Monday, April 2, 2012

Friedman-Epstein: Tamar's "matrydom" & R' Schachter folly!

I did a bit of investigation into the case and would like to convey what I have found. Contrary to the publicity of ORA and Rav Schachter who is the adviser and supporter of ORA - the Friedman-Epstein case is a very weak case - and is not that of an actual Aguna. A real case of Aguna is one in which husband disappeared and it is not known what happened. Another real case is one in which the husband is prohibited to the wife and yet he refuses to give a divorce. The present case is simply one in which Tamar decided she didn't want to be married to Aharon - also known as a case of ma'os alei.

Tamar made no complaints of being abused by her husband - she simply wanted out of the marriage. The claim of abuse is solely a circular one. She is abused because he won't give her a divorce and she wants to be divorced because he is abusive!

Aharon was in fact ready to give a get - he had one condition. She was to live in an apartment in Silver Spring so that he would be able to have access to his daughter. He said he would pay the rent. He was only asking for her to do this for one year - after that she was free to do what she wanted. She walked away from the deal and refused to negotiate. One of the most critical facts to understand this case of chilul haShem is that Tamar has consistently refused to accept mediation. It is her way or the highway.

The above facts make clear that there is absolutely no basis in halacha to require Aharon to give a get. Rav Shachter insists that the mere fact that Tamar wants out of the marriage is sufficient basis that Aharon must give a get. There is such a view asserted by Rav Chaim Palaggi - but apparently no one accepts this view. To give approval to ORA to persecute Aharon based on this principle - is simply outrageous. In addition the involvement of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in this case is viewed as a major mistake - both politically and halachically - by those familiar with him and with the halachic issues. Rav Belsky and Rabbi Ralbag collectively represent a problematic duo when it comes to gittin - that is for a later post.

Tamar is her own worst enemy and has created a prison of her own making - with the enthusiastic assistance of ORA and Rav Schachter and the passive compliance of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.

On the other hand, what is Aharon benefiting by not giving a get? The issue of custody is not clear. There are clearly halachic views that a daughter belongs with her mother and that the father has no basis to demand custody or even regular visiting rights. A simple answer is it is a case of spitting on a person who has tried being fair and going beyond what is required - despite the personal pain. When you galvanize the press and orchestrate demonstrations against him as a "monster" - I don't know too many people who would lie down and say "please step on me again". 

In sum, Tamar could have had a get on very favorable terms from the beginning. Instead she has gotten wrapped up in being a martyr and is primarily focused on the cheers and adulation of ORA.  She is more focused on beating Aharon into submission and humiliating him - than she is on getting divorced and starting life over again. At this point it is up to Tamar whether she wants to change what she views as most important.


  1. BTW who's opinion or facts are these? Based on what and decided by who?

    1. The above is primarily based on the information provided by an individual who has been involved from the beginning as well as that of a number of poskim who have voiced their dismay at ORA and Rav Schachter

  2. I am wondering if the rabonim who gave advice knew all the details. The way it's presented now, she could have had the get and nobody would be wiser. My only conclusion is that the details on this blog was not known to them, otherwise they would ave told er, move for a year and get your get.
    I had a similar story where the other side didn't want to listen to the Beis din and went to his Rav , who told him to take, ask or extort money and I paid but the other side now has a bad name because of that and has a very hard time even going out.

    1. The problem today is a lot of Rabonim have handlers who tell them what to say and the Rabonim repeat the information and it becomes the new facts because Rabbi so and so said it. You have to remember we don't believe in paypal infalacy - thats the other religon. Learn to think for yourself.

  3. Isn't this shakla v'tarya exactly why this is not a public issue? It starts with a Get, but the inevitable corollaries are just a divorcing couple's dirty laundry. Why is this relevant to the public?

    1. It is relevant to the public because of the very public campaign that Tamar has conducted with the encouragement and aid of some well known rabbis.

      It should have been settled 4 years ago and both of them should have remarried and gotten on with their lives.

      Because this bizarre harmful scenario is not rare - it is important to educate the public as to what is going on.

    2. The counterargument is that one thing that is not relevant to the public does not justify publicizing another. I agree that this was never worth publicizing, but just because other outlets were duped into fighting her battles for her, doesn't mean that you should fight his.

  4. How is it that a Rav Chaim palaggi that is "not accepted l'halacha" is used by 4 major Poskim in the US today in this case?

    1. that is a very important question. The use by these four does not make it accepted. The fact that this approach is rejected by most poskim makes the use of it very problematic in cases of gittin

  5. What a surprise! Another side to the story! The women always get the "oy nebach" factor, and the men are viewed as beheimos. Once you start scratching the surface, there's almost always another point of view

  6. Can you provide a link/source to the R' Chaim Palaggi ?

  7. Michal tzadok I just confirmed with Rav Gestetner that your claims that if a moredes does not get a Get after a year the baal is chayav to support her are your own invention.

    Please supply a mareh mokom for your nonsence

    1. Once more for the reading impaired: The Yaskil Avdei, writtine in 5691/1931 by Rav Ovadiah Hedayya, son of Rav Shalom Hedayya(who he would succeed in 1945 as Rosh Yeshiva Yeshivat HaMekubalim Beit El). Who was praised in 1933 by the Chazon Ish for his depth of learning and understand(no faint praise that). Whose sefer(Yaskil Avdei) bears haskamot Rav Yaakov Meir, Rav Eliyahu Klatzin, Rav Yosef Haim Zonpheld, Rav Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, and all of the Dayyanim of the Eida HaChareidit. He writes there concerning a couple that has been separated for 20yrs and the husband refuses to give a Get:
      חלק ו' דף ק"ה סימן כד
      בהביאו דברי הגאון האדיר בספר רב פעלים ח"ד אה"ע סימן ע' שכ' בנדונו וז"ל ומפורש בדברי המבי"ע אע"ג דאונס האחד אינו בדין, מ"מ אם הוא ברשות ב"ד ומגדר מילתא, כדין קרינן ביה, וכו' הנה כי כן בנידון השאלה, אשר מע' מטילים עליו חייוב מזונות לארוסתו ע"י הממשלה, חשיב זה כדין יען שאתם עושים זאת בעבור תקנת בנות ישראל, מה"ע רלכן נראה אם אחר שראה זה שהוא מתחייב לתת מזונות או לארוסתו נתרצה מאיליו לגרש כדי לפטור עצמו ממזונות ואין זה נקרא גט מעושה ן
      After bringing this Ben Ish Hai(yes I knew this came from the Ben Ish Hai, but didn't want to say that because to do so would make some of the "Rabbanim" posting here out to look like ignoramouses) He goes on to rebuke the B"D for not having done this long before now.

      He brings again in the Stam Question of Moredet:
      חלק ו דף צט סימן י"ז סעיף ב וז"ל
      זאת צא וראה להרה"ג הגדול ר"מ ור"מ תעוב"י מצרים מהר"א בן שמעון ז"ל שחיבר ס' מיוחד, בשם אם מרד או במעל, אשר בו בירר ליבן כל דיני מורדת לא הניח פנה וזוית שלא העלה על דל שפתיו ומפיו לפידים יהלוכו, על אלה שלא חשו לתקנת העגונות האלה וחיש מהר דנים אותם למורגות ומוציאים אותם נקיות מנכסיהם ערומות ויחפות אתיא ריקם ריקם ריקם באין כל, יעו"ש נפלאות מתורתו אשר שם בפרק ז' בירר וליבן מדברי ש"ס ופוסקים ראו"ח אשר באו במספר ח"י דאפילו מורדת גמורה שאין לה מזונות כל יב"ח שאחרי יב"ח אם הבעל מסרת לתת לה גט שכופין אותו לתת לה מזוזנות, כי מכיון שכבר קבלה עונשה במשך היב"ח אין להוסיף בענשה יותר, מאחר שעתה
      הוא מעכב וע"ע בדרינו בישכי"ע הנ"ל מה שארכנו בזה.
      I will type in his longer Teshuva later that deals with child support and so forth. However, that should suffice to show that it is not a figment of my imagination. You have a Gadol of the previous generation, who quotes Gedolim from the Generation before him.
      I think your conversation with Rav Gestetner was of your own invention, because I find it impossible to believe that any Rav who would dare speak on these subjects would be ignorant of all the sources quoted in the Yaskil Avdei, even if they have been so negligent as to be ignorant of the Yaskil Avdei.

    2. so Yaskeil Avdi is not mainstream.. I knew there was a reason I never heard of him in yeshiva.

      I grant you you have a source, however, you are still wrong. As I wrote earlier, you can find some sefer that says anything - that itself is not useful.

      Two problems with the quotes you brought here:
      First, מ"מ אם הוא ברשות ב"ד ומגדר מילתא, כדין קרינן ביה,
      חשיב זה כדין יען שאתם עושים זאת בעבור תקנת בנות ישראל
      If we are to read this freely and as relevant to our discussion, it would mean in other words that the din is to do what fits the beis din's feelings, not according to the halacha. Why do we even have a halacha, I sometimes wonder?
      (There is a rule of "migdar milsa" - exceptional judicial activity for a specific need - but when the need is invented in contradiction of the halacha, that is not migdar milsa. A moredet not getting a get is not a problem. There is no need to worry about her. We cannot have migdar milsa to introduce a new concept, only to protect the proper adherence to the halacha.)
      Since I do respect the Ben Ish Chai, I tried to find this teshuva on hebrewbooks. I could not find it, and would be happy to see a link to it. I would suggest, without seeing it, that the Ben Ish Chai was discussing a case where the husband was in the wrong in the cause for the problems. Also there we are discussing an engagement, not a marriage, which is a bit easier to require a get, and there is also no reason at all to think that the finacee there did anything wrong. If this is true, the Ben Ish Chai is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. (I will not be surprised if it is also therefore not relevant to the rest of the discussion in the teshuva there.)

      The sefer he quotes "Im marad o ma'al" is unfortunately not on hebrewbooks, so I have no access to it, but I can say that when I researched this subject I did not find any references to it. It is clear that this conclusion does not fit with the shulchan aruch, and was never applied in practice until very recent times (i.e. rediscovered by the rabbanut).
      Based on the way it is quoted it is clear that his conclusion to make the husband pay after 12 months is not based on halachic sources, but on his own feelings on the subject - כי מכיון שכבר קבלה עונשה במשך היב"ח אין להוסיף בענשה יותר, מאחר שעתה
      הוא מעכב
      It is easy enough to reject this argument on logical grounds, I will leave this as an exercise to the reader.
      But this argument is the only source given, and this sefer is the yaskel avdi's source... so we are left, again, sourceless.
      When someone approaches the halacha with an agenda, they will always find some way to support their position. The yaskel avdi could have found many mainstream sources which are clear that a moredet gets nothing, ever. He passed over all of them until he found the "Im marad o ma'al", and we wonder - why did he accept this source over all others? And we know why.

      It is quite clear, even from the little you posted, that the author was well learned, prolific, and knew how to present a halachic argument. His haskamos were well deserved overall, and we know that those who gave the haskamot did no go through every teshuva in the sefer. In this area he shows a clear weakness to help woman who should not be helped, and the authority of the haskamot is not enough to make this teshuva a basis for deciding halacha. Again, his second source, from what you posted, is not correct, and I will guess his first source from the Ben Ish Chai is irrelevant.
      And I do not need to tell you, again, that none of this was ever accepted historically, and there are many more sources which contradict this position.

    3. Correction to above comment - I do not even know if the rabbanut charges mezonot after 12 months, so I should not say they redisocvered this principle. I would guess they sometimes do and sometimes don't ( and I have good reason to believe they sometimes make the husband pay mezonot even within 12 months,) but I have never before heard about this 12 month thing and do not know if anyone actually does this.

    4. so Yaskeil Avdi is not mainstream.. I knew there was a reason I never heard of him in yeshiva.

      Your entire argument fails right here. If you think that the Yasrkil Avdei is not mainstream you have never read any of the responsa of later Sephardi Rabbanim(i.e. R' Mordechai Eliyahu, R' Ovadia Yosef, R' Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, R' Yaakov Moshe Hillel... ect.). If you are going to discount all Sephardi Rabbanim just because you think they are not worth your time, then there really is nothing more to discuss. Who said anything about Rabbinut? I am quoting a source from the 1930's, there was no Rabbinut until after 1948(hence I left off pulling anything from his later works that were post-State).

    5. since you insist on arguing the irrelevant points instead of actually responding to the issues, I will play along with you.

      Don't know much about history -

      The Rabbanut was formed in 1921. And as you seem to be a big rabbanut fan, you should have known this. Not that it makes a difference.

    6. The revelant point is that the Yaskil Avdei is mainstream. His rulings are considered accepted halakha by all Sephardi poskim(though admittedly at times Rav Ovadia does argue that he is too strict).

      No I'm not a fan of Rabbanut and frankly I don't see how it is at all relevant other than you keep insisting that it is. Though that is probably because Rishon L'Tzion/Hakham Bashi has always been a Sephardi thing.

    7. Sorry, that was never the issue under discussion.

      You have ignored EVERY SINGLE point raised against your assertions, and you finish off with silly details like which volume of the Yaskil Avdi was published before 1948 and then you try to avoid the entire discussion by telling us how Sephardi Rabbis quote Sepharadi sefarim. That is not the issue, and no one cares.

    8. You have ignored EVERY SINGLE point raised against your assertions,
      Raise a logical contention, or show an actual Teshuva saying that any of this written by the Yaskil Avdei, Ben Ish Hai ect is wrong, and then I will actually answer it. Otherwise I am just trying to help you come to grips with reality.

      Seriously "discussing" this with you and "Stan" is like trying to argue with someone who believes the Sun orbits the earth. You lay out all of the scientific facts before them, show them the various works of astronomy, observations of space, everything. At the end they say, Ok, just meet me on my porch tomorrow at 4AM. You show, and there is this uncomfortable silence and until the sun starts to rise. Then your friend turns to you and says see, "All of those things you quoted, they are all just nonsense look there see with your own eyes."
      Maybe because I like to beat my head against a wall, or maybe because I just want to get out of cleaning, or maybe because I find this moderately more entertaining that actually working through Rav Yaakov Hillel's various Teshuvot on the Kavvanot of Pesach, but I keep trying to explain that the earth really does orbit the sun.

    9. You didn't find it because you didn't look. You didn't look because you would rather have a make believe sheila then deal with the one there in Rav Pealim, because it is exactly the case of Tamar Epstein, the wife ran away, the husband refuses a Get and went before the Beit Din(which coincidentally had Rav Yaakov Hillel's grandfather as the Av Beit Din, but I digress). They husband wanted a heter meah Rabbanim to remarry, the B"D refused him, and asked the Ben Ish Hai how to procede.

      His answer was to the force the man to give a Get and he actually deals with how to do so in light of the Teshuva of the Rashba. This is exactly what he says:
      ראיתי את השאלה בענין הגט ואני איני בקו הבריאות לעיין בה כראוי. אמנם בהשקפה נזכרתי שיש חלוק בדין גט מעושה דכל שאנו מחייבין אותו בדין על דבר אחד וכדי לפטור עצמו ממנו הוא מגרש אין זה נקרא גט מושה. ונזכרתי החלוק זה הסכים בו וסמך עליו הרה"ג מהר"א אשכנזי ז"ל בספר בני בנימין ח"א סי' ל"ה. וכתב שם המקור חלוק זה הוא בתשובת הרב המבי"ט ז"ל והדברים יצאו מפה קדוש החשב"ץ ז"ל בח"א סי' א וכאשר תמצא מסקנת דברי הרב מהר"א הנז' שם בדף ס"ג ע"א בד"ה איך שיהיה וכו' ע"ש ומפורש בדברי המבי"ט אע"ג דאונס האחד אינו בדין מ"מ אם הוא ברשות ב"ד ומגדר מילתא כדין קרינן ביה. ועי, למהר"ם גלאנטי ז"ל בס' גדולת מרדכי סי' ט"ז דף קמ"ד ע"ד ודף קמ"ה ע"א שהביא דברי הרב המבי"ט ז"ל הנז' ולא הביא חולק עליו בזה ע"ש

      Here's the link you say you want:

    10. שו"ת רב פעלים חלק ד - אבן העזר סימן ט

      +א' אירס אשה על אשתו שלא ברשותה ורשות ב"ד אם כייפינן ליה למזונות ארוסתו, כדי שיגרש ולא חיישינן לגט מעושה.+ שאלה מאת מע' הב"ד יכב"ץ. היום ט"ז לחודש מנחם יה"ל התרס"ט ליצירה. לכבוד הד' מע' תהלת הרה"ג מעו"מ הגאון האדיר מופת הדור רבשבה"ג רבין הסידא כקש"ת כמהר"ר ה"ר יוסף ח"ר אליהו ח"ר משה חיים נר"ו יאיר ויזהיר לעולם ובריא אולם אכי"ר.

      רב גדול זאת להודיע לרו"ם כת"ר מעשה שהיה פה עירנו יע"א באיש אחד ארס אשה א' בלא רשות ב"ד ורשות אשתו והיה במחשך מעשיו. ולעת הלום הארוסה הנז"ל באה לפנינו אנן ב"ד דח"ל וטענה עם ארוסה הנז' או יכנוס או יפטור והאיש הנז' חפץ הוא לקחתה ולא חפץ לגרשה. ואנן ב"ד דח"ל משום תקנת בנות ישראל וכו' לא ניתן לו רשות לישא אותה לפי שיש לו אשה. אי שרי להוציא מזונות עליו ולחייבו ליתן לארוסתו הנז"ל ואז יוכרח הוא לגרשה. אי לאו דהוי גט זה כגט מעושה. ועי' בב"י סי' קל"ד דף ל"ו ע"ב וז"ל בתשובת הרשב"א שאלת ראובן בעל לאה וקרובי לאה הי"ו /היו/ בהסכמה שיגרש ראובן את לאה אשתו וכו' עי"ש ועי' כנה"ג בהגב"י אות למ"ד /ל'/ עי"ש. וידיע להוי לך מלכא כי הארוסה הנז"ל מזה זמ"ר =זמן רב= עולה ויורדת לבית דינינו וכו' ולעת הלום אומרת אם לא נעשה לה תרופה לעיגונא תמיר דתה ח"ו. ע"כ חלותינו היא מרו"ם כת"ר להיטפל בדב"ז א' ולהשיבנו דבר בהקדם האפשרי כי תקנת עגונות שנו כאן ועמו הס"ר ושכמ"ה. וכסא כבודו לעד יכון ומרומם ישכון כנה"ר וכנא"ה ברוב עושר.

      למע' הרבנים הב"ד יכב"ץ. ראיתי את השאלה בענין הגט ואני היום +זה היה קודם סילוקו של צדיק בכ"ו יום+ איני בקו הבריאות לעיין בה כראוי. אמנם בהשקפה הראשונה נזכרתי שיש חלוק בדין גט מעושה דכל שאנו מחייבין אותו בדין על דבר אחד וכדי לפטור עצמו ממנו הוא מגרש אין זה נקרא גט מעושה. ונזכרתי החלוק זה הסכים בו וסמך עליו הרה"ג מהר"א אשכנזי ז"ל בספר בני בנימין ח"א סי' ל"ה. וכתב שם המקור חלוק זה הוא בתשובת הרב המבי"ט ז"ל והדברים יצאו מפה קדוש התשב"ץ ז"ל בח"א סי' א' וכאשר תמצא מסקנת דברי הרב מהר"א הנז' שם בדף ס"ג ע"א בד"ה איך שיהיה וכו' ע"ש ומפורש בדברי המבי"ט אף על גב דאונס האחר אינו בדין מ"מ אם הוא ברשות ב"ד ומגדר מילתא כדין קרינן ביה. ועי' למהר"ם גלאנטי ז"ל בס' גדולת מרדכי סי' ט"ז דף קמ"ד ע"ד ודף קמ"ה ע"א שהביא דברי הרב המבי"ט ז"ל הנז' ולא הביא חולק עליו בזה ע"ש.

      הנה כי כן בנידון השאלה אשר מעלתכם מטילין עליו חיוב מזונות לארוסתו ע"י הממשלה חשיב זה בדין יען שאתם עושים זאת בעבור תקנת בנות ישראל וכבר נוהגים אתם בדבר זה לעשותו מהאי טעמא ולכן נראה אם אחר שראה זה שהוא מתחייב ליתן מזונות לארוסתו נתרצה מאליו לגרש כדי לפטור עצמו ממזונות אין זה נקרא גט מעושה דהא אין אתם אומרים לו או תן מזונות או תגרש אלא אתם נותנים לארוסה אעלא"ן לחייבו במזונות בעבור תקנת בנות ישראל שאתם נוהגים בה והוא מאליו יהיה מוכרח לגרש להציל עצמו מן חיוב המזונות. כ"ז אני כותב בנחיצה רב'א /רבה/ כחותה על הגחלים ואין לי שעת הכושר לעיין בספרי הפוסקים ולראות אם יש חולקים על חלוק הנז'. ואיך שיהיה מעלתכם תכתבו להממשלה חיוב מזונות עליו להשקיט צעקת הארוסה ותראו איך יפול דבר אח"ז ומה דביני וביני תעיינו בזה הענין. והשי"ת יאיר עינינו באור תורתו אכי"ר.

    11. I could not find this teshuva earlier since Michael Tzadok gave the source incorrectly initially. Thanks daastorah for posting the whole thing.

      Aside for the common elements of wome, gittin, and rabbis, the story in the teshuva has nothing at all in common with Tamar Epstein's case. I really can't keep troubling myself to debate with someone who has no understanding of the material he tries to support himself with.

      As for the teshuva, the Ben Ish Chai writes that he was ill at the time (shortly before his death) and could not properly review his decision. The main argument he gives relies on the Tashbatz but the Tashbatz cannot be used here. The Tashbatz writes that if someone gives a get as a means to get out of a legitimate external debt than it is not a forced get. His reasoning relates to the fact the debt is an external issue and not related to the divorce. Here, even if the debt is legitamate, it is directly related to the divorce and meant to force him to give a divorce, so the Tashbatz cannot be used here.

      I believe that he has siyata dishmaya to reach the correct decision even though his reliance on the Tashbatz was wrong. (i do not know why the bet din was allowed to prevent him from marrying her, but given that, I believe the decision was correct.) as he wrote that he had not properly reviewed his decision it should not have been quoted later without reevaluating his reasoning. Needless to say, this teshuva cannot help the pro-divorce crowd at all.

    12. Binyamin:

      1) I never said this had any direct relation to the Epstein case. I was responding to someone above who said:Michal tzadok I just confirmed with Rav Gestetner that your claims that if a moredes does not get a Get after a year the baal is chayav to support her are your own invention.

      Please supply a mareh mokom for your nonsence

      You simply saw fit to involve yourself in an argument that has spanned several threads.

      2) I din't incorrectly source anything, I gave what was written in the Yaskil Avdei, there there is a typographical error. That is a side point.

      3) Regarding what the Ben Ish Hai says, his reliance on the Tashbatz is entirely valid. In accordance with Takanat Banot Yisrael, as he mentions here, and as others(the yaskil Avdei for instance have mentioned) a husband is chayyev to support his wife. That is a valid debt. If he want to potur himself from said debt he may do so by divorcing his wife. If not, he may remain married to her, and thus continue to bear the debt of her support. Rav Ovadia Yosef says the same thing in Yabia Omer 8:2:2
      ע' בשו"ת מהר"י קולון (שרש סג), שכתב, שהממון שהושלש מתחלה על דעת שלא יוחזר לו אא"כ יגרש, אם עשה כן הבעל מתחילה מדעתו, פשיטא שאין זה אונס, שאין נקרא אונס אלא כשבא לאדם מחמת אחרים זולתו, לאפוקי זה שהביא האונס עליו. ע"ש. וכ"כ בתשובת התשב"ץ ח"ב (סי' סח), הובאה בב"י (סי' קלד), במי שקנס עצמו לאדון העיר במאה זהובים אם יחזיר את אשתו ולא יגרשנה, וגירשה ברצונו בביטול מודעי וכו', והשיב, דלא אמרינן גט מעושה אלא כשכפאוהו לעשות שלא מדעתו, דבר שאינו רוצה לעשות מרצונו וכפאוהו עד שעשה, אבל בנ"ד שהוא חייב עצמו במה שהוא רוצה לעשות, אין זו כפיה, שהרי ברצונו מגרש, והקנס שעשה ברצונו עשאו לחזק עצמו לגרש, ולא חשיב גט מעושה. ע"ש. ואל תשיבני מתשובת הרשב"א ח"ד (סי' מ), שהביאה מרן הב"י (סי' קלד), שרב המרחק ביניהם. וגדולה מזו ראיתי להגאון יש"א ברכה בשו"ת בני בנימין (סי' לד), בשאלה שהובאה מאלג'יר, בדבר מי שהשיא בתו לראובן, וישבה עמו שלשה חדשים, ואח"כ הכה אותה וגירשה מביתו ושבה לבית אביה, והבעל נסע לעיר אחרת ונשא שם אשה אחרת עליה, והביאה אל ביתו, והלכו להתדיין בערכאות, ופסקו שחייב ראובן לתת לה גט, ואם לא יחפוץ האיש לגרשה בגט, חייב לתת לה עשרת אלפים פראנק למזונותיה וכו', ורבני העיר אלג'יר לא רצו לסדר לה הגט מפני שחששו לגט מעושה, והגאון יש"א ברכה האריך הרחיב להוכיח שאין בזה משום גט מעושה, ופלפל בדברי הרשב"א והרשב"ץ הנ"ל, ובדברי הריטב"א בתשובה שהובאה בב"י (סי' קנד), ובדברי הרמ"א בהגה (סי' קלד), ובמ"ש מהר"א יצחקי בס' אורים גדולים (לימוד פו) ובשו"ת זרע אברהם (חאה"ע סי' יג), והרב גינת ורדים (באה"ע סי' ה) ושאר אחרונים. וסיים, העולה מן המקובץ, שהבעל חייב לגרש את אשתו הראשונה בגט כריתות כדמו"י, ואין בזה שום חשש גט מעושה כלל. ע"ש. והגאון הראש"ל רבינו אברהם אשכנזי בתשובה שם (סי' לה) כתב לסייעו מתשו' המבי"ט ח"ב (סי' רו). וכן העלה לדינא שכיון שמה שחייבוהו בערכאות על מזונותיה כדין עשו, כי הוא איש אמיד ועתיר נכסין, ועולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו, והלואי ויספיקו לה לכל ימי חייה למזונות ולמדור ולמשרתת וכו', ואם ירצה לפטור עצמו ולגרשה אין בזה חשש גט מעושה כלל. ויפה הורה רב אחאי יש"א ברכה בכחא דהיתרא, ונתן טעם לשבח להקל, ואף ידי תכון עמו וכו'. ע"ש. [ועתה תשובה זו היא לו נדפסה בשו"ת מהר"א אשכנזי סימן יח עמוד ר"ה. ע"ש]. ויש לדון מזה במכל שכן לנ"ד. ומה שהקשה בזה בספר אבני האפוד (סי' קלד), לק"מ, כאשר עיני המעיין תחזינה מישרים. וע"ע בשו"ת נושא האפוד (סי' ח). ובמשפטי עוזיאל (אה"ע ס"ס ט וי"ד). ואכמ"ל.

    13. So again, we see a reliance on the Tashbatz, and again we see that the chiyuv of a man to give his wife support is considered an outside debt that is not related to the divorce, rather it is part and parcel of the marriage. Thus it is not a Get meousah. There is one, and only one way out of the repsonsibilities of a marriage.

      The reason that the Beit Din refused to allow the man to remarry is on account of an oath that every Sephardi gives under the chuppah and that is written into the Ketubah, that he will not marry a second wife, without the consent of the first. It was a separate Takana of the Sephardi Rabbis, and one that held varying amounts of strength in varying areas(Rav Mesas and Rav Ovadia were not too keen on it while the Ben Ish Hai, and his AB"D Rav Hillel were).

      Again as to the relevance this has to the Epstein case, very little indeed. The husband, according to these poskim is required to support his wife(that would include Tamar Epstein).

      The only other relevance is that Rav Shachter has repeatedly cited this Yabia Omer(and its following section in which he says the wife may use secular courts to obtain these rights if her husband refuses outright, and then only with permission of a B"D) to defend what he is doing. It is clear from seeing these Teshuvot inside, that they do not give the support that he claims for the activities that he doing.

  8. Some questions for Rav Eidensohn: In your view, what needs to happen now in order for a kosher get to be given? For her to compromise and call off the ORA publicity? Does he have to wait until ORA stops the publicity before giving a get to ensure it is not viewed as forced? What if he holds a grudge against her and decides to never give a get just out of spite? Even if that is not technically a situation in which it is required to give a get, isn't there some way to stop someone from engaging in such cruelty? After all, the foundation of the Torah not to do to others what would be hateful to yourself!

    1. That is the big question, based upon a Radvaz, that until the source of the coercion dissipates the GET may not be given.

    2. tell that to the yu ppl and ORA- they strongly disagree wth you

  9. um, shmuel... Thats exactly what we are here for.
    And it would be nice if someone knowledgable on that side would come over to defend their position.

  10. S and H are not rabbis, they are prophets, and know better than Moshe Rabbeinu just what the Torah says about women who run away from their husbands with the baby. So challenging them with a Rashbo, and gedolim who paskened like the Rashbo is a waste of time, because they know better than Moshe Rabbeinu who was an old fashioned man who never went to YU.

  11. That will never happen, because it is not necessary. When Schachter appoints R Kaminetsky to be a prophet who disagrees with Moshe Rabbeinu's Torah, it is obvious that Schachter is higher than Moshe because he is the avodo zoro itself. It took me a while to ascertain his gadluse in this matter. But then, every day I come to new understanding of Schachter and his YU apikores followers. What will be next?


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.