Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Rav Dovid Eidensohn Shiur 11# Even Hoezer – Various Coercion and ONESS with a GET
Telephone conference dial 605-562-3130 code is 411161# Wed night June 10 9:30.
1. If a husband gives his wife a GET and makes a condition that if he does not return in a month the GET is valid, and he approaches but the bridge is down and he cannot come, this is ONESSS but such an ONESS does not invalidate the GET. Kesubose 3A.
2. The above gemora seems to say that a real ONESSS would invalidate the GET, but such an ONESS about a bridge not functioning is something the husband should have anticipated, but other ONESS does invalidate the GET. But Rambam in Gerushin 9:8 seems to say that all ONESS is not counted to invalidate a GET, but a GET made on a condition and the condition is fulfilled the GET is kosher, even if the fulfillment was through ONESS.
3. If there is an ONESS from heaven and not from people, some say it invalidates the GET and some disagree. HaGahose Maimoni Rambam Gerushin 9:1.
4. Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 134:5: “If the husband swore to give his wife a GET, he must allow a Beth Din to negate his oath, so that his GET should not appear to be coerced. But if the husband wishes to pledge money to force him to give the GET, he may do this. Because this is not similar to coercion.”
5. But what is the difference between being forced by an oath to divorce when the coercion is only “appears” to be coercion, but not real coercion, whereas if one pledges that if he does not divorce his wife he will give such and such a sum of money, it is fine and does not even “appear” to be coercion?
6. Let us examine carefully the wording of the Shulchan Aruch “If the husband swore to give his wife a GET, he must allow a Beth Din to negate his oath, so that his GET should not appear to be coerced.” Note the word “appear.” The issue is whether divorcing because of an oath makes an “appearance” of a coerced and thus invalid GET. But “appear” means just that, that it is really not invalid, but has the appearance of being invalid. It is not sure if “appear” invalidates the GET in any sense, dirabonon or maybe lichatchilo or not.
7. The Baar Haitiv there says “the oath is like coercion.” He does not say, “The oath is coercion.” Obviously, it is not. But it appears to be coercion, whatever that means.
8. The Taz there says, “Since he willingly swore and obligated himself it is not real coercion, only an appearance of such.” Yes, he willingly swore and obligated himself, but once he is obligated because of his oath, the GET is given with coercion.
9. Again, at the giving of the GET, the husband is faced with a coercion: if he does not give the GET he will have to pay a large sum of money. Why is this not a coercion?
10. The Beis Yosef at the end of EH 154 brings the Ritva. A husband swore he would divorce his wife and gave the GET without negating the oath. The husband then claimed he was forced to give the GET because of his oath. The Ritva says that the GET is kosher. True, the husband must divorce as long as he made an oath to give the GET. But the husband should have found a way to negate his oath or to make a MODAH, a statement that his giving the GET is not valid. Lacking these, the husband must give the GET because of his oath, but why does he have the oath? Because one: he made it, not somebody else. Two, he could negate the oath at a Beth Din by explaining why it should be negated. Third of all, he could have made a MODAH, a statement that would negate the giving of the GET.
11. The Bais Yosef brings a Rashbo VII:40 that would seem to disagree with the Ritvah. The Rashbo has a case where a husband pledged a large sum of money to be paid if he did not divorce his wife. The Rashbo says that the GET is invalid, as it was forced upon the husband by his pledge to pay a large sum of money.
12. The Rashbo says there some rules regarding a GET given under pressure. If we know that he is forced, such as the above case where witnesses and others knew of his obligation and promise to pay the large sum if he did not divorce his wife, such a public knowledge of ONESS negates the GET.
13. However, if the husband has a pressure to divorce and is paid money, we assume that the money won him over and he gives the GET willingly. The amount of money to be paid is not clear in the Rashbo. Some hold that there is no monetary value on a wife but we don’t know what the Rashbo meant, although the Teshuva of the Rashbo in VII:40 is talking about a person who pledged a thousand Dinar which is a large sum.
14. Even if the husband is paid a large sum of money but he was pressured, he may make a Mesiras Modah, to tell two witnesses that he is being forced and does not want the GET to be valid and it is not valid.
15. In such a case of Mesiras Modah, there are ways of negating the Modah such as by saying that all statements of witnesses that he negated the GET will be void.
16. The Rashbo there says there that ONESS of losing money is ONESS to negate the GET even if the husband did not declare his negation, we know he is being forced and the GET is void. [...]
Mindfulness and the Mitzvah – Commandment of Tzitzit. by Allan Katz
Guest post by Allan Katz
The beginning of our Parasha-portion Shelach deals with the mission of the meraglim-spies and the national crisis of faith caused by their negative report. The end of the parasha-portion Numbers 15:38 concludes with the commandment/mitzvah to wear Tzitzit-fringes on the corners of our clothes. The Mitzvah of tzitzit comes to repair the spiritual damage done by the spies and is a constant reminder to us, to be mindful and aware of our duty towards God – being holy and performing all his commandments. The spies were told - וראיתם את הארץ and you shall SEE the land and God commands us – וראיתם אתו and that you may SEE it= the tzitzit. The problem of the spies was not what they saw, but ' how ' they looked at the land, what color lenses were they wearing. In light of the spies' sin, we are warned ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם, and 'do not explore after your heart and eyes after which you stray.' Here, the heart and the eyes are the spies for the body –the material, animal and negative emotional side of us.
There are 2 problems which distort and interfere with a person being in the present and having clear perception and insight. We look at things with a personal bias and self interest , often colored with our fears, anxieties, insecurities or other negative emotions. Secondly, we often operate as automats, without any thinking and our bodies totally in control. In this way our seeing and subsequent actions are rote and automatic - מצוות אנשים מלומדה.
Mindful awareness or simply Mindfulness gives us a ' way of looking' that helps ' being in the present ' without bias or the emotions directing the way we look and see. We need to become impartial spectators that look, see and notice without any judgment. But first we need just to learn to stop and be in the present. We just need to notice and be aware of the outer world and be aware of where our attention is and then choose where to focus and then see with intention in a purely objective way. We may need to quieten our inner world – our emotions by simply being aware of how we are feeling and then put it aside. Once we have made our observations, we can then make a decision how to act in the world connected to our inner core and values such as caring, compassion and courage. Mindfulness supports a person's need for autonomy and self-direction.
If we look at the mitzvah of Tzitzit, we see that the Torah is using a Mindful Awareness technique. We first need to stop and intently notice the Tzitzit. We need to be aware of our biases, our emotions that are seated in the ' heart' and then put them aside so that we do not stray after our eyes and hearts. We notice the Te'cheilet, the blue color which reminds us of the sea and then the sky – who both serve God – and then we are reminded of God's throne of Glory representing God's sovereignty over man to obey him and perform all his commandments. We can also notice the knots. Tying a knot is often a useful way to remind us of something. So the knots remind us something about Tzitzit , that the numerical value of the word is 600 and there are 8 threads and 5 knots make a total of 613 , the number of the Biblical commandments. And this leads to us performing the commandments and being holy.
The spies went on their mission with a negative view of the land fuelled by their fears, anxieties and insecurities about the future. They had an internal need to justify this view and so their hearts directed the way their eyes would see the land.
Mindful awareness is a great tool to help all kids and not only the ones with attention difficulties or emotional regulation problems to be in the present and become more caring, compassionate and courageous people in their learning, service of God and making a contribution to society.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Rav Dovid Eidensohn: Sunday night telephone conference June 7 9:30 PM Failing Children and Failing Families - How to Teach Children to Earn and Learn and Succeed
We
will study the Rambam and how people under twenty years of age had
money to buy homes and furthermore had established income. Without this,
says Rambam, it is forbidden to marry. Why this is crucial to children,
that they earn and learn and succeed.
‘Putin’s rabbi’ says challenging governments is not Jewish
[...] An emissary for Chabad, Lazar, 51, would go on to become one of Russia’s two chief rabbis, a major and controversial force in the dramatic revival of Russian Jewry following decades of Communist oppression and mass immigration to Israel, the United States, Germany and elsewhere.
Lazar’s work, his Russia boosterism and his ties to the Kremlin — he is sometimes called “Putin’s rabbi” — has helped Chabad’s Russian branch eclipse all the Jewish groups vying to reshape the country’s community of 250,000 Jews. Now Lazar heads a vast network that comprises dozens of employees and plentiful volunteers working in hundreds of Jewish institutions: schools, synagogues, community centers and kosher shops.
“I am amazed at what became of a community that had been stripped of everything, even its books,” Lazar said, referring to Soviet Jewry before the fall of communism, when religious practice was suppressed.[...]
But criticism of Lazar’s partnership with Putin persists as the Russian president makes use of his pro-Jewish credentials in justifying his policies. The strongman has repeatedly cited the alleged anti-Semitism of Ukrainian nationalists in justifying Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Ukraine-controlled Crimea. In January, Putin inveighed against Ukrainian nationalists — he called them “Banderites,” a reference to the Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera — during a speech he delivered on International Holocaust Memorial Day, when he was Lazar’s guest at Moscow’s Jewish museum.
Lazar has also been criticized for his presence at Kremlin events, like the one last year celebrating Russia’s Crimea annexation. (“Like other clerics, my duties include officiating at state events,” Lazar said in an interview with JTA.)[...]
Challenging the government is not the Jewish way, and [Gusinsky] put the Jewish community in harm’s way,” said Lazar, noting that the chief rabbi should be apolitical, not a government critic. “I wanted to have nothing to do with this.” [...]
Beth's words of gratitude and appreciation of Rabbi Yehuda Brodie - a rare exception
MY five-year battle with the Austrian courts to win custody of my sons Sammy and Benji from my ex-husband has brought me into contact with so many rabbis around the world.
But I have been shocked and dismayed to discover that, contrary to the picture-book image I was fed as a child, not all those with the title "rabbi" are worthy of veneration.
Rabbi Yehuda Brodie was a rare exception.
It takes more than a title to make a rabbi and Rabbi Brodie, the registrar of Manchester Beth Din who died on Tuesday, personified everything a true rabbi should be.
He knew of me growing up in Manchester and knew my family well.
However, there are others who were closer who chose "not to get involved" as I battled the Austrian judicial system to try to get my boys back.
They distanced themselves from our crisis and made it clear they were not even willing to listen.
The very first person to call me when the news of my plight broke back in 2010 was Rabbi Brodie.
Without a moment's hesitation, he offered to take the next flight out to Vienna to try to mediate and help in my hour of need.
At the time, I didn't yet realise just how far things would escalate and told him there was no need. But looking back, I will never forget such a spontaneous act of courage and kindness.
Since then, he never deserted me.
His steadfast support, encouragement and belief in me got me through many a dark day when I thought nothing could break the spell of disconsolate misery.
Rabbi Brodie had a unique sense of humour and even at my lowest points, he knew just the way to cheer me up and make me see that there is always light ahead.
For every occasion, he had the perfect words, delivered with an inimitable wit that could slice through a stone.
Rabbi Brodie was indeed my rock and I will miss him terribly.
He always offered the sincerest advice and non-judgemental opinions.
A modest man, he shied away from lofty praise. And for his self-deprecation alone, a trait so exceptional in a public figure, I admired him more than perhaps he was even aware.
In every email and meeting we had, he called me a heroine. But for me, he was the real hero.
A natural leader, he didn't need to command respect.
His actions and unassuming manner unquestionably earned him the highest esteem.
I always wished my boys Sammy and Benji could meet the man who unconditionally fought so much for them and learn of his greatness first-hand.
Unfortunately, that isn't to be. But if I can instil in them even a fraction of the values and lessons Rabbi Brodie exemplified, I will be profoundly proud.
The giant who made a massive imprint on our lives leaves a towering legacy which will always be remembered.
Beth Schlesinger (Alexander),
(formerly of Manchester),
Vienna,
Austria.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Did Duggars Do the Right Thing When Son Confessed to Sex Abuse?
NBC News [Contrary to what many child abuse advocates claim - calling the police does not automatically protect potential victims - and in addition in many cases not only do the police handle the matter in an insensitive manner - the perpetrator is labeled for life as a deviant when he often is not a danger. In short I agree with the views expressed by Dr. Horowitz cited in the article that there needs to be a middle path between handling the matter by the famiy and having the police label perpetrators as lifetime sex abusers. and focusing on punishment.]
Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have defended their decision to delay contacting police when they learned their teenage son Josh had molested young girls — but victims' advocates say they made the wrong move.
"We must involve the authorities to protect our children," said Stacy Thompson, executive director of the Children's Advocacy Centers of Arkansas.
Teresa Huizar, executive director of National Children's Alliance, noted that in 18 states, parents and any other citizens are legally required to report abuse to authorities, even if the perpetrator is their child. Arkansas, where the "19 Kids and Counting" family lived, is not one of those states.
In a Fox News interview on Wednesday night, the couple gave a timeline of how they handled the admission by Josh, now a 27-year-old father of three, that he inappropriately touched four of his sisters and a girl who was not a family member in a series of incidents that began in 2002.[...]
Josh Duggar has never been arrested or charged, and he has publicly apologized.
Emily Horowitz, a sociology professor at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, said the Duggars' decision to keep law enforcement out of it at first is understandable — even defensible.
"I don't condone this behavior, but I spoke to so many families that did the 'right thing' and the reaction was so excessive and Draconian that it destroyed the lives of their children," said Horowitz, author of the new book "Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing."
Horowitz said that juvenile offenders are the most treatable group of sex abusers, but law enforcement is more focused on punishment, including criminal prosecution with possible jail terms and lifetime listing on a sex-offender registry.
She said Justice Department data shows that one-third of sex offenses involving children also involve underage perpetrators. The most common age, she said, is 14 — the age Josh Duggar was.
"I'm pro-punishment," Horowitz said. "I'm just not pro-Draconian, permanent punishment."[...]
NY Daily News
In defense of Josh Duggar’s parents: It's no secret why a mother and father would hesitate before reporting a child to police on sex abuse allegations by Prof Emily Horowitz
The case reminded me of Josh Gravens — who, like Josh Duggar, was from a conservative Christian homeschooling family, with parents who turned to their church after learning their 13-year-old inappropriately touched his younger sisters.
In Gravens’ case, the church reported him to police, and he was sent to prison for over three years. Released at 17, Gravens then spent a decade on the public sex-offender registry. Today, at 28, he has never re-offended. Yet he is still required to update police when moving, and is now facing up to 25 years in prison — for registering a new address a week late.
As a researcher trying to understand widespread and exaggerated fears of sex offenders, I have a different perspective than those enraged at the Duggars for not turning to law enforcement or therapists (many counselors are mandated reporters, like the Christian counselor who reported Gravens to police).
While most express disbelief and anger about the response of the Duggars, I understand why they bent over backward to keep their son from being chewed up by the cops and courts.
Our sex-offender laws start with excessive punishment followed by long-term labeling and public shaming. Those convicted of crimes join 800,000 other Americans on lifetime registries.
Sex offenses, it’s crucial to understand, aren’t just predatory acts involving young children. About one-third of child sex abusers are minors. Fewer than 10% involve stranger perpetrators. Sex offenses can include statutory rape, Romeo-and-Juliet scenarios, teenage consensual sex, prostitution-related crimes and indecent exposure. Most sex offenders I interviewed were older men caught with adolescent girls — non-violent, but legally non-consensual.
Yet the registry treats all offenders as permanent threats to young children, regardless of the victim’s age or the perpetrator’s potential for rehabilitation. [...]
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Powerful leftist group sues to close Jewish counseling service (Jonah) for dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction
A major issue is separating the desirability of the goal and the nature of the therapy used to achieve that goal.
Breitbart
Jury selection begins today in a trial that pits a $340 million left-wing group against a small Jewish non-profit. The result could be the closing of all counseling services in New Jersey that aim to help those with unwanted same-sex desires.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is using New Jersey’s strong Consumer Protection Act to sue a group called Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing (JONAH) that refers men and women to psychological counselors working in the field known as “sexual orientation change efforts.”
SPLC claims JONAH defrauded four men by telling them their same-sex desires could be treated and they could become purely or largely heterosexual. The case is a blueprint for how SPLC intends to go after similar counseling services around the country. Indeed, SPLC and a group called Truth Wins Out, run by gay activist Wayne Besson, have spearheaded a legislative effort to outlaw counseling services to minors with unwanted same-sex attraction. They have been successful in California and New Jersey, which now outlaw the practice.
The case that will be heard over the next month in Superior Court for Hudson County, New Jersey, focuses on the claims of four men who voluntarily approached JONAH to help them with unwanted same-sex attraction. None of them self-identified as gay at the time and each wanted the attractions to end. JONAH, which works from what it calls “Torah values” referred the men to counselors who treated them.
SPLC is now claiming that JONAH made promises that do not comport with scientific findings about the permanence and changeability of homosexuality and that the treatment they underwent was odd. SPLC also claims that homosexual desires do not need to be “cured” and that it’s impossible anyway. All this adds up to consumer fraud, according to the suit that has been going on since 2012.
JONAH founder Arthur Goldberg and his colleagues, along with many noted psychiatrists, hold that same-sex desire is a result of stunted emotional growth and that this can be treated and overcome. They also see it as counter to the will of God and therefore something incumbent on religious believers to overcome. [...]
California Boot Camp for at-Risk Kids apparently abused some kids
A weeklong boot camp run by Los Angeles-area police departments that was meant to turn around misbehaving youth left seven of the kids with injuries consistent with abuse, investigators said.
Those seven were among 39 children who attended the boot camp from May 17 to 24, and all were being interviewed along with the drill instructors, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday
Sheriff's spokesman Tony Cipolla declined to describe the injuries and said no charges have been filed.
The agency has never gotten a complaint about the 17-year-old camp before, Cipolla said.
Greg Owen, an attorney representing the parents of the children who had injuries, said most of them had cuts and bruises after being beaten bloody at times, and that one boy had a fractured hand. He said the lasting injuries will be emotional.[...]
"Talking to the parents today, their kids can't sleep through the night, they don't want to go out of the house," he said. "That will never go away." [...]
The LEAD program began in 1998 as an intervention for troubled youths from Southern California. Participants can range from kids who've joined gangs or use drugs to children with bad grades or attitude problems.
Veronica Bernal said her 16-year-old son came back from the boot camp in tears with an untreated fractured hand.
"They put him in a dark room, and they would beat him," she said.
Aracely Pulido said her 14-year-old daughter came back with bruises covering her arms, and said that drill instructors had slapped and kicked her, and stomped on her back. "She's traumatized," Pulido said.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Rav Dovid Eidensohn: Telephone Conference Shiur #10 – The Chazon Ish and the Laws of Coercion of a GET
Dial 605-562-3130 enter code 411161#
1. There are times when a husband can be forced to give a GET, even with a beating, such as one who marries his close relative. And there are time when the husband cannot be forced with a beating to divorce his wife, but people can tell the husband he is wicked for not giving a GET. See EH 154:21. And then there are times when the husband cannot be pressured at all to give a GET. Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3 and commentators.
2. The Chazon Ish Even Hoezer Chapter 99:1 says that when Beth Din errs and rules that the husband can be forced with a beating and he agrees to give a GET only because of the beating, the GET he gives is negated by the Torah not just by the rabbis.
3. If Beth Din had a case where the only coercion allowed was words but not a beating, and the Beth Din gave a beating, the GET from that beating is negated by the Torah and not just the rabbis. EH 99:1
4. Rambam maintains differently, that if Beth Din made an error and coerced a GET with a beating when it was not called for, the GET is kosher by the Torah standard, but invalid by rabbinic standard. The Chazon Ish says that this is true only if Beth Din made an honest error, because they thought the halacha permitted a beating. But if a Beth Din deliberately beat a husband they knew should not be beaten, the GET is invalid by Torah standard not just rabbinic standard even according to the Rambam. EH 99:1
5. The gemora in Shabbos 88b asks how today when there is no longer semicha from Moshe Rabbeinu to be a Dayan, how can rabbis coerce a GET? The gemora answers that today we do the coercion because it was so established by the earlier Semuchim.
6. The Chazon Ish writes there EH 99:1 that when the earlier Musmochim gave permission to coerce Gittin they meant to include a Beth Din that knew the halochose of judging, that knew the logic involved to be a Beth Din, and that mastered the laws of paskening. It would seem from this that any Beth Din that is not a master of the laws of paskening and knowledgeable about judging its laws and practice is not authorized by early generations to coerce Gittin. To coerce a GET without the permission of the earlier Musmochim is unacceptable (Gittin 88b).
7. The Chazon Ish says there that a Beth Din that deliberately twists things to coerce a GET when it is not deserved has a status of no Beth Din. If so, all of those who deliberately give coerced Gittin the opposite of the Shulchan Aruch lose the title of Beth Din and their Gittin are not recognized. I heard a similar thing from Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l, that a Beth Din that does things against the Shulchan Aruch loses its status of a Beth Din. A similar statement is in a letter from Gedolim in Israel such as Reb Chaim Kanievsky and others. (Brought in the beginning of the Sefer Mishpitei Yisroel.)
8. The Chazon Ish writes EH 99:2 “If the husband being beaten [by mistake] to divorce his wife suddenly feels like giving the GET, not because of the beating but a genuine personal decision, the GET is kosher. But this applies only if he decides that he really wants the GET before the GET is made. But if he says this after the GET is made the GET is invalid.
9. The Chazon Ish says that a husband beaten to divorce when he should not be coerced, the GET is invalid, even if the husband was silent after the beating and he said “I want the GET” without complaining how the GET was obtained. Chazon Ish EH 99:2:2.
10. If the husband is beaten to give the GET and he agrees because of the beating, but in his heart he declares that the GET is negated and invalid, if the beating was proper that he deserved the beating and deserved coercion, the GET is kosher. Ch. Ish EH 99:2:3
11. The Chazon Ish writes that if Beth Din did not force with a beating or any kind of coercion, but they made a mistake and ruled that the husband is obligated by the Torah to give a GET, the GET is invalid by Torah ruling and not just by rabbinical ruling. Ch. Ish EH 99:2: par. 2.
12. There are two reasons for this: One, when the Beth Din told him [falsely because they erred] that the Torah requires a GET, it created a pressure on him to obey the Torah, and this pressure negates the GET.
13. Also, the GET is invalid by the Torah because if the husband had known that the Beth Din was wrong he never would have given the GET. EH 99:2.
14. Thus whenever a Beth Din rules that a husband must give his wife a GET, if the husband is not a candidate for coercion, something very rare, the GET given is invalid by the Torah not just rabbinical ruling. [...]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)