Rav Sternbuch: Destroying Television to Stop Sin?

Rav Sternbuch (1:368):Question: A baal teshuva, when visiting his parents who have a television, damages it in order that the family members will not watch it. Is it permitted for him to damage so? Answer: The prohibition of watching television is very serious and it is an aspect of sexual immorality. That is because as the result of watching this impure device it increases his attraction to sexual sins. Therefore it is definitely necessary to stop a person from watching television in various ways. It is literally a psik reisha ( a direct cause of sinning) for someone who lives in a house with a television which degrades those who watch it. However there is a dispute between the Ketzos and the Nesivos (C.M. 3) whether the ability to force someone to do keep a mitzva is uniquely permitted to beis din or whether every single person is allowed to force others to keep mitzvos. According to the Ketzos it is only permitted for beis din while the Nesivos says that every person has a mitzva to prevent others from sinning.... Accordingly the Nesivos would permit in our case to carry out whatever activity is needed to stop television watching. In contrast the Ketzos says that only beis din has the power to decide and therefore the individual can not act on his own initiative to harm another’s property. However it would seem that those poskim who require permission from beis din are correct. We also see from the Yereim (#278) that coercing that might involve death is considered a knas which can not be done by the layman but requires mumchin (expert judges) in Israel. See also Minchas Chinuch (Parashas Bo). And even if the actual halacha was that each individual has to obligation to force mitzva observance, it would appear that we shouldn’t have a system of anarchy where one person can decide to harm to property of another. Therefore even if it were allowed – it is necessary to consult with a beis din before doing anything. That is because pragmatically there are times that this vigilante action against another’s property will cause the other person to be turned off by Judaism rather than making him more observant. Thus no one should take the property of others with the claim that they were only doing it for the sake of Heaven in order to stop him from sin. Furthermore it could be that the halacha only would permit taking another’s property when the sin is a monetary one. However in this case where the obligation is to prevent him from doing a sin, it is not relevant for an individual to force compliance by taking another’s property. However in our case property is not being taken to force him to behave. Rather the question is whether to destroy an impure device which causes spiritual harm and encourages transgressing severe sins. Thus it seems we are only destroying evil. Support for this view is found in Berachos (20a) which says there was the case of a certain pious individual who ripped off an immodest red garment from a woman that was worth 400 zuz. It seem from the gemora that such an action of stopping immorality is proper in a case of chilul haShem– even though it caused the pious person to have to repay the 400 zuz. So surely in the case of the television which causes much greater impurity. Similarly we see that Rachel stole her father’s idols to stop him from involvement with idolatry as Rashi (Bereishis 31:19) explained.

However despite these apparent proofs that an individual can act on his own initiative, I feel that every such action requires a consultation with a rav. We see clearly in the above gemora, that the pious person indicated that he should have been more patient and not have been so hasty to rip the garment. Also we see that Yaakov did not approve of this theft which Rachel kept concealed from him and in fact he cursed the person who stole the idols – and she died from the curse. (We see that sometimes a pious act causes much more spiritual harm then if no action were taken. And that instead of glorifying G‑d – the reverse happens as is known from many incidents.). It could also be that in our case it is not the appropriate time to stop them from watching television and an act that is premature can cause much harm. Thus even if the act itself is permitted it might be at the wrong time. Therefore the act can not be done in isolation of context and it is necessary to get permission with a wise person as to what is appropriate and to follow his words. It is also a good idea to speak with the parents and to try to explain to them that television causes much harm. And so even if they enjoy it for the moment – it will eventually cause severe harm to the entire family. In fact there is nothing comparable to its harmfulness. In conclusion, concerning damaging or destroying the television, even if he is willing to pay for it, it is best if he asks a posek before he does anything. One who acts according to the rabbis will always merit success.

קצות החושן (סימן ג ס"ק א):  ואפילו לפי מ"ש הרמב"ן בחידושיו סוף ב"ב (קעה, ב ד"ה הא דאמר רבה) דגם למ"ד שעבודא לאו דאורייתא יורדין לנכסיו, טעמא דידיה לפי דהב"ד רשאין לכוף אותו בכל מילי דכפיה לקיים מצוותו ולהכי נמי יורדין לנכסיו משום כפיה והיינו כפייה דידיה לקיים המצוה בעל כרחו, וא"כ כיון דאינו אלא מתורת כפיה דהא הנכסים אינם משועבדים וא"כ מוכח דשליחותייהו דקמאי קא עבדינן.

נתיבות המשפט (ביאורים סימן ג ס"ק א ): גם מה שכתב [בסק"א] דאי שעבודא לאו דאורייתא והבית דין כופין בעי בי"ד [מומחין] דוקא לכפותו דהדיוטות לאו בני עישוי נינהו. נראה לפענ"ד דליתא, דכיון דדמי לעשה סוכה ואינו עושה דכופין אותו לקיים המצוה, כל אדם מצווה להפריש חבירו מאיסור אפילו מי שאינו בכלל בית דין, כדמוכח בב"ק כ"ח [ע"א] גבי נרצע שכלו ימיו, דיכול רבו להכותו כדי להפרישו מאיסור שפחה, ע"ש. ואי בעינן בגמר דין ג' והיינו לומר פלוני זכאי, יבואר אי"ה בסימן ה' [סק"ב].

Women reach perfection only through men

Rav Tzadok(Dover Tzedek page 41): Berachos (17a) asks, What is the merit that women have – to achieve the World to Come? [Concerning the pshat see Sotah 21a] The reason that this is a question is that women don’t have a mechanism for self-perfection as men do with Torah study. The gemora replies that their merit comes from assisting their husband and children in learning Torah... In other words their perfection is not acquired directly but only through their husbands and children. The husband is oblgated to provide her food, clothing and sexual relations while the son is obligated to honor her and fear her as is said in Kesubos (64a), A woman asks for a staff in her hand (son to support her) while alive and a spade for her burial. In other words her faults and imperfections are completed by the actions of others. Thus she draws perfection from them and her defining nature is being controlled or taken care of by others.

That is why the Torah says your husband “will control you.” In contrast the woman is described in Kiddushin (30b), That she is in the domain of others and she has no control or any power and that is why whatever she acquires is automatically acquired by her husband. In fact the only genuine power she has is that her husband is obligated to her in order that he provide what she lacks and this is also true for the son as we mentioned before.
========================
Pnei Yehoshua(Berachos 17a): Greater is the promise that G‑d made to women then to men...Rav asked R’ Chiya, “How do women merit getting the World to Come? By making their children go to synagogue...” It would seem that there is problem here. What was Rav’s original problem that cause him to ask, “Why do women merit the World to Come? Isn’t it obvious since they are commanded to observe all the negative commandments like men as well as all positive commandments which are not time bound – so why was it necessary to answer that it is because they take their children to synagogue to read...? Furthermore it seems Rav not only asked the question but he also answered it the gemora doesn’t say that R’ Chiya replied to Rav that it was because they take their children to synagogue. It would also seem reasonable that the opening statement of “Greater is the promise” was also said by Rav himself since this was something he frequently said. Thus all these statements all go back to a single source – Rav – according to what I explained. The message is that it is necessary for everyone to purify 248 limbs and 365 sinews in this world by means of observe the 248 positive commandments and the 365 negative commandments. This is a prerequisite if a person wants to enjoy being in the Divine presence as I have already explained. Consequently this would only be relevant for men since they fulfill all 248 positive commandments while women are missing the time bound mitzvos which they are exempt. Thus those limbs which are not purified by obligatory mitzvos are not purified and remained damaged and thus can not benefit from the Divine presence. Despite this Rav concluded from the verse that despite this lack of purification the promise that G‑d gave to women was greater. Therefore Rav was not asking a question of R’ Chisda but in fact was explaining the meaning of the verse. He was telling R’ Chisda that reason that they have a greater promise is because they cause their children and husband to learn Torah.  Thus his explanation is that since they are aiding their husbands and children to learn Tporah and keep and do all the 613 mitzvos – they receive reward even for those mitzvos that they themselves are not commanded to keep. Similarly for Torah study – even though they are not commanded to study and the reward of Torah is equal to the rest – nevetheless the women do in fact receive reward for all mitzvos. We find such an explanation by R’ Eliezar ben Azariah in Chagiga (3a) by Hakeil – Why are children brought – to give reward to those who bring them. That is also the explanation here in in resolving the difficulties in this aggada.

How a Rav determines abuse Allegations are False

While the Aguda had been very emphatic that a rabbi needs to be consulted before going to the police - the question is why? It isn't likely to be a determination of guilt or innocence since the rabbi typically will not be convening a beis din. An alternative justification is that there is a need for an objective voice to establish whether the evidence rises to a certain level of credibility known as "raglayim l'davar".   Most of you are aware that rabbinical training provides no special skills in investigation of crimes or evaluation of psychological states or crimes which are manifestations of a sick mind. In short, he has no forensic training and no psychological training. Thus there is a distinct possibility that the rabbi will not understand the seriousness of the matter. As a minimum a rabbi needs to have mental health and legal professionals available to consult in these types of cases.

An example of why a rabbi untrained in mental health or forensic issues is not the one to consult - no matter how knowledgeable in halacha -   is the following composite of incidents that I have heard directly or were reported to me by involved parties. There is no exaggeration for dramatic effect - this is typically how these cases are described.

I met a prominent rav at a bris. In the course of talking he mentioned that he was on his way to a meeting regarding a false accusation by a wife against her husband. She was claiming that her husband had been sexually abusing their 12 year old daughter for 2 years.  I asked the rav on what basis had he had already decided that the allegations were false and that the wife was lying? In general I told him I would like to know the criteria he used for evaluating these type of cases.

He answered in a slightly condescending tone that it was obvious that the allegations were not true. 1) First of all he said that he personally knew the man and he was very midakdek in mitzvos and a tremendous talmid chachom who had learned in kollel for 20 years.  It was inconceivable that such a tzadik would do something so clearly in violations of the Torah. 2) He said that the circumstances themselves were clearly a basis to question the validity of her claim. The wife said that this wasn't a new behavior but in fact she was aware of his abusing their daughter for two years and she said she had been trying to get him to stop by threatening to expose him. The Rabbi asked me, "What normal wife would wait two years to report such disgusting behavior if it were true?" 3) He said that recently the wife had requested a Get This is also proof that the charges are not valid because everyone knows that women make up abuse charges as leverage to obtain a get 4). The agreement of the daughter with the her mother that her father was abusing her - also proved that the charges were false. Everyone knows that the daughter has been acting strangely for the last two years and obviously suffers from depression or some other mental health problem. She obviously also is supporting these charges because her father has been very strict with her level of tznius now that she is getting more mature - and has embarrassed her a number of time regarding this in front of her friends. 5) Finally the rav said the biggest proof that the charges were false were the charges themselves. He said such a horrendous charge can not be accepted as valid. He said, "We all know that there are sick individuals who prey on strange kids. But in this case a normal father was being charged with raping his own daughter. That is just too incredible - there is just no way that a father who is a ben Torah could do such a thing to his own daughter!"

Saving kids: Lashon harah is "high price to pay"?!

The following is an excerpt from an interview Mishpacha [May 2012] recently conducted with Rabbi Zweibel executive vice president of the Aguda. The man who actually runs the Aguda. It shows a good man with true generosity of spirit. An intelligent and idealistic man who has  devoted his life to help the Jewish people by working with gedolei Yisroel. A humble man who cares deeply about others.

Unfortunately what he says is one of the most incredible and disgusting perversions of Yiddishkeit that I have ever read. It shows not the slightest awareness of the halachic issues or the horrible consequences of abuse. He is totally clueless as to what a chilul hashem his words are as well lacking any understanding of why the Aguda's handling of this issue - including the actions of their gedolim - is so incredibly shameful. And despite the egregious errors of judgment that he unwitting reveals about the Aguda's gedolim he concludes "that the process of decision-making through the Moetzes is as close to perfect as can be."

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

Rabbi Zwiebel speaks with his characteristic softness, but there is fire in his eyes. "Look, I don't write off the bloggers as leitzanim and reshaim, because they will be judged, as we all will, after 120 years for their motivations and techniques. I'm not a condemner, by nature. "I do believe that among them there are people who are deeply pained about certain issues and feel that this is the way they can express their pain. I will even go a step further and say that through the pressure they've created, communal issues that needed to be confronted were moved to the front burner and taken seriously. A case in point is abuse and molestation issues. The question is, if the fact that they've created some degree of change is worth the cost. At the very least, it's rechilus, lashon hara, and bittulzman. That's a high price to pay. "Then there is the damage wrought to the hierarchy of Klal Yisrael. We've always been a talmid chacham-centered nation, and it's dangerous to ruin the fabric of Klal Yisrael by denigrating the ideal of daas Torah and by allowing personal attacks on gedolei Torah." What about personal attacks against Rabbi Zwiebel himself? He shrugs. "Rabbi Sherer used to say that a nail that sticks out of the wall gets hammered. When you're in the public eye, criticism is inevitable. It's not pleasant, but it comes with the territory." He readily concedes that Agudah hasn't done a great job of spreading its message. "It's part of our mandate to communicate the perspective of gedolim on contemporary issues, and we are aware that we have been handicapped since the Jewish Observer closed down. We take the challenge seriously, and are constantly working on improving our communications." Reb Chaim Dovid believes that the process of decision-making through the Moetzes is as close to perfect as can be. "It's a homogeneous group of the most intelligent, empathetic individuals — all great talmidei chachamim — and they grasp all aspects of an issue right away."   

Original sin was to think woman equal to man - Chasam Sofer

Chasam Sofer (Bereishis 3:17): In Pesachim (118a), When G‑d told Adam that thorns and brambles will grow for you – his eyes welled up in tears and he said – I and my donkey will now eat from the same trough. When He said to him that with the sweat of your your brow...he regained his composure. Why did G‑d change what he had originally told Adam due to his difficulty that “I and my donkey...?” Furthermore if it were in fact a just consequence that he and his donkey should eat from the same trough - then of necessity he should simply accept his punishment. A possible explanation is to notice why there were differences in the punishment of the Snake, the Eve and the Adam. It is clear that the punishment of the snake very precisely matched the crime. For example corresponding to this that he sinned with limbs to push Eve into the Tree – the Snake permanently lost its arms and legs. Corresponding to what the Serpent sinned in speech by slandering G‑d saying “G‑d knows....” he was told that his punishment for the lashon harah would be that his food would now be dirt. And this that he sinned in thought – that he thought he would marry Eve – therefore as punishment hatred was placed between the Snake and Eve – the opposite of love. In contrast the punishment of Adam and Eve requires a bit of explanation as to how it fit the crime. First let me present what a major talmid chachom asked me. Why did G‑d add a punishment to Adam more than what was already announced that , “For in the day that you eat from it you will surely die... Why were additional cursed added? It seems to me that if he had simply eaten the fruit on his own - without the advise of his wife – it would have been sufficient if he had received the original punishment. However now he received a greater punishment - because he had followed his wife’s advice which in itself was a great sin. This is the reason that G‑d said, “Because you listened to the voice of your wife...” (Bereishis 3:17). The reason that this was a great sin was that G‑d created the woman to serve the man so that he would be free to serve G‑d. Consequently it was not correct that the master should follow after the advice of his servant and attendant. This is what Chazal say (Yevamos 63a) that she was created to lighten his eyes with services. Chazal say there that she turns flax into clothing and grinds the wheat... However it could be that Adam and Eve thought she was created to have children or to guard him from the yetzer harah. If so - they would be equal - rather than one being subordinate. In fact that was the understanding of Adam when he replied to G‑d, “The woman which you gave with me ( i.e., she is my equal ) and therefore I listened to her voice.” G‑d showed them that they were wrong. If in fact according to them the most important issue was to have children – then why did only the man have a mitzva to have children and not the woman? Therefore He cursed her that she would have suffering in giving birth. It is well known that there is not a single mitzva that is performed by the slightest suffering since it says, “Your ways are paths of pleasantness” (Sukkah 32a). Consequently the man was the only who had the mitzva to have children and was not cursed at all in regard to anything connected with the birth process. In contrast she was cursed regarding giving birth to teach clearly that she did not have a mitzva to give birth. In regard to the fact that she thought that she had been created to guard against the yetzer harah, G‑d showed her that even if it were true, nevertheless she was commanded to guard Adam from the yetzer harah and not Adam to guard her. The verse says, And to your husband will be your desire and he will rule over you. Rashi explains that she was embarrassed to ask for sexual intercourse while he was not. Consequently we see a major disparity between them in that he was protected by her but she was not protected by him. Nevertheless man was cursed also in this because G‑d that it would be good for her that the man would dwell in tranquility and study the service of G‑d and she would exert herself in all manner of work. However man had a different understanding. He thought that the woman which G‑d gave him was to be equal with him and therefore there would be no respite from the struggle of “the sweat of your brow you will eat bread.” With this introduction let us return to what we started with. That was Adam had the claim that even though he acknowledged that Eve was created to serve him – nevertheless he claimed she was not inferior to him. Rather he assumed that in the dimension of serving G‑d that the servant is also important and not inferior. Thus he thought that between the both of them they would produce praise for G‑d. That is why G‑d said that thorns and thistles will grow for you. When Adam heard that he cried that was he the equal of his donkey - as Chazal say at the end of Kiddushin that the donkey was created to serve man. G‑d told him now that the servant is in fact inferior to the master so how could he have equated < the woman to himself? G‑d said, “Since you have declared that she was not created to serve you but rather you are equal to her - therefore you are condemed to eat by the sweat of your brow.

Torah is the word of G-d - no need to apologize

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Judaism Eternal vol 2 page 216): Let us not deceive ourselves. The whole question is simply this. Is the statement, “ And G‑d spoke to Moses saying,” with which all the laws of the Jewish Bible commence, true or not true? Do we truly believe that G‑d, the Omnipotent and Holy, spoke thus to Moses? Do we speak the truth when in front of our brethren we lay our hand on the scroll containing these words and say that G‑d has given us this Torah, that His Torah, the Torah of truth and with it  eternal life is planted in our midst? If this is to be no mere lip service, no mere rhetorical flourish, then we must keep and carry out this Torah without omission and without carping, in all circumstances and at all times. This word of G‑d must be our eternal rule superior to all human judgment, the rule to which all our actions must at all times conform; and instead of complaining that it is no longer suitable to the times, our only complaint must be that the times are no longer suitable to it. And if, again, in carrying out this word of G‑d we choose to follow the teachings and instructions that have come down to us from the Rabbis, we can and must do this only if and because we recognize in them the same divine origin as in the written word of G‑d. They have been handed down to us by previous generations with the same guarantee, as a tradition transmitted from G‑d, from the same omnipotent and holy G‑d, to Moses, and from Moses orally through every succeeding generation for the purpose of regulating the practical observance of the word of G‑d. This tradition again is nothing more than tradition, than the orally transmitted word of G‑d, as Rabbinic Judaism has taught throughout the centuries of its history. But if this tradition is no tradition, if it is only a pious mask under which a priestly caste has imposed its views on the people as the orally transmitted word of G‑d, if the fathers have with it deceived their sons and grandsons, they have let them live and suffer, endure and die, for a fraud and an illusion, and if it is permissible to us also to be each one his own oracle and to remodel Biblical law according to his own views and opinions, then it can and ought to be no longer the word of G‑d; then G‑d did not speak to Moses; then we have not the word of G‑d in our possession; then we, and with us the whole of mankind whose hopes of salvation are rooted in this word are all deceived and deceivers, and it is time to shake off openly the whole miserable encumbrance. This is the alternative; there is no other course open. If Judaism has been established by G‑d then it is destined to teach the age, but not to let itself be taught by the age.

---

Good wife views her husband as her master - Menoras HaMe'or

I am not posting these as extreme curiosities - they are normative descriptions in the rabbinic literature - including contempory authorities. If anyone has sources that say otherwise - please let me know.

Menoras Hame’or(2:176): [© Translation by Daniel Eidensohn] Even though the woman is the mate of the man – she should not view her husband as an equal but rather as her master as it says in Tehilim (45:12), Because he is your master and you should bow down to him. And the woman should love her husband and he rules over her as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you. And if you view him as your master he will love you and you will be in his eyes as a sister as we see that Sarah refered to Avraham as master (Bereishis 18:12) and if you minimize talking to what is necessary then you will be even more beloved to your husband. And if you speak before him with grace and humility and if your eyes are attentive to him in the manner that a servant is attentive to her mistress – then you will be greatly valued and honored in his eyes. It relates in a Medrash that a certain Sage told his daughter when she was being taken her husband’s house, “My daughter, stand before him as you would before the king and serve him. And if you should act as a mother to him, he will be to you as a servant and will honor you as a privileged lady. However if you dominate him, he will be forced to act as your master and then you will be degraded in his eyes like a common servant. Embellish and praise him amongst his friends. And if guests come to him, whether relatives or friends – welcome them graciously and offer them generously in order to honor you husband in their eyes. Take good care of his house and all that he has and in this way you will find favor in his eyes and you will be the crown of your husband. Thus it says in Misheli(12:4), A virtuous wife is a crown to her husband.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:20): And thus our Sages have commanded that the woman honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king. She should orient her activities according to that which he desires and stay away from that which he hates. This is the manner of the daughters of Israel and the children of Israel who are holy and pure in their marriages. In this way the community will be pleasant and praiseworthy.

Yeshiva is artificial institution - Rav Hutner (translated)

originally published May 18, 2012

Click here for Yiddish - © Translation by Daniel Eidensohn

Yeshiva represents a failure of ideal state of father to son Torah teaching. Discusses two aspects of Matan Torah - 1) Father to son 2) Direct from G-d

  Rav Yitzchok Hutner from Pachad Yitzchok - Shavuos

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.