No Fault divorce - a frum lawyer's perspective

Guest post by  Moshe Anwalt who a lawyer dealing with family law 

This deals with issues raised regarding the issue of whether women have a right to a Get on demand

 http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/chanukah-and-claim-that-woman-has-right.html

---------

Yesterday's post raised a key issue that deserves special treatment: Is it proper to have a divorce system where either spouse can exit the marriage without any consequences?

The idea of unilateral, no-fault divorce is a relatively new phenomenon, both as a legal standard and as a cultural norm. Western society frowned upon divorce and the legal systems required a judicial decision based upon a finding of fault in order to grant a divorce.

It is not surprising, therefore, that chazal and the later poskim created numerous obstacles to ending a marriage - ketubah and cherem, to name two examples.

In that way, the agenda promoted by "Agunah" advocates - will definitely in tune with modern mores and assumptions about the nature of marriage - goes against the grain of thousands of years of halacha, not to mention societal conventions that were held by Jews and non-Jews alike.

What is noteworthy, however, is not simply the novelty of the pro-divorce agenda, but the discriminatory fashion in which that agenda is applied, at least as far as gender is concerned.

The JOFA Guide

A clear example of this is the "Guide to Jewish Divorce and the Beit Din System," published by the Orthodox Jewish feminist organization "JOFA."  You can find the guide at: http://jofa.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_documents/beit_din_guide_0.pdf

While the guide is otherwise useful and presents an accurate description of the Jewish divorce process, it makes some startling statements about unilateral, no-fault divorce. On page 16, the guide defines an Agunah as follows:

"An agunah is a woman chained to a dead marriage. ... "

The guide goes on to argue that a get should always be done immediately and may not be used to improve the party's legal position in the settlement (page 18):

"It is wrong for either party to use a Get for leverage in divorce proceedings. As soon as it becomes clear that there will be no reconciliation, the Get should be written and delivered to the woman so that it cannot be used as a bargaining tool in financial or custody negotiations."

While this paragraph would indicate that JOFA looks askance at women who refuse to take a get, the guide actually clarifies that this is not the case and the wife - and only the wife - is entitled to refuse to take a get. The guide continues (page 10):

"7. ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A WOMAN SHOULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT A GET?

... It may also be legitimate to refuse to accept a Get if the woman will be compelled to also accept an unconscionable settlement with regard to spousal and/or child support or custody. Another circumstance in which it may be recommended for a woman to refuse to accept a Get is a situation in which the Get is based on false allegations against the woman. ....

Note: The decision to refuse to accept a Get is a significant one and should only be undertaken with a great deal of forethought and in consultation with an attorney and a rabbi."

According to JOFA, there are four cases where a woman is well within her rights to refuse to take a get from her husband:

1) The wife is accused of "false allegations."

2) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to spousal support

3) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to child support

4) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to "custody"

In scenario 1, essentially JOFA gives carte blanche to women to hold out and keep their husbands in a dead marriage.  As for the other cases where a woman is "justified" in refusing a get, JOFA concedes that the wife can use a get as a leverage.

Rivka and Avraham

To illustrate this, think of the following example (the names are completely fictional):

Rivka and Avraham live in a modest home in a suburban "out of town" Jewish community in the United States. Avraham is a successful saleman, while his wife is a well-known architect. After many years of marriage and all the children having grown up and left the house, Avrfaham has a run-in with the Feds, as a result of criminal activity in which Rivka was a minor participant. Rivka asks Avraham for a get and takes him to Beis Din, through a toen.

At the Beis Din, and after the parties sign a binding arbitration agreement (shtar beirurin), Reb Berl, the dayan, asks Avraham if he agrees to give a get, and Avraham responds in the affirmative.

As the Beis Din is about to set a date for a siddur get, Reb Berl tells the parties that they must be separated before the get is done - and must remain separated after the get as well. At this point, Rivka's toen tells the Beis Din that his client will not leave the house, even though she is the one who demanded the get. Rivka tells the dayan the the familial home is jointly owned and therefore she has a right to it. Rivka and her toen add that the house is worth $500,000 - a fact which Avraham stipulates to.

Avraham, who is well versed in both halacha and secular law, proposes that he buy out wife wife's share of the house. Rivka responds that she does not agree under any circumstances and that she wants to stay in the house, without having to but out Avraham's share.

Moreover, argues Rivka, she is entitled to post-divorce spousal support, as her income is slightly lower than Avraham's. Avraham rejects this and observes - correctly - that halacha does not recognize a right to spousal support after the get and that, under state law, the aware of spousal support is a matter of discretion and, given the circumstances, no judge would rule that spousal support is justified.

It is at this point that the dayan issues the following ruling:

1. Avraham will put $250,000 in escrow - immediately - for Rivka's benefit.

2. As soon as Rivka leaves the house, the escrow agent will transfer her the full sum.

3. Once the parties are separated, the Beis Din will set a date for a get.

4. Since both parties consented to get divorce, the wife is no longer entitled to spousal support. Nevertheless, after the get, the husband will pay 12 months payments, as payment of Rivka's kesuba (as per the opinion of the Chazon Ish), to the amount of $4,000 per month. While the wife is not entitled to the kesubah, the Beis Din sees fit to award the kesubah since Rivka's suit for divorce was based upon the criminal acts of Avraham, even though Rivka was aware of the criminal acts and even participated in them.

-------------

Bracha is not happy with the ruling, despite the fact that it conforms to the halacha - and state law, since the parties had signed a binding arbitration contract. She approaches a local Rosh Yeshiva, Reb Baruch, and asks for his help. He writes a letter, on the yeshiva stationary, declaring Rivka an Agunah and calling for protests against Avraham for refusing to give a get. Additionally, the Rosh Yeshiva forbids Avraham for counting toward a minyan or receiving any honor in shul.

Reb Baruch further advises Rivka to take an attorney and go to secular court, with a motion to vacate the arbitration award and petition for spousal support.

Going back to the JOFA Beit Din guide, under the criteria delineated there, Rivka would be considered an Agunah - despite the fact that Avraham agreed immediately to give a get and did not seek to infringe upon any of Rivka's rights.

Since JOFA permits a woman to refuse a get if the settlement is - at least in her mind - unconscionable, Rivka was justified in refusing to accept the decision of the Beis Din. At the same time, since the marriage is "dead," Avraham is wrong not to give a get and he should be shunned for not doing so.

This story, while entirely fictional, is typical of divorce cases today - and it shows how the divorce standards being proposed by Agunah advocates lead to incorrect (and unjust) results.

The Double Standard

The double standard offered by such groups - and JOFA in particular - goes even further. Here is the Guide's advice (page 18):

"When someone is told that a woman refused to accept a Get, the listener must question whether and why the Get may have been refused prior to determining that the woman is simply recalcitrant. There may be valid reasons for a woman to refuse a Get. (See FAQs Section II:7.) One should refrain from premature judgments and gossip."

If we unpack that statement, we notice how far the double standard actually goes. While a husband can be criticized and ostracized without being heard, the wife is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Summary

The opposition to no-fault divorce is absolutely rooted in the sources and there are many good policy reasons for not changing the rules, even where there is room for halachic flexibility. Chazal, in their great wisdom, understood that marriage is not to be tampered.  The current trend in Western societies to create intimate relationships without any mutual obligations is abhorrent to Judaism and it was precisely to avoid this breakdown that chazal created safeguards and set legal boundaries.

However, whichever side we take on the debate of no-fault versus fault divorce, we cannot apply the standards arbitrarily and treat husbands any different than wives. The public discourse has to be altered and the frame of the debate refocused - not just on blogs, but also in shuls and educational institutions. Once people (especially askanim and rabbanim) are more aware of the issues, they will, hopefully, display more sensitivity in dealing with self-proclaimed "Agunahs."

Chanukah and the claim that a woman has a right to a Get on demand

Guest Post

 

A Freilichen Chanukah to all visitors to this site, who come to hear what Da'as Torah has to say on various issues, 

Sholom u'Brochoh!

With the last rays of Chanukah flickering into oblivion, already searing through Chodesh Teves, the darkest month, along with the rest of the cold and dark winter, )in particular going with Rabbeinu Tam's zman shkiah,:-) I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to grab the opportunity for a "mesiba". What?? Yes, a get-together l'kovod Chanukah!

Compounding that with the minhag to engage in pilpul on Torah sheba'al peh, since Chanukah is a Yom Tov of Torah sheba'al peh - which brings me to the focal point: our enemies' intent on shikchas HaTorah.

Of course we know that the Yevonim would have let us *study* Torah, but we know that it was only tolerable as a *chochmoh*. To let us *observe* (pardon my *antics*) the Torah? Aha! That was a different story. Again here, we know that malpractice of Torah, despite preservation of the text, is nonetheless shikchas HaTorah.

Eras have come and gone with arising with various issues of threats to Jewish Identity. For example, the Reform Movement (whose founding fathers were very learned) that started out with the changing of direction of the bimah to face the kehilla, bringing in change after change, up to the point that there is virtually nothing that they observe.

We all know that on Chanukah, that we again ask the famous kashya of the Bais Yosef, dor achar dor, but here, appropriate for this site and more so, in the spirit of this site, we wish to, nonetheless, engage in a pilpul that has to do with Issues of Jewish Identity.

Unfortunately, we are exposed to secular society and to their ideas, causing us to adopt them as second nature. We are exposed to society that stresses 'women's rights' or 'equal rights'. We are pressured to find it unconscionable that a woman in the 21st century cannot free herself from marriageable bondage among our ethnic society, so we are thus compelled to go as far as administering forceful and dangerous coercion of a get, then, when that ceases to be an option, to just annul a marriage in order to not necessitate a get (without even hearing out the other party, as we know) - amounting to an alternate route to shikchas HaTorah.

Yes, some of may argue (with consternation) that this issue has been discussed quite some time before, but others, on the contrary, would (gleefully) want it revisited, as is perceived that the more it is discussed, the more we see ignorance on the basics of such a core issue, finding it imperative to one more time, lay out on the table.

Hence, without further ado, the shayla: is there any basis for get on demand? Are we halachically, ethically or morally coerce or pressure or coax or cajole a man to do so? After doing some research, or perhaps, iyun, and with pilpul chaverim, no one was able to indicate to me where it is brought al pi Shulchan Aruch that although when a get cannot be coerced, it is 'yashrus' to give one and that there is no need for any m'kor and that it should be done nonetheless out of common sense! I found it odd that such a vastly popular notion should have no mention in anywhere in Tanach , Shas or poskim.

Our Gemara mentions dinim we must do out Chassidus (Pirkei Avos is all chassidus). In nezikin there are things that's we may be potur b'dinai Odom and yet, chayav b'dinai Shomayim. There are halachos- al pi din, to do because of "v'osisoh hayoshor v'hatov" and in the Shulchan Aruch there instances where"hamachmir tovo olov brochoh". In short, we see many scenarios where we are to conduct ourselves beyond the letter of Law, and many times demanded so by Halacha itself! So again, and from new perspective - why is there no m'kor for get on demand, especially if it is such a fundamental?

Furthermore, perusing through teshuvos of igunah, we often find the classic case where we need to be mattir a woman because her husband disappeared. There are cases then where the husband is not well and physically or mentally incompetent to give a get due to illness. Does anyone remember where there was a teshuva how to get a woman out of a marriage because she simply wanted out because she didn't feel the relationship would work out?

After humbly expressing all formalities to all talmidei chachamim and ready to be shredded apart, (already putting forth an urgent request for anybody to come to my defense,) with ra'ayos back and forth, I put before you (albeit with great trepidation) my thoughts:

If I may, I bring a ra'ayah from Yevomos 106b on the Mishnah "Mitzvas chalitzah: bo hu v'yovimto l'bais din v'hain m'si'in lo eitzah hogenes lo she'nemar (translation: he and his yevomoh (- his childless brother's wife that he can marry - and by force) come to Bais Din), "v'koru lo ziknai iro". Rashi says on the words "eitzah hogenes lo" says: go to those who are comparable to you and do not bring in machlokes to your house. The Bartenurah elaborates a bit more: if he is young and she is old or he is old and she is young, they tell him that what do you need an old one for? What do you need a young one for? Go to those like you!

Question: isn't that common sense? And furthermore, why is there no counterpart to this Mishnah in Masechta Gittin that if she wants a get and he does not, that we tell him something like, 'Look, it's not going to work, you need to go on with your life'?

Perhaps I can answer that the Torah makes a distinction as follows: in yibum, the yevamah never agreed to get married to this man, who happens to be her deceased husband's brother, so *Da'as Torah* states (to the extent that it makes it to the Mishna) that although we can't control him, we at least advise him or steer him, but by gittin, since this bond was done with HER COMMITMENT, there is not even an *ethical* suggestion of advising or steering him, even in the most gentle way, to appease her.

One more ra'ayah (and hopefully others will construct (or perhaps even destruct) upon my cornerstone,): the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibiting one to divorce a wife against her will: is it not ethically wrong to force a man against his will to stay married to a woman that he dislikes? Apparently, this question is not asked nowadays, only the other way around : how can the rabbis force a woman to stay married to someone that SHE dislikes? (By the way, the Israeli Rabbanut has found by a poll that more women refuse a get than men.) We see from here that it is ethically perfect to l'chatchillah make a takanah binding (or 'enslaving') a man to his wife. Therefore, we see that the same would apply vice versa, binding a woman to her husband - especially that we don't find any ethical notion or suggestion otherwise.

Thanking you all for your audience and best wishes for wonderful winter,

May we take along the light and warmth of Chanukah.....

An Open Letter to Rabbi Rosenbaum, President of the Rabbinical Council of Greater Washington / Vaad Harabonim of Greater Washington

Dear Rabbi Rosenbaum,

You have greeted me with a smile despite my opposition to your treatment of Aharon Friedman. Sometimes we clashed in public. On two occasions I counter-protested at rallies against Aharon that you promoted and attended. We met privately several times to discuss the matter.

I have contacted some of the other Rabbinical leaders in the DC area. When I bring up the issue of the Washington Vaad letter that urges people to persuade Aharon to give a Get, all roads lead back to you. You hold the key to rescinding the letter.

The Vaad letter specifically references a letter from the Agudas Harabonim that also calls on people to persuade Aharon to give a Get. It is clear to all now that that the Agudas Harabonim letter is a fraud.

The Agudas Harabonim letter is fraudulent in numerous ways. It is from a Bais Din, and yet the Bais Din never met with one of the parties in the dispute. It is from a Bais Din, yet this Bais Din did not have jurisdiction, despite the assertion otherwise in the Vaad letter. It is from a Bais Din, but one of the signatories to the letter received favors from the family of one of the parties to the dispute. The list goes on and on. One of the signatories is headed to prison because he was part of another Bais Din that ruled that a non-existent husband in a non-existent marriage should be beaten. At least one official of the Agudas Harabonim participated in the attempted beating. One or more of the other signatories was aware, and apparently approved, of this other Bais Din's method of making secret rulings to beat husbands. One of the signatories specifically said the letter is not meant to be used as a basis for public rallies against Aharon, but that is exactly how the letter was used by ORA at a rally here in DC where I first met Rabbi Jeremy Stern and he showed me the letter.

Perhaps most significantly, the Agudas Harabonim letter purported to be a Seruv but did not conform to the Halachic format of a Seruv. The letter was phony on its face.

The Vaad letter refers to Tamar Epstein as an "agunah". This "agunah" just remarried. It is two years since this "agunah" declared herself free and stopped demanding a Get.

Yet, you, Rabbi Rosenbaum still demand of other Rabbis in town that they pressure Aharon to give a Get.

And the Rav is an honorable man.

So I would like to ask you, or any other Rabbi in town who accepts you as leader of the Vaad, to please explain to the thousands who follow this blog, what is your basis for excluding Aharon until he gives a Get?

Please include the basis for the Vaad determining the Baltimore Bais Din no longer had jurisdiction, and please explain the Halachic basis for forcing a Get in the context of a wife unilaterally deciding to leave her husband.

I hope the graciousness you have always shown me will be extended to answering my sincere question.

Joe Orlow

The Wolmark-Epstein gang's Hamas / ISIS defense by Nathan Lewin (part II)

 Guest post

The most important right Jews have in the United States is the free exercise of religion provided by the First Amendment. As originally enacted, the First Amendment applies only to actions by the Federal Government. The Fourteenth Amendment applies these protections to State and local governments. However, the Constitution only protects against government actions. Congress viewed the free exercise of religion as so important that it enacted several statutes providing that interference or attempted interference with the free exercise of religion is amongst the most heinous of crimes. Therefore, Congress made persons committing this crime, if combined with certain aggravating circumstances, eligible for the most severe possible punishment, the death penalty. Included amongst the aggravating circumstances that make this crime eligible for the death penalty, are kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and sexual assault and attempted sexual assault.

As noted previously, the Epstein-Wolmark gang, whatever its motivations (whether religious, money, pure sadistic glee at torturing another human being) forced and attempted to force several Jewish man to perform a religious action against their will. This is completely indisputable. The gang was properly charged with kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit these offenses. Contrary to the arguments of Mr. Nathan Lewin on behalf of the Epstein-Wolmark gang, any supposed religious motivations (itself doubtful, as noted previously) does not bar prosecution for these violent crimes. But the gang’s actions are far worse than that. The Wolmark-Epstein gang clearly violated two Federal capital crimes, 18 U.S.C. 241, and 18 U.S.C. 247, combined with the aggravating circumstances needed to make the gang eligible for the death penalty under the statute. It is of course extremely rare for Federal prosecutors to even ask for the death penalty, but the fact that the Wolmark-Epstein gang committed crimes eligible for the death penalty highlights the extreme heinousness of their actions.

18 USC § 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise [including free exercise of religion under the First Amendment] or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 U.S.C. § 247

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section—

(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or

(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(d) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be—

(1) if death results from acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for any term of years or for life,

or both, or may be sentenced to death;

(2) if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more that 40 years, or both;

(3) if bodily injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and

(4) in any other case, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(e) No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General or his designee that in his judgment a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

(f) As used in this section, the term “religious real property” means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.

(g) No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense under this section unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Psychologist Dr Baruch Shulem says the first concern is that the therapists need to be reported to the professional bodies for making a report about someone they never met

I had a discussion today with Dr. Baruch Shulem - one of the leading psychologists in Israel - about the use of forensic reports made by psychologists/psychiatrists about someone they never met. In addition about the belief of poskim that psychology/ psychiatry is a science and that conclusions made by therapists can be totally accepted and halacha paskened - without concern with how those conclusions were reached.

He said I could report in his name the following. The critical issue in the present case is not the mistaken belief that psychology is a science like medicine - even though it is in fact a significant problem. The most important thing is that this heter should never have been given because a therapist is not allowed to give a report about someone they have never met. He therefore said that it is critical to get the names of the therapists and make complaints to the AMA, APA and other relevant organizations. In addition he strongly advised going to a lawyer to see what legal actions can be taken against these therapists.

Aside from being unethical or possibly illegal there is a major problem of their lack of validity. Consequently there is no factual basis for the heter. It is elementary that one can not issue a psak without knowing what the facts are.

Anyone who knows who the therapists are that wrote the reports for Tamar Epstein's heter - should  let me know their names and any other details that might help in reporting them.  If anyone can send me a copy of the reports - that would be very helpful.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky will be attending Torah Umesorah Conference December 17- 20 Aventura, Florida

The Wolmark-Epstein gang's Hamas / ISIS defense by Nathan Lewin

Guest post by a concerned Jew and American

The Epstein-Wolmark cirminal gang argued, in a brief written by Nathan Lewin, that the relgious aspect of their activies somehow immunizes them from criminal prosecution under Federal law. Judge Wolfson rejected this claim in her ruling on this issue earlier this year.

It is far from clear that the criminal gang acted out of any religious motivation, or even believed that they were actually helping women receive divorces considered valid (under any interpreation of Jewish Law). It is clear from the case that the defendants received large sums of money to commit kidnapping and torture. Even if the gang really believed what they were doing was pursuant to Jewish law, were they acting out of religious principles or were they trying to enrich themselves?

Even according to the most lenient opinions in Jewish Law, there must be some basis for a legitimate beis din to conclude that a get procured through the use of coercion has any validity. The facts established by the prosection in the case demonstrate very clearly that the the gang did not perform any real due diligence in the cases it took on. To the contrary, the gang attempted to kidnap and torture a fictitious husband to "free" a woman from a "marriage" that did not exist. This completely undermines the claim that the gang itself believed that they were acting according to any interpretation of Jewish Law or that they were procuring divorces that were valid under Jewish Law.

Even if the gang was acting pursuant to their beliefs under Jewish law, Mr. Nathan Lewin's argument that those committing violent crimes pursuant to their religious beliefs may not or should not be prosecuted or that the religious component of their motivation should be treated as a mitigating factor is shameful and reprehensible, not to mention extremely dangerous, particularly for the Jewish community. Mr. Lewin's argument would also justify arguments by members of Hamas, Hizbollah, al-Queeda, or Islamic State or other radical Islamist groups that they may murder Jews with impunity because they believe that their religioun commands them to do so.

The Wolmark- Epstein gang's argument that the religious angle somehow shows that the prosecution overcharged the case, and inappropriately charged the gang with kidnapping where much less serious charges should somehow have been appropriate has things exactly backwards.

The U.S. Attorney's office generally argued that the gang committed kidnapping and that any religious motivation did not make kidnapping into some lesser crime.

But well beyond neutrality, the religious angle of the case illustrates that if anything the defendants were under-charged for their heinous crimes in this case.

Regardless of the gang's true MOTIVATIONS (whether motivated by religion, money, or sadistic desire to torture), what the gang actually DID was to kidnap, or attempt to kidnap, Jewish men and torture them in order to force the men against their will to perform the religious act of giving a get . For these purposes, it does not matter whether the men had a religious obligation under Jewish Law to give a get, were allowed under Jewish Law to give a get, or whether the men were prohibited by Jewish Law from giving a get. In any case, they were coerced (or the gang attempted to coerce the men) into perfoming a religious act against their will.

Congress decided that coercing individuals into religious actions is a particuarly heinous crime as it involves the violation of their most fundamental rights as human beings and as Americans. Thus, Congress enacted several laws specifically addressing this behavior, and subjecting such behavior to the most severe possible penalty.

(To be continued)

Litvish Yeshivos, Then and Now, a Real Rags to Riches Story! Part 1.by RaP

Guest post by RaP

Recently there has been some discussion on this blog about the nature of modern-day Litvish ("Lithuanian type") Yeshivos and their rabbinic and lay leaders, the Roshei Yeshiva and the Balebatim (laymen) that support them in America but also in Israel that are the two main centers for these central Torah learning institutions.

Today the Litvish (Lithuanian-type) yeshivas have luxurious air-conditioned buildings, with thousands of students, living in hotel-like dorms, and kitchens serving restaurant-type foods, often spread over a few campuses, with huge teaching and admin staffs, with budgets running in the millions or tens of millions of dollars per year!

But it was not always like that, nor was it what the founders of this system in Lithuania originally had in mind about 200 to 300 years ago!

When Rav Chaim Volozhiner (1749 - 1821) founded the so-called "Mother" of all Litvish Yeshivos in the small town of Volozhin Lithuania, he began with ten Talmidim (students) that he maintained at his own expense. Supposedly, it is said, that his wife even sold her jewelry to contribute to their maintenance.

Very different to the modern-day yeshivas that look and work more like modern corporations with CEOs, COOs, CFOs, CTOs, employing full time staffs of clerical workers, maintenance staff, administrators, highly paid professional fundraisers, and many other types of staff.

Keeping these huge operations running is the primary goal and the mission of its top echelon lay leaders and especially of the top Roshei Yeshiva who spend much of their time talking to or travelling to a variety of millionaires, billionaires, tycoons and all sorts of big wigs, including politicians, lawyers, accountants and all sorts of professionals and entrepreneurs who are seen as the essential resources to keep these vast "Yeshiva Inc" enterprises running and humming.

If a Yeshiva looks "too poor" or slovenly it lacks prestige in the eyes of both potential students and donors and is ignored in favor of the larger Yeshivas that are viewed as types of "Ivy League" colleges that can and do have huge endowments and astronomical budgets to keep up and to impress both donors to give to such a fancy place and have their names plastered on the walls, and parents to send their sons there as a status symbol good for Shidduchim, marriage mates, marriages, future work in either the Jewish or secular world.

Top donors and laypeople (men and women) and top Roshei Yeshiva regard themselves and act like a new type of "aristocracy" with all the airs and mannerisms of rich and powerful and famous and influential people. Like modern-day celebrities that get their photos published and republished, there is a whole genre of Haredi and Yeshivish media that promote and work like "state organs" and "Public Relations agents and agencies" to depict them in the best light as they travel the length and breadth of North America, attend major "conventions" and mass gatherings, go globetrotting and are lionized by the other rich and famous.

Modern Litvish Yeshivas have become mega status symbols and networking centers to rival any similar secular educational or even political establishment today.

So it's become all about the money, as in "money makes the world go round" that is always at the top of the agenda.

To be continued.

Tamar Epstein's heter: Another Troubling Dimension … Is Aharon Being Pressured For A Quid Pro Quo?

Guest post by Ploni

First, a definition: Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.

Word is that there’s pressure for some “deal” that might work something like this: Aharon should be משליש a Get in Bais Din … in return he’ll receive better visitation, a semi-apology from Tamar and her family … and the Chillul Hashem will hopefully sink into oblivion.

Even assuming that sufficient safeguards were placed to insure that the “other side” sticks to its promises (a big if!), here are THREE REASONS why כל אשר נגעה יראת ה' בלבבו should protest against such an approach:

1) This won’t rectify the real problem. The most pressing issue is no longer visitation and obtaining a semi-apology for totally irresponsible character assassination that relied on non-existent evidence. Rather, the real issue is the wholesale dismissiveness towards the very principle of TRUTH, as defined by the basic concept of fact checking and due diligence. TRUTH is an extremely highly cherished principle of our faith, so much so that the רבינו יונה in שערי תשובה states that “sticking up” for truth is the ONLY antidote of חילול ה', which has no כפרה as long as a person is alive:

שע"ת לר"י, שער א' מאמר מ"ז: כאשר האדם משתדל לתמוך ביד האמת. ויעזור אחריו ויתעורר בדבריו. והופיע אורו לעיני בני עמו. ויחזק ידי אנשי האמת. ונשא ראשם. וכתות השקר ישפילם יגיעם עד עפר. הנה אלה דרכי קדוש ה'. והוד והדר לאמונתו ועבודתו בעולם. ועוז ותפארת במקדש תורתו.

שער ד' מאמר ה': ואמר שלמה המלך עליו השלום (משלי טז) בחסד ואמת יכופר עון וביארנוהו בשער הראשון מן התשובה וענין אמת שהזכיר ביאורו שיכין החוטא לבו לחזק ידי האמת. ולעזור למבקשי אמונה ולהסיר השקר והעול. כי הודעת האמת והשיבו לבצרה כבוד אלקים.

2) We are supposed to be מחזק those that endeavor to act ע"פ תורה, because doing so strengthens the כבוד of Torah. The evidence points to the fact that Aharon has suffered PRECISILY BECAUSE he tried doing the “right thing” . Instead, what he got in return … again and again … was just ביזוי בזיונות.

Evidence shows that the core issue of socializing originally separating the couples worldview was very much intertwined with not wanting to talk לשון הרע and דיבורים אסורים. Why hasn’t this issue been properly addressed in therapy and through Tamar’s Rabbinic advisors? It is not far-fetched to say that had this been dealt with properly, the whole tremendous חילול ה' never would have started.

Evidence shows Aharon’s concern with ethics and morals. This is not only highly valued ע"פ השקפת התורה but also seen as a tremendous asset for sustainable intrinsic wellbeing / happiness in cutting edge psychology. Why hasn’t this issue been properly addressed in therapy and through Tamar’s Rabbinic advisors?

Evidence shows that Aharon listened to his Rabbinic advisor and took his disagreement to Bais Din instead of ערכאות (after getting the היתר ערכאות for only emergency purposes), which later ended up costing him dearly. Why hasn’t this issue been properly addressed through Tamar’s Rabbinic advisors? Shouldn’t they, OF ALL PEOPLE, be concerned with upholding the intuition of B”D? Why, to this day, has the Bais Din never issuing a Siruv against Tamar? Why have רבנים חשובים had to send private messages of support to Aharon, while stating that doing so publicly would only damage them and not do anything to help him?!

It is important to note that our obligation is to be מחזק those that ENDEAVOR to act ע"פ תורה. It has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with whether or not their concerns ultimately end up being accurate. Judaism is wholly centered on השתדלות to do the right thing. Failure to be משתדל is what counts, and therefore the punishment for being dismissive of a ספק איסור is greater than that of a וודאי איסור:

תלמידי רבינו יונה בשם רבינו יונה ברכות א: מדפי הרי"ף: עיקר היראה ליזהר מהספקות ושלא לעשות המצות על דרך ההרגל שעונש הספק יותר מהודאי וכן מצינו שעל הודאי מביא חטאת ... דמי כשבה או שעירה שיביא לחטאת ... היא מעה ... ואם מביא אשם על הספק .... צריך להביא ב' סלעים שהם מ"ח מעין ... והטעם בזה למה החמירו על הספק יותר מן הודאי אומר מורי הרב שהוא מפני שעל הודאי משים האדם החטא אל לבו ודואג ומתחרט עליו וחוזר בתשובה שלימה אבל על הספק עושה סברות ואומר ... אולי היתה מותרת, ולא ישית אל לבו לשוב, ולזה החמירו בו יותר.

3) It is disgusting, unethical and against Halacha to “barter” for removing the stain of defamation / הוצאת שם רע. We should resist such “bartering” even if only monetary matters were at stake, and surely when the issue is defamation. Furthermore, pressuring Aharon while offering only muted criticism of the process used in Taamr’s heter only adds indescribable insult to injury.

Even in regards to simple monetary matters, Halacha prohibits the advancement of a false claim so as to improve the strength of a party’s self-interest. This is a prohibition for Dayanom (חו"מ ס' י"ח ס"א), Witnesses (חו"מ ס' כ"ח ס"א), and litigants ((חו"מ ס' ע"ה ס"א, ס' י"ב ס"ו וע' תרה"ד, עונג יו"ט ותומים

How low must one stoop to use this unethical approach in matters that are so serious as הוצאת שם רע, for which the following is written in שו"ע או"ח ס' תר"ו ס"א

וְהַמּוֹחֵל לֹא יִהְיֶה אַכְזָרִי מִלִּמְחֹל (מַהֲרִי''ל) ... וְאִם הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שֵׁם רַע, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְחֹל לוֹ. מָרְדְּכַי וּסְמַ''ג וְהגה''מ פ''ב מֵהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה וּמהרי''ו). מג"א ס"ק ה': משום דאיכא דשמע בהואצת שם רם ולא שמע בפיוס ולא נפק האי גברא מחשדא.

Yes, there are evil men .. just like there are evil women. Like EVERY PERSON – male or female - Aharon deserves the basic human right of being judged only based on meticulous fact-finding which is congruent with Halacha, Hashkafa and if using psychology …only the most congruent and only following widely recognized “best practices” and solid, cutting-edge research.

-=-==-=-

BUT WHAT ABOUT CHAINED WOMEN? Concerned Members of Greater Washington Jewish Community write: “We wish to live in a community wherein interpersonal relationships are conducted not only upon the basis of the letter of Halakha, but also upon its spirit of empathy, sensitivity & mutual respect”. Yes, they’re very right … and very wrong … but that is IY”H for another post.

Channakah (2); Praying For Miracles

Guest post by Rabbi Shloime Pollak

The Ram"a in 682;1 tells us, if we forget to say "Al Hanissim", we should say it in form of a prayer, and say it among the "Harachamon".

We should say, הרחמן הוא יעשה לנו ניסים, כמו שעשה לאבותינו, בימים ההם בזמן הזה. The Mishnah Brurah adds a Nusach that should be said at the end of Shmonah Esrei. In both cases, we are asking Hashem to perform for us miracles, as he did in the time of the Chashmenoim.

However, many Achronim assume, we are not allowed to pray for a "Ness".  It is included, in "Tfilas Shav"...

For questions and comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is becoming a pariah amongst Orthodox Jews

 I was just informed that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky was recently disinvited from a rabbinic conference in England where he was to be the guest speaker. Major rabbis felt it was inappropriate for him to speak after the revelations about the "heter" that he was involved in. Therefore they withdrew the invitation.

It is clear that the upset about the heter is spreading and will have disasterous consequences for those who were involved in "freeing" Tamar Epstein from marriage without a Get. It is time for the "heter" to be officially withdrawn by those who produced it.

Aseh L'cha Rav - The importances of establishing a Rav for yourself

Aseh L'cha Rav.

I have, and have had, many great Rabbonim as teachers.

My Rabbi growing up was Rabbi Arthur Bogner, z"l a Man of Truth. His sons-in-law had a Yeshiva Ohr Torah D'Brisk where Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn learned as a young man. Rabbi Herzel Kranz Shlita of the Silver Spring  welcomed Aharon Friedman to our Minyan. Only because certain members of the community rioted and seemed poised to close down the Shul is it that Aharon does not Daven here where I am now composing this post.

Many of my Rabbis had opponents and challengers. Rabbi Bogner, at a time when I believe he was the senior Rav on the local Vaad, left the Vaad over a matter of principle. Some local Rabbis opposed Rabbi Kranz building the SSJC.

My advice to young people: research and explore and examine the corrupt Rabbis, and discover the Men of Truth on the opposing side. And then sit in the dust at their feet and hold on with all your heart, soul, and might.

Under the guidance of Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn I am building a Yeshiva here that teaches the Old Fashioned Torah. Young Men and Women, you are invited to join our community and to live a life of complete Torah and Mitzvos.

Joe Orlow
(301) 812-4050
market@softwine.press