R' Taubers evaluation of Kedushas Levi Beis Din

Old Siruv against Rav Herschel Schachter

Rav Yosef: Forced Get for Ma'us alei - sometimes

translation - click here

שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג - אבן העזר סימן כ

(לד) המורם מכל האמור שהואיל ומצאנו חברים רבים גדולים ועצומים מרבותינו הראשונים דס"ל כשיטת הרמב"ם ז"ל שכופין את הבעל לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי. וכן תיקנו רבנן סבוראי בבי דינא דמתיבתא, ונהגו בתקנה זו עד סוף זמן הגאונים קרוב לשש מאות שנה, ועשו מעשה רב לכוף את הבעל להוציא בטענת מאיס עלי. אף על פי שרבים מהפוסקים אינם סוברים כן, וגם מרן בש"ע /בא"ה/ (סי' עז) סובר שאין כופין, מ"מ כשיש עוד צירופים להקל, שפיר סמכינן ע"ז הלכה למעשה. (וע' להגאון אגודת איזוב (חאה"ע ס"ס יט) בד"ה עוד יש). ובייחוד לבני תימן שאינם זזים מהוראות הרמב"ם בכל אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, וכבר נהגו בארצותם לכוף את הבעל לגרש בטענת מ"ע, כדעת הרמב"ם, לכן גם כאן בא"י שפיר דמי לפסוק להם כמנהגם. ובנ"ד הוכח בעדים שהנישואין נעשו נגד רצון האשה, ולמרות סירובה להנשא אל בעלה זה, כפו עליה קרוביה הר כגיגית בדרך תרמית ותחבולה להשיאה אליו. ונודע שדעת הרשב"ש להלכה דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציא, ורבו האחרונים שכ' לסמוך על הרשב"ש בזה להלכה ולמעשה. ובפרט שיש לצרף בזה כמה ספיקות וס"ס. (וכמש"כ בסי' יח אות ד). וכבר נודע בשערים המצויינים בהלכה מ"ש הרשב"ץ ח"ב (סי' ח) וז"ל, ואף על פי שיש בתשו' גדולי האחרונים שאין כופין בזה [בדין מאיס עלי] כלל, מ"מ אנן לא קטלי קני באגמא אנן, ומילתא דתליא בסברא, אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו ראות. ע"ש. וכן הוא בשו"ת יכין ובועז ח"ב (סי' מד). וע"ע בשו"ת מהר"א אבן טוואה בחוט המשולש (סי' לה). ובשו"ת מעשה איש (חאה"ע ס"ס א). ע"ש. הא קמן שאף הרשב"ץ דקאי בשיטת הפוסקים שחולקים על הרמב"ם, כשיש עוד סניפין פסק להקל כד' הרמב"ם. ודון מינה ואוקי באתרין. (ובתשובה אחרת הארכתי בס"ד להוכיח שדעת כמה פוסקים רוא"ח, שבית דין שפסקו לכוף את הבעל לגרש, ע"פ איזה פוסקים, אפי' טעו בדין, והוי גט מעושה שלא כדין, אין הגט פסול אלא מדרבנן. ומכ"ש בכפייה שבזמן הזה שאינה כפייה בשוטים, אלא בישיבה בבית הסוהר, ואין כל דמיון בין בית הסוהר של זמנינו לבית הסוהר שבזמנים הקודמים. והו"ל כספק ספקא בדרבנן. ולדעת הרבה פוסקים עבדינן ספקא בידים בדרבנן להקל, וכ"ש בס"ס, ומכ"ש בשעה"ד ומקום עיגון כזאת. וק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו בדין מאיס עלי שרבו הפוסקים המקילים הן מצד הדין הן מצד התקנה, ואפי' הרא"ש שחולק על הרמב"ם כתב, דבדיעבד שכפו את הבעל להוציא מה שעשו עשוי. וכ"כ הרשב"ץ, דאם נתגרשה בגט כזה תנשא לכתחלה. ועל אחת כמה וכמה בנ"ד שהנישואין היו בעל כרחה של האשה, דעבדינן עובדא לכתחלה.) ונוסף לזה יש מקום בנ"ד לפקפק על עצם הקידושין שנעשו ע"י איומים והפחדות, ועכ"פ הבעל בודאי עשה שלא כהוגן במעשה הקידושין, ואם כי לא נפקיע קידושיו מ"מ יש לכופו לתת גט. ומה גם שהאשה צעירה לימים ויושבת גלמודה גמולה דא מבעלה, ויש חשש לפי ראות עיני ביה"ד פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, אם תהיה תקותה לקבלת גט למפח נפש. בהיות שזה שנים רבות יושבת בדד כבולה בחבלי העיגון. וכבר הבאנו (בסי' יח אות יג) דברי הגאון מהר"ח פלאג'י דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציאה בגט. וע"ע בשו"ת חקקי לב (חאה"ע סי' נז דק"ה ע"א), שהביא מ"ש בשו"ת מהרשד"ם (סי' נז), ומשאת בנימין (סי' מד), שיש להקל הרבה בעיגונא דאיתתא כדי שלא יצאו בנות ישראל לתרבות רעה, ולא יבואו ח"ו להמיר דתם, ובפרט כשהאשה ילדה ורכה בשנים. ושכ"כ הרא"ם בתשו' (סי' לו), שאין לך שעה"ד גדול מזה להשאיר האשה עגונה כל ימיה, ובודאי דנפיק מינה חורבא, וכ"ש בזמנים הללו שבעוה"ר רבו הפרצות ונתמעטו הצנועות. ע"ש. וכיו"ב כתב הגרח"מ לבטון בשו"ת נכח השלחן (חאה"ע ס"ס יד). ע"ש. ובנ"ד הרי כמה פעמים התחננו אליו ממש חברי בית הדין (בהרכבים שונים משך שנים רבות), ובקשוהו בדברי פיוס וריצוי שיואיל לפטרה בגט פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, והוא כמו פתן חרש יאטם אזנו, וגם לאחר החלטות ביה"ד לחייב את הבעל לגרש את אשתו (בחשבם אולי יקיים מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים (ב"ב מח), ובהסתמך גם על הפו' שכ' שאפי' להחולקים על הרמב"ם וס"ל שאין כופין במאיס עלי, מ"מ חייב לגרשה.) הבעל ממשיך בסירובו ונותן כתף סוררת לכל עצות והחלטות בית הדין. וכל דבריהם נשארו כקול קורא במדבר. וגם כשהאשה פקעה סבלנותה ואיימה בפני ביה"ד ובפניו שאם לא יגרשנה תצא לתרבות רעה, (ודברי התנצלותה לאחר זמן בפני ביה"ד ע"ז, נאמרו אך ורק ע"פ עצת עורך - הדין שלה), וגם בעיני ביה"ד נראה ברור שאין זה בבחינת גזים איניש ולא עביד, אלא קיים חשש מבוסס שאמנם אם ימשך מצב ביש זה לבלי סוף תצא האשה לתרבות רעה. ואין כל סיכויים שהאשה תסכים אי פעם לשוב ולחיות עם הבעל הזה, ולמרות מאמצים גדולים בדברי פיוס ברצי כסף ותחנות ובקשות חוזרות ונשנות פעמים אין מספר לאמר: הבעל עננו! ואין קול ואין עונה ואין קשב. ובדברים לא יוסר עבד. ובצירוף כל הסברות הנ"ל פסקנו בכח ב"ד יפה להלכה ולמעשה לכוף את הבעל לגרש עד שיאמר רוצה אני, ולזה הסכים גם ראש בית דיננו הגאון הגדול מהר"ר ראובן כץ שליט"א (הרב הראשי ואב"ד פה פתח תקוה), ובהיות שהבעל הקשה את ערפו ואמץ את לבבו ולא אבה לגרש גם לאחר פסק הדין דקמן, נלקח אל בית הסוהר ע"י השלטונות בכדי להכריחו לציית לביה"ד, ולאחר שבתו בביה"ס ימים אחדים, הסכים לגרש את אשתו, והגט סודר על ידינו בס"ד במותב תלתא כחדא ביום א' מנחם אב תשי"ט פה פתח תקוה ת"ו, לאחר ביטול מודעות וכו' וכנהוג. והותרה האשה להנשא לכל גבר די תצבי חוץ מכהן. והשי"ת יצילנו משגיאות ומתורתו יראנו נפלאות ויאיר עינינו בתורתו הקדושה אמן. עובדיה יוסף ס"ט

Does Rav Schachter permit beatings?! 3 tapes

Guest Post Yitzy HillelApr 29, 2012 10:27 PM

 

For all those who haven't listened to Rabbi Schachters 3 shiurim on Agunot on yutorah.com, I will briefly summarize them.

1) In his shiur called "Options for Agunahs" listen from 10-14 minutes. He does state what Rav Dovid Eidonsohn Shlitta has claimed and says that in 99% of the cases today where marriages are broken and two are no longer living together of course we can be kofin oso bshotin (use force with sticks!!!) Listen for yourself minute 13 to be exact: He brings down 3 categories and says almost all cases today are in the category of kofin oso bshottim. (He doesn't tell people to go do it but he says the cases fall into the category where physical force is permitted)

2), In the "Plight of Agunah" shiur, Rabbi Schachter clearly explains that force CAN NOT BE USED (minute 50-101 to be exact). He states clearly in minute 52 (WE DON"T EVEN DO THE HARCHAKAS OF R'TAM today like the Gevoras Anishim of Schach quoted by Pischa Teshuva 154:21) then he says in the end we just humiliate which is a much lesser pressure then cutting the guy off financially. He states we are machmir for (the gevoras anashim the shach). In minute 58 he says if we can't solve this issue we may have to go back to the takanas of the geonim (and the shitta of the Rambam) where forcing with actual violence is permitted in cases of meus alai if we have no choice...

In his most recent 2012 shiur ("Fighting the Agunah Crises" minute 23 to exact)), Rabbi Schachter claims that today we are actually following the harchakas of R'tam and bases the actions of the ORA on Chacham Ovadias teshuvot. He mentions that R' Tam held that one can't use force but could humiliate the husband, and He says that is what he relies upon today)

In Summary: (Please listen to the shiurim yourselves and you will find that Rabbi Schachter says 3 different approaches in all 3 shiurim.

1) todays cases are almost always where physical force can be used because the couple is no longer living together. (He doesn't say to do it but he says the cases fall into the category in Shulchan Aruch where physical force can be used.

2) Today we DONT do the harchakas of R'tam and are machmir for the pitcha teshuva (shach) which says (according to Rabbi Schachter)to cut off the guy financially. He says we only humiliate which is much less from of pressure that doesn't invalidate a GET. He states if things get much worse we may have to use actual force like the Rambam's oppinion (but he never mentions to use actual violence)

3) He says we DO follow the harchakas of R'tam based upon Chacham Ovadia. In this shiur he calls humiliation as part of the harchakas of R'tam unlike shiur 2, and he doesn't state or imply any allowances of actual physical force.

Can someone please listen to his 3 shiurim (to save you time just listen to the minutes that I quoted above) and try to explain his shitta in a coherent manner. I personally feel the above 3 shiurim totally contradict themselves and am wondering if anyone can explain how the shiurim don't contradict each other.

Mamzerim from Forced Get in Ma'us Alei

Yachin uVoaz(1:124):[15th Century Algeria] You should know that there are two different types of moredes and they have different laws. There is a moredes who despises her husband and she asserts that he is disgusting to her. On the other hand there is a moredes who says she wants her husband but she wants to torment him In the case of ma'us alei the view of the Rambam is that the husband is forced to divorce her immediately and he learns this from a deduction from the gemora as the Rosh writes. The Rambam states in Hilchos Ishus  (14:8) that if a wife refuses sexual relations that the husband is forced to give a a get since she is not like a prisoner who can be forced to have relations with someone she hates. However there has long been an outcry against the ruling of the Rambam by all the commentators and poskim such as Rabbein Tam, Ramban, Rosh, Rashba and many others. They agree concerning forcing the husband to divorce. Whoever forces the husband to divorce in accordance to the ruling of the Rambam increases mamzerim in the world. And they reject the view of the Rambam with clear proofs from the Talmud as the Rosh does. And many proofs are brought to refute and reject the words of the Rambam. And even the Magid Mishna who normally devotes  himself in all places to justify the words of the Rambam and to firmly establish their validity with clear proofs - in this case he refutes the Rambam and goes into detail with proofs to contradict the Rambam's reasoning and to reject it. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. The halachic view that has become univeral is that one does not force the husband to give a get when she claim ma'us alei and we do not rely on the ruling of the Rambam nor others who agree with him in this matter. And furthermore that even if the halacha was in accord with the Rambam it would be correct to make a protective fence in this matter to prevent immorality amongst the woman because of the degradation of the contemporary generation. Because woman have become haughty and arrogant in their immorality. We are therefore concerned that a wife might have become interested in another man and she wants to disgard her husband by declaring he is disgusting to me (ma'us alei). If it became known that that would be sufficient to have her husband forced to give her a get then it would surely cause problems. But in fact the Rambam is not the halacha because of the proofs that the opponents of the Rambam bring [And even in Algeria where they always follow the Rambam there are three exceptions and this is one of them and not those who agree with the Rambam...]. However I saw in the Rosh who writes that if in fact the psak of the Rambam was followed and the woman was divorced by force and she remarried - we don't force her leave the second marriage. However many others disagree with the Rosh and they say that if she remarries after a forced get - she must leave the second marriage.

Jewish criminals shouldn't be jailed - Mishpacha Magazine

Mishpacha Magazine (April 4, 2012 p62): ... but does that give Rabbi Stein license to help Jews who have broken laws themselves? 'About 30 years ago, the Tosher Rebbe called me in the middle of the night," Rabbi Stein remembers. "He wanted me to get in touch at once with two top attorneys, Nat Lewin in Washington and AIan Dershowitz in Boston. 'But Rebbe,' I said, 'it's 2 a.m.!' He said, 'I want to teach you one thing, and keep this in mind always: a Yid vus zitz in tfisah ein sho iz ein sho tzi lang [A Jew who sits in jail one hour sits one hour too long] Prison is not a place for a Jew, and it doesn't matter, guilty or innocent.'

"There are many other ways to penalize someone who's deserving of punishment," continues Rabbi Stein, who is passionate about this controversial point. "For example, there are alternative sentencing programs, which are much more cost-effective, where the person is guided by counseling and is actually helped. Prison accomplishes one thing. It makes criminals out of everyone."

He says much of his efforts - for which he's never taken payment - involve finding the right attorney for someone who's in trouble The Beirach Moshe of Satmar once sent him to help a man who was awaiting sentencing for child abuse and other family-related crimes "The fellow wasn't too bright, and he had no idea how to protect himself. He had taken a divorce lawyer instead of a criminal lawyer," say. Rabbi Stein. "Lawyers are like doctors. You don't go to a podiatrist when you need open-heart surgery."

According to Rabbi Stein, the wife and her mother wanted to put the husband away and so they fabricated evidence and coached the daughter to give incriminating testimony. He discovered this after speaking to the involved parties, including teachers who denied ever filing the reports that had been submitted as evidence. “we found so many discrepancies that the DA agreed to reopen the case post-sentencing. But by the time we reopened the case, the child, her mother, and grandmother had fled the country and moved to Eretz Yisrael. We brought the teachers to testify that the documents were forgeries, and the judge said, 'Okay, now where are the plaintiffs?  The defense attorney said they couldn’t take the trauma so they left the country. The judge announced that if they didn’t come back in two weeks, he’d dismiss the case. Of course they didn’t come back, because the case was a fabrication - so the man was released. But he went to jail in the first place because he had the wrong lawyer.”

See the following regarding Rabbi Efraim Stein's efforts turned up by simple Google search
He is featured prominently on a number of anti-Semitic internet sites
Los Angeles Times 1997
Dror - Organization for Jewish Prisoners
Guilty plea to divert federal money
Jail for Rabbi Stein
Jail for Rabbi Stein

============================================
From my Child and Domestic Abuse Vol II
============================================

Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:12): “All those who disturb the community and cause it distress it is permitted to give them over to the secular government to be punished whether by beating, imprisonment or fines…”

Shevet HaLevi(4:124.3): Concerning a well known thief who has stolen from many people and has harmed the public and now he is begging to be released from jail. Is it properly to do that? … From all these sources we see that there is no concern at all to have him remain in jail in order that he not harm others since his life is not in danger there. The Chovas Yair (139) says there is only a concern when jail is actually life threatening… My opinion is that as long as there is no danger to his life by being in jail, there is no obligation to make any efforts to free such people…

Rav Moshe Halberstam(Yeschurun 15 page 651): An additional factor to what we have discussed is a question mentioned in Shevet HaLevi (4:124.3) whether it is appropriate to help free a well known thief who has begged that efforts be made to get him released from prison. Rav Wosner answers that since the thief’s life is not in danger by being in prison there is no obligation to make efforts to free people like this. In my opinion it is not only not an obligation to try and free a person in these circumstances but in fact one who tries to free a thief from prison is actually committing a sin. Who says that he won’t seek revenge for his imprisonment or at least return quickly to committing more crimes. Who can say that things will work out differently and that he will cease his crimes if he is freed?  Therefore it is prohibited to make efforts for him and to listen to his plea to be freed…

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Ve’aleyhi lo Yuval, volume 2:113-114 from R’ M Broyde’s Informing on other’s): R’ Yehuda Goldreicht said: “I asked Rav Auerbach about a particular Jew who stole a large sum of money and he was caught by the police in America. He was sentenced to a number of years in prison in America. Was it proper to assist in the collection of money for him [we were speaking about a large sum of $200,000] in order to fulfill the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim to have him released from prison? When Rav Auerbach heard this he stated “Pidyon shevuyim?! What is the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim here? The mitzvah of redeeming captives is only when the goyim are grabbing Jews, irrationally, for no proper reason, and placing them in prison. According to what I [Rav Auerbach] know, in America they do not irrationally grab Jews in order to squeeze money from them. The Torah says “do not steal” and he stole money—on the contrary, it is good that he serve a prison sentence, so that he learns not to steal!”

Supreme Court reaffirms psak of Rabbinic Court on Gerim

Haaretz

The High Court of Justice has affirmed the validity of thousands of conversions called into question by the Rabbinical Court of Appeals in 2008, but refused to discuss the rabbinical courts' authority to annul conversions in general. [...]

The women and various organizations that joined their petition thus asked the High Court to rule not only on their particular cases - which had already been resolved, since their Jewishness had since been affirmed by the Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court during a new hearing on their original cases - but on the rabbinical courts' authority to overturn conversions in general. This, however, the justices declined to do. Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, writing for the court, said the justices preferred not to intervene in this issue right now "out of hope that the buds of systemic change that have sprouted since the petition was filed [in 2008] will develop and bear fruit."  [...]

While Sherman's ruling was ostensibly based on Jewish law, it was also part of a broader power struggle between the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox ) community, represented by Sherman, and the religious Zionist community, represented by Druckman. The government originally set up the special courts headed by Druckman to circumvent the rabbinical courts' monopoly on conversions, because the Haredi-controlled rabbinical courts had adopted stringent requirements that were seen as deterring potential converts.

Rav Gestetner - Kuntrus on Get Meusa

Rav Gestetner - Kuntrus on Get Meusa

Procedural Summary of Epstein-Friedman matter

Procedural Summary2

Forcing a get - Unresolved issues & Rabbi Broyde

I want to express appreciation of Rabbi Michael Broyde for writing a defense of Rav Hershel Schacter's position as well as writing a clarification of that defense. I also want to thank Rabbi Gil Student for taking the initiative of asking Rabbi Broyde. Having spent many hours going through the volumes of Otzair Hapoksim dealing with this issue as well as researching the teshuvos directly - it has become clear that Rabbi Broyde is apparently the first one to try and answer the issues regarding contemporary society and the tactics of ORA - and publish the results.

 I have three choices,  1) Explain why Rabbi Broyde's explanation is inadequate or at least not convincing 2 ) Write my own teshuva concerning the use of force . 3) List the issues that have not been properly resolved and ask the poskim of our generation to establish the parameters in writing. The third option is more productive.

 =============================================

Concerning pressuring a husband to give a get when wife claims ma'us alei.

1)  What type of pressure is permitted? Harchokas Rabbeinu Tam? Simply labeling him an avaryan? Putting up wall posters? None?

2) Are ORA's demonstrations against the husband, his family or employer and stories in secular press - are they  permitted? Is this considered harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam?

3) Must a husband always be pressured after 12 months to give a get  -  if it is clear that the marriage is over - no matter what the reason is for the breakup - even if she went to secular court?

4) Can a beis din issue a seruv - when the husband refuses to show up - that states the husband must give a get and the public should pressure him to do so?

5) If the husband was pressured to give a get  - by ORA or Harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam  or beating - is the get valid and the wife remarry l'chatchila?

6) Can a husband withhold the get as a tactic to get money or custody in a case of ma'us alei.

7) Does it matter why the wife says ma'us alei concerning what pressure is permitted?

8) Should every woman have the right to a get simply because she thinks she can find someone better

9) Is there a moral obligation to give a get when the woman wants to end the marriage - or is it only because of concerns for mamzerim.

10) What can be done to control the use of the get for extortion - either for the husband or wife?

11) If the husband or wife refuses to go to beis din but go to secular court - should he/she be punished or penalized in some way?

12) In ma'us alei - does wife get kesuba? Does husband have to pay alimony or child support?

Rabbi Druckman's Conversions Upheld

Arutz 7

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday that conversions supervised by former national Conversion Court head Rabbi Haim Druckman are valid in the eyes of the State.

The ruling was in response to a 2009 decision to a panel of three judges on the Great Rabbinical Court which declared any conversion made by Rabbi Druckman was nullified.

Sexual pleasure & Tzadikim - Vayikra Rab (14:5)

Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor uKetziya O.C. 240) brings this medrash as the reason why a beracha is not said before sexual intercourse - since even tzadikim are focused on pleasure and not on doing a mitzva.

Vayikra(14:5): Another understanding of Vayikra (12:2), If a woman conceives and bears a male child...Dovid alluded to this understanding in Tehilim (51:7), Behold I was formed in sin and in sin my mother conceived me. Rav Acha explained, Even if a person is the most pious of the pious – it is impossible that he doesn’t have an aspect of sin in him. Dovid said to G‑d, “Master of the Universe, did my father Yishai have the intention to bring me into the world – when he had intercourse with my mother. The fact is that he was only thinking about his own sexual enjoyment.The proof for my assertion is that after they both had satisfied their desires he turned his face in one direction and she turned her face in the opposite direction. And it was only You who caused every single drop of semen to enter.” This assertion is alluded to by Dovid in (Tehilim 27:10), For though my father and my mother deserted me, G‑d did gather me in.

R' Broyde's Coerced Get & Protesting - a critique

Some Thoughts on Rabbi Michael J Broyde's Article on a Coerced GET and Protesting When a Man Withholds a Jewish Divorce

by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Rabbi Broyde's article about protesting to help Agunahs is filled with errors, which I display here. It is part and parcel of the new Torah emanating from the modern YU rabbis. Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, head of BDA Beth Din, sent away a couple seeking a GET with no GET by annuling their marriage on the grounds of a ridiculous claim of MEKACH TAOSE when after I spoke to him I am convinced he had no grounds for that. Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at YU and major posek for the OU, invented a new Torah to permit physical and unbearable emotional coercion in the case of MOOS OLEI with his vivid imagination, as he airly blows away the Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish with a logic that was invented in Gehenum. He quotes nobody who agrees with him, and doesn't display any rabbonim of today who agree with him, but he has helped Agunoth! Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit”o told me that any Beth Din that invents new ways to help Agunoth outside of accepted halacha that he takes away from them the Chezkas Beth Din, the authority of being a Beth Din. Thus, we have a situation where modern Orthodox divorces may not be recognized by others, and the children of these invented “help” for Agunoth may be mamzerim.

Let us begin.

The article begins by assuring us that “the use of social pressure – picketing, boycotting, withholding aliyot, and the like – in such a situation...there is no problem of a coerced get in such a case.”

This is completely wrong, as we will show, because it is obvious from the great Poskim I will quote with nobody disagreeing that it is a coerced GET and invalid GET to picket and humiliate a husband in MOUS OLEI especially when this is done in public. In fact, even to shame him not in public is a problem of a coerced and therefore invalid GET. This is stated clearly by the Chazon Ish.

The article then begins with the PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam, whereby Rabbeinu Tam permitted a passive ostracizing of a husband who refused to give a GET. The article quotes a rabbinical council of great rabbinical judges who permitted ostracizing the husband. Therefore, says Rabbi Broyde, we see that one may ostracize a husband who does not give a GET. But this is false advertising, as we will explain. The case of the rabbinical council involved a couple where the man was unable to have children and the wife demanded a GET so she would not be left in her old age with nobody to care for her. In this case, the Talmud clearly teaches that there must be a GET. On the other hand, Rabbi Broyde is talking about the common problem of wives demanding a GET often after they had children from the husband, called MOUS OLEI (my husband is repulsive to me). This is different, as we will explain.

The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 talks about a woman who demands a GET because her husband repels her. Nowhere is any coercion allowed or mentioned there. Even Rabbeinu Tam is not mentioned there, even though he permits only passive ostracizing. In EH 154 we find the laws of husbands who are commanded by the Torah to divorce their wives. There are two categories of these. One is where the Talmud commands that we force the GET, such as when a person marries a woman forbidden to him. Another category is when the Talmud does not talk about coercion, but merely says the husband must give a GET. The latter case of a sterile husband is what the rabbinical council ruled, when the wife demands a GET. In such a case the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not command coercion. The Ramo suggests that we use the passive coercion of Rabbeinu Tam. But the Ramo does not allow passive ostracizing in chapter 77 for a woman who is repulsed by her husband. Thus, the implication is clear: passive ostracizing is forbidden unless the Talmud clearly demands a GET, such as when the husband is sterile. But with MOUS OLEI, there may not be any coercion, even passive coercion.

The greatest authorities, the Shach and the Chazon Ish, forbid even passive ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam, even in the case of the sterile husband, claiming that in latter generations such an ostracizing was too strong a coercion and constituted an invalid GET. Maharabil states that nobody ever heard of rabbis permitting this. Therefore, for MOUS OLEI, when even the Shulchan Aruch does not permit even passive coercion, surely it is forbididen to do the passive PIRUD or ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam. But in the case of the sterile husband, the Ramo permits it, and the Gro and others agree, therefore, the rabbinical council mentioned above permitted it for the case of a sterile husband. This has nothing to do with Rabbi Broyde's article which is about the common “agunah” who left her husband often after having children and demands as GET. Such a husband may not be given the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam, at least, by the proof that I cited from the Shulchan Aruch and supported by Shach and Chazon Ish and Maharabil.

We now come to Rabbi Broyde's brazen misquoting of the Gro. He leaves out the key phrase, and thus makes it sound as if the Gro supports ostracizing all husbands, such as in MOUS OLEI. But the GRO as we mention before, is commenting on the Ramo in EH 154 that does not deal with MOUS OLEI but only with husbands who are commanded by the Talmud to divorce. The Gro explains why PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam is permitted with someone commanded clearly in the Talmud to divorce: “(154:67) because he can be saved from this by going to another city. And whenever we don't do something to him physically it is not called ISUI or coercion. And all of this we do to him because he transgressed on the words of the sages.” Thus, the final phase says that this PIRUD is only permitted when the Talmud clearly commands a divorce. But in MOUS OLEI we don't assume that the husband is wrong and he must divorce his wife and lose his children. Therefore, it is forbidden to ostracize him.

But let us ask Rabbi Broyde, even according to your abridged version of the GRO, the ostracizing is only permitted because the husband can find another city where nobody will ostracize him. But today what city is free from the protestors sent by Rabbi Schachter and ORA to torment a husband? Therefore, what ORA is doing is forbidden by the GRO, and as we explained, it was never permitted by the Ramo in the case of MOUS OLEI to begin with.

But let us return to the ruling of the sages of the above rabbinical council ruling. What kind of ostracizing did they decree on the sterile husband? ONLY PASSIVE THINGS such as not honoring him and ignoring him. But who permitted ORA to publicly demonstrate and humiliate a husband? And especially in a case of MOUS OLEI? This is the brazen invention of Rabbi Broyde.

Now we come to another brazen invention, this time a bald lie about HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l. In Igres Moshe EH III:44 Reb Moshe discusses a broken marriage where the wife will not return to the husband, but the husband won't give a GET. May Beth Din coerce the husband to give a GET? Rabbi Broyde quotes Reb Moshe that this is permitted, because “Compulsion in a case where divorce is truly desired does not create an invalid GET.” But Reb Moshe there says just the opposite. Although he does mention the idea and says it has some merit, he refuses to use it saying, “we must not rely on this.” 

So Rabbi Broyde slithers along while we are gasp in admiration for his proof, and then, some lines later, he slips in “While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors...” Hurry, he is wriggling out of his lie. 

Here is his full statement there: ““While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors, it is clear that in cases where no real coercion is used – but only harchakot d'Rabbeinu Tam – Rabbi Feinstein's reasoning is fully applicable.” First, note the weasel words. He doesn't say that “Rabbi Feinstein would permit it.” Even he is afraid to invent such a statement in the name of Reb Moshe. But what he does is to apply his own logic that surely that which Reb Moshe rejected would not be rejected for the mild coercion of Rabbeinu Tam's ostracizing.

But wait. He wriggled in the wrong direction. Because Rabbi Broyde was obviously not aware of another teshuva of Reb Moshe whereby he consigns Rabbeinu Tam's pirud to the status of a very serious coercion, more so than coercing with money which most poskim consider very strong coercion even invalidating the GET. (EH I:137) If so, Reb Moshe surely would not agree with Rabbi Broyde to permit the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam because it is a minor coercion.

Incredibly, Rabbi Broyde concludes “the use of social pressure to encourage the giving of a get in a situation in which the couple has already separated, a secular divorce has been granted and the marriage is over for both of them – and even more so where a bet din has issued a seruv against the husband – never creates a situation of Get Meuso.” He permits active public humiliation of the husband, even though public humiliation is considered murder in the Talmud.

Note that he never mentions that Rabbeinu Tam permits only passive ostracizing, and that the Chazon Ish EH 108 forbids even passive ostracizing and considers active humiliation such as that practiced by ORA to make an invalid GET. Nor does he even mention the Rashbo VII:414 that it is forbidden to coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI at all, and that even the sterile husband may not be humiliated, certainly not the husband of MOUS OLEI. Also Rabbi Yosef Caro in Bais Yosef, 154, Radvaz שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ד סימן קיח quote the Rashbo. The Shach at the end of GEVURAS ANOSHIM forbids even passively ostracizing the husband to obtain a GET at all. 

Just brazeneness matched only by his ignorance. But without the ignorance, even the brazeness would have a hard time.

Rabbi Benjamin Yudin: Birds & Bees