג"כ, וכ"כ ב"י סימן קנ"ד בשם תשובת רשב"א, וכ"כ הריב"ש סי' קכ"ז, וכן פסק מהר"ל ן' חביב בתשו' סי' ל"ג, וכן כתב הרב בהג"ה סי' קנ"ד (ס"ך) [סכ"א] ושאר אחרונים. (וכן פסק בתשו' מהר"י ן' לב ספר ג' ס"ס ק"א באין לו גבורת אנשים דאין כופין להוציא לא בשוטים ולא בנדוי ושמתא. וכן מסיק בתשו' מהר"ר שלמה כהן ספר שלישי ס"ס מ"ב דלענין מעשה אין כופין אותו בשום דבר רק שאומרים לו שמותר לקרותו עבריין ע"ש) וכן עיקר.
מיהו כתב הרב בהג"ה שם וז"ל ומ"מ יכולים לגזור על כל ישראל שלא לעשות לו שום טובה או לישא וליתן עמו או למול בניו או לקברו עד שיגרש ובכל חומר שירצו ב"ד יכולים להחמיר בכה"ג ובלבד שלא ינדו אותו עכ"ל. והוא מדברי ר"ת ומהרי"ק ובנימין זאב, אבל בתשו' מהר"י ן' לב שם כתב וז"ל וה"נ לא עבדינן ההרחקה שכתב ר"ת והסמ"ק ומהרי"ק, לפי שלא ראינו ולא שמענו בדורנו זאת ההרחקה. ואפשר דטעמא הוי משום דבדורות הללו חמירא להו ההרחקה מנידוי ושמתא, וכל היכא דלא כייפינן בשוטים או בנדויים וחרמות גם לא עבדינן ההרחקה. פעם אחת בהיותי בשלוניק"י עלה במחשבה בין קצת החכמים למיעבד ההרחקה בנידון דהיה קרוב הדבר לכוף, ולא אסתייעא מלתא ולא נעשה מעשה, וכיון דכן הוא מלתא דפשיטא היא דלא כייפינן ליה לא בשוטים ולא בחרמות, ולא זה בלבד אלא אפילו שום הרחקה לא עבדינן ליה אלא דאומרים לו דמותר לקוראו עבריינא ע"כ, וטוב להחמיר.
תם ונשלם כל דיני אומרת גרשתני ודיני אין לו גבורת אנשים ושאר דינים השייכים להם באריכות. והנני נותן שבח והודיה לאל יתברך שמו אשר עזרני עד כה ונתן לי כח וחיל לעמוד בפלפול הארוך הזה. כי כמה יגיעות יגעתי וכמה טרחות טרחתי עד שיגעתי ומצאתי טעמ"ן של דברים המחוורים כשמלה היתה בכלל, ובפרט שיש כאן מבוכות רבות בגדולי הפוסקים ראשונים ואחרונים.
ולמען אשר יוכל המעיין לידע בקצרה שרשי הדינים העולים מכל משא ומתן הגדול הזה, אמרתי להעלות רשום בכתב אמת כללי הדינים בקצרה כשלחן ערוך המוכן לאכול לפני האדם. ומי שירצה לעמוד על עיקרי הדברים יעיין בפנים אשר משם יוצאים ונובעים כל דבריו מוכרעים, כלם בראיות ברורות, ובהוכחות גמורות, זה אחר זה סדורות, באותיות ובתיבות ובשורות, סמוכות תכופות וצרורות, כרוכות וחרוקות והדורות, בעזר האל פועל גבורו"ת, אין בלתו צר צורות, יאיר עינינו בקלות וחמורות, ויתיר לנו אסורות, ע"י מבשר בשורות.
כויעתר שבתי בן לא"א הגאון מוהר"ר מאיר כ"ץ ז"ל. יום ה' כ"ד סיון תי"ו יו"ד לפ"ק

Jetman: The human airplane

 A break from serious topics

Rape cases are legal minefields for colleges

Boston Globe

A closed- door encounter between two college acquaintances. Both have been drinking. One says she was raped; the other insists it was consensual. There are no other witnesses.

It's a common scenario in college sexual assault cases, and a potential nightmare to resolve. But under the 40-year-old federal gender equity law Title IX -- and guidance handed down last year by the Obama administration on how to apply it -- colleges can't just turn such cases over to criminal prosecutors, who often won't touch them anyway. Instead, they must investigate, and in campus proceedings do their best to balance the accused's due process rights with the civil right of the victim to a safe education.

Colleges that do too little about sexual assault could lose federal funds. The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is currently investigating a dozen colleges and universities over their response to sexual violence (documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show schools that have recently agreed to take steps to resolve OCR complaints over Title IX policies include universities such as Notre Dame, Northwestern and George Washington). [...]

But when colleges do take action against accused students, those students are increasingly lawyering up themselves, suing for breach of contract and negligence. And in at least two recent cases, in Tennessee and Massachusetts, male students have tread novel legal ground by alleging violations of their own Title IX protections against gender discrimination, arguing a college's sexual assault policies or procedures were unfairly stacked against men.

Pele Yoetz - Abused wife advised to remain silent?!

I was asked to post this excerpt from the Pele Yoetz. I have already posted the Pele Yoetz's strong condemnation of wife abuse as well as child abuse. So the obviously question is why is he advising the battered wife to remain silent? The obvious answer is that we are dealing with a situation where the wife does not have a ready option of divorce. In such a society the alternative to marriage to an abusive husband is often worse. The Pele Yoetz is simply advising her how to minimize her suffering. In the same chapter he  also advised that the husband put up with an abusive wife. In other words, he is providing suggestions to both abused husband and wife as what to do when divorce is not a viable option. This is excerpted from Rabbi Mansour's translation here

In truth, according to the dictum of our Sages (Eruvin 41b), "Someone who has a bad wife will not see Gehinom", it would be proper to seek a bad wife if he could stand the test, considering the enormous severity of the punishment of Gehinom. If he passes the test, then he will not inherit two Gehinoms (one in this world and one in the World to Come)! Rather he should accept her with love and he will receive a fine reward for his labors.

Forcing divorce on a mentally ill wife

Shulchan Aruch(E.H. 119:6): A woman can be divorced against her will. Rema: And even if he doesn’t have money to pay for her kesubah and dowry – she cannot prevent the divorce because of failure to pay her money she is due. Rather they can be divorced and then she can go to beis din to make the financial claims against him (Rosh, Rivash). All of this is according to the Torah law. However Rabbeinu Gershom decreed that a woman cannot be forcibly divorced – as we explained before (Shulchan Aruch E.H.115).

And even if he is willing to give her the kesubah he is not permitted to forcibly divorce her today. Nonetheless if he transgresses the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom by forcibly divorcing her and then he remarries – he no longer can be called a sinner. ... If she develops a blemish see (Shulchan 117) whether he can forcibly divorce her. Some say that if a mitzva is involved he is able to forcibly divorce or he is permitted to marry two wives. Shulchan Aruch: Therefore a child can be forcibly divorced even though she isn’t considered have full intelligence and even if her father accepted her Kiddushin which is Torah. This is also true of a deaf woman who was married when she could hear and the later became deaf. However if she becomes insane – and doesn’t know how to protect it - she cannot be divorced until she recovers. This restriction is a rabbinic decree in order that she shouldn’t be abandoned to immoral people since she is not capable of protecting herself. Therefore while she remains his wife, he can leave her and he is permitted to marry someone else. Nevertheless her food is paid for from her money and he is not obligated to provide her with clothing or sexual relations. He is also not obligated to cure her physical ailments (Some say that he is obligated Beis Yosef citing Rashba.... and this view is the dominant one) or to redeem her if she is captured. However if he does give her a get despite the prohibition, the get is valid – as long as she knows how to protect it. Rema: (Some say that even bedieved it is not valid). In the case where she is sometimes insane and other times is lucid and she is divorced when she is lucid because she seems have stabilized - then the get remains valid even if she relapses. Shulchan Aruch: And he sends her from his house and he has no obligation to deal with her anymore.

Rabbeinu Yerucham: Forcing husband to give get

 Rabbi Adlerstein cited Rabbeinu Yerucham as permitting forcing a husband to divorce his wife in a case of ma'us alei. 

[YA Because once both parties have had their days in court/beis din, rulings have to be upheld. Once a marriage is terminated, a husband has no right in halacha to withhold a get. (When he truly wants to continue the marriage, and his wife is the one who walks out, he is not obligated to immediately grant a get, but can leverage it to try to repair the relationship. Once it is clear that both parties have given up on the marriage relationship - regardless of who requested the get, or who was at fault! - withholding the get is seen in halacha going back to Rabbenu Yerucham as extortion. The latter held that beis din could even use physical force to coerce a get at that point. Batei Din in Israel routinely accept this Rabbenu Yerucham. Certainly lesser forms of persuasion, as guided by responsible morei hora'ah, are permitted.] [YA - I can give you the cite. More than that would take a good deal of timing, looking into פסקי דין רבניים for the places that he is cited. Ateres Devorah, chap. 89, cites three such decisions. The Rabbenu Yerucham is in Meisharim, Nesiv 23 chelek 8]

 I showed this Rabbeinu Yerucham to my brother and he  wrote the following rebuttal.

רבינו ירוחם מתיר לכוף במאוס עלי בספר מישרים נתיב כג' חלק ח' וז"ל וכתב מורי ה"ר אברהם בן אשמעאל כי נראה לו שאשה שאמרה לא בעינא ליה ליתן לי גט וכתובה והוא אומר אנא נמי לא בעינא לך אבל איני רוצה ליתן גט מסתברא דאין דנין אותה במורדת להפסידה כלום מעיקר כתובה ונדוינא אלא מיהו משהינן לה תריסר ירחי אגיטא דילמא הדרי בהו לאחר שנה כופין אותון לגרש והפסידה תוספת וכל מאי דיהיב לה מדיליה כו' עכ"ל

ובא אחד ומדייק מזה שהלכה למעשה אם הבעל לא רוצה ליתן לאשתו גט במאוס עלי שאחרי שנה כופין אותו. ומשמע כופין בשוטים לכאורה.

והנה הדבר פשוט שאפילו אם היה זה הפירוש פה שאחרי שנה כופין לגרש היות שלא נזכר דבר זה בש"ע ובגדולי הפוסקים וכדבר פשוט הוא בראשונים והפוסקים שלא כופין במאוס עלי אפילו אחרי כמה שנים שלכן אין לסמוך על זה לקולא. שזה שאמרו כמה ראשונים שבמאוס עלי לא כופין כלל ולא חילקו בין שנה לכמה שנים משמע שהם חולקים על שיטה זו.

וכל הכופה לבעל לגרש בשיטה יחידאה נגד רוב הפוסקים הוא מרבה מזמרים בישראל. ואפילו אם היה שקול אחד נגד אחד היה ספק אם מותר לכוף. והיה האשה בחזקת אשת איש שזה מכריע הספק לעשותו קרוב או ודאי לממזר ודאי.

שלכן מאחר שהרשב"א אמר בפירוש שאין כופין כלל במאוס עלי וכן משמע שבש"ע א"ה סימן עז' לא הובא שום צד לכוף במאוס עלי שאין לכוף במעשה עלי אפילו אחרי כמה שנים.

וז"ל הרשב"א שו"ת הרשב"א חלק ז' סימן תי"ד בענין מאוס עלי – ולעולם אין כופין את הבעל לגרש אלא רצה לגרש יגרש ואם לא רצה לא יגרש ואע"פ שלא כתב כן הרמב"ם ז"ל זהו דין האומרת מאיס עלי עכ"ל הרי בפירוש ברשב"א שהוא גדול הפוסקים שאין לכוף כלל לבעל במאוס עלי דלא כרבי אברם בן ישמעאל רבו של רבנו ירוחם. ואפילו היה הדבר ספק כאילו רבו של רבינו ירוחם גדול כמו הרשב"א היה הדבר ספק ואין כופין מספק בפרט שיש לה חזקת אשת איש והבנים או ספק ממזרים או ודאי ממזרים והאשה ודאי אסורה להנשא.

והנה המתיר על פי השיטה של רבו של רבינו ירוחם רוצה להתיר לבזותו שכן הוא המעשה שעליו אנו דנים. ואפשר שרוצה לכופו בשוטים שכן יש רע-בנים שסוברים שצריכים לעשות לו בשוטים. והלא הרשב"א שם כתב בפירוש שאפילו בזמן שהאשה אומרת שאין בעלה יכול להוליד ילד שכה"ג כתב הרשב"א שאומרים לו בפירוש שחייב לגרש. עדיין אין לבזותו. וכ"ש במאוס עלי.

וע' בבית אפרים אבן העזר סוף חלק ג' שבמאיס עלי אין כופין. ומביא הרשב"א חלק א' סימן קצב'. וז"ל ומצאתי און לי בש"מ הביא בשם ר"י דבמאיס עלי אומרים לו חכמים חייבוך להוציא כו' ור"ת אומר שאף זה אין אומרים לו אלא שאם בא לימלך בב"ד משיאים לו עצה שיגרשנה לאלתר ויפטור מכתובה עכ"ל הרי מחלוקת הראשונים אם מותר לומר להבעל במאיס עלי שחכמים אמרו שחייב לגרש שהוא כפיה בדבריםי בעלמא ועל זה בא ר"ת לאסור גם זה ולא הובא שום חילוק בין שנה אחד או כמה שנים דלא כרבינו ירוחם. הרי שרוב הראשונים לא הביא חידוש זה לכופו אחרי שנה ואם עושים כפיה הרי ספק גט ויש לאשה חזקת אשת איש.

ועוד שכה"ג הפשטות שודאי לכ"ע אינו גט כלל. שהיות שהבעל יודע שרוב הראשונים אוסיםר לכופו לא שייך לומר שהוא סומך על היחיד ליתן גט בלב שלם אלא ודאי שהוא נותן רק מחמת מכות או כפיה ולא סובר שמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים באופן שאינו גט כלל.

ובכלל איני יודע למה הביא החכם בעיניו שיטת היחיד בזה להתיר כפיה במאוס עלי הלא יש שיטת הרמב"ם ועוד כמה ראשונים שעומדים בשיטת הגאגונים ג' מאות שנים לכוף להבעל בשוטים לגרש במאוס עלי אלא שלא עושים כן מחמת שהרבנים שבאו אחרי כן פסלו דרך זה עוד שלא יעשה עוד. וא"כ מה תועלת להביא שיטה אחרת שאינו נזכר בפוסקים נגד מה שהוא כן נזכר בפוסקים.

ועוד יש לדייק בלשון הרבינו ירוחם שההיתר זו לכוף במאוס עלי רק באופן שבין האיש ובין האשה אמרו בפירוש שלא רוצים זה את זה. כה"ג יש צד שאחרי יב' חודש שרואים שלא ישנו דעתם שכופים. אבל אם הבעל רוצה האשה ואינו מואס בה אלא שהיא מואסת בו לא מיירי ואין כופין כה"ג.

Obligations of Husbands and Wives: Mitzvos HaBayis R' Epstein

 This was downloaded from Hebrew Books - see chapter 5 page 209 This link for chapter 5 only

Mitzvos Habayis R' Epstein Vol 2 Hebrewbooks_org_3412

Conservative's to ordain gay & lesbian rabbis

Haaretz

The question whether or not to ordain gay and lesbian rabbis has been rattling the Conservative Movement in Israel and the U.S. for the past decade. Unlike the Reform movement that took to the question with ease, deciding firmly on the acceptance of gay rabbis. The Conservative Movement, whose rabbis see themselves bound to Jewish law, has been caught up in heated debate over the subject.

Years of discussion led to two contradictory religious rulings in 2006, one requiring the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis and another banning any such act. The two rabbinical seminaries affiliated with the movement in the U.S. move the ruling allowing the ordination, while the seminaries in Jerusalem and Buenos Aires adopted the ban on ordination. The issue nearly caused a rift in the movement. 

Rabbi Mauricio Balter, President of the Israeli Conservative Movement Rabbinical Assembly expressed his support of the move. 

“I see it as a very important development in Jewish law,” Rabbi Balter told Haaretz, adding: “It is the right thing to do. We were all made in the image of god, and as such we are all made equal. For me this is a very important value. I always said we should admit gay and lesbians into our ranks.”

Pele Yoetz : Condemns wife abuse

Pele Yoetz (Hitting - published 1824): Our Sages said, One who hits his grown son is liable to nidoi (ostracizing). They explain that it is likely to result in rebellion, cursing and physical attack against the father and thus the father transgresses the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind. Thus it is clear that it is not just his grown son that he should not hit. Rather the warning is against hitting even a young child. This applies then to anyone he knows will not accept his authority for example in our times when chutzpah is common and a son rebels against his father. Thus he should not only avoiding hitting but even angrily chastising someone – results in an angry response and refusal to listen to criticism. In truth it says in Mishlei (17:10), A reproof enters more into a wise man than a hundred blows into a fool. Thus we see that chastisement is only accepted by the wise but one who isn’t wise will not accept rebuke.

There is a type of son who will not listen to his father or mother. In all such cases the father and mother need to understand that since they know their children well and recognize that they are difficult and lacking in fear of G‑d and will simply not listen to their parents – they should not command them to doing any service for them and they should try hard not to express their anger to them and not irritate them and only to speak gently with them. Now granted not all occasions are equal and there will be times that the father and mother will not be able to restrain themselves from ordering their children to do something or getting angry with them or even embarrassing them or cursing them. They will gnash their teeth in frustration and their hearts will be faint when they see their children misbehaving. Nevertheless that which the parents have the power to accomplish they should do and they should try and minimize evil. The father and mother want to give merit to their children in that the children should fulfill the will of their parents and they should give merit to their souls by doing that which is pleasing to G‑d.

 However what can they do since this is not a good generation and when the sons and daughters are with their parents they really have not much interest in this mitzva and they don’t consider it important. However when they go to Israel or to the cemetery then the children say if I only had a father or mother I would lick the dirt from the soles of their feet and I would faithfully serve them with all my strength. But if they want that G‑d should consider them at that time as if they had done it purely because they want to do it, then they should fulfill their obligation properly when they have the actual opportunity to so. It is only in such circumstances that when the deed cannot be done that G‑d considers the mere thought of doing good as actually doing it.

Since in these times when refined children who listen to their parents are in a distinct minority and in particular since they marry women who bicker with their mother-in-laws and thus it is difficult for the children to honor their parents as they are required – how wonderful it is for the father and mother if it is possible for them to separate from their children so that the children are not dependent upon their support. And similarly it is good for the children if it is the will of their parents that they separate from their tables. That is because the absence is better than a bad reality. It should only be that the hearts of the children should have the desire to honor their parents and they will receive a good reward in this world that they themselves will be honored from good children and the principle reward will be in the next world.

It is important to note that the prohibition of hitting is not only applicable to one’s children but it applies also all other people. In fact this is prohibited by is a negative Torah commandment of “don’t add” [concerning the punishment from the Sanhedrin which is understood that no man is to be hit even a single time without being explicitly sentenced to that blow by the beis din]. Our Sages (Sanhedrin 58b) said, “One who strikes the chin of another is as if he struck the Shechina. (Rashi explains that it means hitting any part of the body)... Rav Huna amputated the hand of one who assaulted others.”

It is fitting that all the leaders of cities punish assailants in particular those disgusting people who hit their wives viciously. Blasted are those that treat Jewish women as slaves. They attack them, hit them and rape them – and they feel no shame. It is a good idea for someone who has the possibility to punish them and if they can also to get their wives away from them if the wife wants to. That is because our Sages said that a woman cannot dwell together with a serpent and therefore it is a great mitzva to save them from these criminals.

And even to hit small child there is no permission except for a father for his children and a teacher for his students and a supervisor of children. And even concerning a teacher and his students it is appropriate to consult a beis din for what is appropriate in each case – but this is not the accepted practice. It mentions in Bava Basra (21a), “When you hit a child you should only hit him with a shoe lace”... if it is necessary to hit a child then only hit him gently on his foot without anger...

See also post Pele Yoetz - advice to abused wife

Halachic impact of psychological/social reality

In the recent discussion of divorce and whether it is permitted or even desirable to force a man to give a get when the Torah doesn't require it - the question is whether the social and psychological consequences should be considered. In particular if adhering to the Torah laws causes a woman to give up yiddishkeit or to engage in immoral behavior or it increases mamzerim - should we be concerned enough to force the husband to give up on his Torah rights in marriage?

Similarly my recent post about establishing who is the boss in marriage from the Chesed l'Avraham - elicited some strong responses - that this material was not only irrelevant but was highly embarrassing to us modern enlightened folk. In other words it is far from being politically and socially correct. One anonymous commenter even criticized me for publicizing this material since he said it was a chillul haShem [I didn't publish his comment solely because he didn't bother giving himself a name]. I was also asked rhetorically if I would publish the comments of the Pele Yoetz regarding wife beating? In fact I am finishing up the translation of that section and will  soon post it. It is a good example of social reality altering halachic practice. In reality the issue is whether we should be learning from the Torah what to do - and do it without concern for consequences or whether there are specific goals we want to accomplish and therefore we need to modify the halacha - even nullify Torah laws - in order to achieve the metagoals - is a very important issue. In other words does Torah have an agenda - or is simply to observe the mitzvos. A related question is whether there is in fact a Torah true marriage or Torah true chinuch or Torah true mental health or psychotherapy? Or are all these institutions determined by the time and age a person lives in?

[From Daas Torah 2nd edition page 49]

Rav Dov Katz(Pulmos HaMusar page 337): There are two views concerning the purpose of observing mitzvos. 1) It is an end in itself which is to fulfill the will of G‑d. 2) It is a means to educate and develop man to spiritual perfection - which he is obligated to achieve. Many of the opponents of Mussar hold the first view that man’s primary obligation in the world is simply to fulfill G‑d’s will and to keep His commandments. Their focus is to clarify the commandants so that they are done as precisely as possible. They are not concerned with investigating and clarifying the hidden aspects of man. They don’t value being involved in clarification of hashkofa issues. They are not curious about the psychological forces and the depths of the heart. They don’t examine their personality traits and their manifestations. They have no interest in seclusion and mediation. They serve G‑d purely and simply. On the other hand, they are fully aware that the Torah requires spiritual development and personality development. However, they view these as commandments that are no different than the other commandments of the Torah. While some of them accept that they require preparation and others see these commandments as an end in themselves - none of this group require a special program to achieve this personal perfection. Instead they assert that one should be totally devoted to an in depth study of Torah - which is superior to all else - and are very concerned with exacting observance of mitzvos. They are concerned with extra stringencies according to their clarification of the nature of the Halacha and view this approach as the way to achieve personal perfection and the perfection of the world. In contrast to this group, those who require Mussar belong to the second group that the prime focus of man is his obligation for spiritual perfection. This second group asserts that G‑d’s will is not fulfilled simply by keeping His commandments as expressions of G‑d’s authority. They require that the focus be on the commandments as the means to achieve spiritual and personal perfection. The consequence of this perspective is that commandments are seen, as means - not ends in themselves. Therefore, it is not sufficient to simply physically perform the mitzva. They seek means and strategies to involve the inner person, as well as his thoughts and his emotions. They view that the primary impact of the mitzva does not come from a mechanical performance - though they don’t denigrate that is produced by it - but only that which penetrates and influences the inner being.