Rav Sternbuch: Get for civil & Reform marriages?

Rav Moshe Sternbuch (5:327): The poskim have much discussion about the issue of civil marriage because the matter is complicated and deals with the issue of a married woman which is amongst the most severe prohibitions. There are many different aspects and questions. A look at the writings of recent poskim will see that there is no general psak in this matter because the actual halacha varies depending upon place and time and the couple involved. Therefore it is necessary to investigate carefully every single case with calm deliberation and the final halacha is given to the authority of beis din or at least to the gedolim.

The fact is that it is accepted practice today that a couple who have a civil marriage require a get when possible. However in difficult circumstances when it is impossible to obtain a get the practice is to permit remarriage without a get. And surely this is true if she is remarried already without a get and has a child – that the child is not considered a mamzer. And this is what Rav Chaim Ozer (Igros Rav Chaim Ozer #30) has written that one can rely on the great poskim such as Maharam Shick (#21), Beis Yitzchok (#29), Beis Ephraim (#41) to permit the woman to remarry – in time of need – without a get. However it is important to know that there are also gedolim that are machmir in this matter, See Even Haezel (Rav Issur Zalman Meltzer) who discusses this a great length (Chapter 6 Hilchos Ishus). He concludes, “In conclusion, kiddushin from another person after previously living together as man and wife is the severe prohibition of adultery. Therefore one should not make halachic rulings that permit this even by combining various leniencies to nullify kiddushin after a couple has been living together. Anyone who insists on being lenient in these circumstances – makes absolutely no sense and he requires atonement for his errors in deciding halacha concerning a prohibition that involves capital punishment and mamzerim and he must correct what has been done.” In sum he writes very strongly that one should not permit remarriage without a get. We find a similar view expressed by Ohr Someach (Hilchos Geirushin 10:19) who shows that the principle that a person doesn’t have sexual intercourse without marriage is not because of a prohibition but because living with a woman shows that he wants her to be his wife and thus they are halachically married.

However their words seem astounding. It is obvious that if a person gets a civil marriage and not a religious one – he is clearly indicating that he has no interest in a religious marriage. So how can you claim that such a person should be considered married according to Jew law? This is not equivalent to someone who gets married with less that a peruta – because that at least shows he wants to be married according to the Torah. If so then when he has sexual relations with his wife afterwards that finalizes the status of marriage according to the halacha. In contrast when he clearly indicates that he has no interest in a Jewish marriage. Elsewhere  (2:642) that basis for concern that civil marriage might be valid is according to the view of Rav Huna that chuppah acquires in marriage (Kiddushin 5a). Rabbeinu Chananel rules according to Rav Huna’s view. In Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 26:2) he writes as minority opinion that if one brings a women into chuppah there is a question as to whether it is valid. Therefore we might say that by taking a woman into his house for the sake of marriage there is a concern that they are married. However this can be answered by saying that it is true if they wanted a valid marriage according to the Torah. However if he only had a civil marriage – that shows that he doesn’t want a religious marriage and therefore the kiddushin has no validity.

All of the discussion so far only applies to a civil marriage, but if they want a religious ceremony but they decided to have a Reform marriage  because they have been misled into thinking that Reform also provide a religious marriage and they think that the Chareidim are just being strict and exaggerate the importance of their ceremony. They simply don’t understand that the Reform have cut themselves off totally from the Jewish religion. If that is what they are thinking then in truth their intent is to have a genuine religious marriage and then it would seem that the Reform ceremoney would be valid since there is the principle that , “ A person doesn’t have intercourse outside of a genuine marriage.” However that is not clear because the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 7) writes, “There is a presumption that a religious Jew would not have intercourse outside of marriage when he has the opportunity to be married.” Obviously this principle does not applies to those who reject G‑d’s mitzvos. Along with this problem the validity of a Refom marriage is undermined by the lack of valid witnesses and questions regarding the nature of kiddushin they perform and the presumption of virginity. Consequently my view is that if the couple remarried without first obtaining a Get it is possible to be lenient regarding the doubt regarding mamzerim which in this case is only rabbinic. However to permit them to remarry without a get – I believe it is necessary to distingush between civil marriage and Reform marriage. While a civil marriage does require l’chatchila a Get however it is possible to allow them to get remarried without a Get when it is of great necessity. In contrast a Reform marriage in which they intended to be married according to religion but they were mistaken – then the obligation to obtain a Get is much greater. Therefore it is possible to allow remarriage without a Get in such a case - only when it would result in the woman remaining unmarriable. In such a case the permission to remarry must be made by beis din. In another place, I mention that in a situation where there is a dispute amongst poskim and a heter is needed - e.g., a marriage which was done not in accord to Torah law – than it is proper to receive permssion to remarry from beis din or at least three major rabbis.

Israeli Torah view on NY internet asifa

One of the most important and influential Israeli chareidi talmidei chachoim made the following judgment regarding the significance of the recent New York internet asifa.

A man was walking down the street when he noticed someone deep in thought. He stopped and asked him, "What are thinking about that is so important?" The thinker responded," I have been thinking about some very important ideas. I was thinking about what would happen if all the water in the world joined together - what a massive ocean it would make. Then I was thinking, what if all the trees in the world joined together - what an awesome tree it would make. That lead me to think about what if all men were joined together into one man - what a huge man would result.  But then I got an ever more profound thought. What if the mega-man of all humanity took the mega-tree of all trees and threw it in the mega-ocean of all water - what a tremendous splash it would make."

Cardinal’s Aide - Guilty in Abuse Case

NYTimes   Msgr. William J. Lynn, a former cardinal’s aide, was found guilty Friday of endangering children, becoming the first senior official of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States convicted of covering up sexual abuses by priests under his supervision.

The single guilty verdict was widely seen as a victory for the district attorney’s office, which has been investigating the archdiocese aggressively since 2002, and it was hailed by victim advocates who have argued for years that senior church officials should be held accountable for concealing evidence and transferring predatory priests to unwary parishes.

The trial sent a sobering message to church officials and others overseeing children around the country. “I think that bishops and chancery officials understand that they will no longer get a pass on these types of crimes,” said Nicholas P. Cafardi, a professor of law at Duquesne University, a canon lawyer and frequent church adviser. “Priests who sexually abuse youngsters and the chancery officials who enabled it can expect criminal prosecution.”

Jerry Sandusky - Convicted on 45 abuse charges

Time Magazine    Jerry Sandusky, the 68-year-old former assistant coach of Penn State’s football team, was convicted Friday evening on 45 out of 48 counts of sexual abuse. According to the Associated Press, Sandusky stood expressionless in the Bellefonte, Pa. courtroom as the jury, seven women and five men, read the verdict. He was convicted of 25 felonies and 14 first degree felonies and faces 442 years in prison. Following sentencing in three months, he will likely spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

Along with Sandusky, the scandal implicated former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley, both of whom were allegedly informed about the abuse but failed to investigate it properly. Schultz, as the administrative head of the Penn State campus police department, would have had the power to take criminal action against Sandusky. He and Curley are currently facing charges of perjury and failure to report. Both have denied all wrongdoing.

Sandusky’s misdeeds also ruined the careers of Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was forced out by the Board of Trustees, and storied Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, the winningest coach in major college football and the college town’s biggest hero, who was fired. Riots broke out on the campus of 45,000 students after the decision was handed down to remove the coach. Paterno, 85, died of lung cancer on January 22, 2012, just two months after he was removed from the team.

R' Avrahom Meir Weiss - bitul seruv

Weiss

Men have priority over women - even for lost objects

[updated with Mishna] Rav Sternbuch(Teshuvos v’Hanhagos 4:217): In the Mishna at the end of Horios it is taught, A man take priority over a woman in regard to returning lost objects. The reason for this is because the man has a greater obligation to do mitzvos than a woman. We also find in Shulchan Aruch concerning tzedaka that a man comes before a woman. This is very strange. I can understand that a Torah scholar takes precedence to a woman because it is showing respect for the Torah. However there is no obligation to honor every man because of the mitzvos that he fulfills. I can understand that in saving of life that a man comes before a woman because he can serve G‑d more since he has much more mitvos and thus is sanctified more. However what does that have to do with returning him his lost objects before returning a woman her lost objects – there simply isn’t a general obligation of honoring each man? I could not find this din in the Shulcha Aruch or the Rambam, but it is explicit and clear in the Mishna. This question requires additional study. Perhaps you can answer that since the man is obligated in more mitzvos, when you give priority to the man you show with this the importance of mitzvos. Therefore even though there is no requirement to honor him, but in a situation where you have both a man a woman that you need to returnsomething, we give priority to him because he is obligated in more mitzvos. With this we cherish and show the importance of mitzvos. Therefore the Sages required in such a case to give preference to the man. However this still requires clarification.
 ==========================

Horious(13a): Mishna: A man takes precedence over a woman in life and death matters and the return of lost objects [ because of greater holiness resulting from having more mitzvos]. A woman takes precedence over a man regarding being clothed [because she suffers more from embarrassment and shame of being naked] and redemption from captivity. If they are both faced with rape then a man takes precedence over a woman [because rape is unnatural for a man and thus more degrading than for a woman].

4 arrested for $500k bribe & intimidation in Weberman case

NYTimes  The Brooklyn distt attorney, facing an avalanche of complaints about his handling of sexual abuse allegations in the ultra-Orthodox community, on Thursday charged four men with attempting to silence an accuser by offering her and her boyfriend a $500,000 bribe, and threatening her boyfriend’s business. 

The district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, alleged that the men were part of an effort by the community to protect a prominent member of the Satmar Hasidic community, Nechemya Weberman, who has been accused of 88 counts of sexual misconduct, including oral sex with a child younger than 13 years old. The charges all involve a single victim, a young woman who was referred by her school to get counseling by Mr. Weberman, and then alleges she was abused by him during therapy sessions. 

The executive bureau chief of the district attorney’s rackets division, Josh Hanshaft, said the men had been “telling witnesses to forget what they know, not to come to court, to disappear,” and said prosecutors had “clear, substantial evidence” that part of the plan to silence witnesses involved offering money to dissuade their testimony. He said of Mr. Rubin, “He has no regard for the system. He thumbs his nose at the system,” and of the Berger brothers: “They have gone and destroyed property. There have been threatening phone calls.” He said prosecutors were concerned that the men might now flee to Israel.

Rav Schachter - When to call police - 2006

Read this in context of RCA Declaration of 2011

 

Rabbi Hershel Schachter - Should I Call the Police? Mesira & Chilul Hashem from TorahWeb.org on Vimeo.

Beis Yaakov warns about Jerusalem molester

.kikarhashabat

במוסדות החינוך החרדים מחליטים להלחם בתוקפי הילדים, ולעשות סוף לתופעה הבלתי נסבלת שמחללת את נפשותיהם של ילדים תמימים.

בעקבות הפרסומים ב'כיכר השבת' על מקרי תקיפה קשים שהתרחשו בשכונות חרדיות בתקופה האחרונה, נרשמת התעוררות בנושא

לידי 'כיכר השבת' הגיע מכתב חריג שנשלח להוריהם של תלמידות בית הספר 'בית יעקב' הפועל בשכונה מסוימת בירושלים, ונחשב לבית ספר מפורסם.

זהו מכתב חריג מאוד, המהווה תקדים בציבור החרדי, שכן עד עתה לא נרשמה התייחסות פומבית לנושא, בטח שלא בפירוט כזה.

Woman stoned in Beit Shemesh

YNET  "My heart was pounding and all I wanted to do was get out of there," Daniel described her ordeal. "I was terrified. I had my baby with me."

Daniel told Ynet she arrived in Beit Shemesh to purchase a stroller, for her seven-month-old twins. "I was opening the trunk – I was on the phone – when I was pelted. Soon, actual rocks followed. I was helpless."

Two religious women exiting a nearby store rushed to the car to help Daniel get her daughter out of the way and all of them then ran back to the store to take cover.

Heads roll as Chabad rape charges dropped

NYTimes   In a startling reversal in a case that raised questions about misconduct in the Brooklyn district attorney’s office, defense lawyers for two of the four men from Crown Heights, indicted last year on charges of raping and forcibly prostituting a neighborhood woman for nearly a decade, said that prosecutors notified them on Wednesday that they were planning to drop all charges in the case. 

 The charges, brought against the men last June, created an initial shock not only because the victim complained of being attacked beginning at age 13, but also because she was a member of the Chabad Lubavitch community of Orthodox Jews and the accused were older black men in the same neighborhood, where those two groups coexist, but rarely interact. 

Shortly after the police report was produced, Abbie Greenberger, a prosecutor on the case who had quit her job, said that her boss, Lauren Hersh, the chief of the district attorney’s sex-trafficking unit, had pressured her to move forward despite concerns about inconsistencies in the case. Weeks later, Ms. Hersh herself resigned after facing questions from an internal ethics panel.

ORA vs. Rav R' Feinstein's grandson

Jewish Press  article taken down - thanks to Rabbi Tzadok for alternative
The letter and the seruv below - were part of the Jewish Press Article
Please note the disparity between Stern's claim for support for public demonstrations and the actual letter which just says to publicize the matter  - which can also be done with a letter on a bulletin board. 
================================
 Jewish Press Archive  JP: Your latest case is against Rabbi Reuven Feinstein’s grandson. Are you afraid of going toe-to-toe with some of these leading rabbis?

JS: We don’t see it as us vs. them. It’s not ORA that’s doing it. We are the enforcement agent of the Beis Din and these rabbis are coming out and instructing the community to take a stand. Rav Reuven Feinstein, the grandfather of Avrohom Meir Weiss, is supporting him, but every rabbi is on the other side. We have Rav Malkiel Kotler, Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav [Hershel] Shecheter, Rav [Mordechai] Willig and Rav [Notta] Greenblatt — all these rabbis from different yeshivas are all coming together. We’ve tried to resolve this dispute but the community has to take a stand. It is unique to have such broad support.

ORA Jewish Press Regarding Weiss Seruv - Package Letter to Public Re Rally 6.13.12

5tjt interviews D.A. Charles Hynes

4 views of the Rabbinic role in abuse cases

The discussion of the role of the rabbi in dealing with abuse - reveals that there are four basic views. Without being aware of these different views - people tend to talk past each other even when they are using the same terms and citing the same halachic sources.

1) Rav Menashe Klein wrote a teshuva about how only rabbis know what to do. Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein asserted at a conference of psychologists (Click for recording) a year ago  that only a rabbi knows and understands what abuse is and only he can is competent to judge whether someone is an abuser. He apparently views that psychologists have a limited understand of abuse as well as guilt because they have a secular viewpoint. In short an exclusive Torah background is the prerequisite for being qualified to deal with abuse and identify abusers. However not every rabbi who feels this way is willing to admit it - especially in the face of complaints from the secular authorities

2) The Aguda rabbis  don't claim competence in understand the nature of abuse. But they do claim authority based on halacha to be the gatekeeper of the process. Thus the rabbis and only the rabbi is to decide based on reports or questioning of alleged perpetrator and victim and  possible consultations with psychologists and lawyers - whether the police should be contacted or whether the matter should be dealt with exclusively within the Jewish community. This group manifests various degrees of fear.Some are afraid to say to go to the police - while others are afraid that it become known that they have permitted going to the police. There are also rabbis who are in group one but publicly assert this view - when under pressure from secular forces.

3) There are a number of rabbis - such as RCA 2011 Rav Herschel Schachter 2006,   Crown Heights Beis Din ,  Vaad haRabbonim of Baltimore 2007 who have clearly stated that rabbis have neither the knowledge, competence or authority to deal with abuse. Those rabbis have stated that the secular authorities need to be contacted to investigate and punish the alleged or suspected abuser. These rabbis assert there is no prohibition of mesira in these cases and that the perpetrator has the status of rodef and thus it is simply an act of self-defense to contact the police. In addition - even if they are in agreement with view two - in the fact of mandated reporting laws = they publicly advocate compliance with the law of the land . Many of rabbis who accept this position -  ask not to be named - although others aren't afraid.

4) Various combinations of the above three positions.