Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Dodelson supporter says Weiss supporter lied about settlement details

Guest post by emes vshalom (a Dodelson supporter) responding to the post - "Negotiation documents reveal the minor gap between the two sides" by a Weiss supporter. I don't see why the Dodelson supporters need to use such nasty abusive language instead of simply asking for an explanation. 

There really is only one issue that needs to be clarified after reading emes vshalom's rebuttal. Why didn't the Weiss's agree to the settlement - assuming that emes vshalom's facts are correct. Dodelson's claim that it is simply because the Weiss's don't want to give a get. That is rather absurd after what has gone on. My laymen's understanding is that by giving the Get before the agreement is approved by the court - there is no guarantee that the deal will be binding on the Dodelson's and it will end up that Gital has the Get and the Weiss's have nothing.

The simple question is does Rav Shalom Kaminetsky understand the facts the way the Dodelson's do? If he does then that would mean he is a fool to continue negotiations. But since we all know that he is obviously not a fool and yet he is continuing the negotiations - he apparently doesn't agree with the Dodelson's view. I am also not sure he is insisting that everything be done at once - as emes vshalom claims.
====================

To me, as someone who is admittedly biased, as I am a supporter of Gital's, it's very confusing that the Weiss family & their allies seem to continue to lie & misrepresent the truth. The fact is that when you have complete knowledge of the facts, it looks as though the Weiss's never were prepared to give a Get (to me anyway). When R Sholom Kamenetzky (whom the Weiss's commissioned to continue these negotiations) worked out a deal that should have been amenable to all sides, the Weiss's refused to sign on. It included all of the concessions that the Dodelsons made in that email, plus an agreement to have the remaining issues be subject to binding arbitration by R Sholom. Oh, and by the way, it included a 6 digit monetary payment from the Dodelsons to Weiss. R Sholom had (and it is my understanding that he still has) one condition; that everything be taken care of at one time. Meaning the Dodelsons give Weiss the money, Weiss gives Gital the Get, and both parties sign the arbitration agreement at one meet. 

Dodelson agreed to this, Weiss did not.

I'll let you decide for yourselves why.

Also, I won't be responding to any comments, as I think this post speaks for itself. If you think any if the facts are untrue, feel free to reach out to R Yisroel Weiss, as he published his email in a previous post. He should be able to confirm these facts.

Weiss Dodelson: Negotiation documents reveal the minor gap between the two sides

Update(rebutal by Dodelson supporter) http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/weiss-dodelson-dodelson-supporter-says.html
=========================
There  has a lot of belittling of Rabbi Greenwald's heroic efforts in negotiations by the supporters of the Dodelson's. They have also been strident in their denigration of the seriousness of the Weiss's commitment to giving Gital a get - falsely claiming that the Weiss's are constantly changing their position. In fact there has been a lot of lies and false accusations against the Weiss and Feinstein family as well as a massive corruption and abuse of rabbinic authority as seen in the invalid seruv and the halachic joke of the Kol Koreh. In fact the issues that the Dodelson's abandoned Rabbi Greenwalds carefully negotiated settlement and went to the NY Post are trivial. The reality is that Gital could have had her Get a long time ago - without all the disgusting chilul hashem. 

In order to set the record straight, the following are the actual documents of the negotiations- judge for yourselves.

Monday, December 16, 2013

American Roshei Yeshivos opposed to division of Hadera

Kikar Hashabat  The division of the Chadera Yeshiva has aroused the opposition of major American talmidei chachomim.

מכתב עליו חתומים שמותיהם של ראשי ישיבות בארה"ב, מבטיח כי המסייע לפילוגה של ישיבת 'חדרה' "לא ייצא נקי". עוד נכתב: "פשוט שזה עוון חמור מאוד לסייע להרוס הישיבה"

הפילוג בישיבת 'חדרה' הליטאית: מכתב שמופץ בימים האחרונים, מבטיח כי המסייעים לפילוג הישיבה הוותיקה - לא ייצאו בצורה נקייה מהסיפור. על המכתב החריג, חתומים שמותיהם של מספר ראשי ישיבות מארצות הברית, כשניסוחו של המכתב מיוחס לרב ישראל יצחק קאלמנווויץ. 
את הדיווחים על פילוג הישיבה, מגדירים ראשים הישיבות במכתבם כ"שמועה לא טובה", וכ"מהומה הנעשית בתוך כותלי בית המדרש". מנסח המכתב כותב כי "מתוך שאנו ידידים טובים זה רבות בשנים, הרהבתי עוז לכתוב לכם מחשבת הדיוט כמוני". 
"והנה פשוט שזה עוון חמור מאוד להיות מסייע להרוס או להחליש בית המדרש וישיבה קדושה ובפרט ישיבה זו שהיא חשובה מאוד כידוע" נכתב בהמשך המכתב.

Rav Hertzog: 3 Oaths and establishment of Jewish State

Guest post by R' Yechzkel Moskowitz I am only posting the relevant part of the article and restricted printing and copying due to copyright considerations. Article appeared in Techumin vol 4

Click here for others views


   3 Shvuos Rav Hertzog Techumin 4 - 7 of 13 Pages 

Stanley Levitt: Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer's letter to take proper precautions

From: 
 On Behalf Of Shearith Israel
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:19 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Important Information!

The letter below (language is below - PDF document with picture is attached)  was originally sent by the Rav to all Rabanim of the city in August of 2012.   

As Zusia Levitt davens in our Shul, the Rav wants all of us to take the proper precautions.  Never let a child be alone with him in any circumstance.

**********************
17 Av, 5772
August 5, 2012

Lichvod Rabbanim Chashuvim, shlit”a,

Stanley (Zusia) Levitt – pictured below – has faced multiple accusations that he molested young children in both Philadelphia and Boston.

He recently pled guilty to some of these charges.  This of course warrants our being cautious about him.

As such, I am sending you this letter with his picture.  If you should see him in your shul I would encourage you to take steps to inform your congregants in order to ensure communal safety.


Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer

What to do if the marriage is over - but one party refuses to end it?

@ DT- Thank you for responding at length. While many were critical of my assumptions and questions I don't think you addressed the issue at hand. As a psychologist I am sure you realize more than most, that not every marriage can be saved. There exists the possibility that one comes t the conclusion that the marriage is over before their soon to be ex-spouse. If the person is leading a religious lifestyle they will in consult with pastoral as well as psychological counsel. Everyone wants shalom bayit, but not every marriage was made in heaven. I find it hard to believe there is a magic formula to heal every marriage. I also think it is irresponsible to force every spouse back to their partner. Once a person availed themselves to pastoral and therapeutic services and through their competent guidance seeks divorce should he/she remain trapped? Really? If the child is young should the mother not take the child to live with her. ( I am not advocating for denial of visitation / joint custody) however child support is for the child and should be maintained by the B"D if they use it for binding arbitration.

As to the challenges made that this isn't halachically tenable approach because it is modern it must be wrong.--There are many times that times changed and the Chachamim made takanot to address the problems they faced from antiquity to modern times. At some point we as a society realized slavery is wrong, polygamy is not for us and we don't engage minors. There are so many more examples but the point is obvious. This isn't about picking and choosing "chafing," or any other disparaging comment "Dvar Torah" feels the need to insult people who might disagree with him/her.

In this regard the rabbanim of the BDA, the largest B"D for gittin in the US supports takanot like the halachik pre-nup. Before you jump down my throat, please let me know of one case that the BDA gave a p'tur, even with a get that was assisted by ORA and/or the husband felt pressure to give the get and the p'tur was not recognized. While many may critizize R'Stern or R' Shachter, l'maaseh the gittin are kosher and the women are able to go on with their lives and their future kids are able to marry.

Lastly, the idea that a husband automatically gets full custody of a boy over six is equally preposterous. Every case is unique and should be decided on it's own merits.

As i asked before what is your solution? You told me what you are not prepared for- quickie divorces. I did not advocate that position. When is a marriage over? How many psychologists do they need to see? Which rabbi do they need to consult? Is there a list? once one side consulted with a competent rav, and they agreed that the marriage was over and encouraged going to B"D is that not enough. I don't believe there is a simple solution to such complex issues. If you do, i look forward to reading about it.

Weiss Dodelson: Double Standards of the Kol Koreh signers

Guest Post by RaP: [Updated with part 2 and 3]

R. Aron Schechter's signature on the "kol koreh" against AMW is a total joke if one simply remembers what an ongoing chillul HaShem he has caused for almost 35 years by refusing the summonses of various batei din and of Rav Moshe Feinstein Z"TL to come to a din Torah, as the attached documents attest.

(The attached documents, long available online, speak for themselves and explain the hypocrisy and chillul Hashem.)

update from DT
ספר חפץ חיים - הלכות אסורי לשון הרע - כלל י
ג. וְכָל זֶה אִם הָרוֹאֶה טוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ, אֲבָל אִם הוּא (יג) חוֹטֵא כְּמוֹתוֹ, וְגַם הוּא חוֹלֶה בַּעֲבֵרוֹת הָאֵלֶּה כָּמוֹהוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לְפַרְסְמוֹ. כִּי אִישׁ כָּזֶה, אֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ בְּגַלּוֹתוֹ מִסְתָּרָיו לְטוֹבָה וּלְיִרְאָה, כִּי אִם לִשְׂמֹחַ לָאֵיד וּלְבַזּוֹתוֹ בָּזֶה. וּכְבָר נֶאֱמַר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה (הוֹשֵׁעַ א' ד'), "וּפָקַדְתִּי אֶת דְּמֵי יִזְרְעֶאל עַל בֵּית יֵהוּא", הִנֵּה כִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה יֵהוּא מִצְוָה בְּהַכְרִיתוֹ אֶת בֵּית אַחְאָב בְּיִזְרְעֶאל, כִּי נִצְטַוָּה כֵּן עַל יְדֵי נָבִיא, וְנִתְּנָה לוֹ עֲבוּר זֶה מְלוּכָה עַד אַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מְלָכִים ב', י' ל'), "יַעַן אֲשֶׁר כִּלְבָבִי עָשִׂיתָ לְבֵית אַחְאָב, בְּנֵי רְבָעִים יֵשְׁבוּ לְךָ עַל כִּסֵּא יִשְׂרָאֵל", בְּכָל זֹאת נִפְקַד עָלָיו לְבַסּוֹף דְּמֵי אַחְאָב, מִפְּנֵי כִּי גַּם הוּא הָיָה רַב פֶּשַׁע:




Part 2: Weiss/Dodelson: Double Standards of the Signers:

It is well known that Rav Aron Schechter is the "first among equals" on the current American Aguda's Moetzes and that he has the final veto on any decision. Thus his signature on the "kol koreh" on behalf of the Dodelsons-Kotlers and against the Weisses-Feinsteins is not just "another signature" but it is "the signature", meaning that once he signs, then automatically his strongest allies Rav Yaakov Perlow and Rav Aron Feldman also sign. The other signers are just weaker add-ons without the prestige and automatic pull of the Aron Schechter-Yaakov Perlow-Aron Feldman (Chaim Berlin alumni) troika.

Rav Aron Schechter's signature on the anti-Weiss "kol koreh" is its strategic key and paradoxically also its weakest link, because of the fact that Rav Aron Schechter himself decades ago set the trend of refusing to appear before bais din -- any bais din -- multiple times.

There were not one, not two, not three, but four hazmonas (see attached copies of originals) that Rav Aron Schechter ignored from the bais din of the Hisachdus HaRabbanim (the Central Rabbinical Congress of Satmar founded by Rav Yoel Teitelbaum ZT"L a person and group greatly respected by Chaim Berliners -- but not when they got summoned by its bais din!) besides the hazmona from Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L at that time the head of the Moetzes and known at that time by all as the Gadol HaDor.

Rav Aron Schechter remains steadfast in his own refusal to come to bais din while at the same time it is expected that the Weisses-Feinsteins should "come running" to settle.

In addition to which,extra-judicial severe threats of an ambiguous "blood bath" were used by Rav Carlebach's opponents on behalf of Rav Aron Schechter for which they were excoriated by leading Rabbanim, such as Rav Dr. Shamshon Weiss Z"L (see his attached letter) of Washington Heights (see his obituary in  New York Times obituary for Rav Weiss ). Now if that is not called a double standard and hypocrisy, then nothing is.

One thing is certain, that the Weisses-Feinsteins are being subjected to the same cynical brutal tactics, of all-out war, as was Rav Shlomo Carlebach and in both cases Rav Aron Schechter is at the center of the fight. Remove him and his signature from the "kol koreh" and the whole case of the Dodelsons collapses with its "krumme heterim" to abuse the Weisses.

It is time for Rav Aron Schechter to remove his signature, or for it to be declared null and void, on the abusive anti-Weiss "kol koreh" and be called on his unacceptable and untenable actions and reprimanded en masse for them by the Torah world. There is nothing to fear for standing up for the Emes. The time for such "old school" bullying tactics "in the name of halacha" has come to an end.



Part 3: Weiss/Dodelson: Double Standards of the Signers

What type of people have the audacity to sign on to crazy "kol korehs" to destroy fellow-Jews befitting Amalek as in this case against the Weisses-Feinsteins, when they themselves have never responded to far more serious dinei Torah and multiple summonses from batei din and pleas from Gedolim (from Rav Y.Y. Ruderman, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, Rav M. Gifter, Rav Schwab Zichronam Livracha, and others) against themselves?

What kind of people have one standard, or lack of standard, for themselves, but expect others to follow an entirely different set of "holier than thou" declarations? How about one set of standards for everyone? Not for some it would seem.

There should be no doubt about the status of Rav Aron Schechter as a lo tzayis dino (one in contempt of bais din, see attached documents), in this case the batei din of Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L and of the CRC's founded by Rav Yoel Teitelbaum. The refusal of Rav Aron Schechter (what was/is he afraid of, that he would LOSE?) to bring to closure the matter of the genuine dinei Torah initiated by Rav Shlomo Carlebach has cost him and the Chaim Berlin people dearly. The core of the case revolves around both monetary issues relating to severance pay as well as to who is still supposed to be the authorized mashgiach ruchani of the Chaim Berlin yeshiva.

Rav Moshe Feinstein stated and ruled (see above documents) that as long as the matter has not been brought to closure, that Rav Carlebach remains as the only legitimate mashgiach ruchani and that no one is allowed to replace him. Rav Moshe Feinstein further ruled that as long as the matter is not resolved in bais din, then a regular salary is still owed to Rav Carlebach which after 35 years would amount to quite a big sum since Rav Carlebach is still B"H alive and active and has never abandoned his title and claims.

To re-affirm his support for Rav Carlebach in the midst of this ongoing situation, Rav Moshe Feinstein granted him a personal semicha (see attached).

But it goes further than that, a few years back Chaim Berlin yeshiva in Brooklyn was faced with a challenge from the nearby Veretzky yeshiva, that is under the control of the Rabbonim and Balebatim who run the "Landaus minyan" in Flatbush. The Chaim Berlin people had thought they had "automatic rights" to a key adjacent corner property but were surprised to find that Veretzky had beaten them and had submitted a winning offer.

Of all the absurd scenarios of self-delusion, the Chaim Berlin people imagined they could commence with a din Torah against the Veretzky people. To the shock and consternation of all, the Veretzky people hired an expert to'en who basically formulated a halachic argument (see attached) based on the events of Chaim Berlin refusing to respond to Rav Carlebach's din torah and the various hazmonas (see above originals) that were issued.

The to'en for Veretzky's formulation al pi din Torah states quite clearly that the Chaim Berlin people are "lo tzayis dino" (see his attached three page argument). Not just that, but to make sure his case was heard, it was sent to several important batei din with all related documentation. Behind the scenes the Chaim Berliners were humiliated and frantic, supposedly even Rav Elyashiv ZT"L was consulted on the matter, and basically his response was that "people who do not go to a din Torah when they are summoned, cannot summon others to a din Torah" until such time that they settle all prior dinei Torah. And so the matter has rested with Veretzky getting its way teaching an important lesson that has evidently still not been learned, because now "new avenues" are found via fake "kol korehs" that are not worth the paper they are written on.

The moral of the story is that we are dealing with very dangerous people here. The ruthlessness and cynicism of the Dodelsons and their Kotler puppet masters is only exceeded by the cynicism and brutality of Rav Aron Schechter and the Chaim Berlin people who are too intimidated to stand up against his floundering ways (too many to count, such as his support for Schick, Hersh, Tropper-Guma-Kaplan, Kranczer etc that ALL blew up in his face).

It is time for American Torah Jewry to wake up and realize that they are being led down the garden path by terrible Pied Pipers who worship only one thing: BIG Money. Money talks! Forget about HKB"H, Rav Moshe Feinstein, the CRC, Halacha, all the old-time great Gedolim of America, but forge signatures of fake "kol korehs" and join the MOs and ORA and get into the NY Post, blast away at the family of Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L because you want to set up a "new world order" of money worshipping roshei yeshiva etc. is how the Schechter-Perlow-Feldman troika come across. And just as the moral and human failures Schick and Hersh and Tropper and Guma and Thomas Kaplan and Kleinman who all had/have plenty of money to back themselves up and "bribe" their way to top influence, the Dodelsons are loaded and using their wealth to wage an all-out war for a "get" by trying to destroy the Weisses-Feinsteins that is hurting all of Klal Yisroel.

Wake up everyone before you all fall victim to this modern-day Egel HaZahav Golden Calf as the new fake and false "god"!

Reporting Sexual and Domestic Abuse: by Rabbi Dr. Belovski

The following was graciously sent to me with permission to post by  Rabbi Dr. Harvey Belovski. See his  website for other items A version of this study first appeared in the 2014 Jewish Year Book.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Primary problem isn't how to make divorce easy or equitable - it is to convince couples to work on their marriage

  I received the following question in one of the comments. It is a reoccuring question - especially for new readers who have not followed the discussion from the beginning. Therefore I am reposting his question and my answer.


R Eidensohn-
I apologize if this was something you addressed in an earlier post. Can you clarify the position you maintain regarding a woman who feels trapped in a marriage.
I think everyone can agree on a few salient points:
a- The pressure to marry early, and often after only a few weeks of meeting a person, will yield many "wrong" matches.
b- It is better that when a couple have irreconcilable differences both sides deserve freedom to go on with their lives.
c- the corruption of batei din is a "davar yaduah" and many people are concerned when dealing with a B"D.
With these ideas in mind (if you disagree with these assumptions, please respond) what is a woman supposed to do if she is trapped in a loveless marriage? Is she supposed to remain trapped? Is applying terms "moredet" really applicable? Do we really believe nowadays a woman is "commanded" to "obey" her husband? Can she only apply for divorce if he agrees? Another term that I have seen on your site and others is "maus aly." I also think that term is antiquated in our society. Meaning, a woman who doesn't want to live with her husband should not be forced to. Also her choice not to remain married in no way compromises her claims to custody and support. Also using a get as financial leverage is inherently unfair because the bias is on the man's side.
Towards a solution, I don't understand why every B"D can not demand a get and then hold the p'tur until the the resolution of the conflict? Lastly, when there is no unified B"D system what koach does one court have over another to force anyone to do anything? What are your solutions to preventing the next agunah?
I responded

yes Daniel your questions have been discussed in great detail in previous posts

I am not going into a repeat that which is readily available by reading past posts and discussion. Let me just state something which you have failed to include in your list of important concerns.

When two people marry - whether it is because of an arranged match, 6 dates, 4 years of dating or living together for 5 years - there is a possibility that one or both will feel that they could do better after 1 day or 20 years of marriage. The question now is what should be the response if your daughter or son come to you after 6 months or a year  of marriage and says - "I don't think I want to spend the rest of my life with him/her. He/shey bores/irritates/repulses me and I feel I can do better because obviously this is not my beshert."

You refer to such couples as "trapped". You might be aware there is a profession called marital counseling which in fact deals with couples with such problems. Many times it is possible to change the relationship to a positive one. Marriage is usually not something that works without effort. For some that effort has to be primarily in the beginning and others need constant vigilance and others have marriages fall apart after 30 years. Rav Shlomo Zalman once agreed that a particular couple with mental health issues could get married but only on the condition that they agreed to go to marriage counselling for 20 years and the money set aside in advance. I know a young lady who decided she had made a mistake after a week of marriage because she thought her husband's nose looked funny.

It is clear that the halacha does not accept the idea of divorce on demand - something which according to secular society for the last 20 years - is a G-d given right. It is expected in halacha that a couple who have married - especially if they have children - will not simply walk about from marital difficulties but will work on shalom bayis or marital harmony. This is important because it is clear that there is no such thing a divorce which doesn't have negative consequences - especially on children. Your questions are really only relevant after all avenues to achieve shalom bayis have failed.

In the present case Gital walked out of the marriage after 10 months and one child. Despite the pleading of her husband to make the marriage work - she agreed only to go to a therapist of her choice for no more than 4 sessions. The therapist said the marriage could be saved. Gital said she wasn't interested in saving the marriage. She left him saying "you are not a bad person just not for me".

What I am saying is that the halacha puts great emphasis on a stable family. That is really the issue - not the involvement of beis din. If obtaining a get is easy - there is no stability to family life. (And that has a negative ripple effect on the community.) There is no motivation to work at marriage. It is the Hollywood values system. As long as bells are ringing and birds are singing you know that this the right relationship.When the excitement dims that proves that it is time to move on to another relationship. For example it is not unusual when a doctor finishes his medical training - with the devoted support of his wife - he divorces her  for a better and more exciting woman. One Californian said, "When your wife turns 30 it is time for a change." That is not the Jewish way!

The Power of Vulnerability by Allan Katz

The Schechter blog post about great people making mistakes is not so much that they never make mistakes but they (should) embrace their vulnerability ownership of their mistakes and do Teshuvah.This is what earned Yehuda the kingship and the fear of his vulnerability that lost Saul his being king. Embracing vulnerability is important for making our personal lives and relationships more meaningful and an important trait of leaders . I share Brene Brown's research on the power of vulnerability   -  Using your real name on the web takes courage as you expose your vulnerability 
The Power of Vulnerablity (click this link for full article)
Brene Brown  has exposed the world to power of vulnerability and how vulnerability can make our lives better. Her TED talks on 'the power of vulnerability and listening to shame ' have had more than 15 million views.  Embracing vulnerability is also what characterizes great leaders and entrepreneurs, and what earned Judah – Yehuda, Jacob's son the honor of being the king and leader of the Jewish people. Judah admits and confesses that he is the father of the child, his daughter-in-law, Tamar is carrying. This public admission exposed his vulnerability and subjected him to the jibes of the populace. He could have protected his dignity by pretending to pardon Tamar .Instead he proclaimed – she is right , the signet ,the wrap and staff are from me , she is more righteous from me .Because Yehuda was able to judge himself and admit his mistakes he was given the role of king who would  be the judge of his people. In order to judge the people with 'truth, justice and peace ' one needs to appreciate the vulnerability of others.   It was the failure to expose vulnerability that caused Saul the king, to lose his crown to David. Instead of accepting the rebuke of the prophet Samuel for keeping alive the sheep, the women and Agag the king, Saul tried to justify his actions and not admit his sin.  King David admitted his wrong doing with Bat Shiva and   embraced his vulnerability. His kingship remained intact despite his sin. Rabbi David Lapin, the author of   Lead by Greatness   lists vulnerability as one of character traits that define great leaders. Vulnerability is the courage to admit and confront their own vulnerability. The owner of the largest advertising agency wholly owned by a woman in the USA, Gay Gaddis said that when you shut down vulnerability, you shut down opportunity. Entrepreneurship is all about vulnerability. The source of Yehuda's embracing his vulnerability was the name his mother gave him. Leah gave thanks to G-d for enabling her to be the mother of one- third of Jacob's 12 sons .She had been granted more than her rightful share. The name Yehuda comes from the root ' o'deh' which means – I give thanks. It also means –I admit or confess. So Rabbi Lapin explains that when we are grateful and give thanks we are actually admitting and confessing we did not deserve it or we were not entitled to the goodness. Not only apologizing exposes our vulnerability, but also being grateful and offering thanks. [Click link above for rest]

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Tzitz Eliezer - Halacha is binding even when it goes against your nature

I just came across this important Tzitz Eliezer (14:98) this Shabbos. He explains why we find that regarding the justification for a man divorcing his wife - the three views of Beis Shammai, Beis Hillel and Rabbi Akiva are the opposite of their normal views. He explains that Torah observance is not based on one's natural predisposition or personal feelings - but rather through trying to understanding  the Torah and Mesorah as to what G-d expects. Each of them decided that the Torah - in this case - was the opposite of their normal approach and thus they subjugated their natural feelings for what they considered right and wrong - to comply with what they felt the Torah wanted..

He is directly addressing the Dodelson supporter's assertion that the halachos of divorce are a chilul haShem and that they should be modified or ignored. While this Tzitz Eliezar is aleph beis to anyone who considers himself a ben Torah, there seem to be many who consider themselves to be frum who need to be reminded.


שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק יד סימן צח
ומפליא הדבר שבפלוגתא זאת שבין ב"ש ב"ה ור"ע מתי שמותר לו לאדם לגרש את אשתו אנו רואים לתנאים קדושים אלה כאילו כל אחד קובע בזה ההיפך מטבעו ומהנהגתו, בית שמאי הקפדן, כביטויו של חז"ל עליו בשבת ד' ל' ע"ב ואל יהא קפדן כשמאי הוא זה שסובר כאן שלא יהא בעל קפדן לגרש את אשתו משום שמצא אחרת נאה הימנה או משום שהקדיחה תבשילו והקניטתו, ולא יגרשנה אא"כ דוקא אם מצא בה ערות דבר, ובית הלל שאמרו עליו בשבת שם ענותן כהלל הוא זה שסובר כאן שמותר לו לבעל להקפיד ולהיות קפדן עד כדי לגרש את אשתו מפני זה שהקדיחה תבשילו, וכן רבי עקיבא שאמרו עליו חז"ל בתענית ד' כ"ה ע"ב שהיה מעביר על מדותיו, הוא זה שסובר בכאן ההיפך מהנהגתו ושאפי' אם הבעל מוצא אחרת נאה הימנה יגרשנה, וזה אומר דרשוני?
ונראה לפרש בהקדם דברי רבותי הגדולים: ממה שמובא בההקדמה לס' שו"ת לבוש מרדכי בשם הגהמ"ח ז"ל שאמר לפ' דברי הגמ' בסנהדרין ד' פ"ט ע"ב דאיתא: קדמו שטן [לאאע"ה =לאברהם אבינו עליו השלום=] לדרך א"ל הנסה דבר אליך תלאה, הנה יסרת רבים וידים רפות תחזק כושל יקימון מיליך כי עתה תבא ותלא, א"ל אני בתומי אלך, א"ל הלא יראתך כסלתך, א"ל זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד וכו', וביאר הכוונה, שהשטן בא ועשה לו לאברהם אבינו הרבה חשבונות של מצוה ושל כבוד שמים שחלילה לו מעשות כדבר הזה לשחוט את יצחק, כי יצא מזה חילול השם גדול שהרי הוא הראשון שהכיר והמליך את בוראו על כל העולם כולו והפיץ ברבים מידותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שהוא רחום וחנון ורב חסד ומרבה להטיב עם ברואיו, ועתה כשהוא בעצמו יתאכזר על בנו יחידו לשחטו הרי יעשה תורתו פלסתר, וכולם ירננו ויאמרו שלא יתכן כזאת שה' מקור הרחמים והחמלה יצוה על אכזריות נוראה כזאת, ויגרום הדבר שהעולם כולו יחזור לאחור לטעות בעבודת עצביהם, ויתחלל שם שמים בעולם, ולכן עליו לחשוב הפסד מצוה כנגד שכרה ולמנוע א"ע מעשות זאת, וזהו שאמר לו השטן הנה יסרת רבים וידים רפות תחזק וגו', ואיך תעשה כעת הדבר הזה, ועל זה ענה לו אברהם אבינו ואני בתומי אלך, אין לי כלום עם כל החשבונות האלה, עלי להיות תמים עם ה' ולמלאות אחרי פקודתו בשלימות ובדייקנות. כי ציוי ה' עומד למעלה מכל החשבונות, ומוטעים המה ביסודם כלפי הצו העליון עיין שם, ובהקדם גם דברי ספר אור יהל להגרי"ל חסמן ז"ל פ' ויחי שכותב לבאר מאמר חז"ל בתענית דף ה' ע"ב דאיתא: רב נחמן ורב יצחק הוו יתבי בסעודתא וכו' א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת, א"ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטטו /וחנטו/ חנטייא וקברו קברייא, א"ל מקרא אני דורש שנא' ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים, וכותב לבאר וללמד מזה יסוד נפלא, דהנה אם אדם יראה בעיניו את ראובן חבירו, ושומע קולו ונדמה לו לקול שמעון, ודאי ישפוט שחוש שמיעתו הטעהו, ובאמת ראובן הוא ולא שמעון כי חוש הראיה יותר חזק מחוש השמיעה, כ"ש אם יאמרו לו על אחד שמת ורואהו עומד לפניו, מי פתי יחשוב אחרת שאמירה זו אינה מכוונת, והנה ראה זה פלא, שרב נחמן תמה ושואל: וכי בכדי חנטו חנטיה? בא ר"י ומשיב לו מקרא אני דורש, ומה תשובה היא זו? הא ראינו שמת חנטוהו וקברוהו, אולם חז"ל השמיענו בזה, שאם נסתר חוש הגשמי ע"י מה שמצאנו בתוה"ק איפכא, ע"כ מסיקים מזה שחוש הגשמי הטעה, ורק נראים כחונטים, כי מכיון שמקרא אני דורש עפ"י הכללים האמיתיים שנתנו לנו מסיני, הרי שהקב"ה אומר כן, וממילא ברור שרק נדמה להם שמת, אבל חי היה, ככה למדו חז"ל תורה, וזהו ההבדל הגדול והריחוק הנורא שבין דעתנו לדעת חז"ל, מן ההיפך אל ההיפך, שאצלנו בעניותנו העוה"ז הוא מציאות והתורה נדרשת, משא"כ חז"ל בעיני קדשם המה ראו את התורה בחושיהם כמציאות, וכשמקרא אני דורש בטלים ומבוטלים כל החושים ועיני הבשר, כי שקר המה טועים ומטעים, ורק נראה להם שחונטים יעו"ש בנעימות דבריו.
והוא הדבר איפוא גם בנידוננו, התנאים הקדושים כשנקטו קו בהליכותיהם בחיים לא היה זה מפאת נטית מזגם הטבעי לכך, אלא מפני שמצאו מהלכים לכך בתוה"ק, שמאי מצא שהדרך דרך - התורה היא להתנהג בקפדנות ושזוהי הדרך לשמור את דרך עץ החיים היא מצוותיה וחוקותיה של תוה"ק, ואילו היה מוצא שצריכים לשנות את הקו היה מיד משנה אותו בלי כל היסוס, ואותו הדבר גם הלל, הוא מצא שצריכים להתנהג בענוה ולכן התנהג ככה, ואם היה מוצא שצריכים להתנהג אחרת היה מתנהג אחרת, וכן גם רבי עקיבא שמצא שצריכים לנקוט בקו הנהגה של מעביר על מדותיו, ואילו מצא אחרת היה מתנהג כפי שמצא, ואם כן אין כל פלא אם בדרך ההנהגה שבין איש לאשתו מתי שאפשר לבעל לגרשה נקטו כל אחד מהם בקו אחר מכגון שנהגו בהליכותיהם עם בני האדם. כי בכאן כל אחד מהם מקרא הוא דורש על כך עפ"י הכללים שהיה לכל אחד מהם בקבלה מרבם, ומכיון שמקרא המה דורשים בזה אם כן סברו שככה היא הקבלה בזה עד למשה מסיני, ואם כן בטלו לפי תומת צדקתם הגדולה את הקו שנקטו להם בדרכי הליכותיהם עם בני האדם, ולא הביטו אם דרכם כאן סותר לדרכם האחר, וקבעו בכאן את ההלכה בזה לפי המקרא שדרשו בזה, כי כאמור גם דרכם האחרת לא בחרו מפני נטיית מזגם הטבעי כי אם רק לפי שמצאו שכך היא דרך התורה, ולכן אם כאן מצאו המקרא אני דורש שמורה לנקוט בכאן קו אחר נקטו כפי שמורה להם הדרש, כי צו התורה עומד למעלה מכל החשבונות, ומוטעים המה כלפי הצו הזה, וכל החושים ועיני הבשר מבוטלים כלפי המקרא אני דורש, כי זהו המציאות, וזוהי הדרך דרך התורה ללכת בה ואחריה בתמימות מבלי לנטות ימין או שמאל.