Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Will Rav Dovid Feinstein throw Aharon Friedman under the bus to save it?

update: Added the Hebrew text of Rav Zilberstein 

We are faced with a very strange situation. A heter was given to Tamar to remarry based on a seriously flawed psychiatric report which was based on conjecture and evidence primarily from the estranged wife - without any input from Aharon Friedman. While it is clear to the majority of rabbis who have seen the evidence that the heter is invalid, that Tamar is still married to Aharon and thus is committing adultery and her future children are mamzerim -  we are facing a new problem.

The matter has been turned over to Rav Dovid Feinstein at the request of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky - who instigated the heter and was instrumental in obtaining it for the sake of Tamar Epstein - whose family members are prominent backers of his yeshiva.

Rav Dovid Feinstein has been given the task of resolving the matter. He has a narrow mandate - to determine whether the heter can possibly be valid - and thus save the reputation of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky -  as well as that of Tamar from the status of being an adulteress.

The halachic process is not inherently concerned with truth but procedure. Thus if facts are not established by the testimony of two kosher male witnesses - they don't exist. Or rather they have no halachic significance. A judge only concerns himself with the evidence that he has - not with what he doesn't have.

Therefore the question Rav Dovid Feinstein is looking at is whether on the level of pure halacha - can he accept the reasoning and evidence behind the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter.

He has the psak of Rav Greenblatt that given the evidence he had - the case was comparable to those that Rav Moshe Feinstein declared that the marriage was invalid because of kedushei ta'os. Rav Greenblatt acknowledges that he himself did not investigate anything and knows nothing beyond what he has told by the Kaminetskys and the psychiatrist report. He also has been established by both Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Feinstein as a bar samcha. Meaning that the psakim he produces can be presumed to be valid - unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. He has the report by a psychiatrist (let's call him Dr. K) who is a well known psychiatrist with a very impressive background - a recognized expert in the field of psychiatry. The report clearly states that Aharon suffers from 2 incurable personality disorders - both so severe that a normal woman would not put up with him. As Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be halachically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his professional standing. The fact that it wasn't based on a direct interview is halachically irrelevant since it is from an expert.

Normally the above evidence would be sufficient for a halachically oriented judge to accept the heter. The fact that Rav Feinstein has not told Tamar and Adam to separate until his evaluation is done clearly indicates that Rav Feinstein is starting with the assumption that the heter is good.

Now what role does truth and reality play in this sordid mess. The answer is that halacha doesn't require that it play any role. Rav Dovid Feinstein does not have to concern himself whether Aharon Friedman is crazy. After all, he is not himself a psychiatrist. And even if it is clear in speaking with Aharon that he is not crazy - Rav Feinstein can simply say, "I am not an expert on mental health". Even if Aharon has a psychiatric evaluation that says he is healthy or 6 therapists who say the report is mistaken - Rav Dovid Feinstein can say it doesn't overrule the halachic sufficiency of the report by a known expert. By sticking closely to the question of halachic sufficiency, he can ignore the many troubling facts in this case. He merely needs to find that there is a sufficient halachic basis to the heter - not whether it is true or likely to be true.

Thus if Rav Feinstein takes this very narrow halachic mandate seriously, he can in fact declare the heter to be valid. That saves Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky's reputation and Tamar's new marriage. He can thus sacrifice truth and Aharon Friedman for the seemingly greater good of the Orthodox World without transgressing halacha.

It is only if Rav Feinstein deviates from his mandate and is concerned about truth and the severe injustice done to Aharon Friedman by the lies declaring him to have severe incurable personality disorders will he decide that the heter is false. It is only if Rav Feinstein is bothered by the severe loss of emunas chachomim that this scandal has produced will he take the issue of truth into consideration.

Will Rav Dovid Feinstein chose the minimal sufficient rule of pure halacha and save Rav Kaminetsky and Tamar - or will he chose truth and redeeming the reputation of Aharon Friedman? We will soon know the answer.

 ====================
Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein tells the story of a young wife whose husband beats her severely - but only in the privacy of their home. Obviously there are no witnesses to the abuse which the husband denies. The dayanim say they have no basis to believe her word over his and thus say they can not force or even ask him to give a get.

Her brother than pays two Jews to testify that they saw the husband beating his wife. Based on this false but true testimony the dayan order the husband to give his wife a divorce which he does. Thus we have a Get given by a proper beis din based on the halachically valid testimony of two witnesses. All halachic procedures were complied with.

Can she remarry with this Get that she knows was obtained through false witnesses (who told the truth)?  Rav Eliashiv said no.
 

עלינו לשבח (ויקרא עמוד שי"ז)

מרן הגרי"ש אלישיב לא רצה ,להקל בדיני עדי השקר

ולא תשקרו (י"ט י"א)  

מעשה שהיה באשה שבעלה חיכה אותה ואף אחד לא ידע מכך , לבד מבני הבית. היא התלוננה על כך בבית דין, והדיינים היתרו בו כמה פעמים, אבל הוא המשיך באיוולתו הנוראה.

אחי האשה שידעו גם הם מסיגלה, החליטו לעשות את שלא ייעשה. הם שכרו עדי שקר, שיבואו ויעידו שראו בעיניהם שהבעל מכה את אשתו , למרות שלא ראו , כי כאמור הדברים נעשו בהסתר .

בית הדין חקר את העדים, ולא מצא בעדותם כחל ושרק, ומיד לאחר מכן קיימו הדיינים את שכתוב בשו"ע שבעל שמכה את אשתו כופיו אותו לתת גט.

האשה באה אליי עם הגט בידה, ואומרת לי כן : ברור שעדותם של העדים היא 'נכונה', שכן בעלי חיכה אותי, אבל מאידן אם אני עושה את חשבון נפשי עם הקב"ה, הרי מדובר בעדות שקר ממש וכיוון שבית הדין הסתמך בהחלטתן לכפיית הגט על עדי שקר , אולי הגט פסול ואינני יכולה עתה להינשא ?

הבעל ההרי  יודע אח האמת !

והיה מקום בליבי להתיר לה להינשא, כיוון שההסבר בהיתר לכפיית הגט (למרות שבדרך כלל הגט צריך להינתן בהסכמה), הוא, שאנחנו יוצאים מנקודת הנחה, שכל יהודי רוצה לעשתוב רצון בוראו, אלא שלפעמים 'היצר סוכן בנו', ומפריע לנו בכך, ואם 'נותנים קצת מכות' אזי הכל בא על מקומו בשלום, וזה הפשט ב'כופין'.

ואם כן, בנידון שלנו, רי הבעל יודע את האמת, ובתוך ליבו הוא יודע שמוטל עליו חיוב לתת גט, וממילא נחשב הדבר כאילו נתן מרצון, למרות שכפו זאת עליו.

אבל מרן הגרי"'ש לא הסכים לכך, והורה שםא הגט נין לע סמך עדי שקר, אסור לאשה להינשא. אלא שבמרה כזה, לאחר שהגט כבר בידיה של האשה, אין צורך לבוא אל הבעל ולספר לו שהרב אלישיב אמרשהגט אינו כשר... אפשר לומר לו שכיוון שהגט כבר נמצא ממילא בידיה של האשה, אולי תכתוב עכשיו גט מרצונך, כוי'.

Tetzaveh 76 - Successful Partnerships by Allan Katz

 Guest post by Allan Katz

 

Parashat – Portion of Tetzaveh is a continuation of God's commandment to Moses concerning the tabernacle- Mishkan and deals with the preparation of the oil for the Menorah lamp, the designation of the priests-Kohanim and their priestly clothes and the selection of wise and talented people to make the clothing and the features- components of the Mishkan. In this regard the Torah changes the style of the language – And Now you will command …….'ואתה תצוה. The Or Hachaim asks why was it necessary to introduce these commandments in this way, if God was already busy communicating His instructions concerning the Mishkan to Moshe. He answers – that the words ' ואתה תצוה ' and Now you ( Moses) will command' informs Moses that he will be the one who commands others, the commander-in-chief and the king. Aaron and his sons will be the priests but Moses' children will not inherit his position, they will remain as Levites.

The partnership between Moses and Aaron, Moses – the king and prophet and Aaron, the priest proved to be one of the most successful partnerships of all time. King David in Psalm 133 describes a brotherly love between Moshe and Aaron – 'Behold, how good and pleasant that brothers dwell in unity' הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים ביחד The primary reason for this, was that each of them was totally committed to ensuring the success of the other and completely identified with his brother, rejoicing in his success as if it was his own success. Aaron had absolutely no feeling of jealously when his younger brother Moses was chosen above him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. It also meant giving up on ' prophecy' as Moses now became the prophet of the nation. Moses did not want his gaining the leadership to be at his brother's expense, so he kept on refusing to take on the position until God explained to him that ' Aaron is on his way to meet with you and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart ' - because of his brother's promotion to be the redeemer of the Israelites. Aaron's noble and generous response was rewarded that as the high Priest he would wear the Breast Plate with the Urim ve Tumim, a parchment with the name of God written on it. The high priest would be the one to ask God answers to questions of national importance. The Urim ve Tumin in a prophetic way caused the individual letters of the tribal names on the Breastplate to light up and provide a hidden answer. Only a heart that was large enough to include all the people of Israel, an understanding , empathic, caring and compassionate heart that helped share and carry other people's burdens and rejoice with them in happy times could wear the Breast plate and interpret the letters correctly using innate divine spirit and prophecy. Aaron had generously given up being the prophet of the nation and for this he was rewarded with being the one to use the Urim ve Tumin.

Moses' reluctance to take on the leadership showed a slight lack of respect and appreciation of God's decision that he was the man for the job. For this, he and his sons lost the privilege of becoming priests and instead Aaron and his sons would become priests. Moshe did not see this as punishment. He identified with Aaron's recognition and promotion as if he was being anointed as high priest. Verse2 in Psalms 133 says – it is like the precious oil upon the head, that ran down upon the beard , even Aaron's beard, that went down to the skirts of his garments. כשמן טוב על הראש יורד על הזקן , זקן אהרון שיורד על פי מידותיו Why is the verse referring to 2 beards? Moshe felt that the oil with which he anointed Aaron and was dripping down Aaron's beard was actually also dripping on his beard itself, as if he was being anointed as the high priest. So were his total identification, joy and happiness when Aaron was designated as high priest. And after the sin of the Golden calf, the privilege of the first born to offer sacrifices was revoked and Moses had to intervene on behalf of Aaron and save him. For not one moment did Moses think that because of Aaron's involvement in the sin of the Golden Calf, the Kehunah- priesthood would be given back to him and his sons. Moses also related to Aarons sons as if they were his own. Moshe and Aaron supportive relationship must be seen in the context of their vision and mission to serve God and be of service to their people.( R' Chaim Smulevitz, Drashot Ha'ran 3 )

In an article on how to create successful and effective partnerships Carl Robinson says that a company must be more than a money –making enterprise if it wishes to survive. The company must have a vision and purpose to be of service to the public, be clear on its values when it comes to business development, delivery of services, giving value to customers above product quality and price and how the members of the company treat each other. It is important to nurture relationships within the partnership because people work together for more than making money. There should be a clear decision making process where problems are solved in a collaborative way, all concerns and perspectives are heard, consensus and mutually satisfying solutions are the goals. The compensation plan should not only reward 'rainmaking' but team work. While each person should have a role in the company, they should also be in sales and marketing business, helping to bring in new business each person according to his own talents and personality. When it is only the sales people who are bringing in the business and new clients, other people in the company get marginalized.

When it comes to religious institutions, especially schools and Yeshivot, internal problems, conflict and the breaking up of partnerships can be traced to a lack of commitment to the values of Moses and Aaron and principles supporting partnership success. Problems include seeing the institution as more of a money making enterprise and a job provider for family members, a lack of a vision and message, not everyone having a vital role, competition, focus on being the chief rather than on teamwork, not working for the success of every staff member and not supporting the autonomy of staff members. Often there are power struggles to gain control between different families or between the staff and the controlling a'mu'tah – association. The worst possible scenario is when students are brought into the fray in order to support the quarreling parties.

As parents and teachers we should be promoting collaboration and cooperation, rather than competition which teaches kids to see others as obstacles to their success. We should teach them that life is about forming partnerships and alliances, whether it is in business, learning or socially and the success of others is something which we rejoice in. Life is about lessening the burdens of others by participating in their struggles, supporting them and also rejoicing in their successes and happy moments, so many more people get a taste and a share in happiness. If businesses need to focus more on a vision and their contribution to society , how much more so do organizations and schools that are non-profit and should be focused on chesed and making a contribution. The family and school are good places to start where not only staff collaborate, but students, staff and parents collaborate and cooperate for the greater good.

Rabbi Pinto Arrives at Prison to Begin Year-long Jail Sentence

Haaretz   Kabbalist rabbi, convicted in 2015 of bribing senior police officer, showed up to prison an previously established deadline coordinated with the Israel Prison Services. 

Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto arrived at the medical center of Nitzan Prison, Ramle on Tuesday afternoon to officially begin his year-long prison term for his bribery conviction, an hour-and-a-half after the previously established deadline coordinated with the Israel Prison Services. Pinto checked himself into a hospital for medical treatment earlier Tuesday, an hour before the deadline. Due to health concerns, he will serve his sentence in the medical center of Nitzan Prison, Ramle. [...]

The kabbalist rabbi was convicted last May of bribing a senior police officer and other corruption offenses, after pleading guilty in a plea bargain. His appeal to reduce his sentence to six months’ community service, given his deteriorating medical condition, was denied by the Supreme Court last month. [...]

Rabbi Arie Folger elected Chief Rabbi of Vienna: Will he too be intimidated against helping oppressed children?

Arutz Sheva

Rabbi Arie Folger was elected Chief Rabbi of Vienna this week, with the Blessings of Leading Rabbis and Sages of Israel and of the heads of the Conference of European Rabbis. [...]

Folger will replace the outgoing Chief Rabbi Chaim Eisenberg, who is retiring from Vienna's chief rabbinate but will continue to serve as Chief Rabbi of Austria.

“With the blessing and encouragement of Torah Sages, Hassidic rabbis, yeshiva heads, Rabbis and Sages, I accept upon myself the yoke of the Chief Rabbinate of Vienna, the city in which great sages of Israel, great rabbinic geniuses, Hassidic leaders and rabbis," Folger stated. "I will do all it takes to inspire loyalty to the Torah and enhance its glory, increase Jewish education and enhance religious institutions, unify the community and belabor to continue the holy work of my esteemed predecessor, Chief Rabbi Chaim Eisenberg." 

The 21 members of the Kultusrat, the Religious Council of the Jewish Community of Vienna, unanimously voted for him to serve as chief rabbi of the capital of Austria.

Folger will assume his post in June 2016, before the holiday of Shavuot. According to the community's constitution, he will serve for three months under the outgoing chief rabbi, as the senior rabbi of the community and will then take office as Chief Rabbi of Vienna. [...]

In his youth he studied under the late Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Treger at Yeshivat Etz Chaim in Antwerp, Belgium, a son in law of the late highly respected senior halachic authority RabbiShlomo Zalman Auerbach. He then studied in Gateshead, England, with Rabbi Abraham Gurvitz. Subsequently he studied in Israel for three years, at Yeshivat Mir, where he became close to Rabbi Yitchzak Ezrachi.

He then emigrated to the United States, where he first studied at Yeshiva Mesivta Rabbenu Chaim Berlin, under Rabbi Aharon Schechter, a member of the Council of Torah Sages of the Agudath Israel of America. Finally, he studied for five years at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University, where he was ordained. The Hassidic Grand RabbiYaakov Yeshayahu Halberstam of Szmigrad also ordained him. [...]

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Putting to Rest the Claim that Rav Kaminetsky was never Matir

Guest Post


Hello R' Eidensohn,

First of all, thank you for your continuing coverage of the Epstein situation. Your thorough coverage and posting of the relevant documents has allowed us all to make our own informed and educated judgments on the issue rather than having to fall back on blind reliance on others.

I would like to note one point that I believe has been overlooked. RSK has written that he was never matir Tamar, and some commenters on your site continually repeat this claim ("It's not his psak", etc.. On the other hand, Rav Nota Greenblatt has said that he was relying on the "Gedolim",which indicates that the Kamenetzkys were in fact the first matirim. How to resolve this seeming contradiction?

If you look at the first document in this post -http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/11/tamar-epsteins-heter-r-shlomo.html there is no question or shayla expressed in the document. The document simply presents the (alleged) "facts", and then states flatly that Tamar is muteres without a get. It does not ask for a heter, or for anyone's opinion or agreement, rather it states that Tamar is muteres without qualification. It then says "kol zeh nichtav al yeday Shalom Kamenetzky", and that he showed it to his father, and he approved him to sign that indeed everything is correct.

In other words, the Kamenetzkys did in fact declare that Tamar is muteres. They may not have communicated their psak directly to Tamar, which might explain RSK's denial of ever being matir her. But it's worthwhile to know, that black on white, they both gave the heter, which Rav Nota Greenblatt then rubber stamped, with his (entirely honest and true explanation) that the Kamenetzkys were matir her and he was following their lead.

Thank you.

Austrian Justice is problematic: Jewish author remains in Austrian jail despite discovery of key papers

The Guardian

A Jewish historian and outspoken critic of Austria’s approach to returning property looted by the Nazis is being kept in jail for defrauding the state over a restitution claim, despite the discovery of crucial new evidence.

Stephan Templ, 55, was convicted of serious fraud for hiding the existence of an estranged aunt when he applied on behalf of his mother for the return of a building in Vienna which was seized from his family in 1938.

But papers found in the state-run offices set up to facilitate the return of properties to heirs and descendants show that authorities were made aware of the existence of Elisabeth Kretschmar in 2003.

Representatives of the organisation had testified during Templ’s trial that they had no knowledge of his aunt. The judge said Templ had deliberately withheld the information about her, and in so doing had “damaged the Republic of Austria” because the aunt’s potential one-twelfth share of the building had gone to Templ’s mother, rather than to the state.

At the trial there was no discussion about why the onus was on families dispossessed of their property by the Nazis to prove their right to reclaim it by detailing their own genealogy.

Templ was sentenced to three years in prison, which was reduced on appeal to one year. He has been held in Vienna’s Simmering jail since 15 October.[...]

His 2001 book Unser Wien (Our Vienna) sparked an international furore. It catalogued hundreds of prominent properties seized by the Nazis that were never returned, including major Viennese landmarks – from the city’s famous ferris wheel to luxury hotels and tailors, as well as the building at the centre of his own claim, the Fürth sanatorium. [...]

Terumah The Missing Posts by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Guest post by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

The courtyard of the Mishkon was to be surrounded by "Kelayim"- curtains..... 

The Torah instructs us to make one post (pole, "amud") for every five amos of curtain. Regardless, if the wall was 15 amos, and up to 100 amos, the number doesn't change- 5 amos of curtain for every post. This would leave us to understand, that there was to be 5 amos BETWEEN each amud/ post.

Indeed, the Bireisah D'Mileches Hamishkon, and Rashi, in Parshas Trumah (27;10) say clearly, that there was 5 amos between each post...

The problem is, however, that a curtain must hang between TWO posts, and every curtain is missing one post...

For questions and comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

https://youtu.be/PMvSKJSOc18

The Real Failure of Failed Messiah by RaP

RaP this is an interesting analysis - but it is utlimately a whitewashing of a very odios subject. I would replace the word "anger" with the world "hate". Scotty was primarily a hater - not a seeker of truth. The truth was used when it was helpful in expressing hate and contempt.

For example when he objected to my post  which I wrote soon after it was established that Rivky Stein had fabricated horrific lies against her husband which the media had lapped up with relish as proof that Orthodox Judaism and in particular a male Orthodox Jew is evil. I requested that these blogs and news media apologize and acknowledge that Yoel was innocent and Rivky Stein was less then honest.

He acknowledged that it was possible that the truth was like I said but said that it didn't matter because Yoel Weiss deserved the attacks because Rivky Stein could only get justice in the Orthodox Jewish system by this type of attack. In short he refused to even consider apologizing for attacking Yoel. This is not anger - it is pure hate.

With hate, you can't be happy until the object of your hate is destroyed. Anger disappears with the issues are ameliorated.

In short he was not concerned with truth and fairness - but looked for any news item that would provide an excuse for trashing and stomping on Orthodox Jews and Judaism. Truth was only a tool in his hatred - it was not a goal.

Kiruv failed - not because it didn't seriously try but because his hatred could only be satisfied by the destruction of Yiddishkeit. Not something that makes sense even for the sake of Kiruv.

========================================================================Guest Post by RaP

I have not come to praise Failed Messiah (FM) but to bury him, to quote the famous words in Shakespeare about the ignoble demise of Julius Caesar after his assassination by his own former friends. The entire Jewish blogosphere and beyond is grappling with the sudden end of the Failed Messiah blog. People who tracked FM had a love-hate relationship with it. For some it was almost pure hate and zero love, for others it was a mixed bag. FM was not a lovable person and made sure to let you know it.

But what was the force behind the FM blog that made it the center of so much attention and controversy? Even if one did not agree with a word it said, it was still a place to get a measure of things in the Frum world. Many on this blog have quoted things that were researched well on FM. In many instances FM had parallel interests with all the other pro-active Jewish blogs, fighting child sex abuse, the various scandals like the Tropper and Hersh cases that this blog and others dealt with in depth. Pulling the facade away that "all is well" in Chabad. Hence the name "failed moshiach" as someone put it, and exposing corruption in various Charedi, Israeli, Modern Orthodox and Chasidic circles who were fighting over money, power, fame and fortune.

But behind it all was a very angry man, who by the time he allowed his FM to be shut down and taken over was a depleted ex Baal Teshuva in his late 50s who had reportedly never married, had no children, no known family and no one who can be called his friends, not getting enough money to keep going even from his readers, living in a far off city in a cramped room, where he worked as a one man news operation that often appeared like a news conglomerate but it was just coming from one driven ex Baal Teshuva who had had it with the Frum world.

The failure of FM is a failure in Kiruv!

It is a failure to close the circle by those who Mekareved him because for Kiruv to be successful it must succeed "from womb to tomb" and not just of the one who is Mekareved, but the spouse of the BT often also a BT, and their children, at the end of the day, must all be raised and remain Frum for it to be a Kiruv success story, and this did not happen with FM, because he broke down along the way of being a loyal Chabad BT to becoming its deadly foe. How so?

Classical BTs are by nature truth seekers and questioners, if they would not be then they would never be drawn to Yiddishkeit and become Frum in the first place, something FFBs do not grasp or understand because FFBs are born into the world of being Frum they do not understand or relate to the unique mental and emotional and intellectual and psychic and spiritual processes of questioning and deep grappling with issues and always demanding the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God.

To make this dichotomy between BTs and FFBs clearer one need not look further than the difference between Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu. They are both the Avos, but what a difference. According to the RAMBAM Avram as he was first called at a very young age started to question everything in a world from which the God of Creation had been banished, and he questioned and questioned and challenged and challenged and defied and defied everyone, until he was satisfied that he found God! Not so his son Yitzchok, the "ershter geboirener" who was born as the first FFB, he did not question because he was born into the faith. Even at the Akeidah he did not question, it was not his Test, it was Avraham's test because as a questioner he did not question God on that, and that is why Avraham passes the litmus test of belief while FM fails, or at least has failed thus far.

Someone wise recently posted a comment about him that is so true on another blog that is worth repeating:

""...We loved the muckraking. The sordid truth. The raw emotion. We loved his struggle. We were a part of something. That cannot be rehabilitated or started anew..."

That quote is what got me thinking about writing this post. What FM was, was a work in process or rather the public unraveling of a work in progress. FM was once a staunch Chabad BT he worked for them, but then he became embittered with them over reasons that anyone who has spent even a little time in Kiruv Rechokim working with formerly secular Jews knows happens all the time. An issue important to them from their past lives comes to them anew as a life's challenge, it is their challenge and Test from Above, like the Akeidah came to Avraham Avinu from Above as an unexpected challenge directly from God and what did he do? He accepted the bitter Divine Decree that went beyond his reasoning and turned his world upside down, while Avraham Avinu passed his test, FM failed his big test. It could have been about the Jewish status of Falashas or it could have been about any one of hundreds of different issues, but for FM it was a catalyst to keep his passions and fires burning now in out of control fashion, questioning, thinking, a rebellious streak running now evidently with great anger that boiled over just at the time when the Internet was exploding and FM like tens of millions of others could then "share" his anger and questions, angst, inner turmoils, and deeper thoughts with the world on his blog.

And people came by the millions to read him, not out of a hate or love for this or that and not out of hate or love for anything really, but because FM was now putting his own struggle on display as symbol of his peers who have these struggles, he did not invent the issues as some allege, he struggled with them in ways that FFBs cannot fathom but that is the typical way of BTs who are conscious of the struggles and will not cover things up just because some people don't like it, expressing himself on a huge cyber-canvas like a frustrated artist for the world to judge.

The FFBs that have bought out and shut down FM have gained a phyric hollow victory, they have bought a shell and FM is having the last laugh, he has done his thing and now he is gone, in typical controversial iconoclastic fashion with disregard for the world even for his supposed "followers" he has spit in their face, because he is an angry man to the core, something FFBs do not do and now they are holding a shadow, like when you try to catch a lizard and you think you caught it but all you are holding is its detached tail while the lizard scampers off to its hiding hole, because they can never shut down the raw questioning and anger and frustration that so many people feel. For a questioning secular Jew becoming Frum, staying Frum, marrying Frum, and raising Frum family and that all of them will remain Frum to their last day on Earth is a huge Nisoyon that FFBs cannot even begin to appreciate.

So FM was a case in point of a failure in Kiruv, it is a reminder of how the Frum world has many lessons to learn before it can win over all the hearts and minds of secular Jews becoming Frum and keep them Frum. We are still in the middle of that bitter struggle and we cannot wish away nor can anyone buy it out and shut down, because life is not that simple.

Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer responds to Dr. Marc Shapiro ir regards to dealing with Open Orthodoxy

Dr. Marc Shapiro recently published criticism of Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer regarding this writings against Open Orthodoxy. Seforim Blog

I posted for a day - an anonyomous response that was highly critical of Dr. Shapiro's analysis. However I removed it because it was seen as counterproductive by my readers here and Dr. Shapiro also asked it be removed.  Rabbi Gordimer published a detailed response to Dr. Shapiro's article 

Cross-Currents

What is important - aside from the issues raised - is that on a personal level Dr Marc Shapiro and Rabbi Gordimer have reached out to each other to make sure that it is understood that this exhcange is not a personal attack. Here are Rabbi Gordimer's latest comments 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

How to Disagree – My Exchange with Dr. Marc Shapiro by Avrohom Gordimer 

Yesterday was tense. It was uncomfortable. It was a day of squeezing in a lengthy reply to Dr. Marc Shapiro’s post about some of my writings, between loads of regular work and with almost no sleep the night beforehand. (I had actually drafted my entire reply overnight, anticipating a very hectic workday, only to have accidentally deleted the entire draft at 2:30 AM, and then spending close to an hour in an unsuccessful attempt to find the draft in the online black hole. It was not fun…)

I anticipated a prolonged and unpleasant back-and-forth, which would be fruitless and only cause more strife.

But last evening, when I finally again got to my email, rays of light were shining, for Dr. Shapiro had sent several kind comments and messages clarifying that the issues were not personal, graciously (and unnecessarily) apologizing for any hard feelings, and also explaining his work and his goals. I apologized for any overstatement of his identification with controversial views, and we proceeded to share our hopes that our public exchange not be perceived as reflective of any type of sinah or personal affront. Our exchange was about ideas only. My communications with Dr. Shapiro were really refreshing.

Recently, a friend suggested that I change my image and post about more positive things. I replied that I had just posted two articles about noncontroversial topics, plus two divrei Torah on the parsha, as well as four articles on Halacha – but that these articles were given little attention, they received fewer clicks and “likes”, and that people are unfortunately focused on articles that deal with controversy.

But even when dealing with controversy, and even when the discourse is heated, let it not be perceived as sinah or personal clash. It is about ideas only. My exchange with Dr. Shapiro, and his kind and classy reaching out to clarify, are a deep lesson to all.

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Rav Dovid Feinstein is convening a meeting today to try and resolve the matter

I was told by a number of reliable sources that Rav Dovid Feinstein is meeting today with Rav Hillel David and Rav Senderovic (a talmid of Rav Nota from Milwaukee) [just informed he is not a talmid of R' Nota. Never learned by him, did not get shimush from him] to try and find a solution to the horrible situation of two major talmidei chachomim producing a "heter" for a woman to remarry without a Get. I was told that it was at the instigation of the Novominsker Rebbe. 

It is not necessarily functioning as a beis din but as an ad hoc group to find the best solution  of redeeming the reputations of Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt. As a minimum the hope is that they will provide a means to allow Rav Greenblatt to officially say he is retracting the heter and that Rav Kaminetsky will agree. The scenario basically being similar to that described in the second paragraph of the letter from Rav Aharon Schecter when Rav Belsky withdrew his heter – not because he felt it was wrong but out of respect for Rav Eliashiv. Here too, Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky already stated in his letter to Rav Weiss of the Eida Charedis that the matter should be turned over to Rav Dovid Feinstein. 

Thus neither of the two rabbis are likely to acknowledge that they made a mistake but will simply say that they defer to the judgment of Rav Dovid Feinstein.

However the above scenario is not necessarily going to happen because they are open to hearing alternatives and gathering information that will shed light on what happened and why. Rav Nota Greenblatt Rav Feldman and Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky have said they will speak to the group as well as Rav Shuchatowitz of the Baltimore Beis Din.

 However at the present time – Aharon Friedman has not been asked to speak with them

Commentary and update on the 1992 interview with Rav Landesman and Rav Malinowitz

Guest post

I think the interview should have been introduced that it is an old article, of which much may be relevant, but that there are likely updates to this.  Here’s my angle.

I suspect that the growth of the frum population has resulted in a greater incidence of divorce, even if the percentage never changed.  I also believe that marriage requires סייעתא דשמיא.  Having noted this, I also believe that there are more reasons for divorce today, and that there is a rise in the rates in terms of percentage.  I lack the scientific data to support this, and my observation is biased in being one of the turn-to people when a marriage is failing and likely beyond repair.

·    Poor preparation.  The true preparation for marriage begins at birth, and consists of role modeling by parents and extended family.  As community patterns change, this is also affected.  Yeshivos and schools include way too little guidance in character development, and the bits of mussar that are transmitted academically are wholly inadequate to satisfy the fundamental need.  Madrichim for chassanim and kallahs tend to avoid the most important aspects of training for the relationship aspects of marriage.

·       Cultural trends.  There are patterns that have developed that have become “norms”, most of which are of dubious value to the integrity of a marriage and young family.  These include the foolishness of mandating or expecting the kollel lifestyle to be universal.  The multiple angles on this include the dependency patterns (on family, programs, etc.), the conflict ridden expectations of the working wife as the homemaker and young mother.  Locations to live being related to the kollel or the parents often exert unneeded stress on a fragile, developing relationship.  Even expecting to marry because peers are getting married is of very questionable price to the potential of forming a true relationship.

·   Dependency.  Most young marrieds are incapable of being financially independent.  The supporters, usually parents and in-laws, tend to have expectations of the young couple, most of which are not focused on the needs of their children but rather their own desires.

·       Throw away society.  Oft blamed for the deterioration of the marriage, it is unquestionably true, but it is insidious and usually under disguise.  There are many ways to address the earliest challenges in marriage.  Faulty behavior is frequently mislabeled as indicative of a flawed personality.  The latter implies hopelessness.

·       Bad advice.  This is one of the greater causes for marriage failures.  In the frum community, there is a pattern of seeking guidance of rabbonim, roshei yeshivos, roshei kollel, and chosson/kallah teachers for intervention and advice whenthe going gets rough.  These individuals are probably capable of much, but helping the couple in crisis is rarely one of the skills for which they trained.  There is also a belief that the professionally trained person is corrupted with foreign, secular values, and should be avoided.

·       Certain people’s parnosoh depends on it.  There is an entire industry built on divorce.  There are askanim (to be fair, most do their work without monetary compensation), toanim, lawyers, batei din, mediators, and some professionals who profit from the terminating marriages.

·     Personal image.  This always existed.  However, the preoccupation with how one appears to others is undeniably greater than ever before.  This is worthy of exploration and analysis.  Regardless, when a marriage fails, each side tends to seek the attribution of blame to the other side.  Accusations abound, and the breakups in which the extreme demands, even the denying of support or visitation rights are hardly exceptions to the rule.  The bitterness lingers for a long time, affecting everyone.  What was once (or should have been) love turns into hate and revenge.  The greatest motivational factor in this is the desperate need to be seen as the victim who succeeded in escaping the claws of the evil other side.   And all this is to be considered by others as the tzaddik.

·       Children are not nachas machines.  The expectation of parents is that their married children be a service to them.  This is not about the Torah prescribed mitzvah of kibud av v’em.  This is about the parents being on the receiving end of the nachas.  Anything that is perceived to interfere with this is target for intervention.  How many young people marry to provide nachas to their parents?  The nachas is a good thing, but it is the sidebar to a marriage in which the chosson and kallah create a home that is a nachas to HKB”H.  The parents can become a seriously divisive force in their children’s lives.  This may be more prevalent today than in the past.

·      Being right is not always effective.  With exception to halacha, which is not negotiable, there are many instances in which a couple who disagree on a matter that does not lend itself to compromise.  Only one can be right, and the other is wrong.  Must the one who is right insist on being the “winner” of the argument?  While this may sound correct, it is often not effective.  This more than learning to “give in” or be mevater.  It is about focusing on the outcome of staying close instead of constricting barriers, obstacles, and wedges to divide the couple.  The advisor who lacks training often tries to settle an argument by examining who is right.  This becomes more harmful than helpful.

·    Beis din has always been limited in its ability to render a psak but no authority to enforce its conclusions.  Having the court system verify a psak and agreements is almost standard practice.  It is likely that the level of Yir’as Shomayim of previous generations was such that the issuing of a psak halacha meant compliance.  The conflict of carrying this into additional proceedings is probably one of the developments of the recent generation.

·     Divorce is expensive.  But some individuals view it as a money making venture.  Sometimes it is the wives who seek far more in their settlement than they should have.  Sometimes it is the men who are too miserly to support their children adequately.  It is way too common for one party to demand a cash payment to give or receive a get.  This is viewed as extortion by outsiders.  It is a hard sell to convince most people that this is moral, and not simply holding the get as hostage for a demand of ransom.

Media has expanded, but not always in positive directions.  Years ago, one typically sought to keep these issues of personal conflict private.  The common use of technology and communication has made everything, from the most mundane to the most intimate fodder for blasting to the world. Social networking, the ease of having direct communications, the convenience of multiple sources of input, and the tendency for people who are bitter to provide “support” (more accurately “incitement”) are all features of the new world.  Agunos (the real kind and the modern versions who adopted the word) have always existed.  But they were rarely, if ever, the chatter of everyone.  Not any more.  There now many hundreds of opinions from people who have no connection to a case, and from those without a shred of experience to make opinions based on knowledge.  And all these diagnoses and pronouncements are majorly based on a single side of the story.  This is sad, but pervasive.

Our generation has not universally adopted the mussar message of Rav Yisroel Salanter and others, in which academic mussar is only useful in its implementation in the lives of Yidden.  If it looks respectable, it must be really so.  Personal change, character refinement, working on the imperfections of midos, and the like make great discussion topics.  The greatest mashgichim, baalei mussar, darshonim, and others have made careers of such discussion.  If the community listened and put all these words into action, there would hardly be any divorces, and batei din would be unutilized.  Meanwhile, there are few families that have never encountered a failed marriage, a divorce, or the bitter conflict that ensues when a marriage is dissolved.  The incidence may well be on the rise.  But the magnitude of the pain and conflict have accelerated to alarming levels.

Rav Landesman and Rav Malinowitz on the Aguna Crisis

EDITOR'S NOTE: Rabbi Leib Landesman is the rosh beit din of the Kollel Horabonim Beit Din, in Monsey, NY. His beit din has presided over cases involving some of the most complicated halachic issues, specially in the field of matrimonial law. Rabbi Landesman has been invovled with thousands of divorce cases, and has personally administertd approximately 500 gittin, In an interview with the Jewish Homemaker's managing editor, Avraham, M. Goldstein. Rabbi Landesman responded to a variety of points raised by the directors of Agunah. Inc. in their article.[October 1992]

Agunah Inc's primary contention is that a "crisis" exists today regarding matter of Jewish divorce. Rabbi Landesman disputed this claim. He challenged the statistic printed by the Jerusalem Report that there are 10,000 agunot in Israel, and the extrapolation from that figure by Agunah, Inc. to the effect that there are thousands in the U.S as well. [The Jerusalem Report's figure comes from a film by the Israel Women's Network-Ed.]

Rabbi Landesman questioned the premise that there are more agunot today than say  twenty years ago. He attributed this perception to "individuals and organizations that have made all this into an issue, so there's more  exposure. It doesn't necessarily mean there are more cases now."

A critical area at issue, he noted, is how to define an agunah "It's a colloquial phrase," Rabbi Landesman said, "that's used  today for someone who wants a get but doesn't have a get.But it's  used in very broad terms. It's used to describe someone who has followed the proper procedures and after a certain amount of time still doesn't have a get. But it's used as well for someone who hasn't done things right. It also is used for someone who wants a get on demand and it's not forthcoming instantly. She decided last wee: that she wants a get, and she doesn't have it within a day or a week."

   Pressed regarding the figure given by the Jerusalem Report, Rabbi Landesman pointed out that there is a great difference between the Israeli system and ours. In Israel, batei din have jurisdiction over matrimonial matters. If the problem between the couple is limited to financial support, the batei din are on an equal footing with the secular court system. If a get is involved, then the beit din has sole jurisdiction over all matters, however ancillary, which are related to the get, including but not limited to custody, child support, and property. 

   He continued that, just as with the secular courts in the U.S., the beit din system in Israel suffers from overload, which has created a backlog. A contested divorce may take from two to five years. Rabbi Landesman added that lawyers and to'anim (client representatives before a beit din) often have no desire to expedite their cases, since the more time is spent, the greater is their fee. 

   Rabbi Landesman stated that, if there is any truth to the 10,000 figure, it refers to all cases currently within the beit din system, regardless of their status, and that it is improper to categorize a woman whose case is going through the process as an "agunah. 

   He added: "In almost every case I've known about, when there are major issues at stake, where they're really fighting, it takes a few years until it's resolved· But once everything is resolved, the issue of the get is resolved too. The get is one of twenty issues that have to be resolved." 

Rabbi Landesman said that he would be very surprised if one could compile a list of 50 women in the U.S. at any given time who have followed the proper procedures and not received a get.

According to the rabbi, a critical error is the failure to follow these procedure at the outset. It often takes a long time until the wife takes her estranged partner to belt din. While she may consider herself an agunoh even before instituting a get proceeding, he believes this is an inaccurate appraisal.

As an example, he says that he once remarked to an agun (a man whose wife refused to accept a get), ''Whose fault was it that your problems of eight years have first been brought to the beit din's attention twenty minutes ago?"

  Rabbi Landesman emphasized that he holds in great esteem organizations which exist for the purpose of helping agunot. "Even if they help one person who is truly in need, it is worth all their efforts,"he noted. Moreover, "The fact that these organizations exist does at times speed things up. For example, . instead of taking a year or two until the recalcitrant spouse realizes it's over, it may speed things up by a few months." He said that the number of agunah cases may have decreased in  recent years because of the efforts of groups such as Agunah, Inc.

Rabbi Landesman took strong exception to the allegation that batei din are unfair to women. He emphasized that, at least in his own beit din, both parties are treated equally. He rejected the idea that the woman is made to reel uncomfortable or cannot compete on an equal footing in the halachic arena, and stated that a female to to'en would be welcomed at the Kollel Horabonim Beit Din. (There are, to his knowledge, no female to'anim in the U.S. His beit din generally disdains to'anim, believing they do little to advance the case of the party they are representing, and that they will often resort to impressive-sounding but halachically vacuous arguments in order to justify their fee.)

  Rabbi Landesman also took strong issue with Agunah, Inc.'s insinuations that the secular courts are fairer than batei din. He said: "The article gives a very rosy picture of the court system and a very shoddy picture of the beit din system. This is very misleading. People think the court system is the epitome of righteousness, but being privy to many confidential matters, I can clearly state that I know more than one judge who belongs in jail. And I know of cases which have been 'fixed' between the judge and one of the lawyers."

He did acknowledge that in many batei din -although not in the Kollel Horabonim Beit Din - there is a lack of decorum, which may lead to the perception that batei din are not as meticulous as the secular courts. Yet this a "a Problem of color, not of substance," he declared, saying that batei din are much more scrupulous than secular judges, and that 'judges and lawyers are much more corrupt than any beit din or dayan can be subjectively perceived to be, even in the worst possible case." The rabbi agreed with Agunah, Inc. that different batei din have different halachic standards. He stressed that it is up to the litigants to do their homework before selecting a particular beit din.

Rabbi Landesman pointed out that American batei din do not have the power to force compliance with their decisions. Therefore, what Agunah, Inc. sees as beit din problems are almost all implementation problems. For example he insisted that the fact that it is the husband who has to give the get does not put the wife at a disadvantage as far as the psak is concerned. He declared that a beit din decides its cases based solely on halachic criteria. It is in cases of noncompliance (which, he says, when taking all differences, not just the get, into account, happens about equally between husbands and wives) where implementation of the psak becomes difficult. He said that almost all recalcitrants eventually comply, and that in many cases the husband's tactic is merely to wait the wife out, hoping she will compromise on some of the areas where the psak was favorable to her.

While this is certainly an example of the get being used as a weapon, Rabbi Landesman explained that, if a woman is patient and is unwilling to be defeated by the husband's tactic, the entire psak will eventually be implemented in almost every case.

Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz. who sits on the Kollel Horabonim Beit Din, opined that, if all methods short of physical coercion were properly applied. any husband in his right mind would give a get. These methods include ostracism from the community and using all legal devices available to make the husband support his estranged wife financially. as he must do according to halacha. According to Rabbi Malinowitz. the financial strain alone is usually enough to bring about compliance.

Commenting on Agunah. lnc.'s assertion that a man has the option of a heter me'ah rabbanim, Rabbi Landesman said that such a heter is rarely issued. Therefore. the husband is just as stuck by the lack of a get as the wife The exception to this is, he said, where the parties are not strict about religious observance. Since the woman's sin would be much greater than the man's, the lack of a get may not prevent the husband from finding an outlet for his desires. This, however, is a commentary not on Jewish law. but on the lack of observance in some circles.

Rabbi Landesman noted that he knew of one case where the husband had to pay over a million dollars to convince his wife to accept a get. No heter me'ah rabbanim was granted him.
[...]

 Rabbi Landesman said that a matter often glossed over is the difficult some husbands find in exercising the visitation rights which have been accorded them. He said, "I would be inclined to think that there are as many problems with fathers' visitation rights as there are with gittin for women." He cited cases where ex-husbands have rarely or never seen their offspring after having given a get, including a case where a man spent $32,000 in court in an unsuccessful attempt to have his rights enforced. Asked what can be done, he replied, "I don't know; I am baffled. Most people don't have the thousands of dollars it costs to go to court, or they don't have the mental endurance needed."

Are Orthodox divorces rising in number? And what can be done to avoid divorce?

Rabbi Landesman disputed recently published statistics that say divorce in the Orthodox community is rising. He said that. at least in proportional terms, the incidence of divorce has declined over the last two decades.

   In his opinion, the primary reason for this trend is that "people now realize divorced life is not all that rosy, especially for the woman. The second tine around, it's basically a man's market. Women have friends who are divorced. They speak with them and see that it's difficult financially and in other respects." According to the rabbi, people today "don't rush for a get like they used to," a phenomenon he applauds. He said: "If there is an unbearable situation involving health, religion. or physical abuse, where objectively one just cannot remain in the marriage. divorce is an alternative. But if there's a personality clash, including disliking one's character or just not liking the person, these are subjective tastes. and they are things one can learn to change ...

   Rabbi Landesman said that women who come to him seeking a divorce are encouraged to first speak with divorcees and remarrieds so that they will have a better understanding of divorced life. He asserted that women have to decide whether it may be better to remain in a non-ideal marriage. and that if there are children, the nachas derived from them often makes the marriage worth saving.

   Rabbi Landesman had other suggestions for reducing divorce among Orthodox Jews. He said that, in over half of divorce cases involving Modern Orthodox couples with which he has been involved, the parents of the woman were opposed to the match in the first place. He told one such wife:

"When you go to buy a fur coat, you first ask the opinion of someone else. But with something as important as marriage. you have the attitude that you don't need to inquire."

   The rabbi emphasized that potential mates frequently do not understand the commitment involved in a marriage. Were they to recognize that marriage is not a game," they would be more careful when selecting a partner.  He said that this deficiency can be found in all kinds of Orthodox shidduchim

Furthermore he noted that the Steipler Rav, Rabbi Yaakov Kanievsky zt"l voiced concern for the fact that yeshiva. students often have nor learned how to interact with others. Rabbi Landesman said that early problems in a marriage often occur because the husband needs time to learn how to act towards his wife - a difficulty that can be ironed out with time. patience. and hard work.

A further step toward reducing divorce, he said , would be if people realized that the beit din system can be used to resolve problems short of divorce.  The husband especially has certain obligations to his wife. and she can take him to beit din if he is not meeting those obligations. Were a small issue nipped in the bud, it might not become a larger one. leading to a divorce which, the Talmud says. the altar sheds tears.

The Ground Rules

When is a get called for? Is one entitled to a get upon demand? These and related questions were put to Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz. who sits on the Kollel Horabonim beit din with Rabbi Landesman. The following is a summary of his response.

According to the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), even when a get is desirable, there are varying ways in which the beit din's decision may be expressed. The kind of psak which will be issued depends upon the circumstances of each particular case.

At one extreme, the beit din will direct that there must be a get, and that the husband may be coerced, even physically. to divorce his wife. Grounds for this kind of psak may include physical abuse, financial non-support by the husband, and refusal to have marital relations.

At the other extreme, the beit din may advise the parties that a get is desirable, but will not declare that the husband is obligated to grant the get or that the wife is obligated to accept it.

There are varying degrees which lie between these extremes. A common on is a psak which obligates the husband to give a get and permits all forms of pressure, short of acts which would constitute coercion, for the purpose from implementing the psak. The types of pressure include total ostracism from the community and forcing the husband to financially support his estranged  wife.

    Grounds for this sort of psak are looser than for a decision which permits coercion. Examples are a lesser degree of financial non-support by the husband or a lesser degree of the wife being unable  to live with him.

Generally, if the beit din considers a marriage "dead", as determined through the rules set out by the Shulchan Aruch. a psak will be issued obligating the husband to give his wife a get and obligating her to accept it.

 Rabbi Malinowitz says he is convinced that in "99 out of 100 cases" proper implementation of steps such as ostracism and forcing the husband support his wife would result in a get. He says that "anyone in his right mind would give a get rather than paying thirty or forty thousand dollars a year to a woman with whom he is not living. Rabbi Malinowitz feels that the problem lies in the unwillingness of Jewish society to totally ostracize the recalcitrant husbands. and the difficulty of implementing a psak of financial support in a society where church and state are separate.

Rabbi Malinowitz sums up: "Not always when a woman decides she doesn't want to live with this man or vice versa is the marriage dead. The Torah views marriage as an obligation between two parties, and it can't be revoked just because one party wants out: there have to be certain safeguards.

"The Shulchan Aruch decides what a dead marriage is. If a marriage is practically dead from an objective viewpoint and can be seen by the beit din as being objectively dead, the halacha calls for a psak of obligation, with or without various types of pressure short of actual coercion." [...]

Dr. Marc Shapiro: The Aguna Problem part 2 Is the husband always obligated to give a Get?

Seforim Blog  [...]  Let me make one final point. In matters of divorce my feeling is that when either husband or wife wants a get, and it is obvious that there is no future in the marriage, then neither party should prevent the divorce from taking place. There shouldn’t be any reason to go to a beit din to force a divorce. Adults should be able to see that the marriage isn’t working out and come to a conclusion that it is time to end it. Any husband who chooses to withhold a get when he knows that the marriage is over is acting in a very cruel way, and the full weight of halakhically acceptable communal pressure should be brought on him. Nothing should scandalize us more than a so-called religious person keeping his wife captive as a means of revenge. I would even suggest reading the names of some agunot during the Shabbat prayers, in order to sensitize people to the issue.

I know that many people will regard what I have just written as obvious. What I will now say might anger some, but I think that it too should be obvious. I have often heard it said that a get should never be withheld, and that the get should be given immediately. For example, on ORA’s website it states: “[I]t is never acceptable to refuse to issue a get once the marriage is irreconcilable.” On JOFA’s website it states: “As soon as it becomes clear that there will be no reconciliation, the Get should be written and delivered to the woman so that it cannot be used as a bargaining tool in financial or custody negotiations.” 

While in general both these statements are correct, it is not correct that this is always the case. For instance, let’s say the wife runs away to Europe with the kids. Does anyone seriously think that the husband is still obligated to give her a get? In such a circumstance it is entirely appropriate for the husband to insist that she come back to the United States and settle all custody issues before a get is issued. Or let’s say a husband and wife separated, and the wife refuses to let the husband see his children. It could be many months before the secular court rules on the matter of visitation. Why would anyone think that in the meantime the husband is obligated to give his wife a get if she refuses to allow him to see his children? I don’t think that there is any reputable beit din in the world that would side with the woman in these two cases. These are obviously extreme examples, and have nothing to do with the typical agunah case we hear about. Yet we should be aware that there are nuances that sometimes come into play, and every case must be investigated by a reputable beit din before judgments are made.[...]