The Legacy of Rabbi Feivel Cohen vis-à-vis the Agunah Problem by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira

 Last month, on 26 Marcheshvan, 5783, Rabbi Feivel Cohen – author of Badei ha-Shulchan and other works – ascended to the Heavenly Academy. Ten days later, Rabbi Mordechai Willig – chief justice of the Beth Din of America – delivered an eloquent appreciation for Rabbi Cohen [available at <https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/1051145/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/eruv-in-brooklyn-some-words-on-rav-feivel-cohen/>] , in which he mentioned Rabbi Cohen’s legacy vis-à-vis the agunah problem. I wish to respectfully yet carefully review Rabbi Willig’s remarks in the present essay, ke-darkah shel Torah. 

            The bulk of Rabbi Willig’s lecture explores Hilkhot Eruvin. Seeking to solve a particular difficulty in the field that is raised by Sfat Emet, Rabbi Willig [commencing 53:50 into the recording] cites a brilliant insight of Rabbi Cohen’s book Da‘at Kohen which clinches the discussion. It is at this point that Rabbi Willig turns to eulogizing Rabbi Cohen by describing the latter [not only as a proficient scholar in Eruvin but also] as a closet supporter of his prenup [viz. the 1993 Beth Din of America prenup] designed to rescue agunot. 

            Specifically, Rabbi Willig reports that – years ago, when Rabbi Willig was first contemplating his proposed prenup [before its ultimate release in 1993] – he studied Rabbi Cohen’s book Mi-Dor le-Dor, where the author elucidates how to execute an estate-inheritance-will via a shtar chatzi zakhar without running afoul of the rules of asmakhta (a contingency agreement wherein the person accepting liability never seriously anticipates that his obligation to pay will materialize and hence is halakhically invalid). After digesting the book’s contents, Rabbi Willig arrived at the conclusion that the same mechanism which Rabbi Cohen employs to bypass the asmakhta problem for a shtar chatzi zakhar can likewise bypass the asmakhta problem for committing a husband to pay his wife money as soon as she moves out of the house until such time as the husband will grant a get [=the essence of Rabbi Willig’s prenup, and a putative formula to rescue agunot].  

Seeking confirmation, Rabbi Willig approached Rabbi Cohen with the prenup idea. In Rabbi Willig’s words: “He was very nice to me. He said: ‘You know, it’s very good, the sevara is right, but we’re not doing it over here in Brooklyn.’” The implication of Rabbi Willig’s testimony is that Rabbi Cohen agreed to his prenup in principle, but simply as a matter of voluntary policy [so as not to rustle the feathers of fellow Brooklynites] preferred not to implement the concept in his community. 

            Alas, Rabbi Willig’s extrapolation from shtar chatzi zakhar to the laws of gittin [and likewise Rabbi Cohen’s reported closet support thereof] is (be-mechilat Kevod Toratam) tenuous. In the case of a shtar chatzi zakhar, the sober-minded individual signing the document knows in advance that there is a reasonable probability he will die (until we are privileged to experience the messianic era when the mal'akh ha-mavet will disappear, as per the Gemara, Sukkah 52a) and so he sincerely wishes to bequeath property to others a moment before death occurs [as the shtar chatzi zakhar declares]. By contradistinction, in the case of Rabbi Willig’s prenup, the groom who signs the document does not seriously entertain the probability that his wife will ever demand divorce in the future. [If he realized that this was such a demanding wife, he wouldn’t have signed the document in the first place.] Hence, the quotidian money transfer specified in the prenup indeed represents an asmakhta which the husband is not obligated to pay, and if a secular court nevertheless threatens the husband that he will lose the specified money until he grants a get, then the get is invalid as per the Mishnah, Gittin 88b [that a get coerced by a secular court contrary to Halakhah is invalid].   

            Admittedly, it is true that the Mishnah, Makkot 3a compares the actuarial probability of future death to the actuarial probability of future divorce in calculating how much money to fine edim zomemin (witnesses who claimed that a husband divorced his wife without granting a ketubah, and were then discovered to be false by virtue of their not being in the location of the alleged divorce at the time of the alleged divorce). Perhaps it is this Mishnah that caused Rabbi Willig and Rabbi Cohen to believe that we can extrapolate from the shtar chatzi zakhar (i.e. anticipation of death) to the prenup (i.e. anticipation of divorce). Even so, however, a careful examination of Makkot 3a reveals that [regarding divorce] the Mishnah is discussing the actuarial probability that the husband will offer a get to his wife of his own free will in the future, not the actuarial probability that the wife will demand a get from her husband in the future [the latter representing the basis of Rabbi Willig’s prenup]. Thus, it remains the case that Rabbi Willig’s prenup is subject to the asmakhta objection. Ergo, it is precisely because of our sympathy for agunot that we should encourage any married couple which has signed Rabbi Willig’s prenup to sign the release form [revoking the secular court’s ability to enforce Rabbi Willig’s prenup] in Section A of my relevant essay at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>. Otherwise, the wife may be stuck with an invalid get and hence remain an agunah. The same message [albeit without a sample release form] is offered by Rabbi Pinchas Spira [no immediate relation to this student] in his treatise Kedushat ha-Nissu’in, available at <https://hebrewbooks.org/60970>.  

            Me-inyan le-inyan be-oto inyan (to borrow the expression from Kiddushin 6a), Rabbi Willig’s prenup plays an illuminating role in the specific agunah case of Epstein vs. Friedman. Namely, as reported at <https://yucommentator.org/2012/04/panel-featuring-current-agunah-confronts-crisis/>, on March 29, 2012, Rabbi Hershel Schachter claimed that [notwithstanding Exodus 20:14, which prohibits arbitrarily telling a husband to divorce his wife, nevertheless] Mr. Aharon Friedman is obligated to grant Ms. Tamar Epstein a get because nobody told her about Rabbi Willig’s prenup before her marriage to Mr. Friedman. Had she known about Rabbi Willig’s prenup, she would have executed it prior to her chuppah and thereby enjoyed an automatic “get out of jail free” card.  

Alas, this approach (while well-meaning) represents a compounded error by Rabbi Schachter (be-mechilat Kevod Torato). Firstly, Rabbi Willig’s prenup would not have rescued Ms. Epstein from her agunah predicament since the prenup does not work altogether [as argued in the present article]. Secondly, even if there would be an [alternate] prenup that does work to rescue agunot [which indeed there fortuitously is, as explained in Section Q of my aforementioned essay at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>], failure to apprise the bride of the existence of the prenup [while perhaps unprofessional/unethical on the part of the mesader kiddushin who should have informed the bride in advance] most certainly does not constitute grounds for a Beth Din to subsequently obligate the husband to grant a get. See Shulchan Arukh Even ha-Ezer nos. 77 and 154.

            And this brings us to my final point. Notwithstanding his reported closet support of Rabbi Willig’s prenup, Rabbi Feivel Cohen has clearly announced [in a public manner, and not merely in a private conversation] that Ms. Epstein remains the wife of Mr. Aharon Friedman according to Torah law. [See <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-feivel-cohen-rules-heter-is.html>, and my elaboration at <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2022/07/response-to-eulogy-for-rabbi-nota-zvi.html>.] Ergo, if we genuinely wish to honour the legacy of Rabbi Cohen vis-à-vis the agunah problem, we should all politely pray that Ms. Epstein soon return to Beth Din with her true husband Mr. Friedman. And this is an especially appropriate aspiration for Chanukah, since the final paragraph of Rambam, Hilkhot Chanukah points out that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, will even allow His Name to be placed in water in order to bring peace between husband and wife. 

  

Rabbi Spira works as Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute of Medical Research [a Pavillion of the Jewish General Hospital] in Montreal, Canada. 

Tish‘ah be-Av and the Agunah Problem by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira

    The Gemara, Ta‘anit 30a, prohibits most areas of Torah study on Tish‘ah be-Av. One of the few permitted exceptions, as identified by Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 554, se’if katan 3, is the passage in Gittin 55b-58a regarding the Temple destruction. The conclusion of that passage – an exposition of Micah 2:2 – is interpreted by Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggadot) as declaring that if even one husband is wrongfully pressured to divorce his wife [in violation of Exodus 20:14] or if even one marriage is poisoned by adultery – then the entire Jewish People is held accountable to collectively protest. Thus, it emerges that Tish‘ah be-Av is a time to reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of marriage – and to eschew half-baked solutions to the agunah problem – as I previously wrote at <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-legacy-of-rabbi-feivel-cohen-vis.html>.

      R. Simchah Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot al Mishnah Berurah Chelek Shishi, points to another exception presented by Mishnah Berurah, this time in se‘if katan 5. Where a halakhic verdict is urgently needed on Tish‘ah be-Av for a sick patient or for litigants in a monetary dispute (who cannot wait until tomorrow), a decisor may study the case as is necessary to provide immediate guidance. Rabbi Rabinowitz explains that this is what justified R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, Teshuvot Maharsham, I, no. 84, to formulate a responsum on Tish‘ah be-Av to permit an agunah to remarry. Indeed, Rabbi Schwadron concludes that responsum by citing Bach to the effect that rescuing an agunah is a spiritual achievement equivalent to rebuilding one of the ruins of Jerusalem. 

            Upon careful reflection, it emerges that there is no contradiction between the aforementioned Maharsha and Maharsham regarding the agunah-problem message of Tish‘ah be-Av [and, poetically enough, their works carry almost identical names]. Where the Oral Torah declares that an agunah can remarry, such as the case of Maharsham in which he discovered sufficient circumstantial evidence to presume the first husband to be dead, then it is indeed a great mitzvah to enable this remarriage. But where the first husband is demonstrably both alive and innocent of any wrongdoing, then Maharsha directs us to respect that first (and only) marriage. 

For this reason, R. J. David Bleich, responding to the 1992 New York Get Law [a well-meaning but unfortunately less-than-successful attempt to solve the agunah problem], comments as follows [available at <https://traditiononline.org/communications-86/> ]:

                "Regrettably, instead of serving as a panacea resolving the plight of the agunah, the Get Law has itself                       created countless agunot. It is precisely because of concern for agunot that the Get Law cannot                       be allowed to stand."

In other words, we must always take into consideration the Maharsha vs. Maharsham dichotomy, thereby distinguishing true from imagined solutions to the agunah problem. That is why my own prenup proposal [available at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>] contains a clause shielding the husband and wife from any secular court that might wreak havoc with a get. 

Prenuptial Agreements | PDF | Halakha | Hebrew Words And Phrases Halakhic analysis of prenuptial agreements, leading to a combination of two halakhically kosher prenuptial agreements to benefit the Jewish wife www.scribd.com



Continuing on this theme, I would like to highlight my recent exchange with R. Heshey Zelcer in Hakirah Vol. 28 (Spring 2020) [available at <https://hakirah.org/Vol28Letters.pdf>] regarding the [once again well-meaning] Yashar Prenup. I hypothesize that the poskim who are advertised as supporting this prenup (R. Moshe Sternbuch, et al, be-mechilat Kevod Toratam) innocently glossed over paragraph 16 of the agreement, which states as follows: 

 

           “At the initial session, Beth Din shall outline the issues between the Parties and make a            determination of the interim payments necessary to ensure that the lifestyle of the un-                                emancipated children of the household (if any) can be maintained, and that they can continue            to attend yeshiva.” 

 

 Rabbi Sternbuch et al do not raise an objection to this paragraph, presumably because it does not explicitly require the husband to pay the wife until he grants her a get. However, as one can discern from the aforementioned Hakirah exchange, Rabbi Zelcer effectively interprets this clause to in fact mean that the Beth Din will direct the husband to pay the wife until he grants a get. And so, the Yashar Prenup seems to present a problem that is essentially identical to that of the RCA prenup, the latter representing a prenup that Rabbi Sternbuch and others have identified would produce an invalid get. [See <https://hebrewbooks.org/60970>.] 

A careful examination of Rabbi Sternbuch’s letter of approbation for the Yashar Prenup [available at <https://yasharinitiative.org/docs/RabbiMosheSternbuch.pdf>] reveals that he is appreciative to the framers of the prenup for keeping the Jewish litigants out of secular court. However, Rabbi Sternbuch does not say that he permits charging the husband money until the latter grants a get, and – indeed – he could not permit such an innovation without contradicting what he wrote regarding the RCA prenup. [For a different perspective (than mine) on the Yashar Prenup, see Yechezkel Hirshman at <https://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2023/01/prenups-xii-straight-dope-on-yashar.html>. Hirshman does not believe that the Yashar Prenup actually costs the husband any money, yet he concurs in practice (with me) to keep the proposal on ice. See there for his illuminating approach.] 

      

Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute of Medical Research, a pavilion of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada. 

The Legacy of Rabbi Feivel Cohen vis-à-vis the Agunah Problem – Part 2 bv Rabbi Shalom C. Spira

 The Legacy of Rabbi Feivel Cohen vis-à-vis the Agunah Problem – Part 2 

                                                Shalom C. Spira 

 

As I wrote in my previous article at <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-legacy-of-rabbi-feivel-cohen-vis.html>, the legacy of R. Feivel Cohen vis-à-vis the agunah problem – as he sought to publicly express it – is that the Jewish faith considers Ms. Tamar Epstein to be the wife of Mr. Aharon Friedman. At the same time, it has also been argued [by R. Mordechai Willig] that there is an additional dimension to Rabbi Cohen’s legacy, viz. that he quietly supported Rabbi Willig’s prenup to resolve future agunah cases, based on an extrapolation from shtar chatzi zakhar to the laws of gittin. My article challenged the latter extrapolation, be-mechilat Kevod Toratam. 

 A recent audio recording (dated Oct. 26, 2018) demonstrates that my opinion is shared by R. J. David Bleich. Actually, Rabbi Bleich already contested Rabbi Willig’s prenup back in 1996 in his Be-Netivot ha-Halakhah Vol. 1 (which is elaborated in Section A of my prenup essay at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>). The novelty of the 2018 audio recording is that Rabbi Bleich responds to the specific claim that the shtar chatzi zakhar should serve as a precedent for Rabbi Willig’s prenup. Rabbi Bleich orally counters that this specific claim is “nonsense.” The shtar chatzi zakhar represents a kinyan me-chayim, viz. a mercantile acquisition orchestrated from the time that the client is alive, to bequeath property to his daughter [or some other beneficiary who would not normally inherit according to the algorithm of Numbers 27:8-11] in a manner that takes effect a moment before the client’s death. By contradistinction, Rabbi Willig’s prenup consists of a penalty on the husband for not getting along with his wife and additionally not granting her get. Since there is no gemirat da‘at [seriousness of intention] on the part of the husband, the husband is not obligated to pay the money by Torah law. [And since the secular court will nevertheless enforce the financial penalty, the resulting gittin are invalid.] My thanks are extended to R. Yisrael Zvi Harari, a disciple [of both Rabbi Bleich and Rabbi Willig] at the RIETS kollel le-hora’ah, who conducted the interview and provided me with the audio recording, available at <https://soundcloud.com/shalom-spira/interview-with-rav-bleichmp3>. 

I also received supportive e-mail feedback (on Jan. 2, 2023) from Yechezkel Hirshman (a marriage counsellor and to‘en-in-training who has published an in-depth critique of many different prenups – including my own – at <https://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2023/01/prenups-xii-straight-dope-on-yashar.html>). Yechezkel wrote to me (inter alia) as follows: 

 

“As per the situation with HRHG Rav Feivel Cohen ZTL, I agree with you that expressing agreement to a specific Halachic construct is not to be construed as an agreement on a compound Halachic innovation. I also agree with your distinction between a shtar chatzi zachar and a get. I think it is pretentious for anybody to claim a deceased gadol as a "closet supporter" of a very contentious issue.” 

 

            Accordingly, let us honour the legacy of Rabbi Cohen by politely praying that Ms. Epstein soon return with her true halakhic husband [Aharon Friedman] to Beth Din, and let us likewise politely encourage all couples that have signed Rabbi Willig’s prenup to sign a release form from that prenup [even if the latter concept contradicts Rabbi Cohen’s closet support]. Ultimately, as underscored by R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik’s 1975 lecture recorded at <https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/767722/rabbi-joseph-b-soloveitchik/gerus-mesorah-part-1/>, a key dividing line between Orthodox Judaism and heterodoxy is that the former respects the sanctity of marriage, pursuant to the Gemara, Kiddushin 2b that betrothal is called kiddushin because the wife becomes forbidden to the entire world like hekdesh (the Temple treasury). Thus, half-baked solutions to the agunah problem must be avoided by Orthodox Jews. 

 

Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research [a Pavillion of the Jewish General Hospital] in Montreal, Canada. 

What is a "halachic prenup" as opposed to a non-halachic prenup?

Guest Post by יְדֵיכֶם דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ

The organization that boasts as being the primary educators encouraging Torah-observant Jews to sign a prenuptial agreement, has named it the “‘halachic' prenup.”

What is the word “halachic” meant to suggest and insinuate? Are there any recognized halachic authorities who have ruled that there is a requirement for a marrying couple to sign this prenuptial agreement. If so, who? The only explanation is that since there were and are certain prenuptial agreements that run contrary to halacha and produce an invalid get, ORA is attempting to say that this particular prenuptial is different, as it does not run contrary to halacha according to some poskim.

However, this label is disingenuous and misleading. Does ORA promote calling our jackets "halachic jackets"? Since certain jackets contain wool and linen (shatnez) and are halachicly prohibited to be worn, shouldn't we call those jackets that we may wear "halachic jackets"? The most that anyone would call it would be a “kosher” jacket. No one would call it a “halachic” jacket. As such, the most ORA should call this prenuptial should be a “prenup that is kosher according to some rabbis.”

It appears obvious that the term “halachic” is being used to entice the unknowing and the unquestioning into signing this agreement. ORA understands that asking people to sign a prenuptial that is only potentially kosher would cause the bride and groom to carefully review and deliberate whether or not they would like to sign this prenuptial agreement. The result would be that even fewer people would agree to sign it.

Is there any other explanation?

Additionally, at the Mendel Epstein torture trial, other questionable practice standards of ORA and the BDA have come into light. ORA went out on a limb to help a woman without ever having made contact with her purported estranged husband. Nathan Lewin, a defense attorney in the torture trial case, explained how easily the BDA was duped into writing a “siruv” or excommunication against a nonexistent man. The purported brother and sister showed the BDA an email that they claimed the nonexistent Alex Marconi wrote. Of course, they simply opened up an email account themselves, wrote the email, and claimed that it came from "Alex Marconi." They also provided the address of a Florida post office as Mr. Marconi’s address.

It becomes quite obvious that ORA and the BDA did not do any due diligence before waging war with "Mr. Marconi." A simple internet search would have verified that the address provided was that of a post office. A few phone calls to local community members of “Mr. Marconi” would have revealed that he is not existent, and would have blown the FBI’s cover. Yet, ORA and the BDA did not bother investigating. Interestingly, it seems that the FBI was completely confident that their cover will not be blown by some basic, basic research by either ORA or the BDA. Why?

Are these the organizations that we would like to entrust with our marriages? Are these the organizations we would like to rely upon to validate highly questionable gitten, when major halachic authorities have ruled that children resultant of a subsequent marriage after a first marriage was terminated by a get procured through their prenuptial are mamzeirim?

Reb Moshe's 40th Yartzeit and the Agunah Problem Rav Shalom C. Spira

 Today, 13 Adar 5786, marks the fortieth yartzeit of R. Moshe Feinstein. The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 5b derives from Deut. 29:3 that a student does not understand his teacher until after forty years. [This prescription is also inherent in Sotah 22b according to the elucidation of Tosafot, ad loc., as well as in Bava Metzi'a 33a according to the elucidation of Rabbeinu Chananel, ad loc.] Hence, the 40^th yartzeit of Rabbi Feinstein represents an opportunity to finally arrive at a true understanding on his legacy regarding the agunah problem.

    In Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim, IV, no. 49, Rabbi Feinstein dismisses those advocates who seek to change the laws of the Torah for the sake of satisfying the feminist ideology. Rabbi Feinstein explains that since the laws of the Torah are from the Holy One, Blessed Be He (as per Rambam's eighth principle of faith) and cannot change (as per Rambam's ninth principle of faith), it is therefore both silly and heretical for any human to advocate for halakhic reform. The responsum was written by Rabbi Feinstein in 5736, precisely one year after his cousin R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik announced ​the same in his famous "Gerus and Mesorah" lecture. Rabbi Soloveitchik delivered that lecture [available online at YUTorah Online ] in order to repudiate R. Emanuel Rackman's fraudulent proposal to [ostensibly] rescue agunot by allowing them to remarry without a get. 

    True to form, in a responsum composed on 7 Nissan 5730 (Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer, III, no. 49), Rabbi Feinstein summons a lady to respect the sanctity of her dysfunctional marriage. In the tragic case that Rabbi Feinstein adjudicated, the husband had been exiled to Siberia, then drafted into WWII, and ultimately declared missing in action by the Soviet government in 5703. Despite it now being 27 years later [and the husband possibly dead], Rabbi Feinstein concludes that the wife cannot remarry but must rather patiently continue to wait for her husband's return, the husband maintaining his chezkat chaim according to Torah law. This responsum clearly rejects the feminist ideology of self-determination by every wife, and instead illuminates the path for we as Orthodox Jews to uphold the Jewish faith, apropos Yehudah ben Teima's prescription (Avot 5:20) to "be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a deer and heroic as a lion, to champion the Will of your Father in Heaven." 

    It is therefore imperative to correct the agunah errors that have been attributed to Rabbi Feinstein by [a distinguished scholar who shares the same first name] R. Moshe Kurtz (be-mechilat Kevod Torato) in his recent article at Unpacking the Iggerot: Aiding Agunot - Tradition Online, as follows:

1. In paragraph 12, Rabbi Kurtz claims that Rabbi Feinstein "ruled that a man who is incapable of fathering a child possesses a categorical defect vis-à-vis marriage and that the couple’s union could thereby be dissolved retroactively (E.H., vol. 1, #79)."
   WRONG. Reb Moshe׳s responsum in EH 1:79 only nullifies a kiddushin when the bride did not realize that her groom is physically incapable of consummating the marriage even once. Reb Moshe infers this nullification from Bava Kamma 110b which he deciphers to mean that there is mekach ta'ut if the bride did not realize that her groom is afflicted with boils. Reb Moshe argues that a groom who cannot cohabit is the halakhic equivalent of a groom afflicted with boils. But if the groom can consummate the marriage even once, there is no comparison to Bava Kamma 110b, and hence the kiddushin is valid even if no child is ever born.
2. In paragraph 14, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "One of the most iconic instances that he [Rabbi Feinstein] employs kiddushei ta’ut regards a woman who discovers that her husband is attracted to men. Depending whether it is an occasional temptation or his primary preference would be key to determining whether it meets the qualifications for declaring the marriage retroactively void (E.H., vol. 4, #113)."
   WRONG. This responsum (EH 4:113) which is attributed to Reb Moshe [-see further that this attribution is contested-] only nullifies kiddushin if the bride did not realize that her groom actually engages in sodomy, not if the groom was merely attracted to other men. The distinction is essential. As per supra, point 1, Reb Moshe argued (EH 1:79) that where a bride who does not realize that her groom cannot cohabit even once, mekach ta'ut has occurred. Here, in EH 4:113, Reb Moshe is adding the further innovation [what can be termed "chiddush al gabbei chiddush"] that because a Jewish gentleman must commit suicide al Kiddush Ha-Shem rather than actually commit sodomy, a groom who actually engages in sodomy is the halakhic equivalent of a groom who cannot cohabit with his bride even once. [A dead groom cannot cohabit.] However, by contradistinction, the kiddushin of a groom who is unfortunately afflicted with a same-gender attraction, but who has the self-discipline to refuse to act on that attraction [and hence is not obligated, and indeed not allowed, to contemplate suicide], is a perfectly valid kiddushin even according to Reb Moshe's chiddush al gabbei chiddush. While superfluous in making the point, it should also be noted that the provenance of the entire volume in which EH 4:113 appears is contested by Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, VII, p. 150. [I.e., according to Rabbi Bleich, we are not necessarily compelled to even accept that Reb Moshe professed the chiddush al gabbei chiddush.]
3. In paragraph 17 and again in paragraph 19, Rabbi Kurtz cites an oral report claiming that Rabbi Feinstein allowed incarceration as a legitimate way of securing a get from a recalcitrant husband.
   WRONG. Reb Moshe actually acknowledges in EH 3:44 that incarceration of an innocent husband is a form of coercion that will invalidate the resulting get.
4. Also in paragraph 17, Rabbi Kurtz claims that if a penuyah (who is in collusion with an agunah) deceitfully pretends to propose a shiddukh with a recalcitrant husband and the recalcitrant husband therefore writes a get to the agunah (mistakenly thinking he will have a shiddukh with the penuyah), the agunah is thereby rescued.
   WRONG. That would be a get mut'eh and hence worthless as per Yevamot 106a, still leaving the agunah stuck.
5. In paragraph 18, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "In Iggerot Moshe (E.H., vol, 3, #44), he writes that the husband need not give the get out of a sense or moral duty, but even doing so to avoid financial penalties from the court would be sufficient. He elucidates that while a forced divorce is ineffective, in this case, he is seeking to alleviate the monetary pressure and the divorce is just the extrinsic means for achieving it."
   WRONG. Financial coercion invalidates a get coerced from an innocent husband, as per the Gemara, Bava Batra 40b that financial duress deprives the subject of free will. Reb Moshe's responsum in EH 3:44 is only referring to a special case where the husband already announced that he wants to divorce his wife anyway before the coercion was applied to him, and even there Reb Moshe has a safek whether this leniency [which he calls a sevara gedolah] is actually valid, meaning that Reb Moshe refuses to rely on the sevara gedolah alone. See Section K (commencing p. 59) of my essay Prenuptial Agreements | PDF | Halakha | Hebrew Words And Phrases .
6. In paragraph 21, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "Not only would the man be required to provide the aguna with the means she needs to survive but in a short, yet consequential responsum (E.H., vol. 4, #107), he [Rabbi Feinstein] even authorizes an additional stipulation in the tenaim documents that the husband will be penalized if he unilaterally refuses to issue a get."
   WRONG. Reb Moshe never authorized penalizing an innocent husband by way of a prenup. See Section R (commencing on p. 92) of my aforementioned prenup essay which clarifies what Reb Moshe actually intended with his prenup in EH 4:107. Importantly, Reb Moshe's responsum was published in two different versions, and the provenance of the entire volume of Iggerot Mosheh in which that responsum appears has been contested (as per supra, point 2). See also Yechezkel Hirshman's approach to Reb Moshe's prenup at Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta: Prenups X: More Trei Gadya - A Consumer's Guide to Halachic Prenuptial Agreements , which likewise contradicts Rabbi Kurtz.
7. In paragraphs 22-23, Rabbi Kurtz cites R. Yonah Reiss as ostensibly proving that R. Moshe Feinstein's willingness to apply financial pressure on innocent husbands served as the precursor to the RCA prenup.
   WRONG. Reb Moshe never authorized financial pressure imposed on innocent husbands (as per supra, point 6), and R. Yonah Reiss' academic dishonesty has been exposed by my article last year at Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity:  Shabbat Zakhor and the Agunah Problem by Rav Shalom C. Spira
8. In paragraph 26, Rabbi Kurtz claims: "The veracity of these accounts notwithstanding, an undeniable hallmark of R. Feinstein’s writings is his compassion and resolve to aid all agunot. In Iggerot Moshe (Y.D., vol. 1, #101), he vehemently insists that “it is forbidden for us to be from the ‘humble ones’ and to cause a Jewish woman to remain an aguna or to cause her to turn toward illicit deeds or even to cause the loss of a fellow Jew’s finances.” He proceeds to cite the account of R. Zekharya ben Avkulus, whose exceeding “humility” in halakhic decision making was credited with the ultimate downfall of the Temple (see Gittin 56a)."
   WRONG. Rabbi Kurtz is repeating the discredited canard of R. Michael Broyde and R. Shmuel Kamenetzky. This is because Reb Moshe (YD 1:101) is not talking about an agunah where a wife wants to abandon her husband. Rather, Reb Moshe (YD 1:101) is talking about a wife who actually seeks to live in harmony with her husband, but she can't immerse in a mikveh without a cotton ear plug. See my essay on Response To R. Shmuel Kamenetzky | PDF | Philosophy | History which explains this in detail.

   The Gemara, Yoma 86b, requires us to publicize scam artists in order to prevent a profanation of the Name. Indeed, R. Samson Rephael Hirsch comments (on Genesis 27:1) that this is what ethically empowered Rebecca to expose Esau as a scam artist by having Jacob masquerade as him. Now add to that calculation the fact that Rashi to Genesis 26:34 reports that Esau would steal wives from innocent husbands. Hence, on this 40^th yartzeit of Reb Moshe, we as Orthodox Jews must successfuly grasp what Rabbi Feinstein actually paskened and what he did not pasken regarding the agunah problem, so that we can distinguish true agunah experts from scam artists.

    May the light of Torah, so central to the holiday of Purim (as per Megillah 16b), help the bereaved children of R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt [who all pledged allegiance to Reb Moshe in their eulogies for Reb Nota] finally grasp that Ms. Tamar Epstein is indeed the wife of Reb Aharon Friedman according to the Jewish faith, as I have already established at Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Response to the Eulogy for Rabbi Nota Zvi Greenblatt by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira . Just last month, on 19 Shevat 5786, R. Menachem Zechariah Zilber's treatise to the same effect was published at HebrewBooks.org Sefer Detail: מקח טעות בקידושין -- זילבער, מנחם זכריה בן רפאל  .

Rabbi Spira works as Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research [a Pavillion of the Jewish General Hospital] in Montreal, Canada.

Get Me'usa explicit threat only?

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:39 PM Rav Shalom Chaim Spira ; wrote:

Shalom Aleikhem Ha-Rav ha-Ga'on R. Daniel Eidensohn, shlit"a,

Thank you for the honour of the question. In response, I am enclosing a scan of Be-Netivot ha-Halakhah Vol. 1 (KTAV Publishing, 1996), pp. 47-52, where R. J. David Bleich answers your question [in the specific context of the 1992 New York Get Law] by arguing that even an implicit threat of financial coercion - if understood as such by a typical husband - will disqualify the resulting get. Of special interest is footnote 16, where Rav Bleich raises a havah amina that perhaps his "implicit coercion" thesis is at odds with Chazon Ish, but then answers Chazon Ish in such a manner to be consistent with his thesis. To this student, it seems intuitive that Chazon Ish is in harmony with Rav Bleich's thesis; see Section L of my prenup essay <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements> where I present Chazon Ish as such. 

Now, although you did not specifically ask me about the South African Get Law identified by Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer IV, no. 106, I see that in your post you raised the issue, so allow me to refer you to Section J of my aforementioned where I offer different approaches to that South African responsum. 

[N.B. My prenup essay assumes that Vol. 7 of Iggerot Mosheh (which includes the South African Get Law responsum) represents the considered ruling of R. Moshe Feinstein - delivered while he was in good health - and therefore needs to be carefully studied-and-applied like the first six volumes of the same work. However, after I already published my prenup essay (which I am no longer at liberty to modify since it is now being studied by a secular Canadian court, and be-Ezrat Ha-Shem Yitbarakh this will result in a very positive blessing for Canadian Jewry), this student discovered that Rav Bleich has issued contradictory indications on whether he accepts the provenance of Vol. 7 of Iggerot Mosheh. I refer to this concept in footnote 239 of my brain death essay at <http://www.scribd.com/document/375175373/Halakhic-Bioethic >. In any event, I don't think this will result in a practical halakhic difference: neither for coerced gittin nor for brain death. It's more of an academic fascination. And, of course, Kevod Torato ha-Rav has publicized this academic fascination at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-wrote-late-volumes-of-igrot-moshe.html ]

Loss of an Advocate for the Sanctity of Jewish Marriage: R. David Eidensohn zatza"l

 R. David Eidensohn has ascended to the Heavenly Academy. He was the brother of (yibadel le-chaim) R. Daniel Eidensohn, editor of Daas Torah blog, where I serve as an associate writer. See https://daattorah.blogspot.com/

It was R. David Eidensohn who originally sounded the alarm against the blood libel that was inflicted by R. Hershel Schachter (acting on behalf of Ms. Tamar Epstein) against Reb Aharon Friedman [falsely claiming that Reb Aharon is obligated to write her a get, a terrible violation of Exodus 20:14 by Rabbi Schachter]. And then, when thanks to the good advice of R. David Eidensohn, Reb Aharon refused to write any get, it was R. David Eidensohn who subsequently sounded the alarm against the fraudulent Kamenetzky-Greenblatt heter [directing Ms. Epstein to "remarry" with no get whatsoever], inspiring numerous batei din worldwide to declare that Ms. Epstein is still the wife of Reb Aharon, and further prompting the Beit Din Tzedek of the Edah ha-Charedit in Jerusalem to instruct all rabbis throughout the globe to protest the fraudulent Kamenetzky-Greenblatt heter. I have published several articles on this matter, including most recently at https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2025/03/shabbat-zakhor-and-agunah-problem-by.html [-and also regarding the tangential topic of blood libels at https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2025/04/a-passover-message-to-president-putin.html ].

I would like to follow up on the letter I sent the Rabbanan earlier this week (Tuesday, Sept. 9), inspired by the ascent to the Heavenly Academy of R. David Eidensohn, a scholar who defended the sanctity of Jewish marriage from the disciples of Saul Lieberman who sought to mislead every Jewess to receive a get upon demand and say shalom yihiyeh li ki bi-shrirut libi elekh (Deut. 29:18). [I personally consulted by long-distance telephone with R. David Eidensohn when I formulated my prenup at https://www.scribd.com/document/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements, and he is acknowledged in the credits.]

R. David Eidensohn identified three pitfalls that occur with corrupt mesadrei kiddushin today, including (a) those mesadrei kiddushin that will arrange a chuppah for the ex-wife of an innocent husband who was coerced by the 1992 New York Get Law [-forbidden by Maran Rav Bleich, and as mentioned this past Tuesday, Maran Rav Bleich also forbids the analogous situation where the 1990 Canada Get Law was used against an innocent husband. Not only that, but even in a case of seemingly remote doubt, where no secular court was involved and the couple divorced in Beth Din amicably, in an actual shiddukh with a divorcee that was proposed to me, Maran Rav Bleich denied me the right to pop the question to the lady, and this despite R. Ariel Wasserlauf's independent investigation (at my request), the results of which he generously shared with me, that the ex-husband was delighted to jettison the ex-wife in order to marry a second wife, to whom he is now happily married with five children. Furthermore, this father of five (from the second wife to whom he is happily married) currently serves as the ba'al korei of one of the Dayanim of the Jewish Community Council of Montreal R. David Rephael Banon, and in fact Rabbi Banon supervised the actual get in question, such that li-kh'orah "all systems go" and this was a glatt kosher divorce. No, Maran Rav Bleich holds I still have to be choshesh that the innocent ex-husband (who is not in the category of kofin le-garesh) was afraid of the 1990 Canada Get Law, and so better I should be stuck as a bachelor rather than risk even the possibility of adultery. See with your own eyes how serious this problem of the 1990 Canada Get Law has become.]; (b) those mesadrei kiddushin that will arrange a chuppah for the ex-wife of an innocent husband who was coerced by the 1993 Beth Din of America prenup [-an illegitimate and heretical prenup like that of Saul Lieberman, unlike mine which is recognized as valid by the universal consensus of poskim]; and (c) R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt who fraudulently arranged a pseudo-chuppah for Ms. Tamar Epstein who had no get altogether. Taking my cue from R. David Eidensohn [and after shimush with Maran Rav Bleich], I published a series of refutations to all of these corrupt mesadrei kiddushin, and as a result of this, I was able to ensure that a double get zikkuy was arranged for the agunah whose case I brought to the Supreme Court of Canada. Yodu la-Ha-Shem chasdo, ve-nifle'otav li-vnei adam (Psalm 107). 

R. David Eidensohn also tackled a fourth pitfall which I have never addressed in published form: The humiliation tactics of ORA as representing a form of illicit coercion on gittin [in the case of innocent husbands]. He discusses this here: https://torahhalacha.blogspot.com/2014/11/ora-mamzer-producing-organization.html#comment-form , and even mentions the case of Yisrael Meir Kin that I referenced in my letter earlier this week. In a very recent development, Maran Rav Bleich has also addressed the humiliation tactics of ORA in his latest two-part article in Tradition. I have not yet read the article as the journal has not yet arrived in any Montreal library, but I know from the summary published on the Tradition website that Maran Rav Bleich refutes ORA. Maran Rav Bleich also briefly references this two-part article in his recent recorded audio lecture (just two weeks ago) at https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1145961/Ervas-Davar-(Even-HaEzer-119)

I also draw your attention to a video that the late R. David Eidensohn published during his lifetime entitled "Reb Aharon Kotler - Do We Still Follow His Ways," warning the public about Ms. Tamar Epstein's false antics in claiming that she can remarry without a get [-this video was released in 2014 even before she actually went ahead a year later in 2015 and was makhshelet R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt in a berakhah le-vatalah at an adulterous pseudo-chuppah]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=83zRqBsWuU0 In the final segment of the video, Rabbi Eidensohn movingly says as follows (31:55 into the recording): 

"And those of us who remember Reb Aharon[*], who remember that there's such a thing as a Shulchan Arukh and that being a rosh yeshivah doesn't make you a gadol that you're bigger than the Shulchan Arukh. So, those of us - we're outnumbered badly, but there's plenty of us, and we have to unite and be strong and keep up the derekh ha-yashar in Torah."

[* = The reference is to R. Aharon Kotler.]

So this is why I am writing the present e-mail. R. David Eidensohn has left this world, but if we coordinate ourselves as he advocated, we can continue his legacy and rescue Klal Yisrael from a mamzer epidemic. "A conference of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world" (Sanhedrin 71b). 

This week, when we will read "a lady shall be betrothed, and another gentleman shall cohabit with her" (Deut. 28:30), I pray that tikhleh ha-shanah ve-kileloteha (Megillah 31b). 

Thank you,

Shalom C. Spira