Judge M. Elon: Harchakos are passive sanctions

Justice Menachem Elon (Status of Women page 349): The parameters of the harchokos of Rabbeinu Tam are accurately described by Ariel Rozen-Tzvi: “The sanction of harchokos - whose source is in the teshuvos of Rabbeinu Tam – is separation, distancing and withholding. In other words, they are passive activities involving not doing something (shev v’ahl ta’aseh). In contrast kefiya (force) and also nidoi (shunning) require active steps. According to Rabbeinu Tam the harchokos are not considered force. Rabbeinu Tam chose an indirect path in circumstances where beis din preferred to avoid force. The harchokos are a withholding of the benefits of society. It is directed to the actions of the community and not the husband. Many other poskim followed in the footsteps of Rabbeinu Tam. However there were other poskim who viewed the haricots as also a type of force and therefore they should only be applied when force is permitted.”

Judge M. Elon: Prison to force a Get

Judge Menachem Elon (The Status of Women  2005 page 299-301): [translated by Daniel Eidensohn] In Israel there is a legal procedure which had been ratified by Kenesset in 1953 which is a potential solution [to the case of Aguna where the husband refuses to give a get]. According to section 6 of the law concerning rabbinic courts dealing with marriage and divorce of 1953 – “A rabbinic court can rule that a husband can be forced to give his wife or the wife can be ordered to accept a get from her husband. After 6 months the district secular court has the ability - with the request of the legal adviser of the government - to use imprisonment as a means of getting the husband to comply with the beis din’s ruling.” Without question this seems to be a very powerful tool that the secular government has given to the rabbinic courts in order to solve the problem of a husband refusing to give his wife a get – after the beis din issues a ruling requiring him to do so.

In reality however this almost never happens. Let me explain my words. According to the section of the law, it is possible to imprison the husband in a case where the beis din has ordered that the husband be forced to give a get. However if the beis din only issues a ruling that the husband is obligated to give a get - and sometimes the language is even weaker and they simply say that it is a mitzva to give a get or that it is proper to give a get – then it is not allowed to imprison the recalcitrant husband. The reason that the law requires that the beis din specifies that the husband is to be forced before he can be imprisonedis in order to avoid the possibility of a get me’usa. A get me’usa is a get which is coerced against the will of the husband and is thus invalid. There are only a limited number of cases where force can used in giving a get according to the halacha. Thus it is understandable why the secular law included a clause that a husband can not be imprisoned when he refuses to give a get except when the rabbinic court rules that it is necessary to force him to give a get.

In fact the rabbinic courts very rarely issue a psak which says to force get. In the overwhelming majority of cases it simply says that there is an obligation to give the get or languae which is even milder. That is consistent with the view of those religious authorities that one does not psaken to force a get except in a small number of rare cases which are explicitly mentioned in the Talmud.

This issue is in fact a dispute amongst halachic authorities. According to the Rambam and those authorities who agree with him – not only can a get be forced in the cases in the Talmud and other classic sources – but also in the case where the wife claims “ma’us alei” - that she says he disgusts her and therefore she can not have sexual relations with him. Therefore the husband can be forced to divorce her because “she is not like a captive who is forced to have sexual relations with somone she despises.” However many halachic authorities – led by Rabbeinu Tam- disagree with the Rambam. According to their view when the wife claims “ma’us alei” this is not a justification to force the husband to give his wife a get. The acceptance of the view of the Rambam as the normative halacha – which in fact happened amongst certain Sefardic poskim and the Yeminite community – has the potential to be a major solution to the issue of aguna which results when the husband refuses to give a get. It enables the utilization of prison which was established as law for the rabbinic courts.

However the refusal of the rabbinic courts to utilize the view of the Rambam and because of that the refusal to write in their rulings that the husband is to be forced - causes at times a difficult tragedy for the wife. She remains an aguna for many years and she is vulnerable to extortion and revenge from the husband. It is important to note that this tragic suffering is basically only for the wife when the husband refuses to give a get. The cases where the wife refuses to accept the get to extort money from the husband or for revenge can be solved by the procedure called heter me’ah rabbonim. Upon receiving this heter the husband is able to remarry even if the wife hasn’t accepted the get. However as is well known, such a solution doesn’t exist to free the wife when the husband refuses to give a get.

Shunning those who report abuse

NYTimes   By cooperating with the police, and speaking out about his son’s abuse, Mr. Jungreis, 38, found himself at the painful forefront of an issue roiling his insular Hasidic community. There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases. 

Abuse victims and their families have been expelled from religious schools and synagogues, shunned by fellow ultra-Orthodox Jews and targeted for harassment intended to destroy their businesses. Some victims’ families have been offered money, ostensibly to help pay for therapy for the victims, but also to stop pursuing charges, victims and victims’ advocates said.

“Try living for one day with all the pain I am living with,” Mr. Jungreis, spent and distraught, said recently outside his new apartment on Williamsburg’s outskirts. “Did anybody in the Hasidic community in these two years, in Borough Park, in Flatbush, ever come up and look my son in the eye and tell him a good word? Did anybody take the courage to show him mercy in the street?”

Bare-bones Jewish marriage

In the course of our discussion of divorce - the question was raised as to what are the bare minimum requirements for a Jewish marriage. This is not the ideal or nor is it likely to be a pleasant relationship The Rambam lists them as follows [the translation is that of Rabbi Eliyahu Tougher which is available on the Chabad webpage]

Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 12:1-3): 1) When a man marries a woman, whether she is a virgin or a non-virgin, whether she is above the age of majority or a minor, and whether she was born Jewish, is a convert or a freed slave, he incurs ten responsibilities toward her and receives four privileges 2)With regard to his ten responsibilities: three stem from the Torah. They include sha'arah, kesutah v'onatah. Sha'arah means providing her with subsistence; Kesutah means supplying her with garments, and onatah refers to conjugal rights. The seven responsibilities ordained by the Rabbis are all conditions [of the marriage contract] established by the court. The first is the fundamental requirement of the marriage contract. The others are referred to as t'na'ei , the conditions of the marriage contract. They are:a) to provide medical treatment if she becomes sick; b) to redeem her if she is held captive:c) to bury her if she dies;d) the right for her to continue living in his home after his death as long as she remains a widow;e) the right for her daughters to receive their subsistence from his estate after his death until they become consecrated;f) the right for her sons to inherit her ketubah in addition to their share in her husband's estate together with their brothers [borne by other wives, if she dies before her husband does].3) The four privileges that the husband is granted are all Rabbinic in origin. They are: a) the right to the fruits of her labor; b) the right to any ownerless object she discovers; c) the right to benefit from the profits of her property during her lifetime; d) the right to inherit her [property] if she dies during his lifetime. His rights to her property supersede [the rights of] all others.

In addition because she is acquired by her husband in the marriage process she is subservient to him and she is required to provide sexual relations to him. Rashi(Nedarim 15b): Rav Kahana said that a wife who takes an oath to prohibit sexual relations with her husband – she is forced and has sexual relations with him because she has no ability to prohibit herself since she is subservient to his pleasure. While she can not be forced to have sexual intercourse with him a wife who refuses to have sexual intercourse with her husband is labeled a moredes and it is grounds for divorce. Likewise if he refuses to fulfill his Torah obligation to have sexual intercourse it is also grounds for divorce.

This subservience of the woman to the man is reflected in the following:

(Hilchos Ishus 13:11): …A woman should be given proper clothing to go the house of her father or to the house of mourning or to a banquet. That is because every woman should visit her father’s house or visit the house of mourning or a banquet as well as show kindness to her friends and relatives in order that they should reciprocate with her. She is not a prisoner in her house that she is not free to come and go. However it is a degrading thing if she is always going outside - sometimes just outside and at other times into the streets. It is necessary that the husband restrains his wife from this and not let his wife go out except once a month or perhaps twice a month according to need. That is because the beauty of a woman is to sit in the corner of her house as it says in Tehilim (45:14): All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:18): Similarly, our Sages commanded a woman to conduct herself modestly at home, not to proliferate levity or frivolity before her husband, not to request intimacy verbally, nor to speak about this matter. She should not deny her husband [intimacy] to cause him anguish, so that he should increase his love for her. Instead, she should oblige him whenever he desires. She should keep her distance from his relatives and the members of his household so that he will not be provoked by jealousy and should avoid scandalous situations - indeed, any trace of scandal.

Rambam( Hilchos Ishus 15:20): And similarly, they commanded a woman to honor her husband exceedingly and to be in awe of him. She should carry out all her deeds according to his directives, considering him to be an officer or a king. She should follow the desires of his heart and shun everything that he disdains.This is the custom of holy and pure Jewish women and men in their marriages. And these ways will make their marriage pleasant and praiseworthy.
==============
however the man has obligations to her

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:19): Similarly, our Sages commanded that a man honor his wife more than his own person, and love her as he loves his own person. If he has financial resources, he should offer her benefits in accordance with his resources. He should not cast a superfluous measure of fear over her. He should talk with her gently, being neither sad nor angry.

Rav Steinman:Reject kids who are wrong type?!

Rema (E.H. 154:21) Harchakos Rabbeinu Tam

שולחן ערוך (אבן העזר הלכות גיטין סימן קנד סעיף כא)

 כל אלו שאמרו להוציא, כופין אפי' בשוטים. וי"א שכל מי שלא נאמר בו בגמרא בפירוש כופין להוציא, אלא יוציא בלבד, אין כופין בשוטים אלא אומרים לו: חכמים חייבוך להוציא, ואם לא תוציא מותר לקרותך עבריין. הגה: וכיון דאיכא פלוגתא דרבוותא, ראוי להחמיר שלא לכוף בשוטים, שלא יהא הגט מעושה (טור בשם הרא"ש). אבל אם יש לו אשה בעבירה, לכ"ע כופין בשוטים.  וכל מקום שאין כופין בשוטים, אין מנדין אותו ג"כ (מרדכי ריש המדיר). ומכל מקום יכולין ליגזור על כל ישראל שלא לעשות לו שום טובה או לישא וליתן עמו (שערי דורא בשם ר"ת ובמהרי"ק), או למול בניו או לקברו, עד שיגרש (בנימן זאב פ"ח /רפ"ט/). ובכל חומרא שירצו ב"ד יכולין להחמיר בכהאי גוונא, ומלבד שלא ינדו אותו. אבל מי שאינו מקיים עונה, יכולין לנדותו ולהחרימו שיקיים עונה או שיגרש, כי אין זה כפייה, רק לקיים עונתו, וכן כל כיוצא בזה (ריב"ש סימן קכ"ז) וכן מי שגירש אשתו בגט כשר, ויצא קצת לעז על הגט, מותר לכופו לתת גט אחר. ובכל מקום דאיכא פלוגתא אם כופין או לא, אף על גב דאין כופין לגרש, מכל מקום כופין אותו ליתן כתובה מיד, וכן הנדוניא דאנעלת ליה (מרדכי ריש המדיר).

Rav Ovadia Yosef - Harchakos Rabbeinu Tam 7:23

Yabia Omer EH 7 23 Harchakos Rabbeinu Tam

Rabbeinu Tam - Harchakos/ Sefer HaYashar #24

Harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam

$2 Million fine for Sexually Harassing Tenants

NYTimes    Three men who operated Upper West Side apartment buildings, one of them a building superintendent who was also a convicted sex offender, have agreed to pay more than $2 million in fines to tenants who were sexually harassed by the superintendent, the United States attorney’s office said Tuesday. 

Under the agreement, the landlord, Stanley Katz of Manhattan, is also prohibited from managing properties, and the former superintendent, William Barnason, is barred from maintaining or managing occupied properties. 

According to the complaint, Mr. Barnason, who had been convicted of molesting or raping three girls and a woman in Suffolk County, would try to enter women’s apartments while drunk and demand sex, engage in “unwelcome groping and fondling” and demand sexual favors in return for rent reductions. Officials said he would retaliate against tenants who refused to comply.

Obama's "evolving" gay marriage position

Time Magazine   Officially, Obama’s position on marriage equality is “evolving”–a stock phrase intended to buy time until a hypothetical second term. By backing gay marriage, Obama would risk alienating a range of potential supporters — including older, rural populists and conservative black Christians — as well as motivating Evangelicals who remain unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney. As it stands, Obama has the support of same-sex marriage advocates even as his fuzziness frustrates them. Planting himself in the muddled middle may be an optimal political tactic.

As Obama’s advisers point out, the President has done more to promote equal rights for gays than any of his predecessors. He instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. He backed the reversal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He has opposed discriminatory practices. “We wouldn’t be removing every federal barrier we can, on our own, to ensure gay and lesbian couples have the same rights and protections as other couples” if Obama did not support equal legal rights for gay couples, said Stephanie Cutter, the president’s deputy campaign manager, in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “There are significant accomplishments in this Administration to ensuring equality for everybody.”

True. But gays have done a lot for Obama as well. Reviewing Obama’s donor lists, the Washington Post notes that about one-in-six of Obama’s top campaign bundlers is gay. Same-sex marriage advocates, who are working to make their cause part of the Democratic party’s platform at this summer’s convention (in North Carolina), grasp that Obama is hemmed in by the looming election. But they also say the right moral stance happens to be smart politics. Young voters, including many of those whose enthusiasm for Obama has dimmed, overwhelmingly support gay marriage. In a new Gallup poll released today, 57% of independents say they support legalizing same-sex marriage. Some of the rumored contenders for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016 also happen to be governors who backed same-sex marriage in their state — including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, with whom Obama appears today in Albany.

Real meaning of LaG BaOmar - Rabbi Hoffman

The Real Meaning of LaG BaOmer By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
The Ramah Shulchan Aruch (OC 493:2) that on LaG BaOmer we engage slightly in Simcha – joy. Commemorating LaG BaOmer is a serious matter. The Mogen Avrohom cites the Kavanos HaArizal that discusses a certain individual who had the habit of reciting Nachem every day. He continued to do so on LaG BaOmer as well. For doing so he was punished. We see, therefore, that one should take the words of the Ramah quite seriously. A number of reasons are cited by Torah authorities for commemorating Lag BaOmer: • It commemorates the students of Rabbi Akiva who ceased dying during this day – although the deaths persisted between Pesach and Shavuos. (Shla Psachim 525). • This day is the Yartzeit of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who revealed the inner secrets of the Torah (Chayei Adam Moadim 131:11) • This is the day that Rabbi Akiva granted ordination to his five students – among them Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai – they did not die in the plague that struck Rabbi Akiva’s other students (Pri Chadash OC 493) • It also commemorates the Manna which began to fall on this day after the Bnei Yisroel left Egypt (Responsa Chsam Sofer YD #233 “Amnam Yadati”). In this short essay, we will attempt to discuss each of the four reasons mentioned above. The Students of Rabbi Akiva The Talmud (Yevamos 62b) tells us that 12,000 pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students died on account of the fact that they did not extend honor to one another. Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zatzal asks how it could be that the great students of Rabbi Akiva neglected this most basic of principles? His answer is most illuminating. Our Rabbis teach us that Kinah, Kavod and Taavah – jealousy, the pursuit of honor, and the pursuit of desires take one out of this world. “If so,” Rabbi Akiva’s students reasoned, “how can we accord each other this spiritual poison?” Rabbi Levenstein explains that they were unaware that, in fact, honor is only poisonous when one seeks it – but when one extends it to another it is not poisonous at all. When we build the self-esteem of others, it is actually quite healthy. Rav Levenstein explains that this notion is very subtle and nuanced and it could well be that the notion itself was only revealed in the world at that time. Why then were they punished? They were smart enough to have been able to figure out and contemplate this issue by themselves. Having neglected to delve into this psychological insight was their error. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai Rashbi, whose Yartzeit we commemorate on this day, merited to compose two extraordinary books that form part of the Zohar. They are the Adara Rabbah and the Adarah Zutah. Rav Yoseph Chaim in his Responsa (Rav Pe’alim YD #156) explains why it was that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, above and beyond his masters the Tannaim, merited to write these extraordinary books. He explains that although his teachers and masters were greater than he was, he had the ability of couching these teachings in esoteric terms. Indeed, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was so adept at obscuring the true understanding of these thoughts, that they could even be expounded upon publically – and only those that truly merit understanding it would be able to figure out the true inner meaning and import. According to this, we commemorate the fact that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai not only transmitted these remarkable teachings, but vouchsafed them in such a manner that they not be abused or taught to those who are unworthy. Jewish Continuity The ordination that Rabbi Akiva conducted on his five students was a heroic event that changed the course of Jewish history, and that of the world. These students were Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yossi, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar Ben Shamoa. Under the pressure of the dark forces of Roman tyranny and religious oppression, these valiant scholars, who were privy to the noblest ideals of the Bible, its teachings and oral traditions, knew that no matter what the cost – they must ensure the continuity of these teachings. They were the future educators of us all. It was a point in time where the forces of evil and darkness were pitted against goodness and light. The light of Torah ultimately won out and Torah Judaism was to effect and alter the world. We commemorate this remarkable event on this day of LaG BaOmer. The words of the Mogen Avrohom concerning the man who was punished for not commemorating this day are, therefore, well understood. The Manna The Manna represents the spiritual nourishment that G-d granted the Jewish people upon their departure from Egypt. Manna allowed us, the Jewish people, to develop a close bond, a Dveikus, with the Creator – that has defined who we are as a nation. Although the Manna no longer falls, the admonition that the Jewish people have to continue that bond, to continue imitating G-d and attempting to be like Him has never ceased. The Talmud (Shabbos 133b) tells us Mah Hu Rachum af attah Rachum veChanun – just as He is Merciful, so should you be merciful. Just as He is kind so too must you be kind. Just as He clothes the poor - so should you clothe the poor. Just as He buries the dead, so should you buy the dead. This is the message of the Manna that still exists to this day, and this is what LaG BaOmer commemorates. Nonetheless, perhaps due to the deaths of so many of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Minhag is to celebrate a little bit and not to make it into a full-fledged holiday. The Chsam Sofer points out that our Talmud does not mention it as a holiday at all. So how do we commemorate this day? The Bnei Yissasschar states that the custom is to light a number of candles in Shul on this day. We do not fast on this day – even for a Yahrtzeit, except for a fast of a bad dream. We do not recite Tachanun on this day, nor the Mincha before it. We get married and attend weddings. We join in with singing and dancing, and we listen to music (See Pri Magadim Aishel Avrohom 493:1). So as we hear the song and dance of the Jewish weddings and the words, “Od Yeshamah, let it still be heard in the cities of Yehudah and in the outskirts of Jerusalem, the sound of joy and the sound of happiness, the sound of the groom and the sound of the bride” let us think of these four reasons: Building the self-esteem of others and according others due honor is of utmost importance; vouchsafing the teachings of the Torah is paramount; Jewish continuity and education is key; and the spiritual bond and Dveikus that we have with Hashem should be central to our lives. May Hashem bring the Geulah Shleimah speedily in our days! The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Secular look at Chareidim #2: Amnon Levi

Secular look at Chareidim #1: Amnon Levi

Abuse: Brooklyn man sentenced to 20 years

NY Daily News  

A perverted Brooklyn father who admitted Monday to sexually abusing two young children over several years will be sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.

The surprise plea deal for Michael Sabo, 38, came just as his abuse and child pornography trial was set to start in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

He pleaded guilty to molesting a 5-year-old boy for five years starting in 2001 and to repeatedly forcing a little girl to engage in sex acts when she was between the ages 6 and 9.

Abuse: Shame of Catholic Church by BBC

Time Magazine

"Immorality, liberality leads to murders": Chief Rabbi

YNet     Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar said that the recent wave of murders is the result of lax education and promiscuity. "A person who is allowed (to do) anything doesn't respect boundaries," the rabbi told Ynet.

"And so we've reached a situation in which young people – who aren't bad or criminals – murder someone who criticizes them; (a situation) in which women murder, children kill their parents and parents kill their children. I've heard about it and I'm frightened." 

Amar said that there is a "terrible crisis in the education of the (young) generation," mainly a lack of boundaries. "Today, people think that anyone who wants to maintain minimal modesty is primitive and belongs to a different generation. Things that were condemned by every other generation, considered abhorrent by the Torah, have become legitimate."

Abuse: More time for Justice

NYTimes Hawaii significantly strengthened its protections against child sexual abuse last month when Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a measure extending the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits filed by child victims. At least as important, it opens a one-time two-year window to allow victims to file suits against their abusers even if the time limit had expired under the old law. 

Like similar laws in California and Delaware, the Hawaii measure recognizes some wrenching realities. It can take many years, even decades, before child abuse victims are emotionally ready to come forward and tell their stories in court. But by then, they may be barred from suing by the statute of limitations. For example, many suits against the Catholic Church have been blocked because the church’s covering up for pedophile priests made it hard for victims to come forward until long past the time limit for bringing civil claims. 

Hawaii’s new law allows child victims to bring suits up to the age of 26 (it was 20), or three years from the time the victim realizes the abuse caused injury. The law’s leading opponent was the Roman Catholic Church, which has been working hard to defeat statute of limitations reform across the country.

Lag B'Omer is dangerous!

JPost

As Lag Ba’omer approaches, a released survey states that nearly 25 percent of parents disregard their children’s safety by not supervising dangerous bonfires.  [...]

Beterem, the National Center for Child Safety and Health, said that most people understand where to initiate bonfires – in an open area without telephone and electricity wires, trees, traffic and combustible products. But many parents are unaware and fail to prevent young children from approaching the bonfire, especially in windy weather.

ORA - "beis din should give authorization"

guest post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern admits (at 58:00) that public pressure on a husband for not giving a get is inappropriate halachically absent a ruling from a beis din that a get be given.  Nonetheless, Ora was publicly demonstrating against Friedman and his family for over a year before any beis din had called on him to give a get.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEi4SXT_fCA

ORA: 1 Million dollars vs 1 child

Guest Post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern acknowledges that if a wife steals a million dollars from the husband and runs away, "she acted completely inappropriately."  He also acknowledges that in such a case the husband is not required give a get absent the husband having a "fair day in court."  [starting at 58:47]

Apparently,for Rabbi Stern (and presumably Ora's rabbinical advisers such as Rabbi Schachter) one million dollars are far more important than a mere child.  Tamar Epstein abducted the child she had with Aharon Friedman, but instead of labeling Epstein's abduction of the child as completely inappropriate, Rabbi Stern calls Epstein's actions kedas ukedin.  And while Rabbi Stern acknowledges that a wife's stealing a million dollars from a husband is (absent the "husband's having a fair day in court") grounds for not giving a get, Rabbi Stern maintains that Epstein's abduction of the child is not grounds for withholding a get.

And if the husband were to agree to postpone adjudication in civil court to bring the matter to BD, but then the wife were to violate the BD's orders so that the case is heard by the civil court at a much later date, and the court were to rule (at the wife's request) that the wife can keep the money or the child because the husband had waived his right to recover the money or the child as a result of delaying the court trial in order to have the matter decided in Beis Din, the husband would hardly have had a "fair day in court."

Ma'us alei: Husband disgusting/wife sensitive?

We have been discussing the issue of what to do when the wife declares ma'us alei to beis din primarily as to whether the husband is forced in some to give a divorce. Rambam(Ishus 14:8) says she can not be forced to live with him because she is not a captive who can be forced to be with someone she hates.   We have this teshuva of  Rav Ovadiya Yosef which indicates we have to see that she really views him as disgusting or repellant and not that she is interested in another man.There are clearly cases such as a wife beater or psychopath where there is no need to explain ma'us since any intelligent adult would also find him disgusting.

 But what if we see that the husband is not terrible - but she says she can't stand him. Do we insist that she has to put up with her dislike of her husband for the sake of the family? Or does ma'us alei simply mean - he is not my cup of tea and I want out. What is she could deal with him - if she was on psychiatric medication - does she need to take medication to preserve the marriage? What if he is not frum enough and it grates on her nerves how insensitive he is to Torah - is that considered ma'us alei. What if he is too frum and is machmir on everything - she can't stand it - is that ma'us alei.

In sum, does ma'us alei mean merely she personally can't stand him or does it mean that objectively this person has to be disgusting? Does she have to work on herself not to find him disgusting?

Haredi institutions implicated in massive financial scheme

ynet

The Jerusalem Police raided several ultra-Orthodox institutions Sunday as part of an elaborate fraud investigation. Five people were arrested.

Police believe that the suspects are involved in a massive student registration scheme, meant to defraud the state out of millions of shekels.

New Chareidim: Working is a reality

JPost

A small but significant segment of the haredi population is beginning to emerge, whose socioeconomic status could be defined as middle class, says a new study from the Israel Democracy Institute.

Although specific numbers are not yet available, the report, which was presented on Wednesday at the organization’s headquarters in Jerusalem, identified several defining characteristics of a nascent ultra-Orthodox middle class that sets them apart from other members of their community and which represent a new haredi sector that aspires to a more varied lifestyle. [...]

“But they also work hard to live in both worlds without losing their original identity. They want to maintain their culture and identity as members of the ultra-Orthodox community, but they are also inclined to go to the theater, read non-haredi newspapers, as well as the haredi ones, and be exposed to a greater extent to wider Israeli society,” he said.

New Chareidim:Mishpacha vs. Yated

.kikarhashabat

ערב הבחירות, ניטשת מלחמה של ממש בין שני עיתונים מרכזיים בציבור החרדי: משפחה ויתד נאמן. הרקע לכך, הפעם: החרדים העובדים. אחרי טור נוקב שפורסם אמש במשפחה נגד "יתד נאמן", באה התשובה החריפה מעל דפי הגיליון - מאמר של חברי-הכנסת גפני ומקלב. איך זה ייגמר? סיקור מיוחד (בכיכר)

Wife jailed for refusing get

Haaretz

.

A woman who has refused for 16 years to grant her husband a divorce was put behind bars last week - the first time a woman has been arrested in such a case.The 60-year-old woman, a teacher, has appealed to the Supreme Court, whose president, Asher Grunis, will decide today whether to keep her under arrest. 

If Grunis does not rule in her favor, she will remain behind bars until the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court hears her case in July. She can then file a petition over whether the rabbinical court has the right to imprison her.In 2001, the rabbinical court ruled that the couple's property be divided, but the woman did not accept. She said she deserved a much greater portion of her husband's wealth.

Rav Schachter's occasional misspeaking

Jewish Week  Understanding the non-significance of Rav Schachter's baseball bat comment

Some Orthodox Jews were wondering this week what it would take for Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a prominent rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University’s rabbinical school, to be relieved of his duties for making offensive statements — the latest of which has proved to be the most shocking of all.

At the same time defenders of the rabbi were questioning when the community would come to recognize the stature of the Talmudic scholar they revere and show more respect toward him.

The divide is not a new one in a Modern Orthodox community whose young men and women tend to show more obedience toward rabbinic sages and leaders than their parents do. And Rabbi Schachter has a history of making politically incorrect statements — but none as seemingly egregious as the one made last week to a group of students in Israel in which he appeared to advocate shooting the prime minister of Israel if the government “gives away Jerusalem.” [...]

R Bechhofer's pshat in Rambam - critique

To review briefly, I posted the following assertion by James.

James (May 3, 2012) wrote : Even if it [ORA's actiities] is humiliation, (and I do not think it is) it is not humiliation ordered by the Beth Din. There is nothing new with publishing seruvim and calling the public to urge Aharon to give a GET. The only thing different is that ORA has decided to use the Internet to organize the public in a way that was never possible before the advent of the Internet. This is a private action

I disagreed and responded : In sum. It follows from the initial premise that as long as the force is unrelated to beis din we avoid all the tiresome discussion of what constitutes legitimate pressure according to Rabbeinu Tam or Rambam etc etc. Thus if this idea is correct - any and all types of force can be applied to force the get - because it is only vigilante action and not the legitimate psak of beis din!

I also posted two sources which I claim indicate that forcing by unauthorized individuals makes it a get me’usa.

Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 2:20): If it isn't required according to the halacha that the husband be forced to give a get and beis din made a mistake or it was a beis din of laymen - [Rabbi Tougher's translation is " a Jewish court or simple people compel him"] and they forced him until he gave a get - the get is not valid.  But since Jews have forced him he should give her a valid get [because he might think it was valid and when he marries another without obtaining a valid get it produces mamzerim]. However if goyim force him not according to halacha it is not a get.... since the law does not require it and the force was from goyim it is not a get.

Chazon Ish (E.H. 69:23) describes a case that the wife's father refuses to give back money that belongs to the husband - unless he gives a get. The Chazon Ish says since the beis din did not authorize this it is kefiah by a hedyot. Therefore he urges that beis din be convened and rule that the father should not give back the money until the get is given.

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

Batmelech commented

So what happens if his mother, or worse: mother in law, insists he give a get???This would be a forced get in any case, because nothing is more fearsome than an angry mother, or worse, mother in law!!!

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

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: 

You can taunt James all you like, but he is absolutely correct. This is medukdak in the Rambam, but you missed the diyuk because you inaccurately translated hedyotos as laymen - implying it is a separate category from a BD that was in error. The Rambam is saying that a get compelled by an erroneous BD or a BD of simpletons is invalid. V'duk.

"Batmelech" also cut through to the heart of the matter:

Rabbi Bechhofer’s criticism of my position continued on his blog  

http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/05/mechooh-contd-ii-james-gets-it.html

Yitzy Hillel asked Rabbi Bechhofer:

So what does Rav Sternbuch mean (5:344) that woman hiring thugs to beat men to give GETS is a Get Batul and causes Mamzurs. I am not talking about a fight between the husband and wife or family members, I just want clarify your statement that any actions that are not sanctioned by a beis din can never be Kefia?

Binyamin asked Rabbi Bechhofer

    The Rambam is in gerushin 2:20     "If the halacha does not require that he divorce her and the beis din erred, or if they were hedyotos, and they pressured him until he divorced, the get is posul" i.e. koshjer midioraisa and posul midirbanan. He does not say anywhere that if individuals pressured him the get is kosher. The Lechem Mishna explicitly says that if individuals pressure him where he is not required to give a get the get is posul midoraisa, same as if a non-Jewish court forced him to give a get.

Rabbi Bechhofer answered:

1) The Rambam doesn't have to say that if individuals pressured him the get is kosher. Any get that is not specified as batel or pasul is a priori kosher! The Lechem Mishne is very veit from pshat in the Rambam, u'devarav tzrichin iyun. All this, however, is lomdus. I believe my pshat in the Rambam, is emes, and any lamdan will be modeh al ha'emes.

2) But even if you don't, the logic which - despite your scoffing elsewhere - is represented by Batmelech's phrasing holds true. And that is why even according to the Mechaber, who does not pasken like the Rambam and holds me'useh al yedei a private citizen is me'useh, any pressure that does not entail: a) violence; b)direct financial penalties; c) niddui - does not create a state of me'useh. This is the yesod of Harchaka d'R"T. And that is why mei'ikar ha'din we do not need a BD to impose the harchokos. For, if a BD was essential to the process, Harchokas RT would be a form of Kefi'ah, and RT could not have sanctioned its use in cases in which he himself rules that ein kofin. Al karchach, the imposition of harchokos is not a Ma'aseh BD. What BD statement that the Harchokos are appropriate does is merely to verify that the activation of harchokos in this or that case is appropriate, and not creating undue nuisance for someone who does not deserve it.To turn the tables, your position is unsustainable. L'shitas'cha u'l'shittas haEidensohns, if I as a solitary individual would constantly go and harass someone until he gave a get, the get would be me'useh. If a Rav called a husband too late at night and that caused the husband to give a get, that would also be me'useh. If a very prestigious Rav called on the husband to give a get, and he felt he could not say no to such a distinguished personage, it would also be me'useh. Absurd, of course.

My Response:

Rabbi Bechhofer makes two points – the second assertion is that anyone who uses the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam – even without authorizing can not create a get me’usa. That is because the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam are  not considered force. It is an interesting point. But it is not clear that it is true. We see clearly from the fact that Rabbeinu Tam was not utilized for centuries because major poskim thought that it might create a get me’usa and that we see from contemporary poskim like Rav Sternbuch that they have a great reluctance to use them. I don’t think that Rabbi Bechhofer's assertion is obviously correct. The fact that Rav Ovadia Yosef says that beis din can authorize them at times - because of the needs of modern society – indicates he doesn’t think that they should be used indiscriminately. According to Rav Bechhofer – why the hesitation amongst great poskim? Why do so many prohibit the use of them? But Rabbi Bechhofer goes even further by saying that – even if beis din did not authorize Rabbeinu Tam – any and all harrasment would be permitted as long as it was not physical violence, monetary pressure or niddoi.

But even if Rabbi Bechhofer is correct that harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam do not require a beis din to authorize their use and can not create get me’usa - the question is and was whether ORA’s public demonstration or the screaming of neighbors or mother‑in‑laws are included in Rabbeinu Tam.

However Rabbi Bechhofer’s first assertion is totally absurd. He claimed that according to the Rambam - only a beis din is restricted to apply pressure according to the law. In contrast he claims that a layman who is not part of a beis din can apply any type of pressure and the get is still kosher. This “chidush” is explicity rejected by Rav Sternbuch, Chazon Ish, Lechem Mishna and I could not find a single source that explictly agreed with Rabbi Bechhofer “chidush”. Rabbi Bechhofer rejected the Lechem Mishna by saying, “The Lechem Mishne is very veit from pshat in the Rambam, u'devarav tzrichin iyun. He notes, “All this, however, is lomdus. I believe my pshat in the Rambam, is emes, and any lamdan will be modeh al ha'emes”.

This would mean that according to the Rambam any type of vigilante justice can not create a get me’usa – but only incorrect pressure applied by a beis din. Please find anyone – lamdan or otherwise - who agrees. It also does violence to the source of the Rambam – Gittin (88b) where only beis din can authorize pressure – any non-authorized pressure invalidates the get.

[[update May 14, 2012]]

I wrote: Rabbi Bechhofer, Please clarify your view. You noted that Rambam(Hilchos Gerushin 2:20) says that a beis din that errs or a beis din of hedyotos that force a get shelo kadin - the get is posul derabbonin. You made the diyuk that therefore if it is not beis din but individuals who force a get shelo kadin it is kosher. Obviously the Rambam was not referring to passive social withdrawal since that is not considered to be kefiya according to the poskim. It can only be dealing with issues such as financial or physical forces - and yet you said from the diyuk that vigilante justice can't posul the get.

Now you are stating that vigilante justice can in fact produce a get me'usa? So what is your true position?

Rabbi Bechhofer commented:"Three types of vigilante justice do produce get me'useh. These are specified by the Poskim: Violence, monetary sanctions and niddui. There is no precedent to ban any other form of persuasion, and the Harchokos in fact encourage other forms of persuasion. No one here has brought any definitive legitimate proof that demonstrations, petitions, and ostracism create a situation of get me'useh."

You can't have it both ways. The above statement contradicts the diyuk you made from the Rambam. If you always intended the above then you don't need a diyuk in the Rambam to permit someone not to speak to another person. However the case of the mother in law who yells at her son in law to give a get or the case of the father in law who takes his son in laws money to force him to give a get - you said were valid pressure when not done through beis din. You rejected the Lechem Mishna that rejected your diyuk.

Reply of Rabbi Bechhofer:

It is not a retraction. I believe that my pshat in the Rambam is emes. Nevertheless, since it is clear that many Gedolei HaPoskim either do not accept my pshat, or do not rule like the Rambam, I go on to clarify that my position stands independently of the Rambam, the distinction being that according to the Rambam any form of persuasion not initiated by BD would be valid, while the consensus of the Poskim (which I, of course, accept) is to exclude three forms of persuasion as kinds of Kefi'ah no matter how they are initiated. I believe this is pashut k'bei'ah b'kutcha.

Forced get: Rav Herzog - full lenient analysis

  He mentions an important issue: Is the leniencies to use a type of force 1) Rambam 2) Takana of the Gaonim 3) Rabbeinu TamAlso whether the Takana of the Gaonim was limited to their time or it is applicable in all generations  There is also a major discussion of the Chasam Sofer  Rav Herzog Get Me'Usa E.H. 1 3 

Lakewood told me not to say "call the police" - Dr. Pelcovitz

See Lakewood View for the full story.

Keeping Chumras while taking charity

Readers question:

To your knowledge has anyone ever addressed the issue of keeping chumras ( eg. chalav yisroel, glatt, fancy esrog, hand shmurah, yoshon in the united states ) when you are living off of communal charity/donations ?

Also, again, if a shul is low on cash, can these things go ?

Aguna: What are possible solutions?

I think we covered many of the major points dealing with agunos in a case of ma'us alei where the husband refuses to give a get. The obvious question remains - what are acceptable solutions. As a start - please read this  summary by Rabbi Tzi Gartner.

Forced  Get by Rabbi Tzvi Gartner - Summary (RJJ Halacha Journal)

Rabbi Bechhofer: Ma'us alei - Do we posken like Rambam?

As is to be expected this topic of divorce has elicited strong feelings and vigorous debate. While there are clearly issues of intepretation - there are other things are simply undisputable facts. One of those is that in the case of ma'us alei - we don't posken like the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 14:8) that the husband can be forced violently to give a get. In a recent debate with Rabbi Berger who denies this fact and insists we do pasken like the Rambam - Rabbi Bechhofer got involved. Rabbi Bechhofer as we all know is a super brilliant talmid chachom - who has very strong well informed opinions - which he expresses not only on this blog but on his own blog and other forums. See Comments here

I asked him whether he agreed with Rabbi Berger. He replied to a secondary issue regarding the Rema - but ignored my primary question. Since this issue goes to the crux of the issue of ma'us alei - I am asking Rabbi Bechhofer to declare pubicly whether he holds that the Rambam's position of beating the husband in a case of ma'us alei is in fact the accepted halacha.

Yeshiva teacher arrested for pornography

TLJ News

Upon his arrival in New York, he began working for Bnei Akiva of New York as a Regional Director, and quickly moved his way up the ranks at Bnei Akiva to director of the In-School Programming division. He is the Director of Youth Programming at The Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, and he spends his summers working for Bnei Akiva of North America, most recently directing a post-tenth grade summer program in Israel. Evan is also founding and current Director of the Yeshivat HaKotel Alumni Association of America.

According to the complaint, Zauder possessed child pornography that had been downloaded from the Internet and saved onto his computer. During a search of Zauder’s residence conducted on Monday, May 1, 2012, a computer containing hundreds of images and videos of minor children engaging in sexually explicit conduct was seized.

Chazon Ish: Father-in-law forcing Get E.H. 69:23

Briefly this is a case where the husband is an epileptic and this fact was concealed before the marriage. The father-in-law took money from the husband and refuses to give it back until he gives a get. Chazon Ish notes that this constitutes forcing by a layman i.e., the father-in-law. To eliminate that problem he says a beis din should be convened and they should rule that the father-in-law should keep the money until the get is given. It is important to note that  marriage through deception is much more severe than a case of ma'us alei and the poskim are much more lenient regarding forcing a get.

Chazon Ish EH 69 23 Forcing of Father in Law

ORA: Private coercion or Beis Din?

[[update See Rabbi Bechhofer's incredible "chidush" that vigilante coercion can't invalidate a get - only an action connected to beis din]]

James (May 3, 2012) wrote : Even if it [ORA's actiities] is humiliation, (and I do not think it is) it is not humiliation ordered by the Beth Din. There is nothing new with publishing seruvim and calling the public to urge Aharon to give a GET. The only thing different is that ORA has decided to use the Internet to organize the public in a way that was never possible before the advent of the Internet. This is a private action

 James has raised a very important issue which we seem to have been missed in all the debate. When ORA holds demonstrations is it to be viewed as an agent of beis din or as private citizen? Rabbi Ralbag - a member of the Beis Din that urged Aharon to give a get to Tamar told my brother that the declaration of his beis din did not authorize demonstrations. It would thus seem that ORA is not the agent of this beis din. Is it the agent of any beis din? Does Rav Schachter's approval constitute a beis din or does he have a private beis din which authorized this?

Furthermore if Aharon's boss Rep Camp urged him to give the get or threatened to fire him if he didn't give a get - a threat he would do solely because of ORA's actions - is that considered force from a non-Jew? Even if  Rep Camp says I am pressuring you to do what ORA wants you to do - does that make it complying with beis din?

What if a person saw the demonstrations and threatened to physically attack Aharon unless he gave a get. Is this considered legitimate force  or would the resulting get be a get me'usa? If it is legitimate than it would be consistent with  Bava Kamma 28 which is the sugya of physical action against others without the consulting or involvement of beis din.

Chazon Ish (E.H. 69:23) describes a case that the wife's father refuses to give back money that belongs to the husband - unless he gives a get. The Chazon Ish says since the beis din did not authorize this it is kefiah by a hedyot. Therefore he urges that beis din be convened and rule that the father should not give back the money until the get is given.

Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 2:20): If it isn't required according to the halacha that the husband be forced to give a get and beis din made a mistake or it was a beis din of laymen - [Rabbi Tougher's translation is " a Jewish court or simple people compel him"] and they forced him until he gave a get - the get is not valid.  But since Jews have forced him he should give her a valid get [because he might think it was valid and when he marries another without obtaining a valid get it produces mamzerim]. However if goyim force him not according to halacha it is not a get.... since the law does not require it and the force was from goyim it is not a get.

In sum. It follows from the initial premise that as long as the force is unrelated to beis din we avoid all the tiresome discussion of what constitutes legitimate pressure according to Rabbeinu Tam or Rambam etc etc. Thus if this idea is correct - any and all types of force can be applied to force the get - because it is only vigilante action and not the legitimate psak of beis din!

Ma'us Alei: Forced only if disgusting

Husband is not forced in claim of Ma'us alei unless clearly disgusting

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

(ב) איברא דחזי הוית להמאירי (כתובות סג: עמוד רסח), שכ', ואף לשיטת גדולי המחברים (הרמב"ם), פירשו רבותי בדבריהם, דדוקא בשטוענת כך מן הדין, ר"ל שאף אנו מכירים בו שהוא ראוי להמאס מחמת רוב פחיתותו והפסד עניניו אם במדות אם בשאר דברים מכוערים, והדברים מוכיחים שלא בסיבת נתינת עין באחר הוא, הא כל שטוענת כן מחמת עקשות וגאוה והסתלסלות יתר אין שומעים לה. עכ"ל. גם בשו"ת מהרימ"ט ח"ב (חאה"ע סי' מ) כ', ואם היינו באים לדון דינא דמאיס עלי כד' הרמב"ם, היה צריך לחקור הדבר היטב שיהא ברור וניכר לנו שא"א לה להבעל ברצונה לו שהוא מאוס עליה, וצריכה לתת אמתלא לדבריה בכדי להאמינה. וכמ"ש הרא"ש והגמ"י בשם מהר"ם. ואף על פי שהרשב"א בתשו' המיוחסות (סי' קלח) כ' שא"צ לתת טעם ואמתלא לדבריה, זהו שיכולה לומר שהוא מאוס אף על פי שלא תתן טעם, ומ"מ אנו צריכים להכיר ולבחון זה מדבריה שכן הוא האמת שהוא מאוס בעיניה. וכמ"ש הרשב"א בתשו' שהובאה בב"י (סי' עז). עכת"ד. נמצא דאיכא פלוגתא בד' הרמב"ם בזה. [ועמש"כ להלן אות טו דמוכח להדיא מדברי מהרי"בל בתשו' ח"ג (סי' יג), שא"צ שום אמתלא לטענת מאיס עלי בכדי לכופו לגרש. ע"ש]. ומ"מ ע"פ סיום דברי מהרימ"ט נראה שיש הפרש בין אומדנא קלה כמות שהיא הנראית רק לעיני הדיינים, לבין אמתלא ברורה ונכוחה, אשר תבענה שפתותיה של האשה. וכמו שסיים עוד מהרימ"ט שם, ועוד שהרשב"א שם כ' דבאומרת מאיס עלי ואינה חפצה בו ולא בכתובתו, כיון שרוצה לצאת בלא כתובה ודאי נראה מדבריה שדעתה אונסה. ע"כ. ופשוט שאין זו חשובה אמתלא ברורה. ובזה מיושבים דברי הרשב"א שלא יסתור את עצמו בתשובותיו הנ"ל. וכבר הנתיבות משפט שם (דף ריז ע"ב) עמד בסתירת תשו' הרשב"א שבב"י (סי' עז) לתשובתו שבמיוחסות (סי' קלח) הנ"ל. והניח בקושיא. ומתוך דברי מהרימ"ט הנ"ל תתיישב סתירה זו על נכון, שאף שהיא עצמה א"צ לתת טעם לדבריה, מ"מ צריכים אנו להבחין ולהכיר שדבריה נכונים. וכ"כ ליישב קושיא זו בשו"ת פרי צדיק (סי' ב). וע"ע בשו"ת ויאמר יצחק (סי' קכו). ובשו"ת שערי עזרה (סי' ז). ובשו"ת וזאת ליהודה (סי' יא). ע"ש. ועכ"פ אמת שדעת הרשב"א היא דאין לכופו לגרש גם באמתלא נכונה, ומ"מ הרשב"ש מצרף בזה דעת הרמב"ם עם קצת מהחולקים עליו שבזה הושוו לכפותו לגרשה, וכמו שסיים אח"כ ע"פ דברי מהר"ם. ומכ"ש באמתלא ברורה כזו דמוקמינן לה בחזקת שלא נתרצית לו מעולם, וסופה מוכיח על תחלתה. ובזה א"ש גם יתר קושיות הנתיבות משפט הנ"ל.

R M. Klein: Get invalid by use of Court

 Mishna Halachos(14:60): [Translation copyrighted by Daniel Eidensohn] The secular procedure is that when a woman wants to get custody of the children from her husband who is also their father – she will go the secular authorities and claim that he hit her and others such charges and that she escaped with the children and she is now requesting an “order of protection.” The Rabbis who haven’t been properly mentored by great Torah scholars and are not sufficiently learned in Torah claim that this is not the prohibitions of mesira and going to secular courts. In fact not only is this actual mesira but it is kidnapping of the children with the power of the secular judges and it is literally in the category of actual murder. (Look at Maharam Mirzburk printed at the end of Mahari Veil page 173....) Anyone who files a complaint against a Jew to a non‑Jew needs to repent as one who is a murderer. This woman who filed a complaint against her husband and they imprisoned him or other such punishment – it is not an Order of Protection but rather kidnapping the children and actual murder. Thus if either the husband or wife uses this approach they are a murderer and one needs to be very careful of this.

Besides the fact that when a woman goes to the secular courts and intimidates the husband with an Order of Protection or other techniques, it is subsequently prohibited for the husband to give her a get because it is an invalid get which has been coerced by the secular courts. One of my acquaintances came and asked regarding his wife who had obtained an Order of Protection and as a result he had been imprisoned overnight until his lawyer obtained his release. He told me that he was afraid this would happen again and again because she would make up lies about him and torment him all his life. He had decided that he had no choice but to give her a get. The beis din was now prepared to write it. I told him that a get given under these circumstances was invalid by the Torah and it was prohibited to give her a get until she removed all of her charges from the secular court and he had received a letter from her that she would no longer bring him to secular court again. This is elementary and clearly the halacha according to the Torah. It is clear that it doesn’t matter whether the husband is actually sent to jail or that she files a complaint in secular court and they don’t actually jail him.

I told him that he should listen to my advice and that both he and his wife should come and I would listen to both sides and I would make suggestion as to which rabbis to go to who might be able to make peace. Why do they say that rabbis are just for the bad to give a get but not for the positive. In fact there are wise rabbis who can make improvement and to discuss with both sides and to explain to them they are just destroying themselves and their children. That they have to worry in addition to problem in shidduchim for this family because of the fear of future divorces and many other things. In short I gave the advice to at least try counseling....

Rabbi's sex abuse conviction overturned

YNET\

A New York Court overturned the sexual abuse conviction of Brooklyn Rabbi Baruch Lebovits last week.

Rabbi Lebovits, 61, was sentenced to up to 32 years in prison in 2010, after he was convicted of molesting a teenage boy, the New York Daily News reported.  

The appellate court agreed: "The late disclosure all but set a trap for the defendant which had already sprung at the time the notes were finally furnished," the ruling said.
 =====================
See Tablet Magazine August 22, 2011

 Lebovits was free on $250,000 bail following the arrest of a rabbi, Samuel Kellner, on charges of bribery and witness tampering. Kellner was charged with giving a boy—not the boy who addressed the court, but another alleged victim—$10,000 to falsely testify he had been abused by Lebovits and of threatening to bring more victims forward unless the Lebovits family paid him $400,000. Today, the matter is still unresolved

Ma'us Alei: Accept Rambam's psak?

The following is the view of Rabbi Tzvi Gartner in his RJJ article concerning get me'usa. In particular the problems of accepting the Rambam's view that in ma'us alei the husband can be forced to give a get. Rabbi Gartner is a well known expert on the subject and is cited in Rabbi Broyde's defense of ORA