Sunday, June 4, 2023

Mishpetei Yisroel: Sefer about forced gittin - with haskamos of major rabbis

Book is Mishpitei Yisroel signed by Gedolim Rav Nisim Karelits, RavShmuel Orebach, Rav Chaim Kanieveski, Rab Shimon Bedni, RavChaim Mayer HaLevi Wosner, Reb Noson Kupshits, Rab Moshe Zev Zurger, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, and Reb Yitschok Tuvia Weiss most from the past generation.


  1. Looks like some american rabbis disagree. I think rabbis schachter , kaminetzky, Epstein and Wolmark should make their feelings known.

    1. Epstein and Wolmark are small time rabbis. They are no one to argue on Gedolei Yisroel anymore than any other shtiebel rabbi. Epstein isnt even a shul rov.

  2. The author of the book told me he would like everyone to publicize the book and to give it to others especially the rabbis who pretend to be experts on torturing husbands. Maybe some of the words will be too hard for them but it is worth a try. Sending it with email is not expensive. The text version is less than a meg but the adobe version is 9 plugs megs, but it still went in an email.

  3. There are two issues with the terrorist rabbis. One, the halacha which is completely against them, but either they don't know it or are more afraid of Kotler than haShem. The other is the idea of certain rabbis terrorizing a community when something happens they don't like. I have heard that people who are opposed to terror have been terrorized. Now is the time to stop this.

    1. Rabbi Kotler does not support the terrorists arrested for torturing husbands into giving a Get.

    2. What are you talking about? "Rabbi" Kotler is one of the rabbis that sends the terrorists. Just look at the Dodelsons and who their backing is.

    3. Did I miss the part of the Dodelson/Weiss story where Weiss was assaulted?

    4. are you under a rockOctober 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM

      I don't think you read the letter clearly. letter states that you can't even take away his livelihood. it also seems to say you can't even protest against in public. the letter seems to be against a very tactics used by a well-known organization here in America. Weiss and his family have been threatened with these, as we have all clearly seen. Unless they say those were photo shopped too. The "Lakewood" force has been there for those attacks.

    5. The point was the Rabbi Kotler does NOT support violence to obtain a Get (me'usa). Weiss was not beaten and this narrow point remains valid.

  4. I would like to learn the sefer, but it's impossible to read such small font on the computer for longer than a few minutes. Is there any way you can email me the sefer or allow for me to download it? Thanks.

    1. the sefer can now be downloaded since the author wants it to be widely read and distributed

    2. Please tell him I said Thank you.

  5. Can someone please give some excerpts from this Sefer. What is the crux of what the Sefer says and what are some examples the Sefer brings when it is muttar to beat and when it is assur?

  6. Who gives this Sefer haskamos? And who is the author (not just name but what is his position)?

  7. You can download the sefer and on page 5 is a clearly printed list of the maskimim, there is another page of handwriting that is handwritten and not to clear. The list is:Reb Chaim Kanevski, Reb Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, Reb Yitschok Tuvia Weiss, Rov of the Aido in Jerusalem, and three senior dayanim of the Beth Din of Reb Nissim Karelitz in Bnei Braq as long with the signature of the head of the Beth Din, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and others.

  8. Chaim Dovid,
    The sefer us easily downloaded and someone can help you peruse the index and find out what you are interested in. I just mention here that there is a great problem, according to the sefer, with the Israeli rabbinate. As I have no knowledge of the Israeli rabbinate I don't comment, but this is a major idea in the book.

  9. This book begins by attacking the rabbanut in israel, and claiming that the Batei Din of the rabbanut are equivalent of arkaot, i.e. they have the status of a goyishe court.
    So it is clearly a book produced by some extremist neturei karta type.
    A problem that the author has, is that he is also - by implication - attacking Rav Elyashiv ztl - ho served under the rabbanut, , and also backed Metger as a chief rabbi.
    It is also doing the same to R' Yosef ztl, who was a Chief rabbi, and his son who is the current Rishon L'Zion.

    Then, there is a problem of Shochad, of bribes. Since the competitor Haredi batei Din have financial competition, profit, loss, and motivation, they are compromised halachically in terms of anything they say about a competitor BD. take a classic example of Matzo. Matzo certified by the Rabbanut is cheaper than that certified by haredi BD. So, when the haredi says the Aviv matzo is safek chametz, this has no halachic validity, since the statement has a purely financial motive. Same goes for giur, or anything else.
    The same also applies to intra-haredi warfare. Thus, voting for a mayor in the Zionist city council suddenly becomes a Daas Torah war. Some gedolim say that R' Auerbach is subject to stoning, for rebellion. Again this has no halachic validity, it is purely financial and political interest of Degel mafia party, and its financial loss if a rival party gains
    Similarly, when Shas leaders threaten voters that they will go to gehinom if they vote for anyone other than shas, this is bribery and heresy.
    Nowhere int eh Torah does it say anything about voting for a haredi political party. It is not one of the kritot. To make predictions about someone's Olam Haba, based on self interest, political and financial, is heretical, and false prophecy.

    1. Rav Eliashev resigned from the rabbanut precisely because he was disgusted with it. The yeshiva world does not hold of the rabbanut or give it much credence,

    2. Rav Eliashev served as a dayan in the zionist rabbanut for 17 years, and got a big fat monthy pension until he was niftar. I guess it took him a long time to discover the how evil the zionists are.

    3. Rav Elyashiv served under R' Herzog. He left or retired after his dispute with R' Goren. However, he still worked with the rabbanut. He backed people such as Dayan Sherman (who did what R Goren did but 1000 fold). And of course the Tzitz Eliezer, was also a Dayan at the rabanut.
      Anyway, as i said, this so called book is just a piece of Satmar styled propaganda.

    4. Eddie:
      "So it is clearly a book produced by some extremist neturei karta type"

      Your claim is nonsense unless you can you cite the exact location(s) in the book where it states that Jews may not create a state before mashiach arrives.

      One can hold critical views of the rahbanut without holding by Satmar/NK shitas regarding alleged violations of the three oaths in Kesubos.

    5. ELY, the book says that the rabbanut has the status of a Goyishe court. That was the view of Satmar and NK (Brisker). I would concede that Rav Shach had put the rabbanut in Herem. But R' Shach became a religious Zionist in his last days, when he stated that all territories in Israel were won by Divine miracle, and it is assur to give them back. A far cry from NK/Satmar.
      The book uses the term "zionist" when referring to the Rabbanut, hence it is using colourful language which shows the ideology of the writer (who is unnamed).

    6. Did you not see the signatories at the beginning? Weis, Wozner, many of the so called "Rabbis" of the Eida. Face it aside from a few odd moderates the Eida is composed of disestablishment types who want nothing so much as they want to dismantle the Jewish State and give it all back to the Arabs. You want us to trust them about how a part of the State works? They see the whole things a sin and a wark of the Satan.

    7. Rav Shach ruled that it is muttar and very worthwhile to "trade land for peace" if that is attainable. Rav Shach supported giving land away, just as Chacham Ovadia Yosef did. Not too far away from the Brisk/Satmar/Eidah position.

      Rav Eliashev did not work with the rabbanut once he resigned in disgust with it. He supported specific candidates for rabbanut positions, since he wanted the Torah true community to have influence over the legal processes that the rabbunut has legal authority over under Israeli law. This was and is merely a tactical issue. Somewhat similar to Rav Eliashev supporting Chareidi political parties entering the Kenesset, even though Rav Eliashev paskened the Kenesset is a "Bais Minus".

    8. Rav Eliashev did not work with the rabbanut once he resigned in disgust with it.
      That is simply not true as Piskei Din points out. He continued to respond to question raised by Dayyanin on the Beit Din HaGadol, and his letters are published in Piskei Din. He even wrote and had a cordial relationship with Rav Dichovsky(at least judging by the terms of endearment he used when writing to him).

    9. "That is simply not true as Piskei Din points out. He continued to respond to question raised by Dayyanin on the Beit Din HaGadol"

      It is true. Sure he responded to the BD Hagodol. He responded to anyone. Anyone could ask him questions and he might respond. That doesn't mean he endorses or is working with that person or entity. Same with the BDHG. He had nothing more to do with them, he just answered their questions like he could do for anyone.

    10. So he didn't work with them or he did? Which was it? You can't have it both ways.
      Why did he insist on other Rabbis, such as Rav Sherman, staying with Rabbanut?
      Sorry but the facts are not in your favor.

    11. You're simply playing semantics games. The bottom line is that RYSE was essentially opposed to the rabbanut on an ideological basis after having resigned from them in disgust. He answered their questions as he may have answered any semi-religious guy in the street who asked him a sincere question.

      I've already addressed why he supported installing certain rabbis on the rabbanut. It is because he wanted Torah true Jews to have as much input and control over the legal rights and authorities granted over religious life in the Israel by the government. It was mainly tactical. So he supported putting in as many rabbis with his worldview unto the rabbunut, so that they would implement his type of views. Therefore he supported certain candidates for chief rabbi, judgeships, etc. And note the candidates he supported for ashekenaz chief rabbi were never the greatest rabbis of the generation (gedolei hador). He just wanted a placeholder who would implement his worldview. The gedolei ashkenaz never tainted themselves by becoming chief rabbi of the rabbanut.

    12. Not true. He opposed a single Rav, Rav Goren over Rav Goren's possuling of a conversion 15yrs after the fact.

      Interestingly he supported Rav Sherman in doing that....

      You are adding all kinds of intent to Rav Eliashiv that we simply cannot know.

    13. There's nothing to add. The position of Rav Eliashev vis-a-vis the rabbunut is quite pashut as I've above described.

      Mr. Goren illegitimately so-called "posuled" a conversion years after the fact when the it was abundantly and openly clear that the conversion he purported to annul was a 100% sincere and valid conversion. Rav Sherman's Beis Din determined that the conversions in question that were declared never having been valid (he didn't annul anything) were a sham in the first place. So it is a matter of factual differences in the cases where one was not justifiable and one was.

    14. Sam, you are being selective with some facts, and dishonest with others.

      a) Rav Shach did originally follow the land for peace delusion. However, when he saw, at the age of 90 something, that a peace deal would be with Arafat and not Snow white [a delusion he he had held for 20 years through his obvious daas torah] he took the position of Rav Goren, and said it is assur to cede land, won by jews through Divine miracle, to terrorists.

      As for the Langer case, this last "claim" of the Haredim agasint rav Goren, was unravelled by none other than Rav Elyashiv himself. Originally, Rav Elyashiv, and Rav Shach, claimed that there is no way to posul a giur retroactively. Hence they called Goren a shaagetz and said he cannot be relied on for any psak.

      The facts of the Borokovski case were that some girl marries a goy, with no evidence of any giur. Borokovski continues eating chazir in his house. However, he did go to shul in Israel, and the son he had with the Jewish lady has a barmitzvah. Goren used several strategies to annul the giur, if there ever was one. BTW, Borokovski was not able to complete the verse "Shema Yisrael".

      Sherman, under the guidance of rav Elyashiv, posulled thousands of giurim, without looking at any case, without ocnsulting with the BD that converted them, because he did not like Rav Druckman.

      What you (and Rav Shach/ Elyashiv et al) accused Goren of, applies to Sherman 1000 fold. It is a joke. And this is the same R' Elyashiv giving his authority to what he called treif previously.

    15. Eddie:

      You're completely off-base with both your factual knowledge and your assumptions.

      Rav Shach, at most, may have made a tactical decision that giving land for peace will be unsuccessful, in which case he obviously said land shouldn't be given if it will not result in peace. But he clearly is on the record, as everyone knows, that in theory he supports giving land to the Arabs -- as does Chacham Ovadia Yosef -- IF we can know peace will result. So he certainly has no halachic objections to giving Arabs land in the right circumstances.

      And that's correct, the is no way to posul a giur retroactively, as Goren tried to do without saying as much. But it is certainly within a beis din''s purview to decide whether a purported conversion was in fact ever valid in the first place or not. In the Goren case it clearly was a valid conversion. In the Druckman cases it was not.

      Borokovski knew Shema Yisroel quite well, as he did davening in general. He completely kept Shabbos and halachos from the time of geirus and this fact was testified to by numerous numerous acquaintances and witnesses. All those who knew him at the time of his conversion, fully knew him as an observant Jew. The entire bubbe maaisas of invented lies claiming otherwise all came after his wife became and adulteress and bore mamzeirim. It was a badly belated attempt to justify her crimes.

      Druckman signed conversions where he was purportedly in beis din in Israel and verified the so-called converts sincerity in accepting Judaism, when it turned out he was in Europe during the time and dates he allegedly signed the conversion documents in Israel. In other words, an out-and-out forgery by Druckman.

    16. Eddie you are the one who is being selective with your recall of events and halacha. For some reason chareidi rabbis according to your version of history are always idiots or evil men or both. What Rav Sherman did was well within halacha and represented an ongoing battle over how to deal with geirus. Rav Goren was very "creative" and non-transparent in what he did.

      Rav Shach in your disgusting caricature has nothing to do with Rav Shach in reality.

    17. Rav Goren was very "creative" and non-transparent in what he did.
      He was definitely creative in that he was the first one to do it, however, at least according to wikipedia, I don't see that much difference beteen him and Rav Sherman. Here is what wiki says about the case in question:
      פסק הדין המקיף מצא דרך להתיר להם לבוא בקהל ישראל משום שאין עדים לגבי גיורו של האב וכן על סמך עדויות שהלה אינו שומר מצוות ואף אוכל חזיר והולך לכנסייה, ועל כן אינו נחשב ליהודי וממילא לא היה לאשה צורך בגירושין כדי להינשא לאדם אחר. פסק זה הביא לשיאו את הקרע בין הרב גורן לבין החוגים החרדיים, לאחר שרבנים חרדיים רבים הכריזו כי "פסקיו והוראותיו בטלים".
      No witnesses to his conversion, eats pork and continues to attend church. I don't really see how that was all that different from Rav Sherman's decision.

    18. Geez, "Rabbi" Michael - You've stooped to relying on WikiPedia for forming an opinion on rabbinic and halachic matters? Sheesh.

    19. He did not eat pork or attend church. Those false allegations all stemmed from his adulteress wife's claim when she was seeking to revoke her mamzers status as bastards. She was throwing anything she thought might stick. So she invented these stuff to a social worker about her first husband to try to deem him a gentile. That is the only source of that allegation. Of course Goren accepted whatever lies he thought would help him in his political quest to call the mamzeirim kosher.

    20. See this regarding the Langer case:

    21. Well it also says there that he ate pork, went to church, and couldn't complete the shema... Whether or not testimony was universally accepted is a situation that I understand. However, this is very conversant to the case of Rabbi Sherman, where when presented with a single Giyoret who was m'chlal Shabbat he possuled 15000 conversions.
      Can you honestly tell me that from looking at that one person he knew whether or not 15000 others were sincere?

    22. The Goren and Druckman cases are completely incomparable as a result of factual differences in the underlying cases.

    23. The Goren and Druckman cases are completely incomparable as a result of factual differences in the underlying cases.
      You are absolutely correct. In the Langer(Goren) case one man's sincerity was questioned which ended in the possuling of one man's conversion.
      In the Sherman(Druckman) case one woman's sincerity was questioned and 15000 conversions were possuled.
      There can be no true compasrison given the underlying facts between the cases.

    24. Druckman's phony conversions were invalidated due to it being ruled he was an invalid beis din in the first place, he forged conversion certificates stating he witnessed a conversion in Israel when it was documented he was in Europe at the time, and the fact many of the purported converts didn't keep the mitzvos as soon as the mikva water dried off their bodies.

  10. Rabbi Dovid there is no problem with the rabbanut. The problem is rav gestetner is corrupt. Ask rabbi michael tzaddok. They even dont recognize rav gestetner's gittin as he doesnt take$$$$$ for them.

  11. FWI,
    There is another excellent Sefer on the topic of forced gittin
    מאת הדיין הרה"ג יוסף גולדברג ירושלים תשע"ג
    ספר "אלו שכופין להוציא" הכולל יסודות כללים והלכות בדיני כפיה לגט

  12. The haskomos of this sefer are amazing! It's choshuvus is amazing. Rabbanim and Gedolim like Rav Shmuel Berenbaum came back from the dead to sign off on it.

    1. Don't be facetious - obviously that's an older letter that's being reprinted. Duh.

  13. So tzaddok your bluff has been called. You can curse me out as much as you like but you are only shooting the messenger.
    As you can see in Eretz Yisroel, rav gestetner = gedolim and the Rabbanut = Arko'oys. Please curse me out some more and call me a liar and someone who has no evidence that the rabbanut is corrupt. You are then equally accusing the gedolim of corruption and claiming they have no evidence against the rabbanut. Get reall - admit your mistake and accept you were wrong. To err is human, to fail to repent is a sin.

  14. tzaddok even if you claim that that weiss should have obtained a hetter bais din, you are missing the wood from the tress. While I agree that there has to be equal standards in terms of following halocho by both men and women, the pirtza norah of arko'oys is solely with the women and you know it. it is disingenuous to try and make a big fuss about weiss because his wife's behavior was and continues to be reprehensible.

  15. Since when are artfully photoshopped pashkveilm considered haskamot? Some of those were written and publicized more than 10yrs ago and many of the signers are long since dead!

  16. tzaddok are you going to taayna reb chaim kanievsky tik no, reb shmuel auerbach tik no, rav wosner tik no and rav gestetner tik no.

    what a sorry tragic joke.

    1. Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to believe a bunch of obviously photo-shopped letters? The only thing I see there that can in any way actually be called a haskama is from Rav Gestetner.

      When I see the signature of Rav Shteinman or Rav Levin(the Av B"D of the B"D Rav Eliashiv established) I will actually begin to think about this whatever you want to call it as having any actual legitimacy.

      Further I see Rav Moshe Tzadka's supposed signature. He is well known as a supporter of Rabbanut... This whole thing is nothing more than an exercise in Gavevat HaDaat.

    2. Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Vozner, Rav Aurbach, Rav Karelitz, Rav T. Weiss are is not good enough for you!?

    3. Not when the letter is clearly photo-shopped. Also I do not accept N"K opinions on anything dealing with the State of Israel. The Eida has long stood for dismantling the state, and have never had a high view of it's institutions. They call the police and soldiers Nazis and the soldiers who stopped weapons from being smuggled into Gaza by boarding their ships pirates. Their followers with tacit approval from their leaders attack religious soldiers in uniform. Honestly if you care that little for those who are protecting your life because they are agents of the Jewish State, you have nothing worthwhile to say about the Jewish State, or any part of it.

    4. Mike T.: That's a bunch of hogwash and hullabaloo. The entire Torah world holds highly of the Eidah. Additionally, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is not a member of the Eidah.

    5. Like I said the letter is clearly photo-shopped even in its "original" so I give it no credence whatsoever. Once someone begins with Photoshop it is impossible to know where they stopped, and when the author is anonymous... well... they can't even fall back on their own reputation as a respectable Torah Scholar.

    6. That's a bunch of hogwash and hullabaloo. The entire Torah world holds highly of the Eidah. Additionally, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is not a member of the Eidah.
      Do you mind explaining why the letter has three different dates on it? Yes the Eida is highly respected for MOST things, but not when it comes to the issues of the Jewish state.

    7. This photoshop claim is simply untrue. Throwing out that claim without clear and unambiguous PROOF positive, is meaningless and worthless.

    8. There is clear and unambiguous proof to anyone with eyes. Right above the piece from Rav Wosner and Rav Weis there is a date, ז' תמוז תשע"ב However this sefer was not written/finished until תשע"ג. Further the two pieces above that are both from תשע"ג. One on the first of Tamuz, two days before the sefer was released, and one on the third of Tammuz the very day the sefer was printed.

      Those dates show that at least three pieces have been Photoshopped together to seem as one.There is no other reason for the discrepancy of the dates.

      Further the placement of Rav Wozner's and Rav Weis' letter and signature makes it seem as though they agree with all that was said above and simply want to add there own piece before they sign. However, that clearly is not possible since they wrote their piece a YEAR before the other two.

      This is clear and unambiguous photo-editing done for the purpose to deceive. There is no other way around it. Otherwise the three pieces should have presented separately with their attendant signatures so that we can clearly know who is saying what and who is agreeing to what.

    9. Rabbi Tzadok:

      See פרק י"א - דף קפ"ט-רי"ח where the author alludes to why even honest Batei Dinim are afraid to complain - because all Gittin in E.Y. need the Rabbanut's final approval, and getting on the Rabbanut's wrong side can cause problems.

      I can't vouch for the truth of that statement, but I know a case here in the USA where those attempting to help a husband were indeed threatened with anonymous telephone calls....

    10. Ploni: Why do honest botei dinim need the rabbunut's approval for gittin? Say a couple gets a Get in an Eidah beis din. The State rabbunut doesn't recognize it. Then when they remarry they also remarry through Eidah rabbonim. And the State doesn't recognize their remarriage. Nu, nu, so be it. Who really cares. They live as a happily married, fully kosher marriage kdas moshe vyisroel, without state/rabbanut recognition.

    11. I can't vouch for the truth of that statement
      First question: What does this have with the image editing apparent in this work?

      Second that statement is to my knowledge false. People who have no connection to the Jewish state, and seek it's dismantling, really don't care about being on the Rabbanut's(or anyone else's bad side). Secondly the only thing that the Rabbanut can do is register future children and their descendant as mamzerim. This technically wouldn't be a problem so long as all future generations remain in whatever community they are in. The only reason anyone would need to get their Get approved by the Rabbanut is if they wanted to register their marriages and so forth with the govt.

      I know neo-chassidim and extremely Leumi Daati Leumi who also don't recognize Rabbanut because they feel it has been dominated and thus corrupted by a Chareidim who seek to make everyone live lives in accordance with Chumrot instead of halakha. They also get their gittin from Rabbis outside of Rabbanut and marry outside of Rabbanut.

      I know a case here in the USA where those attempting to help a husband were indeed threatened with anonymous telephone calls....
      Can't really speak to a case in the US about which I have no details or why whoever was receiving threats for whatever.

  17. tzaddok the gedolim you insisted on meir weiss followin g have now ruled: the rabbanut is exactly like arko'oys. get it rabbanut = arko'oys.

  18. The authors state (page 31) that no religious husband would engage in violence against his wife, and that real domestic violence occurs only among the secular.
    Thus, they state, by implication, every wife who accuses her husband of violence is simply lying to strengthen her position in the divorce process.
    Now, we all know this to to be false, as there are plenty of abusive husbands who affiliate with the religious community.
    I don't mind the authors saying "we are bound by halacha, and even on this case we can' force a get..what CAN we do to help the wife/victim?".
    However, they seem to be saying "ha, ha even if you were abused you are stuck, and we don't care".
    I think this attutude alone, and inability to accept the reality of abuse (though no one is denying that there are also false reports) is enough to make this book worthless.

    1. Anyone who has read the rabbinic literature from the last 1000 years is aware that abuse happens amongst the religious. Thus no one is refusing to accept the reality of abuse. You need to find a better excuse for not having to study this book.

      What you are rejecting is a quote from the Rema(E.H. 154:3).

      He doesn't say that religious husbands don't beat their wives. But simply that it is not characteristic of Jewish husband - as you find in other cultures that a wife can expect to be beaten.

      In a course in social work, the professor confessed to being naive about other cultures when she started out. For example when she found out that the Hispanic woman she was working with had been beaten badly by her husband, she told her not to worry because she would make sure it didn't happen again. Much to her surprise the woman got very upset and begged her not to intervene. "If he doesn't beat me that shows he doesn't care about me"

    2. ChanaRachel:
      "The authors state (page 31) that no religious husband would engage in violence against his wife".

      The book does NOT state what you claimed, you are attempting to discredit the book using a falsified translation. On page 31, the book states that "it is not the way of a Torah observant (man) to beat his wife". This is fully true. IF a man beats his wife, or his wife beats him (a common occurrence nowadays), then the perpetrators are not Torah observant Jews.

    3. I agree that an abusive spouse cannot be considered a Torah observant Jew. That's why I wrote "there are plenty of abusive husbands who affiliate with the religious community."
      However, the argument you make is called the "no true Scotsman fallacy"- see below.
      Basically, it is a way for any group to free itelf of "bad apples" because by definition these deviants are excluded from the group.
      From Wiki:
      "No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

    4. ChanaRachel, I'm glad to see at least this time you referred to "an abusive spouse", instead of parroting the feminist line that the abuser must always be the husband.

      However your "No True Scotsman" argument is itself a fallacy. Any religious group has the right to define what constitutes observing that religion. There are sins and there are sins, but spouse beaters must be considered outside the definition of Torah observant.

    5. Well,
      Daas Torah,
      Here is the harsh truth of the situation:
      I AM a ger.
      A geuris. Converted by Rav Ovadia Yosef personally.
      And my ex-husband was the son of a Rav.
      And was violent.
      I had hospital records, police records,
      But my only family was HIS family! I had 25+ years of social equity with them.
      And when my children finally told me that they were afraid that he was going to kill somebody.... I asked for a Get.
      I was ostracized from the family, my FIL 'put me in Herem', who exactly do you think came to my aid? Who was willing to go out on a limb and represent me?

    6. FrumSarah - that's terrible, you were wronged and we all completely sympathize with you. But that doesn't make your halachic opinions any more correct.

    7. Frum Sarah - I am sorry to hear about your suffering. The question you are raising is halacha ignored whenever it creates problems? There is no question that there is a concept of ais la'asos laHaShem. The clear problem is that of anarchy. The decision on these issues does not come from the bottom up.This is what led the Gaonim to force gittin in situations not allowed in the Gemora and why that decision was reversed in the times of the Rishonim. Do we say that since at the present time a woman is at a disadvantage - therefore we allow beatings which according to the majority of poskim produce an invalid get? The activities attributed to Epstein and Wolmark do not produce a valid get. Are you saying that as long as a rabbi writes a get - we should ignore that it is invalid?

      Perhaps you would like to write a guest post to help us get better understanding of these issues.

  19. ChanaRachel's words resonate with me. When I learn halacha I like to understand the ' why ' , the principle underlying the halacha and I don't see this in my brief look at the book. I am more interested in how we can deal with abuse, violence and extortion. Communities have the right to deal with undesirable people and behaviors in the community - tikun olam. I always wonder if the authors on this subject had daughters who were refused gitim , problems of abuse, violence , extortion - they had to fork up huge sums of money, would they reveal a little bit of ' ne'shama - in the end we are dealing with real people and piku'ach nefesh. By the way in Israel there are shelters for abused women , Yisrael hayom had an article on abuse in the frum community.

    1. Alan - Chana Rachel - mistranslated the Hebrew text. Once someone waves the flag of tikun olam at everything - and ignores any and all halachic issues - then this is not called Orthodoxy but Conservative or Reform Judaism. The issues we are wrestling with here are in the context of halacha. It is not as if the poskim are not aware of women and men suffering (for example I just was reading Tzitz Eliezar (4:21) this morning on this topic).

      Yes the frum community has abuse. It is also well known that women are often advised to lie about their husband's being abusive, molesters etc etc . In fact in the child abuse literature there are comments that while a child's report of abuse is usually truthful - that is not necessarily so when the parents are involved in a divorce and the wife is accusing the husband.

      So please get off your soapbox and let's stick to the real issues. There is a clear halachic problem of get me'usa - which is the topic of this book. Solution to the suffering of the aguna is not going to result by chanting "Tikun Olam", nor by ignoring the majority of poskim and saying we will simply posken like the Rambam or paying $100,000 to have a husband tortured into saying he wants to give a get etc etc.

    2. I wasn't relating to the Rema, but rather to the author's comment that he is discussing get coercion in cases of domestic violence for two reasons: 1- Chilonim also go to the rabbanut to get divorced, and violence/abuse is prevalent among the chilonim, and 2- So that women will know that false reports of abuse won't help them obtain a valid get.

      Thus, he seems to be saying that abuse is prevalent among chiloni couples (he says this outright), and false reports of abuse are prevalent among religious women who want a divorce.
      Both these statements may be true, but what about the third possibility of true domestic violence among the orthodox?

      I am not aware of statistics (or if reliable statistics even exist), but is domestic violence/abuse truly more prevalent among chilonim than within orthodox Jewish communities?

    3. "tikun olam" - This phrase has simply become a codeword for implementing a leftist feminist agenda, ie an extremist religious/political order where women and "minorities" can only be victims and never aggressors, and where religious white males are second class citizens and can only be aggressors and never victims.

      The "tikun olam" agenda of the MO feminists (such as the YU ORA organization) means condoning and supporting Jewish women who moser and rob their husbands in non-Jewish courts, and deny their husbands parenting time with their children.

      In the fantasy "tikun olam" world of Jewish feminists, all domestic abuse and violence in Jewish families is committed by men, and never by women, and all GET refusal and extortion is committed by Jewish men, and never by Jewish women.

    4. Rav D',
      I think you are reading too much into my words - choose some other word for community interventions - takanot or other to deal with problems. The violence used to attain gets from those who refuse to give gittim is a symtom of an unsolved problem. We never suggested solution that are not consistent with halacha. So how do you define the problem , what are the solutions ? In terms of the facts and the context of a certain case a minority opinion may the right one and of course if you are machmir with gittin, you are meikal when it comes to the suffering of women.I mentioned that I am interested in understanding the underlying principles of the halacha , not just the bottom line. How about sharing some learning ?

    5. By the way where did I mistranslate the hebrew text - He says that violence is not a heter for forcing a get . Then he talks about his perception of the reality. of course violence does not need to be physical but verbal abuse can do the job equally as well causing great psycological damage and trauma

    6. Verbal abuse is easy to falsely allege. And it has no firm meaning or definition.

    7. Maybe if the botei din wouldn't allow husbands to xtort a $100,000 from their wives in order to give a get, women wouldn't be paying a $100,000 to have them beaten to give one. Food for thougth.

    8. Maybe if the botei din wouldn't allow wives to extort a $100,000 from their husbands in order to get a Get, and recognize the Torah Law as cited as Halacha in Shulchan Aruch and everywhere else that ALL marital property, assets and money belong to the husband (even a wife's salary during marriage) with the only exception of any property the wife owned PRIOR to marriage, then men wouldn't be withholding a Get. Food for thought.

    9. How does that work when the husband runs off, abandon's his children and marries another lady? Food for thought.

    10. Then Bais Din has the right to demand he return home to his wife. And if he is Ashkenaz, the BD can force him to separate from the second woman.

    11. Yet that never seems to happen.

    12. I Think claims of emotional abuse should take into consideration THE DIFFERENT WAYS HOW MALES AND FEMALES ABUSE each other..

      Studies show that males tend to use more direct verbal abuse, females tend to use INDIRECT ABUSE, such as slander and gossip, much of which would probably be considered מוציא שם רע, if false.

      (For example: See

      Does only the male mode of emotional abuse qualify as abuse? I think that both common-sense AND Halacha don't differentiate. If anything, slander/הוצאת שם רע is WORSE.

      See סמ"ע על חו"מ ס' ת"כ ס"ק מ"ח where he includes both הוצאת שם רע and verbal abuse as an עון גדול.

      Slander is a legally enforceable offense, too.

  20. Ok I checked the Hebrew - the quote from the Rema might not be his words but he uses them to undermine claims of violence to be untrue. As I said non-physical violence could be worse . The hispanic woman you mentioned could just be afraid of intervention - it could make things worse - the same words are used by women to justify their husbands beating kids - they care about you

    1. Non-physical "violence" (which means whatever you want it to mean and can be yelled for anytime a woman wants a divorce) does not provide a wife a halachic right to obtain a divorce against her husband's will.

  21. who is the author of this Book? Is it R' Dovid or R Gestetner?

    1. Most of it is citations of other Gedolim.

    2. Eddie,
      It is somebody who did not divulge his name,a big talmid chochom and a tsadik.

    3. Use the Sefer based on the provided sources it cites. You needn't rely on the word of the Sefer alone.

    4. it seems to be highly politicised, which takes away any reliance that you might make on the work. Look at the political party Degel in Israel, some of whose members (and ex members) are alleged signatories to this work. the same signatories are saying about their colleagues that they are worse than ovdei avodah zarah, and deserve s'kilah. So again, how can one rely on these righteous gedolim of today, when they don't even rely on themselves?

    5. Eddie please stop making a chulent. The question is simply - are these sources correctly described in the sefer.

  22. Part 1:

    Dear ChanaRachel - (And this goes for AllenKatz and all others with valid concerns about domestic abuse):

    You write "what about the third possibility of true domestic violence among the orthodox?"

    Your concern IS indeed valid, but your quoting from a synopsis on Pg. 31. Instead, please see see דף קא where the author deals with this possibility at length and dissects what the Rema in אבן העזר ס' קנ"ד ס"ג says about the matter.

    The author states that the Rema DOES indeed offer recourse to wives of real domestic abuse, however the Rabbanut fails to follow the Rema’s directives:

    BTW, I think the Rema’s directives can be used as a MODEL of properly balancing the rights of both Husbands & Wives. (Or Wives & Husbands  ).

    Here's a synopsis of what I think the author says - broken down into “if-then” statements, for clarity:

    A) If ... A husband is ACCUSTOMED to hit his wife (my note: he is a “repeat offender”) …
    Then … Bais Din can torment him, ostracize him with every manner of oppression and force, and make him swear [that he will desist from doing so].

    B) And if … 1) the husband continues to ignore the dictates of Bais Din, and also …
    2) Bais Din warned him once or twice to desist …
    Then … Some say that he can be forced to divorce his wife.

    C) However, If … 1) the wife started the conflict, by damning him for no valid reason or she scorns his parents, and also …
    2) The husband attempted to admonish her, to no avail …
    Then … there is a dispute among Halachic authorities if he is allowed to hit her.

    D) Furthermore,
    If … The husband and wife dispute who started the conflict …
    Then … 1) Bais Din will NOT believe the husband that claims that his wife started, since every woman has the presumption of innocence (namely – that in cases where we know that he hit her and we have no proof that she caused the conflict, we assume her position to be correct), and also …
    2) Bais Din will attempt to ascertain the facts, by placing an unbiased third party in their home, to watch their interactions. (My note: To me, this shows two things: Firstly, how the Torah looks for the TRUTH, rather than taking either a masochist or feminine slant. Secondly, how important it is to keep families together – rather than divorce, the Rema tells us to actually go through the bother of placing a stranger in the family home!)

    E) If … 1) Bais Din ascertains that the wife did indeed start the conflict, and also …
    2) The wife is ACCUSTOMED to damn him for no valid reason or to scorn his parents, and also …
    3) Bais Din warned her once or twice to desist, and also …
    4) The wife continues to ignore the dictates of Bais Din …
    Then … The husband MAY divorce her, and she losses her Kessuba.

    1. Honestly,
      This is so silly.
      As if he would want to stay with such a Machseifa!
      Seriously: Get rid of her! H' will send a Kosher wife!

    2. We live in very difficult times. When the words of the Rem'a were implemented in a real way, there was no such thing as a Machsheifa, because the 'Actions' were controllable by the powers of the Rabbinate. For example, a stranger would be placed in position, the truth would be determined, and measures would be required and implemented. There were other means and methods besides this as well. The bottom line is that you couldn't get away with mischief. If anyone was a Machsheifa, it could only be in their thoughts, not in their actions - or else...And the 'or else' did happen sometimes when the party at fault refused to change their actions, in which case the Machsheifa who refused to cooperate, so was truly a Machsheifa, lost out. The same was when the husband was the Rosho. But today the Rabbinate operates without any tools and without any powers or recourse. If the guilty (or even the innocent) party refuses to be overseen by a stranger, what are you going to do? So nowadays, we base decisions on generalizations and hope to get it right more times than not. Hitting is out in any circumstances, because that is the general rule, and we will most likely not be able to determine that the hitting was warranted, because we can't find out, so we will generalize ans assume that the hitting was wrong. Etc. Some idealistic individuals who are Rabbis will try to fix the problems of our times. Some non-idealistic ones too. So then we have the wild west.

      In my opinion, the root of our powerlessness is the fact that everybody operates as an individual. If there would be a mutually accepted body governing the rules of Botei Din and there would be an 'Ichud' of rabbonim eager to work together and get to the truth, and all who refuse would be banned from practicing, we would be empowered.

  23. Part 2:

    It seems to me that an analysis of the Rema shows that neither husband OR wife have free reign to torture each other. The only area where the husband’s rights supersede that of the wife’s is when the other party is clearly acting inappropriately, in which case the husband may have the recourse of hitting her, according to some authorities, as noted in par. C-2, while the wife’s recourse is limited to forcing a divorce. Perhaps Poskim today would NEVER allow a husband the leeway of hitting his wife, as times HAVE changed !
    The author states that’s what typically missing in the Psak of the Rabbanut is:
    1) Nobody ascertained whether the abuse actually happened (and women are coached to make false claims).
    2) 2) Nobody ascertained whether the abuse was frequent.
    3) 3) Nobody ascertained who stated the quarrel and whether the woman belittles the husband, etc.
    4) 4) Nobody warned the husband.
    5) 5) Nobody had an unbiased third party watch their interactions.

    I think the author’s reasoning is solid, and therefore I find the claims that some posters made against the Sefer, based on how authentic the Haskamos are, to be disingenuous. Instead of beating around the bush and engaging in ad-hominem attacks, I think the objectors’ position would be better served by offering a reasoned rebuttal of the author’s (and the Rema’s) logic.

    For those interested, here’s the Rema, in Hebrew:

    וְאִם רָגִיל הוּא בְּכָךְ, יֵשׁ בְּיַד בֵּית דִּין לְיַסְּרוֹ וּלְהַחֲרִימוֹ וּלְהַלְקוֹתוֹ בְּכָל מִינֵי רִדּוּי וּכְפִיָּה, וּלְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה עוֹד, וְאִם אֵינוֹ צַיִּת לְדִבְרֵי הַבֵּית דִּין יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁמַתְרִין בּוֹ תְּחִלָּה פַּעַם אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם כִּי אֵינוֹ מִדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַכּוֹת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם, וּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּתִים הוּא. וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל, אֲבָל אִם מְקַלַּלְתּוֹ בְּחִנָם אוֹ מְזַלְזֶלֶת אָבִיו וְאִמוֹ, וְהוֹכִיחָהּ בִּדְבָרִים וְאֵינָהּ מַשְׁגַּחַת עָלָיו, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּמֻתָּר לְהַכּוֹתָהּ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דַּאֲפִלּו אִשָּׁה רָעָה אָסוּר לְהַכּוֹתָהּ. וְהַסְּבָרָא רִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא עִקָר. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ מִי הַגּוֹרֵם, אֵין הַבַּעַל נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁהִיא הַמַתְחֶלֶת, שֶׁכָּל הַנָשִׁים בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת, וּמוֹשִׁיבִין בֵּינֵיהֶן אֲחֵרוֹת לִרְאוֹת בְּשֶׁל מִי הָרָעָה הַזֹאת, וְאִם הִיא מְקַלַּלְתּוֹ חִנָם, יוֹצֵאת בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה. וְנִרְאֶה לִי, דַּוְקָא בִּרְגִילָה בְּכָךְ, וְאַחַר הַהַתְרָאָה, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל סִימָן קט''ו. וְאִם הָלְכָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְלָוְתָה וְאָכְלָה, אִם יָצְתָה מִכֹּחַ שֶׁהִכָּה אוֹתָהּ תָּמִיד, חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם (כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַגָּ''ה זוֹ תִּמְצָא בְּמָרְדְּכַי פֶּרֶק נַעֲרָה בְּשֵׁם מוהר''ם וב''ז סִימָן פ''ח), וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל סִימָן ע':

  24. AllenKatz writes:

    The violence used to attain gets from those who refuse to give gittim is a symptom of an unsolved problem....So how do you define the problem , what are the solutions ?

    I agree - we DO have a festering problem in our midst.

    Adapting the Rema to today's day & age, I believe the solutions would be:

    1) Set up a mechanism for ascertaining the facts - who's the REAL instigator, and who is the victim.

    2) Separate a PATTERN of abuse from infrequent occurrences - nobody's perfect, but a pattern is problematic.

    3) If #1 & #2 show that intervention of outsiders is indeed necessary, aim for positive change, and not breakup. Warn and educate the guilty party.

    4) If all else fails, the guilty party should be appropriately punished.

    1. Ploni, thank you for your very informative and useful comments that demonstrate the wisdom, fairness, and rationality of our Torah sages.

      No one is denying that abusive spouses exist in the Orthodox Jewish community. But the extreme political power of the Marxist-lesbian-feminist political groups has implemented an insane domestic violence industry and ideology in the West that Torah Jews should utterly reject. This totalitarian ideology has spread into the Orthodox community, so that many "Orthodox" Jews believe that:
      - only men can commit domestic violence
      - women can never be held responsible for harassing, provoking, or assaulting their husbands
      - any claims against a husband made by a wife must be true and believed
      - husbands accused of DV violations are not entitled to due process of law or constitutional rights
      - a Jewish wife may demand a divorce at any time and for any reason

      The insane non-Torah DV laws are exploited to destroy families, eject non-violent decent husbands from their homes, prevent fathers from having any contact with their children, and allow women to move on to their next husband, while the previous husband has been financially and emotionally destroyed.

      The only solutions to Jewish marriage problems lie within Torah law, not within totalitarian feminism.

    2. Thanks EmesLeYaacov for your warm words!

      Here are a few links for those that want to research the prevalence of false domestic violence allegations.

      Like everything else, the question of just how prevalent such domestic violence allegations are, is itself a matter of dispute.

      Links to sources mentioning the prevalence of false abuse allegations:

      Links to sources disputing the prevalence of false abuse allegations:

    3. Dear Ploni,
      How wonderful your suggestions sound in theory!
      25 years.
      Does that sound like a lot?
      25 years.... Rabbi's promising that 'he will change!'
      'He realized the 'True Emes' of your complaints!' He'll do Tshuva!
      In the end... we're not at their Shabbos Tables, we're not real family, we're just these Kvetchers that re-appear from time to time... with hospital records.... with miscarriages.... no Protectsia... just a bunch of 'at risk' children.
      Believe me. If I had come to your door, you or your wife would have quickly had me understand that this was beneath you.

  25. A question for DT:

    The author states on Pg. 2 that hard copies of the sefer are available at nominal cost.

    Could you kindly post ordering information? The 845 phone number had no information.

  26. I was wondering whether the author discussed prenup agreements or conditional gets etc
    While keeping to halacha it is important to remember what is the actual R'tzon Hashem , that where there is no basis for the marriage a spouse should keep the other chained or use 'power' to extort etc. While forced gets are very problematic we should remember who the real villains are

    1. Allan am I correct in assuming that you have difficulty reading the original Hebrew text? In other words, do you have a training that gives you the ability to understand the halachic issues - or are you focused entirely on the fact that women are suffering?

      I also hope you realize you are coming across as a prophet that G-d has told him what He wants done? The rest of us don't have your confidence to speak for G-d. We need to rely on the halachic sources as understood by major Torah scholars through the ages.

      Your assertion about a chained wife or extortion has no basis in the Talmud. Thus you are saying, I since it is obvious that the extortion of a wife is evil, therefore it is understandable that women pay $100,000 to have the husband beaten up by rabbis who ignore elementary halacha and produce a get which is invalid and future children will be mamzerim. Why is it understandable that a woman would pay $100k for something which is worthless? Would you be interested in buying a bridge?

      So who are the real villains - the husbands who don't want a divorce (until they get equitable custody and monetary arrangement which accord with their Torah rights or is it the corrupt rabbis who utter worthless incantations , , kidnap and torture men? Or is it the women who are willing to hire hit men to torture their husbands, and violate halacha by going to secular courts and make false accusations that deprive their husband of their children and wealth?

      In sum, invoking a higher principle is a great secular argument - but it totally sidesteps the halachic issues. It is at best a starting point for a discussion but without a clear halachic basis it is worthless. We do have a disgusting and painful mess - but ignoring the basis of the problem is not called progress.

  27. Allan's statements should be analyzed because they reveal the actual hashkafa of the feminist "agunah" activists, after being stripped of feminist doublespeak:

    Allan Katz:
    "if you are machmir with gittin, you are meikal when it comes to the suffering of women"

    - "machmir with GITTIN" - this is doublespeak for observing the majority, normative halachic opinions that do not allow forced (by physical or non-physical means) GET on demand.
    - "suffering of women" - Alleviating it is a halachic stringency that allows forced GET on demand, and overrides any concerns about causing adultery, mamzerim, or injustices to Jewish men.
    - "suffering of women" - Alleviating it is a halachic stringency that means that any women who demands a GET for any reason must obtain one without any conditions being imposed, and without any requirements for her to recognize her husband's legitimate halachic rights.
    - "suffering of women" - Alleviating it means that any woman's demand for a GET is a halachic stringency that overrides any concerns for damages to children caused by divorce and loss of parenting time with their fathers.
    - Feminist GET on demand activists - they're actually the machmir Jews in halacha by fighting to prevent the suffering of women.
    - Great poskim who do not allow forced GITTIN on demand - they are inconsiderate of the suffering of women, and lenient in halacha.

    1. Emes L"Yaakov,most excellent posts. So many of these problems are strirred up by the lib feminists and other lib groups known as "Advocates".Men ,especially if they are frum are always made out to be the villains and white people in particular are always made out to me the "bad guy" always. To be honest I am sickened by it and by the catastrophic Chillul Hashem this young woman caused.

  28. It was painful for me to read Frum Sarah’s recent posts – I can only imagine how painful it is to live through such a situation….. But I’m especially concerned by the silence that followed her posts… Does anybody notice WHY she’s hurting so much???

    I think what bothers her most is her feeling of being SHORTCHANGED, DISMISSED AND MINIMIZED as a person. Why? Because she – the powerless Geyoris - stood up to a powerful rabbinical family. (See end of my posts for a synopsis of her posts).

    Assuming what FS says it true - and any UNBIASED B”D would do the forensics necessary to ascertain the facts - Frum Sarah HAS MY FULL SUPPORT. In fact, I’ve just emailed DT asking that he release my email address to you, Frum Sarah. As an individual, I can only lend a listening ear, but perhaps others can join in – and we can actually help.

    Why does FS deserve our support? It’s quite simple – actually as simple as learning Chumash….
    לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט אֶבְיֹנְךָ בְּרִיבוֹ is a Posuk…. ואהבתם את הגר is a posuk….
    FS talks about her lack of “Protectsia“ as a reason for her problems. It should be stated unequivocally that THE TORAH LEAVES ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM FOR “PROTECTSIA” IN MAKING LEGAL DECISIONS.

    But isn’t a forced Get Posul? Yes it is. And see סימן ה' הערה 33 where the author states that gittin cannot be forced in cases of violence.

    So it would seem that this is just “another” sad story that we hear daily about life’s trials and tribulations – we can’t fix the world… can we?


    What happened to the Rema’s words that…


    Did any serious B”D ascertain the facts in FS’s story? Did anyone actually pressure her husband to change? I dunno – but my experience has shown that often “Protectsia” trumps due diligence.

    Torah True Jews stand up – first and foremost – for TRUTH. Call me an idealist – I call this a tremendous CHILLUL HASHEM. We shouldn’t be concerned with men’s rights or women’s rights. We should be concerned with A-ascertaining what true Torah law prescribes, B-ascertaining the truth in specific situations, by shining a bright light on the dark recesses of our society that allow deceptions, deceit, slander, etc. to go unpunished, (you’ll be surprised at how easily the deceptions fall away once people actually start digging diligently for the truth), and C-enforcing Torah true law with all our heart and soul.

    We should stop allowing massive violations of Torah law, Torah ethics and Torah morality from being tolerated and even condoned!

    Here are selected snippets of Frum Sarah’s posts, for those that don’t want to scroll through the whole thread (I’m combining her posts):

    “Here is the harsh truth of the situation: I AM a ger. …. And my ex-husband was the son of a Rav. And was violent. I had hospital records, police records, … I had 25+ years of social equity with them. And when my children … were afraid that he was going to kill somebody.... I asked for a Get. I was ostracized from the family, ….. promising that 'he will change!' 'He realized the 'True Emes' of your complaints!' He'll do Tshuva!

    “my FIL 'put me in Herem'…. who exactly do you think came to my aid? Who was willing to go out on a limb and represent me? …. no Protectsia…. “

    “Dear Ploni, How wonderful your suggestions sound in theory! … Believe me. If I had come to your door, you or your wife would have quickly had me understand that this was beneath you.

    My final note: Dear Frum Sarah – no, it’s not beneath me to try to help you….. and as I’ve said earlier, feel free to ask DT for my email address and to contact me….

  29. In short, my argument can be framed as "Newton's third law":

    "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

    Action: Our biases - either to make snap decisions based on unproven assumptions causes us to ignore our Torah obligations

    Reaction: Those less versed in the Torah's rules blame the Torah for society's ills, and therefore seek loopholes, under the false assumption that Torah rules are archaic, etc. In truth the real problem is usually that Torah rules simply are being ignored.

  30. R' Daniel,
    I have been living in Israel close to 30 years. I spoke to a Chareidi Rosh Kolell who sits on Rav Karelitz's Beis Din .He explained that the Beis Din have rights to force a get when halachically appropriated. Chained is a metaphor I came across in an article on the R Eliyahu Fink on R 'Epstein and I basically echoed his sentiments. I am talking about men who don't give a get because of extortion or revenge and not to use it as leverage to get rights to see their kids. .If you have read my posts I have not justified what has happened in the USA. So most of what you have written is irrelevant as a response to my posts. I find your response pretty judgmental. I asked if the author dealt with prenup agreements or conditional gets – you did not answer. I am looking at the big picture. Men have the power, there are frum shelters for women , not for men and that is why women resort to secular courts etc . If I am correct the Ponevish dispute is being dealt with the secular courts and there are plenty of monetary cases there of frum people. So I while I do not condone going to a secular court, I am a little less judgmental of woman who do. I know too many women who were refused get for many years and their parents had to pay up. I don't wish this to happen to any woman or parent. I know of women who tried to commit suicide because of the abuse. Without the thugs we have a painful mess.
    The whole of mussar is about knowing R'tzon Hashem. The reason why there is such a mess is that people know halacha but not Rtzon Hashem , the 5th chelek of shulchan Aruch. Read R' Iaasac Sher , Rab Abraham Grodgensky – the whole of sefer Breishit is about how our God given intelligence obligates us to behave in the appropriate ways.
    When it comes to p'sak , I cannot contribute but as part of learning- ask questions. Dayanim and others are qualified to deal with these issues , but every person should have the moral and ethical understanding how Hashem wants us to solve these unfortunate and tragic situations in Jewish homes.

    1. "I find your response pretty judgmental. I asked if the author dealt with prenup agreements or conditional gets – you did not answer."

      Mr. Katz- I was simply responding to what you were stating - which is pretty judgmental. Why don't we switch seats for a moment.

      You are running a blog which maintains a fairly high level of halachic analysis, a fairly solid understanding of the reality of the get problem - from the view of men, women, children and community. You just posted a sefer which presents a lot of material dealing with the problem of get me'usa and ma'os alei - as well as having the context of the recent arrests of an alleged gang of rabbis dealing with kidnapping and torture of husbands who refuse to give into their wife's demand for a get - for various reasons. Who charge 100k and produce gittin which are posul. ok - got the picture?

      You just received a post condemning the evil husbands who refuse to give a get and stating that even though forced gets are "problematic" they are clearly understandable and perhaps justifiable?! Sure sound judgmental to me - both on the halachic level and the assigning of blame and guilt for the present situation. No acknowledgement or apparent awareness that using force invalidates most gittin. That the normal divorce entails ma'us alei claims - sometimes objectively verifiable and sometimes not. But typically we are not dealling with a clear cut case described in the gemora and Shulchan Aruch which allows for force - physical or otherwise.

      "While keeping to halacha it is important to remember what is the actual R'tzon Hashem , that where there is no basis for the marriage a spouse should keep the other chained or use 'power' to extort etc. While forced gets are very problematic we should remember who the real villains are"

      Please tell me how you would understand this and how you would respond?

    2. You are running a blog which maintains a fairly high level of halachic analysis, a fairly solid understanding of the reality of the get problem - from the view of men, women, children and community.
      Rav Daniel,

      You know me, and you(hopefully know) that I respect you. However the above not quite accurate. You have done a great job of covering one aspect of the Get problem. That of unnecessarily forced Gittin. However in all fairness to many of your confused readers you haven't deal with many of the other facets of the issue.

      You haven't for instance covered in anywhere near the same detail the cases of many true Agunot, some waiting twenty to thirty years for a get after their husbands have abandoned them and their children. The same stories that the Feminists here in Israel love to exploit to try to get their secular divorce laws passed. Ok they may be propaganda pieces in many respects, but they are effective ones because there is no excuse halakhically or ethically.

      Likewise you haven't really covered Get extortion. There are cases where the husbands want, aside from all the marital assests including what the wife brought into the marriage, to not pay their ketubah, but also want their hopefully soon to be ex-wife to pay up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a Get.

      Nor have you adequately covered the actual cases where a husband must give a Get or where a Beit Din may actually force the husband to give a Get. For instance if a husband beats his wife with a tire iron so badly that she is in intensive care for a week and a half. Does she really have to wait for a Beit Din to warn him three times, and for him commit acts of violence like that against her three times before she can get a Get? Several commentors on here in response to that question have said that yes she must. However, we have yet to see any actual teshuvot to the either side of the debate.

      So in all fairness to Mr. Katz I can understand why he is confused and why he is asking the questions that he is.

    3. I agree - we have not covered all cases. Perhaps you would like to write something about one of the "neglected cases".

    4. Perhaps you would like to write something about one of the "neglected cases".
      Not with the current Troll infestation.

    5. Tzadok, there is no troll infestation here. There are however spotlights that can be focused on the numerous erroneous and confusing statements you make on this blog, statements that seem to primarily benefit the YU-ORA group, the "agunah" groups, the rabbinut, and the Shas party.

      Are you a member of any of the groups I just mentioned, do you work for any of them for pay or as a volunteer, or do you take any direction from these groups or individuals connected with these groups?

    6. Tzadok, there is no troll infestation here.
      Really? So identity theft in order to discredit/embarrass a fellow blogger is a normal thing?

      Are you a member of any of the groups I just mentioned, do you work for any of them for pay or as a volunteer, or do you take any direction from these groups or individuals connected with these groups?
      Right... Because if anyone disagrees with any of your opinions they must be an agent of something or another. There answer is a no on all counts.

  31. EmesLeYaacov:

    I'm 100% on your side on the substance of your last post, but I think you're coming across a bit to harshly to Allen's comments.

    I think his intentions are noble.

    We live in a society where all sorts of so called Rabonim think they "own" the Torah and therefore abuse Torah precepts at will - usually with no repercussions at all.

    Likewise, we also live in a society with some TRUE Gedolim that are sensitive to the plight of the truly oppressed - who unfortunately have limited power to make their positions known and to enforce those decisions.

    Few laymen have the time or ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. If Rabbi so and so says pre-nups are okay, they see the dissenters as simply callous fellows.

    It takes a lifelong dedication to Torah to notice the level of sensitivity involved in parsing halacha to find and follow the truth, wherever it may lead - which sometimes means that the easiest approach to these dilemmas are prohibited - besides for the practical issue that pre-nups invite abuse - who decides when they kick in???

    But as I've stated before - what hurts most, in my opinion, is that we rarely put the tools we DO have to use:

    A-ascertaining what true Torah law prescribes, B-ascertaining the truth in specific situations, by shining a bright light on the dark recesses of our society that allow deceptions, deceit, slander, etc. to go unpunished, (you’ll be surprised at how easily the deceptions fall away once people actually start digging diligently for the truth), and C-enforcing Torah true law with all our heart and soul.

    Habitually Violent Husband?


  32. Emesleya'akov ,
    Please stick to the truth. I did not talk of forced get on demand . So all your conclusions are totally irrelevant and wrong. I assume that the author is machmir as he decries Israeli Batie Dinim which I would call normative. I see that you have an issue with men's rights as far as Gittin goes. I support alleviate women's and mens suffering as well.

  33. Allan:

    I'l add my 2 cents:

    About prenups:

    1) There is a מחלוקת הפוסקים about their validity. I think this mostly has to do with whether the Rashba would hold that financial penalties that the husband accepts in case of separation would cause any divorce to be a גט מעושה, and whether the Rema in קנד ס"ד would hold that financial penalties are only prohibited לכתחילה.

    2) Which Bais Din decides if the separation is justified, and that the financial penalties therefore kick in? In an environment of unbridled feminism, many B"D gravitate to the secular ideal of divorce on demand.

    1. Poloni on prenups:
      "There is a מחלוקת הפוסקים about their validity."

      I have friends who have shown the YU-MO feminist prenups to their lawyers. The lawyers were astounded that any sane man would voluntarily sign such a grossly unjust agreement that requires the man to pay $150 per day to his wife any time his wife throws him out of the house with an Order of Protection.

      Your confident academic discussion of prenups assumes that single Jewish men will passively allow their halachic rights to be steamrollered by grossly unjust feminist machinations such as the YU-MO prenups. You have not considered the fact that (as far as I can tell) the "marriage strike" by many men in the non-Jewish society has also influenced many men in the Orthodox community.

      By imposing these draconian feminist schemes (such as the YU-MO prenup) on Jewish men, you are risking an aggressive marriage strike by many Orthodox Jewish men, and a huge increase in the Jewish singles population.

    2. Emes:

      Please read my second point, "In an environment of unbridled feminism, many B"D gravitate to the secular ideal of divorce on demand".

      I meant exactly what you said.

      But I know of some pretty bright Rabbonim that ARE fooled. Rav Osher Weiss wrote a letter agreeing with prenups - I think he simply didn't notice how they can be used by wicked organizations intent on using false pretenses for obtaining marriage-on-demand.

    3. @Ploni - "Which Bais Din decides if the separation is justified, and that the financial penalties therefore kick in?"

      I realize you were you were not trying to give a rubber stamp to the prenups. But your question does seem to imply that the financial penalties might only be imposed on the husband if he caused the separation. My understanding is that in fact the YU-MO prenups impose the huge financial penalties automatically on the husband whenever the spouses are not living together for any reason (even if the wife ejected the husband from the house with a court order), and a GET has not been given.

      The husbands are being coerced to sign the agreement if they want to get married. When they sign it the husbands may believe that they will only owe the penalty if they voluntarily leave their wives, but this is not the case. This is draconian feminism. How can these so-called rabbis claim this is not GET MEOSO?

    4. See clause VII: @

      B"D CAN decide to waive the penalty - I just wouldn't trust BDA.

      ..... Furthermore, Husband-to-Be acknowledges that he recites and accepts the following:
      I hereby now (me'achshav), obligate myself to support my Wife-to-Be from the date that our domestic residence together shall cease for whatever reasons, at the rate of $150 per day (calculated as of the date of our marriage, adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index–All Urban Consumers, as published by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) in lieu of my Jewish law obligation of support so long as the two of us remain married according to Jewish law, even if she has another source of income or earnings. Furthermore, I waive my
      halakhic rights to my wife's earnings for the period that she is entitled to the above stipulated sum, and I recite that I shall be deemed to have
      repeated this waiver at the time of our wedding. I acknowledge that I have now (me’achshav) effected the above obligation by means of a
      kinyan (formal Jewish transaction) in an esteemed (chashuv) Beth Din as prescribed by Jewish law.

      However, this support obligation shall terminate if Wife-to-Be refuses to appear upon due notice before the Beth Din of America or in the event that
      Wife-to-Be fails to abide by the decision or recommendation of the Beth Din of America. Furthermore, Wife-to-Be waives her right to collect any
      portion of this support obligation attributable to the period preceding the date of her reasonable attempt to provide written notification to Husband-to-
      Be that she intends to collect the above sum. Said written notification must include Wife-to-Be’s notarized signature.

    5. Also - see Rav Weisses letter at the same address on why he doesn't think its a get meoso...

    6. @Ploni -

      "our domestic residence together shall cease for whatever reasons" -

      If a Jewish wife gets a court order throwing her husband out of the house, and then lets her boyfriend move in, then her husband still has a "Jewish law obligation of support"?

      "waive my halakhic rights to my wife's earnings" - Where in Jewish law is a husband required to waive his rights to his wife's earnings if she's demanding that he support her?

      If a Jewish husband has a middle class job taking home about $5000 per month, which halachic source requires him to pay his wife $4500 per month for her support?

    7. ELY, are you figures accurate, or an exaggeration? I UK, they try to be "fair", but I knwo America is highly monetized etc.

    8. Emes:

      In the case of the boyfriend - Supposedly, the B"D will look out for the husband's rights.

      I'm with you on this, based on what I hear about "Bais Din of America", they're not to be trusted.

      About a husband being required to waive rights to wife's earnings-Of course not. The man is accepting this willfully, and כל תנאי שבממון קיים.

      I don't think you understand what's going on here: They're intentionally biased to the wife's side, so that the hubby would find it in his best interests to issue a Get quickly.

      It's a nice concept - in theory. Avoid the issue of עיגון without getting into to mess of גט מעושה, by having men WILLFULLY accept financial penalties that don't directly force him to give a Get. The B"D is supposed to look out for the truth and protect the innocent, whether husband or wife.

      Im sure Bais Din of America considers themselves fair....

      The "little detail" that they're missing is that in today's get-on-demand environment women can abuse this prenup at will, and that same environment - as it stands now - means that the B"D can't be trusted to ascertain the facts and protect the husband's rights.

  34. Allan:

    Btw, and for whatever it's worth: I'm all for "Collaborative Problem solving" - which I noticed is the theme of your blog.

    I think a lot of marriages could be saved with collaborative counseling approaches like Emotion focused couples therapy (EFT), as long as the parameters agree with Halacha and Hashkafa.

    Did you ever explore advocating for such solutions to our גט מעושה crises? Just food for thought.

  35. You have done a great job of covering one aspect of the Get problem. That of unnecessarily forced Gittin. However in all fairness to many of your confused readers you haven't deal with many of the other facets of the issue."

    Actually tzaddok the coverage would have been far superior of your misinformation would have not been posted. Misinformation like Shas was against Oslo, Aharon freidman wasn't assaulted, the Rabbanut do not force gittin and arrrest people except in cery rare circumstances, claims that Freidman violated halocho just like all the women who run to arko'oys etc. And the cream of the crop -rav gestetner is corrupt without a single shred of evidence other than a letter from the right honorable dichovsky's predecessor ben dahan - a politician. while i don't believe in censorship after reading your posts repeatedly i am tempted to change my mind.

    "the true agunahs of 30 years". Just because someone hasn't receied a get doesn't make them an agunah. Evidence please?

    tzaddok i have supplied names of people who were forced to give gittin by the rabbanut. one is a famous case the other you can clearly check was the plaintiff in arko'oys. you can persist with your tik no lies but no one is fooled. you can cover up as much as you like but revisionists are just that - those who wish to hide from the truth.

  36. I have little doubt that there are some cases out there involving women very badly treated by men. if the case is egregious enough, the man will likely loand up in jail. if its more than 4 years then a get can be forced according the psak brought down by reb chaim oyzer in achiezer (10th or 11th psak). So let's stop the nonsense about women being trapped. There may be cases where there is a lack of evidence to lock the husband up. So all legal systems have egregious parts to it. Are there grounds for a get in this case? One needed to have asked rav elyashiv who lived for 102 years so i find it hard to believe this matter wasn't addressed by him. It should npot be addressed by feminists - they want a get for mo'us olaion demand and belong to the YU crowd who have revised or eliminated parts of the Torah they don't like.

    Nonetheless and without trying to minimize any wrongdoing,the high divorce rate today in most instances does not involve these cases. The Epstein and Dodelson machasheifahs have not alleged beatings,once or multiple. The real problem today with the high divorce rate is women running to arko'oys, getting orders of protection, men having tofight like mad toget them dismissed and when they are dismissed everyone admitting they were baloney but no punishment meted out to the women, destroying the men financially and emotionally, blackening their names, trying tlojail them etc. While I don't have hard statistics, I am sure the botei din in nyc would refuse to co-operate to provide them because it would show how corrupt they are, they have no compunction in writing gittin for women who are in arko'oys. if i could get the statistics i could do the analysis to workout what proportion of gittin involve the case being fought in arko'oys with women as the plaintiff, therby invalidating the get in the vast majority of cases . maybe tzaddok with his relationships with ORA and the Rabbanut could get them for us.

    So stop the baloney tzaddok that this blog only ocvers one side. It covers the predominant problem. Why has the Jewish Press list of fake mesarvim never got more than 15 men on it if fake agunahs is such a prevalent problem? You can bet that at any one time there are at least a few hundred divorce cases in arko'oys in the frum community. Someone I know who is divorced and gets offered shidduchim of divorcees keeps checking if these women were plaintiff's in arko'oys and they almost always are!

    Its similar to the cohen unable to marry gerushahs.

    Bottom line: Every time one speaks tosomeone about divorce, the question is always raised: has she been given a get? Not did she go to arko'oys, was she oyver mesirah, did she stop him seeing the kids, did she destroy him financially with equitable distribution, maintenance and exorbitant legal fees etc. Feminists like tzaddok will always claim otherwise but these are the contemporary real issues. Even mechabrei seforim and people you would think are huge talmidei chachomim have inherited the terrible trait of shaul hamelech - being kind to those they should be cruel to and cruel tothose they should be kind to. A machalah of epic proportions: a rabbanut which is feeding this terrible process together with the wild west botei din of NY.

  37. Here’s what I don’t understand.
    A major theme of this blog seems to be the response of the orthodox community to abuse, and the blog owner’s strong (and commendable) message that any knowledge of abuse should be immediately reported to the local authorities.
    And then he posts this book of anonymous authorship, which deals with gittin, and issues of Jewish identity (a collection of halachik sources about get meusa), another major theme of this blog.
    But the author of the book also talks about reporting domestic violence to the authorities (see page kuf-peh-vav, and resh-gimmel), and comes out strongly against anyone (I guess from within or without the family) reporting any suspicions or knowledge of abuse to the police or to social services without rabbinical approval, as he has no confidence in their abilities and fears that they will too readily remove kids from their home. He also says that even if the husband is violent to his children, as proven by 2 kosher witnesses, he can’t be removed from the home, and it is healthier for the children to live with a violent father than with no father.
    So, where does the blog owner stand? This seems a little like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Abuse must be reported if it is perpetrated by someone outside the family, but not if done by a parent?
    I think your readers would appreciate clarification.
    (Just a note, since I’ve been posting anonymously- I’m a 50 something savta living in central issue, with no personal stakes regarding any of this. I became interested in the blog as it provides an intelligent window to hareidi thought, which I find interesting, since my family and social interactions are within the DL community)

    1. Domestic abuse is nothing less than the invention of the machasheifahs who torment their husbands and their feminist handlers. These machasheifahs go to arko'oys, they are oyver mesirah, they stop their husbands seeing the kids, and seek only to itentionally destroy him financially with equitable distribution, maintenance and exorbitant legal fees etc. Don't let feminists like tzaddok fool you.

    2. you are delusional. stop the stupid comments!

    3. Taking Domestic Violence To Task

    4. Chana Rochel

      I think you're making an insightful observation, and since the author doesn't attempt to clearly contrast different types of abuse, I'll add my own interpretations:

      First of all: We're dealing with two different types of "abuse" here: The author talks specifically of a father using corporal punishment towards his children, which would fall under the rubric of "child abuse", while this blog's owner is a strong proponent of reporting "sexual abuse" (SA).

      There's a world of difference between the two, so I'll attempt to contrast them based on four criteria:

      In the case of sexual abuse, The Halachic justification for reporting abuse to authorities is based on the need to look out for the benefits of the victim and the public at large.

      Those pushing for reporting sexual abuse to secular authorities do so because...

      A) They believe the benefits of reporting - both to the victim and to other potential victims - far outweigh the possible damage of doing so (such as having the victim relive his trauma, not believing that the perp repented, etc.).

      B) They believe that the fear of incarcerating innocent people is not a major concern, as they trust the "system" to properly ascertain the facts.

      C) They believe that in SA cases it is unreasonable to expect two adult males to be witness to the abuse, for obvious reasons.

      D) None of the perp's financial interests are unduly, directly affected. While he may be incarcerated that's a direct outcome of his breaking the law, His home and/or bank account will not be seized unlawfully.

      Not so in the case of child abuse based on corporal punishment:

      A) The author's position (which I usually agree with) is that the damage of reporting far over-weighs any benefits. There are usually no outside victims, and the children are better served with a (sometimes violent) father, than no father at all.

      B) The secular authorities can't be trusted to "get it right". The fear of unlawfully removing the father is very real. You might be surprised to know that here in the USA, ALL states actually allow corporal punishment in the home except Delaware. Still, social services routinely remove parents from their own homes for that very reason, and with no right of due process.

      Basically, the law and the psychological establishment don't see eye to eye on this issue. Many contemporary Halachic authorities condone corporal punishment of children when necessary. Punishing a father for exercising what is surely his right - and what some would consider his obligation - is surely immoral.

      Even worse, false allegations of child abuse are rampant, and well documented in secular literature, too. (I've posted some websites concerning this point, earlier in the thread).

      C) The author takes the position that it IS feasible to expect two adult witnesses in cases of child abuse, probably because the action is not usually as hidden from view as SA. (I'm not sure I agree with that point).

      D) If the father is removed from his own home, and especially if an OOP is part of the basis used to deny him custody, force division of financial assets, etc. he suffers serious financial distress which is unwarranted according to Halacha - this amounts to גזילה.

      I hope this helps clarify things a bit....

    5. Thank you Ploni for your helpful analysis.
      I'd like to look at the case study (the woman named Sandie) provided in the link cited above by Rabbi Eidensohn

      Let's say that Sandie decides that she can no longer live with the abuse and asks for a divorce. Her husband refuses. They go to beit din.
      What would be the response and halachic analysis by:
      1- An RCA beit din in the US?
      2- A Rabbanut beit din in Israel
      3- A Hareidi beit din following the shitot of the above book?
      4- How would each Rabbi Eidelsohn analyze the case?

  38. Being kind to the cruel, and cruel to the kind:
    From a translation of the Beis Din Shar Mishpat on the behavior of the rabbis:
    Instead of behaving as have great leaders of the Jewish People in all past generations, where if a woman had come to them with such immaterial “claims” following the practices of the lowliest of the world’s peoples who decide to divorce and change their spouses for any absurd or immaterial reason just like they change their socks – those rabbis would have rebuked the woman that it is forbidden to do such an absurd thing to destroy a bayis neeman byisrael [a loyal Jewish household], and to be cruel to her daughter and husband and destroy their lives for no reason. They would ask if she has no consideration whatsoever for the best interests of her daughter, when she has an important husband with all the spiritual and physical positive attributes that she herself described when she wrote out of the purity of her own heart (without trickery or outside pressure). Instead these “rabbis” came and did the opposite. They fanned the conflagration, and turned into righteousness the cruel behavior of ivelles beyadeah taharsena [a foolish woman destroys her household with her own hands]. And if the husband wants to defend his basic human and halachic rights, they further tar him as guilty and cruel. And it is on the behavior of these “rabbis” that our sages said: anyone pitying the cruel will end up being cruel towards the merciful. Be appalled at this, O Heavens.
    This is translated from the portion beginning at the very end of page 4 in the original:

  39. Is there any focus on our future, where all who agree with the major poskim and the Shulchan Aruch will not be able to marry the products of invalid divorces from the followers of Kotler and company? And if there is a great war in Israel between the rabbonut and gedolim about divorces, what does that mean? Are we thinking and talking about that, or are there more important issues?

  40. R' Dovid:

    I'm imagining that the identifying the "products" of these Gittin would require some sort of registry run by people that have the Gedolim's CLEAR stamp of approval.

    That's a tough call, because as the author states, Sincere Batei Dinim are afraid to come out in the open against the Rabbanut, because they need the Rabbanut's אישור on Gittin.

    How about dealing with "low lying fruit", first:

    Let's get some publicity, articles.. ads etc publicizing a simple, logical truism:

    1) No Rov or Bais Din can issue a Psak affecting the rights of any party in issues of בין אדם לחבירו without A) hearing both בעלי דין when they are both present together and B) without seriously attempting to ascertain the facts, unless the Baalei Din are מקבל קנין of their free will for a פשרה that states otherwise.

    2) Any Baal Din has a right to ask מהיכן דנתני, where he feels an issue of bias may crop up.

    3) Any Baal Din has a right to record the proceedings of Bais Din, where he feels there is an issue of bias.

    Even if we assume that Epstein/Walmark can explain away lots of things: They care for עגונות; as Rabbi's they feel entitled to the opinion that גט מעושה is okay in the cases they dealt with; they took money because they have families to support...

    ....Perhaps the most blatant travesty in the saga is the lack of due diligence on their part: Namely, the fact that they never heard "the other side of the story". After all, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story!

    How can Epstein/Walmark claim entitlement to the opinion that גט מעושה is okay in the cases they dealt with IF THEY OBVIOUSLY NEVER MET THE FICTITIOUS HUSBAND?

    I think most of Kllal Yisroel - across the board - could empathize with these arguments.

    I think that if we stay focused on things that most of Kllal Yisroel CAN agree with, we'll BS"D accomplish MUCH more..

    Maybe afterwards - once people are warmed up - you'll BS"D have support going forward....


    1. just made this into a separate post

    2. Thank You DT - may we merit to bring positive change!

  41. Ploni,
    First I thank you for taking the time and sharing your learning on this issue.I am learning there is more gray than black and white.

    As far as CPS - collaborative problem solving goes I would assume that gi'shur and mediation approaches to divorce issues would apply the same principles. The brilliance of CPS imho is that it focuses on the concerns of the parties . Often people bring their concerns to the table in the form of solutions- I want etc Spending a lot of time on concerns and being heard helps the parties hear the other. Only once we have a clear understanding of the concerns we can then start brainstorming realistic and durable mutually satisfying solutions. Also divorce itself is just one solution to the concerns of the parties so I think it would be great for marriage therapy. CPS focuses on unsolved problems and not the behaviors of the parties. So if the spouse is hitting, slapping, yelling - we look at the conditions where these behaviors are taking place and try to solve the underlying problem by addressing both parties concerns . The process teaches lagging skills including all skils that take place when using cps. The mantra is kids do well if they can and not kids do well if they want - I think this is true for adults as well

  42. ChanaRachel,
    My take on sexual or physical abuse= corporal punishment. Sexual abusers need treatment but also needed to be constantly observed by the community. The rearch is clear about the costs to kids of corporal punishment. Reporting this usually leads to parents going to parenting classes and charges not made or dropped If one is aware of this ,I think one should encourage parents to get help. Parents would rather parent another one , but in most cases they are doing the best they can. Sadistic corporal punishment imho must be reported.

  43. Ploni,
    Very interesting thinking and material from you today. Keep up your good work. I want to express what I think is the answer to the main question: How can Roshei Yeshiva conflict with the Shulchan Aruch? How can they declare that one must humiliate the husband in MOUS OLEI when the Gro says that there is not a single opinion that agrees with this?
    Years ago I was shocked to hear from major Rosh Yeshivas in the Agudah that "it is forbidden to fight gays." I asked why that was, because all of the rabbonim that I dealt with said we must fight them. Their goal is to do away with the Torah's teaching and the Torah's influence. They replied, "We are against hate." This is pure apikorsus, because there are many pesukim that we must hate evildoers. See Pesachim 113 it is a mitsvah to hate the wicked.
    I spoke with senior members of the Agudah who explained to me as follows. Their Rosh Yeshivas are the Gedolim of the generation. "There is no prophet except of your own time" meaning that times have changed and now whatever rabbis said in the past is worthless as only the Rosh Yeshivas are the leaders of our generation. THis idea, that the present Rosh Yeshivas are able to throw out the teachings of the greats of the past is mistaken, because "if the earlier ones are like angels we are like people and if the earlier ones are like people we are like donkeys." But the Rosh Yeshivas probably rejected that as well.
    Thus, the issue is whether the Agudah's Rosh Yeshiva have the right to change the Torah in defiance of the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, and they say they are the Gedolim and will do what they want. The issuance of a decree to divorce for someone who is not, by the Torah's law, obligated in that, is a wicked act, and the Chazon Ish says that the Get issued is invalid. But the Rosh Yeshivas of the Agudah feel that they are empowered to re-invent the Torah, show their concern for women, and make money for Yeshivas from liberal politicians, and so what if there are mamzerim? Their salaries will be paid.
    Again, this is an issue where the halacha is clearly against the Rosh Yeshivas, who are making mamzerim. My brother and I are fighting to educate people that the Rosh Yeshivas are making mamzerim. Ultimately, this issue will destroy either the Rosh Yeshivas or many children.

    1. Rabbi Eideonsohn,
      Do you mean by fight gays to fight against individuals who may have a biological predisposition towards activities that are forbidden by the Torah regardless of whether they act upon or resist that predisposition or do you mean fighting against the idea that the spreading and legitimization of activities and a lifestyle that are clearly prohibited by the Torah are somehow acceptable today?

  44. R' Dovid:

    Thank you for your warm words...

    I'm taking the liberty of posting (most of) your comment to the
    thread - I think what you say is extremely important


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.