Rav Yosef (3:20) - Forcing only sometimes

Yabia Omer (E.H. 3:20.34): [Original Hebrew click herel© Translation by Daniel Eidensohn] We learn from all this that we have mentioned that we have found that many of the great and mighty of the Rishonim held like the Rambam that we force the husband to divorce his wife when she claims ma’us alei. We also note that there was a decree by the Saboraim to force a get for ma’us alei. The decree was enforced until the time of the Gaonim – a period of almost 600 years. They did signifcant things in order to force the husband to divorce when she said ma’us alei. It is true however that many of the poskim did not agree to this and this includes the Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77) who says not to force a divorce. Nevertheless when there are other significant factors for a divorce then we combine them and rely on this in practice. This approach to force a get in ma’us alei is particularly relevant for Yemenites who have never deviated from the rulings of the Rambam in everything he says. They already have had the practice in Yemen to force the husband to give a get when she says ma’us alei – in accord with the view of the Rambam. Therefore it is appropriate that they continue this practice here in Israel to retain their normative practice. In addition in the present case there were witness that the wife was forced into marriage. Despite her resistance to marry this man her relatives forced her with irresistable force and trickery to marry him. The view of the Rashbash is well known that in such a case we force the husband to divorce her. There are many Achronim who say to rely on the Rashbash in this matter to force a divorce. In particluar where there are other doubts and double doubts that can be combined.  The words of the Rashbatz are well known, “Even though there are in the teshuvos of the great Achronim rulings that the husband should not be forced at all in the case of ma’us alei, nevertheless we are not insignificant authorites and this issue of divorce is dependent on logic and commonsense. A judge can only make rulings based on what he sees.” We see a simlar statement in Yachin v’Boaz...So even the Rashbat who accepts the view of the poskim who disagree with the Rambam – agrees that when there are other significant facts that one can be lenient and follow the Rambam...In another teshuva I go into detail to show that there are a number of poskim – both Rishonim and Achronim – that say that if the beis din rules that the husband is forced to give a get according to various poskim – even if they are mistaken – and thus it is a get me’usa – the get is only rabbinically invalid.  And so sure with the type of coercion which is done today which doesn’t involve beatings but only imprisonment – which has nothing to do with the imprisonment of previous ages – that makes it only a double rabbinic doubt. And according to many poskim we can act deliberately lenient in a case of rabbinic doubt and surely when it is a double rabbinic doubt. And this is surely true in an emergency situation involving an aguna such as this.  And it is is infinitely more so in the case of ma’us alei in which many poskim are lenient but according to the straight law and also because of authoritative decree. And even the Rosh who disagrees with the Rambam’s position writes that bedieved if the husband had been forced to give a get – then it is done already  and we accept the get as valid. The Rashbatz says the same thing. And a woman who had been divorced with this forced get can get married l’chatchila. So surely in our case where the marriage was coerced that the get can be forced l’chatchila. In addition there is a basis in this case to question the validity of the marriage itself since it was done through threats and as a minimum he definitely acted inappropriately in how the marriage was done.  So even though we are not going to annul his marriage, nevertheless it is an additional basis to force the get. In addition the wife is a very young woman and she is alienated from her husband – there is a very real danger according to what the beis din has observed that she might degenerate morally and go in an immoral path if her hopes for a get are dashed. Given that she has been chained for many years as an aguna. We have already mentioned that Rav Chaim Palaggi said, “In such a case to force the husband to give a get. There are other poskim who say we should be exceedingly lenient in such cases to prevent her going into an immoral path and that she should reject Judaism – especially when she is so young.... And especially when it looks like she will remain an aguna her whole life – it will definitely lead to disaster. And surely in modern times when immorality has increased and modesty has decrease.”...  An additional factor is that after beis din has issued a ruling that the husband must give his wife a get there is an issue that there is a mitzva to listen to the words of the sages. And so even according to the poskim who disagreee with the Rambam they would agree that the husband has an obligation to give a get. The husband continues to be stubborn and rejects all suggestions of the beis din to resolve the issue. He just refuses to listen. Also the woman said in front of beis din and her husband that she has run out of patience and she threatened that if she isn’t divorced she will go in the ways of sin. She apolgy which she said later was done solely at the direction of her lawyer. The beis din thought she was serious the first time and was not making an idle threat. There is also absolutely no chance that she will agree to return to her husband and give him another chance despite great efforts to placate her with pleas and expensive gifts. She repeatedly refused to consider that option. She definitely will never change her mind. Therefore when all of these facts are combined, we ruled with the full authority of beis din that the husband was to be forced until he says he is giving the get willingly.... And given that he was stubborn and had hardened his heart he was not likely to  comply by the mere fact that the beis din say he must give a get. Therefore he was taken to prison by the government forces in order to force him to comply with beis din’s ruling. After he sat in jail for a number of days he agreed to divorce his wife. That was arranged by this court... Therefore the woman is free to marry anyone she wishes – except for a cohen...

R. Sternbuch 5:344 - Harchakos of R. Tam

Rav Sternbuch Proposal for Harchachos 5 344

R Tam's Shunning: Tzitz Eliezar & Rav Yosef

Tzitz Eliezer(17:51): There is a couple who have been married 20 years and have not been successful in having children. There have been medical treatments for more than 15 years without success. The wife blames the husband and the husband claims that both of them require treatment and that he is hopefully that they still might have children. The wife wants a divorce she says she only has a few more years in which she can give birth as she is 46 years old. They have been living separately for the last few years because the wife claims she can not stand living with him anymore. The medical reports that both of them have defects in their reproductive organs and that they are more likely to have children with other partners. The beis din in Jerusalem has already posken that the husband is obligated to give his wife a get but added that it is impossible to force him. The husband doesn’t reject the decision that he is obligated while the wife has complained to us that the husband was obligated and she wants a posek to that effect. We have tried every possible way to motivate the husband to agree to a get without success. The husband had requested that the beis din reevaluate the situation since his medical condition had improved and they reacted by the statement mentioned above that he could not be forced to give a get but they said that was true in his unimproved condition also – but that they still felt he was obligated to divorce his wife and there was no need to reopen the case. In light of these facts the wife came before us and requested a psak that the husband should be forced to divorce her since it was apparent that they weren’t going to have children together and it was mainly her husband’s fault. After our beis din investigated the material thoroughly we issued a psak that said, “After investigation of the matter we find that there is not sufficient basis to change what the original beis din ruled which was that there is no grounds to force the husband to give a get to his wife. Nonetheless he is obligated to give a get according to the original psak. We note that it is wrong that the husband is to making her an aguna. The husband who claims to be Torah and mitzva observant but yet doesn’t listen to the psak of the beis din is committing a serious sin. We call on him to change his evil ways and act like a good Jew which includes obeying the mitzva of listening to the sages and he should give a get immediately and not leave a Jewish woman as an aguna. Therefore it was decided 1) that the beis din is not complying with the appeal of the wife who requested that her husband be forced to give a get. 2) the husband is obligated to give a get to his wife immediately 3) If the husband doesn’t give a get within 3 month then the beis din will deal with taking appropriate action as described in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 154) and the commentaries.

Now three months have passed and there has been no response or action. The husband is ignoring the matter and he maintains his rebellion in not freeing his wife from being an aguna. Therefore we have told the husband that which it says in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 154:21), “The Chachomim have obligated you to divorce your wife and if you don’t - it is permitted to call you a sinner (avaryan)." Consequently we turn to Jews everywhere to come to the aid of the Jewish woman - who has been made into an aguna because her husband refuses to listen to beis din to free her from her chained status by giving her a get – by refusing to do any favor for him or to have dealings with him until he has given a get as the Rema paskened Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 154) in such cases as this. That is because it is clear that the cause for the woman request for a get is do to the faults of the husband. Rabbeinu Tam writes in Sefer haYashar, [[to be continued]]

Rav Eliashiv:Ma'os Alei - Get not required (1 174)

Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 174): Question: We are dealing with a case in which it apparently has been shown that the wife hates her husband – heart and soul – because of his behavior which is simply abnormal. The woman therefore has the claim of ma’us alei with a clear basis. This couple has lived separately for over 6 years. The question is whether the beis din will comply with the request of the wife and require him to give her a get. Answer: Even if you grant that this woman has the status of one who says ma’us alei with a clear justification, that in itself does not require that the husband give her a get. Look at Shut HaRashba (# 135 - attributed to Ramban), Question: When a woman claims ma’us alei... is the husband obligated to divorce her....? Answer: ... You should know that she is not able to force her husband to divorce her since  a woman goes out of the marriage sometimes according to her desires and sometimes not according to her desires. On the other hand the man only leaves the marriage only when he want to leave it... From all these you see that when a woman claims ma’us alei we do not force the husband to give a divorce... Even though the Rambam writes that when a woman says ma’us alei the husband is forced to divorce her – the Rambam is not correct in this matter... Concerning the kesuba and dowry that she brought him – according to the din she does not lose anything unless she insists on being a moredes for 12 months and all these 12 months she is not forced... However if she remains a moredes for 12 months and her husband wants to divorce her – she loses everything.... That is her din when her husband divorces her according to his wishes after 12 months. But if the desire to divorce comes from her – as we said before – he is not forced to divorce her. The words of the Rashba imply not only is the husband not forced to divorce her when she claims ma’us alei but that he has no obligation to give her a get! This is also apparent from the words of Tosfos(Kesubos 63).... Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2): If she says that he disgusts me and I can not have relations with him – if the husband wants to divorce her she does not get any money from the Kesuba at all. Rema (E.H. 77:2)... All of this is only when she doesn’t give a reason and justification for her words as to why she finds him repulsive. But if she does give a reason for her words... And we don’t force him to divorce her  nor do we force her to remain with him. And if you want to claim that he must divorce her – it is obvious that since we don’t force her to remain with him then of necessity that there can’t be an obligation of the husband to give her a get. It is the same thing.

Rav Ovadiya Yosef: Forcing husband to divorce moredes

 It basically says that while in previous times a moredes was just left an agunah but that in modern times there is a major problem of them going off the derech and so therefore we force the husband to divorce them before allowing the husband to remarry. This is not considered get me'usa since the husband doesn't have to give a get - if he doesn't want to remarry. There is no mention of public demonstrations and a major campaign in the secular press to pressure the husband.

Rav Ovadiya Yosef (Yabiya Omer 8:2.2): In previous generations the husband was given permission to take an additional wife if his first wife was declared to a moredes (rebellious wife). The first wife would remain an agunah for the rest of her life until she became an old lady with white hair as punishment for rebelling against her husband. An example of this is found in Shut Mishpat v’ Tzedaka b’Yaakov (2:36).... Similar cases are  found in other Achronim. Nevertheless our contemporary society has weakened and there is now a strong possibility that the agunah will deviate from religious observance because of her aguna status. This is a dissolute generation and people do not obey authority. And if the woman makes up her mind later to accept the get from her husband there is a clear concern that her husband will refuse to give her a get out of spite because he is already married to another woman and it is impossible to force him to give a get to his first wife and therefore she will just reject religion and go on a bad path. Because she is still married however, any children she subsequently has with another man will increase the number of mamzerim in the world. A possible solution is that before he can remarry he needs permission from the beis din and thus it is relatively easy to use that to influence him to deposit a get for his first wife with beis din. Only when he has deposited a get then can we give him permission to remarry according to halacha. After I thought of this, I saw that Rav Masas wrote in  his sefer Tevuos Shemesh (E.H. 30), “Even though in all the seforim of the Achronim concerning previous rabbinic courts (beis din), the beis din ruled that in the case of moredes she remained an agunah her entire life until she became an old lady with grey hair and the husband was allowed to marry another woman if he wanted – without first divorcing her. This was a common ruling and the first wife remained unable to remarry until the day that she died. However this approach was appropriate in previous generations when the spirit of Judaism permeated the people and there was no one who would dare do a serious sin – in particular not to openly transgress the serious sexual sins. But it is no longer true true in our day which to our great sorrow the spirit of individual freedom has become dominant and faith has weakened. We no longer have the power to have people properly comply with religious rulings and there is a great concern that people will go off the path of religious observance. There is no question that all our rabbis acknowledge that all efforts need to be made to have the get deposited with beis din...He concludes his words by saying that in the year 1950, all the rabbis of Morrocco gather together and they made a decree through the official rabbinical confederation – that no man could remarry until he divorced his first wife who was a moredes and had declared that she couldn’t stand living with him (ma’os alei). This decree was accepted and it became a regular occurence for the beis din to rule accordingly. This get that the husband was required to give before remarrying was not considered get me’usa ( a coerced get). That is because he had the choice of not remarrying and therefore he didn’t have to give the get. However with a moredes who simply wanted to afflict him and torture him and consequently refused to accept the get – there was no choice but to require that the get be deposited in beis din as we mentioned before....

The rest of this section was translated by Shaul Shapira in the comments section

Chasan steps on Kallah's foot to be boss?

Medrash Talpiot (Os Ches - Anaf Chasan v’Kallah page 272): In the sefer Chesed l’Avaraham (4:48) it says that it is is not proper to place the female to the right of her husband but she should be placed on his left. In contrast when the kallah stands under the chupah at the time when the seven berachos are recited is required for her to stand to the right of the chasan... The reason for this is a major secret and remedy. If the chasan is careful to put his right foot on the kallah’s left foot at the time of seven berachos, it will give him the power to rule over her all of his days and she will be subservient to him and obey everything he says. However if the kallah is careful and places her left foot on chasan’s right foot then she will rule over him all of her days.

Shulchan HaEzer (Vol 2 Simon 8:24 page 50a): Another explanation for the breaking of the glass with the right foot is based on the Medrash Talpiot that if the Chasan is careful to place his right foot on the left foot of the kallah during the reciting of the 7 Berachos then it is a remedy to ensure that he rules over her all his life and she will obey him in all matters. And if he doesn’t succeed the opposite can happen that she will rule over him for all his life. And it has been suggested that this remedy be done away with. Therefore in order to avoid this and that neither the chasan or kallah should rule over the other the chasan was distracted with the breaking of the glass and consequently will not get involved in trying to step on his kallah’s foot. However look at the Segulos Yisroel (8:27), that some say that this remedy should be done after the chupah when he has gone to live with his kallah’s family that he should do this remedy and it works.

Rav Sternbuch:Forcing Husband to divorce Wife

This should be read together with these other teshuvos of Rav Sternbuch

Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (1:389): Question: A woman has suffered for a number of years from her husband who refuses to divorce her - how can he be forced to give a get?  

Answer: It is an established halacha that if the wife refuses to live with her husband because she claims he is disgusting to her (ma'os alei) that it is impossible to force him to divorce her. This is explicitly stated by the Rema (E.H. 77:3). And even if it has been a number of years that they have separated and he is being spiteful and cruel in refusing to divorce her it is clearly stated by the Teshuvos haRosh (43:6) that if we force him to give the get there is the concern that it is a get me'usa and therefore invalid and it only serves to increase mamzerim. However while it is stated in the Rema (E.H. 154:21) that nidoi (cherem) is considered force and is prohibited, nevertheless he says it is permitted to decree that no Jew should do him a favor or should do business with him or even to circumcize his sons or to bury them - until he divorces his wife. But the Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 154:30) says there these shunnings (harhakos) are equivalent to nidoi (cherem) and are not permitted to be imposed today and the only recourse is to tell him that it is permitted to call him a sinner  and he says it is best to be strict according to this opinion. This is agreed to by the Chazon Ish (E.H. 105:12). He concludes in the name of the Rashba that it is not permitted to humiliate the husband or to torment him - examine this well.

However it appears that what is prohibited is to humiliate him and to shun him in a manner similar to cherem - i.e, not to do business with him and not to do him a favor - and that is not done today. (Chazon Ish understands the Pischei Teshuva differently). But when he is not actively humiliated but that he is only not given honors for example he is notified that he will not receive an aliyah in his shul or any other shul and that he will not be allowed to be the shliach tzibor - then this is not like cherem at all even though it causes some humiliation. The only pressure permitted is that he should know that the community does not approve of his conduct of being cruel to his wife - but this is not called force at all.

I recall witnessing an incident involving Rav Yechiel Weinberg (Seridei Aish) concerning a husband who spitefully refused to divorce his wife after a number of years and he directed that it be known and publicized that this husband was not to get an aliya in the shul. That is in accord with what I have written that this type of pressure is not called force. It is also done here in Yerushalayim to publicize notices in the street that a particular person is a sinner and has made his wife an aguna. In my opinion 1) if she has solid justification for her desire to be divorced then it would be possible and appropriate to force him  actively with humiliations to give her a get. We learn from Kesubos (71a) if it is clear that he hates her then he is obligated to divorce her. 2) On the other hand if there is no apparent reason for her being repelled by him we can distance him.  I am inclined to permit humiliation in such cases but it is necessary for beis din first to be very careful and thorough in evaluating the situation as to whether it is appropriate. Similarly one should not spare any efforts to encourage that she live with him when she requests a divorce and there is no clear reason except she says she doesn't like him. 3) But if there is a clear reason - then even if we don't force him with a beating we are accustomed to be lenient to pressure him with notices  in shuls as I mentioned above.

This that the wife creates pressure with the claim that he is tormenting her and she can not stand the situation any more and that she is ready to go to "rabbis" who are lenient in divorce - that is still not justification for us to make rulings against the Torah. The ways of G-d are hidden and some suffer physically while other suffering financially and some suffer in their marriage. We need to hope to G-d that the end of suffering has arrived and that he will divorce her. On the other hand, to force him with high payments for food or to humiliate him when it is not permitted - it doesn't help because this pressure only produces a get me'usa - G-d forbid - which has no validity. But concerning cruelty and spite which is characteristic of Sedom - only Heaven can punish him.

Igros Moshe: Reading medical texts regarding sex

Igros Moshe(E.H. 1:102): Question: Prior to the wedding is it appropriate prior to read medical books regarding the topic of sexual relations in order to know how to provide pleasure for the woman - in order that there be domestic tranquility (shalom bayis). Answer: On the last few days prior to the wedding, the chasan is normally preoccupied with thoughts of sexuality as we know that the first night after the wedding that this preoccupation is considered preoccupation with a mitzva and he is exempt from saying Shema as is explicitly stated in the gemora.... However prior to this period of just before the wedding, it is not appropriate since there is the concern that reading this material would arouse sexual fantasies (hirhur) and causes zera l’vatala. The only exception would be for a person who is certain that this would not happen. However who today can be so sure of himself

Rav Sternbuch: Calling police for Jewish owned house of prostitution

This tshuva has a clear relationship to calling police for a sexual predator

Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (2:727): Question: A Jew is running a house of prostitution in the community, is it permitted to report him to the police?

Answer: It seems obvious that that if the reporting to the police closes the operation, then not only is it permitted to report it but it is a mitzva to do so for two reasons. 1) He is considered a rodef (pursuer) after illegal sexual activity (ervah). Just as with someone who is trying to kill another or even one who only causes another to die - he has the status of rodef. Here also he is considered a rodef after prohibited sexual activity (giloi arayos). Furthermore since many transgress prohibited activities because of him it is also beneficial to the community (migder milsa) to inform on him so that the receive a severe punishment. Thus it is permitted to inform on him ןif he is causing adultery and he will be imprisoned so he will no longer be able to do evil anymore.

However if reporting him does not stop his activities then it requires further analysis to determine if it is permitted to permit the very serious prohibition of mesira (informing) - even against such a evil person.

Nevertheless if at the time he is in jail the house of prostitution is closed down or its activities stopped or even if they are merely reduced - it would appear there is no problem at all to report him. This is true even if reporting him causes him to receive a long prison term -  since today imprisonment is not considered life threatening. Therefore it is obligated to call the police.

Look at the Taz (Y.D. 157:8) who says a counterfeiter has the status of rodef because he is endangering the community and this applies to any other bad activities which are done on purpose. So surely in our case where he is endangering people's spiritual welfare. However it appears that even the psak of the Taz only applies if the reporting actually brings about an improvement. However if someone else will replace him and thus the activity is not stopped - he can not be reported for nothing as is explained in Gittin (7a) that even bad people are not to be reported to the government if it doesn't improve the situation.

This that you claim that only the house of prostitution is only for goyim. First of all it is also prohibited for us to cause goyim to commit adultery and to assist them to sin in this manner. He is also endangering the Jewish people because this is against the secular law. Furthermore it is a incredibly bad chillul haShem.  In addition who is determining and guarantying that only goyim enter? Therefore it is obvious that this claim is not valid.

If it is possible to warn him in a manner which doesn't endanger the person issuing the warning then it is definitely obligated to warn him first. However if it is impossible because of the possibility of being harmed - then he is to be reported to the police without warning in order to stop the immorality and the chilul hashem according to the ruling of the Taz cited above.

A misbehaving woman is ugly: Beauty only to serve G-d

Rav Yaakov Emden(Avos 6:2): The verse (Mishlei 11:22) a beautiful woman who misbehaves is like a gold ring in the nose of a pig. The explanation of this verse is that Shlomo saw with his wisdom the lust that men had for women. Their love blinded them from seeing the disgusting aspects of women. This is stated in Shabbos (152a): A woman is like a pitcher of filth and her mouth is full of blood and yet everyone runs after her. If you would reveal to them her blemishes they would not pay attention. Thus Shlomo used a parable that was obvious and known to all and applied it to a woman. Thus it means that even though a ring is something very valuable – the pig itself is not beautiful. It is clearly disgusting to everyone and therefore even with the beauty of the ring – the pig itself is not innately attractive. This is the point of comparison to a woman. Thus when the external reasons for the attractiveness of women are removed – she herself is compared to a pig. A person should not be seduced by the form and beauty of a person since it is superficial. Thus a person who is perceived of as beautiful – the beauty is only to serve G‑d. If he doesn’t act in this manner, he destroys the godly image. Thus we see about the wicked Haman (Esther 7), And the face of Haman was covered. That is because he angered G‑d. The consequence for one who has caused anger and is reprimanded is to be degraded, embarrassed and to have his face concealed.

Rachel showed modesty by betraying Yaakov?

This description is also found at Megilla (13b). How is the betrayal of her husband as well as causing him great embarrassment and to violate halacha (since he was having relations withone woman while he had his mind on another one) - considered praiseworthy and why is it labeled as tznius (modesty)?

Bava Basra(123a):... Wherein did Rachel's modesty lie? It is written, And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother and that he was Rebecca's son. Was he not the son of her father's sister? But he said to her,[Will] you marry me? [And] she replied to him, Yes, but father is a sharper, and you will not he able [to hold your own against] him Wherein, he asked her, does his sharp dealing lie? I have, she said, a sister who is older than I, and he will not allow me to be married before her. I am his brother he said to her, in sharp dealing. But she said to him, may the righteous indulge in sharp dealing? [he replied]. With the pure, [Scripture says], Thou dost show thyself pure, and with the crooked Thou dost show thyself subtle.[Thereupon] he entrusted her [with certain identification] marks. While Leah was being led into [the bridal chamber] she thought, my sister will now be disgraced [and so] she entrusted her [with] these very [marks]. And this accounts for the Scriptural text, And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah, which seems to imply that until then she was not Leah! But, [this is the explanation]: On account of the [identification] marks which Jacob had entrusted to Rachel who had entrusted them to Leah, he knew not [who] she [was] until that moment.

Kidush HaShem:Mesiras nefesh which ignores consequences?

This is a continuation of the post regarding Berachos (20a). The Shaloh seems to be rejecting the premise of the gemora that one should act quickly with mesiras nefesh and not worry about the consequences and as a result you will have your prayers answered. The Shaloh criticizes Rav Ada for not thinking the matter over carefully before he acted. On the other hand the Yaavetz & Ben Yohoyada praise self sacrifice for kiddush haShem without concern for the negative consequences. In other words the Shaloh possibly doesn't view it as a kiddush hashem if it results in a major mistake while the Yaavetz & Ben Yohoyada assert that the "damn the torpedoes" approach is viewed by all as a kiddush haShem. This debate seems to anticipate the debate in the religious community of acts of kana'os (zealotry) whether they are praiseworthy because of their motivation to improve religious observance or whether they are perceived as a disaster because of the insensitivity displayed and the negative view of religion created. This also seems related to this issue of yashrus - in particular the Netziv's criticism of the tzadikim in the Second Temple who ignored the negative consequences of their piety.

Shaloh (Sha’ar HaOsiyos Mem Masun patience 3-4): 3) Dovid (Tehilim 119:59) said, “I have evaluated my path and I have returned my feet to Your testimonies.” Dovid was saying, Every path that I wish to travel and everything which I wish to do, I first evaluate it prior to doing it. It is good and upright in G‑d’s eyes and that of mankind than I do it or go in that path. On the other hand if it appears to me that the path is not good than I leave it for another - because in everything there are alternatives. In this manner I always turn my feet to Your testimonies. Therefore a person should always attach himself to this approach and it should become second nature to him. He should not do anything in the world – whether great or small or any word at all and even if he hears insults - until he has thought clearly about the matter and decided what is the best course of action. And he should remember G‑d and His holy Torah and keep that in front of his eyes and then he will be secure in his path and will not stumble. 4) This applies not only concerning issues left to personal discretion but even concerning mitzvos. He should do them deliberately and with care. For example the incident recorded in Berachos (20a) where Rav Ada was punished 400 zuz. He said to the woman he embarrassed by acting hastily, “Masun masun is equal to 400 zuz.” This was concerning a matter of mitzva and kiddush haShem in which Rav Ada tore a cape from a woman who was wearing it in the market thinking she was Jewish. Even though it says that a diligent person does mitzvos as soon as possible and it is necessary to be swift – that is only regarding mitzvos which are well known and understood thoroughly such as going to the synagogue or yeshiva and fulfilling all the mitzvos involving deeds mentioned in the Torah. However those things which require thought and understanding – such as a person who is planning to distribute a purse full of money to the poor and he meet a group of poor people – he should not be hasty. He first needs to ascertain which of the poor are more deserving than others. The same is true of many other things. And surely this deliberation is necessary in matters left to personal discretion. Nothing should be done or any words said until he has thought carefully about the matter. These considerations apply infinitely more so to a deed or word concerning a prohibition such as hitting or disputes etc. He needs to be deliberate and patient and review the matter from all sides. Only then will he have peace and tranquility and quiet all of his days from troubles and in addition he will find have grace intelligence in the eyes of G‑d and man.

 ===============

Ben Yohayada (Berachos 20a): Rav Ada bar Ahava thought the woman was Jewish. The question arises as to why he decided to be moser nefesh since he thought she was Jewish? It appears to me that even though he thought she was Jewish, he hadn’t conclusive evidence and he was aware of the slight possibility that she was not Jewish. Nevertheless he acted based on the following reasoning. If in fact she was Jewish he did the right thing by removing the red cape. And even if she was not Jewish - and as a result of his action he would have to pay money or even endanger his life from physical punishment if she was a member of the ruling class - he would still benefit from the fact that he was doing a kiddush haShem by this act. That is because those who heard about what he did would say how careful the Jews are to observe their mitzvos that this Torah scholar was so zealous for the sake of G‑d to the point of endangering his life and didn’t worry that perhaps the woman was not Jewish and that she might be a member of the ruling class that would result in a very severe punishment. Thus we learn from this to be moser nefesh for kiddush haShem.

Yaavetz(Migdal Oz – Even Bochen 21): There is another type of kiddush haShem and that is to place oneself in danger in order to establish proper Jewish observance and to attack sinners. For example Pinchas and Rav Ada bar Ahava mentioned in Berachos (20a), “Why did miracles happen to earlier generations? Because they gave themselves completely for kiddush haShem.” Included in this is for a person to tell the people what is the correct and good path to follow and not to be concerned about himself or his money. His only consideration should be to improve his fellow man and to honor G‑d. There is no greater kiddush haShem than this.

Chazon Ish: True moderation can only be achieved as failure to achieve perfection

Chazon Ish(Letters 3:61): Just as the unvarnished facts and truth are synonymous so are uncompromising perfectionism and greatness. Perfectionism means to develop something to the ultimate degree. One who advocates moderation and despises perfectionism, his lot is with the frauds or with those lacking understanding. Without perfectionism, there can be no completion and if there is no perfection, there is no beginning. The beginning is with constant questions and replies. The perfecter is the brilliant respondent who orders everything in its rightful place. We regularly hear announcements from well‑known groups that they have nothing to do with uncompromising perfectionists. They nevertheless describe themselves as being the true Jews with appropriate faith to Torah. We simply note, however, that just as there is no such thing amongst lovers of wisdom as love for minimum knowledge and hate for the very wise there is similarly no such thing as loving Torah and mitzvos moderately and hating the uncompromising perfectionists. All the foundations of emuna, the 13 principles and their derivatives, are inherently incompatible with the lightweight wisdom and superficial life that exists in this world. In contrast clear recognition, energetic involvement; high precision in emuna is the hallmark of the perfectionist. Those who proudly testify on themselves that they have not tasted the sweetness of uncompromising perfection are simultaneously testifying that they are missing emuna in the foundation of religion both intellectually and emotionally. Their attachment is only lukewarm. The perfectionists, who despite their genuine wish to have pity on these doctrinaire moderates, do not honor and respect their opponents. The yawning abyss that separates them is naturally only widened as the result of the disputes that occur when they interact with each other. The only true moderation that can exist is that which results naturally to those who love the perfection and strive towards it and educate their children to strive for the peak. In contrast how unfortunate are those “moderates” who cast aspersions on the perfectionists. The obligation of our education is to perfection. The only genuine protection of the educational system is to be contemptuous and to ridicule those who denigrate perfection. However given the burning spirit of youth it is not appropriate to strongly condemn specific individuals amongst the unfortunates. Instead, the youth should be developed to have true love of Torah that requires personal effort and heavenly pleasantness and they should not have obstacles placed on this road. Those schools that are labeled as moderate schools, they are not successful because of the fraud that is inherent in moderation…

במשך שנים: המלמד ב'חיידר' חשוד שפגע בתלמידיו

 https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1579552

ה'רבה', המתגורר בשכונת נווה יעקב בבירה, חשוד כי פגע בחומרה בכמה מתלמידיו במשך מספר שנים | חלק מהתלונות מדברות על תקיפות חמורות גם בתקופה האחרונה | בית המשפט האריך את מעצרו