Friday, October 25, 2013

Wife claims abuse and wants a divorce: How does a beis din respond?

ChanaRachel's comment on "Sefer on forced gittin - with haskamos of major ra...":

I'd like to look at the case study (the woman named Sandie) provided in the link cited above by Rabbi Eidensohn Jewish Action Magazine Spring 1998

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?

Sandie's Story
Sandie* is a 45-year-old mother of four beautiful children, ages 10, 14, 15 and 22. She works as a school administrator and is highly regarded by staff and parents alike for her professionalism and sensitivity to the children's needs. Her husband David owns a successful business that caters to the growing Jewish population in their neighborhood. He is on the board of their synagogue, attends a Daf Yomi shiur every morning, and is well known as someone who is always willing to help out when a need arises in the community.

Sandie's greatest joy is a new grandchild, their first. Her greatest shame is that, unbeknownst to any of her friends, Sandie's husband abuses her. Some of her most painful moments have been at events when she and her husband were being honored for their community activities; it's all she can do to keep smiling when people tell her how wonderful her husband is, and how lucky she is to be married to him.

Sometimes Sandie has a hard time believing what really happens at home. When David comes home at night, she scans his face to see what kind of evening it's going to be. If he's in a "good" mood, he might generously say, "Forget what you've made for dinner. Let's all go out to eat!" On a "bad" night, she hustles the children into their rooms and tells them to do their homework alone because, "Abba needs it nice and quiet tonight." 

On nights like that, she knows that it won't take much to send him into a rage -- throwing dishes, screaming at her, slamming his fists into the walls, calling her names, accusing her of infidelity, or threatening to divorce her and take the children with him. Although he has shoved her and pulled her hair in the past, he has never hit her or broken any bones. Sometimes he yells at the kids too, but more often he spoils them and tells them that their mother is "too strict." He used to apologize and bring her gifts after a fight; but that never happens anymore.

Over the years, she's tried many ways to fix her marriage. She suggested couples' counseling several times, but David refused to go, saying that all their problems are her fault. She's spoken to rabbis and counselors, most of whom told her to leave him, but they couldn't tell her how she was supposed to support her children on her own. Others told her that he "just has a bad temper," and that she must avoid doing things that "push his buttons." Part of the reason Sandie went back to work was to build up a nest egg for herself, but David insists that she deposit her check directly into his bank account.

She's spent many nights crying, agonizing over the person her husband has become and wondering what she's done wrong. She feels so ashamed that she hasn't been able to keep shalom bayis in her home that she has rarely tried to tell anyone else. When she has hinted at problems, people say she must be exaggerating. She actually has few friends anymore, as David doesn't trust her to see people on her own. He insists they do everything as a couple.

The most recent incident was over the fact that she bought new shoes for their youngest child without asking David first. He kept her awake until 4:30 a.m. yelling about how she can't handle money, and how careless and lazy she is. (He gives her an "allowance" every motzei Shabbos to cover food, gasoline, clothing, school supplies and household expenses: the amount depends on whether she's been "good" that week, but it's never more than $200 for everything.)

For some reason, this fight was the last straw for her. She realized that he wasn't ever going to change; and she didn't want her children to grow up thinking this was normal behavior. That week she saw a card at the mikvah advertising a hotline for abused Orthodox women. When she called, the counselor really listened -- and made her feel that someone finally understood. But she didn't tell her what to do. Sandie had hoped the hotline would give her an answer, but by the end of the conversation, she realized that she was going to have to make some hard decisions for herself. She did feel better, however, after they worked out a safety plan in case things got worse again. The counselor gave her the names of some therapists, a battered women's support group, and a rabbi who would believe her, and told her she could call back any time she wanted to talk some more.

Sandie decided to start with the rabbi, and called to make an appointment. Although she was hesitant at first to give details, he seemed to understand what she meant by a "bad temper." He assured her that he would not endanger her by telling her husband she had come to him, and he set about helping her evaluate her options within a halachic framework. He also suggested that it would be a good idea for her to talk to a domestic violence counselor. 

At this point, after a few visits with the rabbi, Sandie doesn't yet know if she'll stay with David or ask for a divorce: she feels there are pros and cons either way, and she wants to make sure she does the right thing for her children. She does feel, however, that she has finally opened her eyes and is on her way to making things better for herself and for them. She feels hopeful for the first time in years.

* Sandie's case history was provided by NISHMA, a program for Orthodox battered women in Los Angeles. All names and identifying details have been changed to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.


  1. One critical point in this discussion that must be considered is that the wife's claim of abuse may be completely false. Or greatly exaggerated. Or what she considers to be abuse may, in fact, not be abusive at all.

    This is a vital point to consider when an abuse claim is made in Beis Din.

  2. The main thing to consider when there is real spousal abuse, is what Shulchan Aruch decrees how to treat such a situation. Jewish Law (Halacha) is paramount.

    This is true regarding how to stop a husband from abusing his wife, even if they remain married, and whether it is Halachicly justifiable cause for the wife to have a right to a Get (divorce).

    Obviously what kind of abuse is taking place makes a difference in this determination. Not all abuse cases are equivalent.

  3. Just a quick note about the money issue discussed in the Sandy case above. Generally speaking, all marital assets are the property of the husband. Even a wife's salary belongs to her husband. Halakha states that a wife cannot spend money against her husband's wishes. And if she doesn't know whether he allows her to purchase an item, she must first ask him and secure his permission.

    This halakha goes so far that the law is if a wife purchases something without her husband's permission, the husband has the legal right to go to that merchant and demand he return the money the wife spent. This is enforceable in Beit Din. A wife should always be cognizant of this.

    1. This is not correct. She can say "Eini Nezonis V'Eini Oseh"

    2. Anonymous: Columbus IS correct.

      Now the wife can say "Eini Nezonis V'Eini Oseh", but

      a) That is not the default; by default (unless she states differently) it is as Columbus described above [and most wives fall under the default as very few state "Eini Nezonis V'Eini Oseh"

      b) Even if she does say "Eini Nezonis V'Eini Oseh", it is only effective from that point forward. Everything that came into her possession prior to saying that belongs to her husband. (So if they are the point where they are about to divorce, her saying this does little as everything owned prior belongs to the husband.

      c) She loses important rights as a wife if she say "Eini Nezonis V'Eini Oseh".

  4. The question in this case is whether or not she is entitled to a divorce,

  5. Her only hope is to wear a hidden mic. And if bais din discounts then she should seek a heter arkaos.

    1. She will likely need professional help installing a mic or even a camera. I see an opening for some frum private investigator businesses, naturally under the supervision of halachic authorities.

    2. Heter arokos authorization can only come from the same beis din.

  6. I know a case nearly identical to this though the husband has from time to time slapped his wife. The wife took the case to Rabbanut, here is what essentially happened.
    1) The wife petitioned the Rabbanut Beit Din HaGadol for a Get, and provided details on their home situation.
    2) The husband claimed that he wanted Shalom Bayit.
    3) Rabbanut obligated them to 12 months of couples therapy after which time they would again convene.
    4) The woman's toain told her that if she moved back in with her parents, Rabbanut would obligate him to give her a divorce in 24mos, though not force him to give one since she would be a moredet.
    5) The woman went to the Israeli secular court to obtain a divorce because she didn't want to wait for her halakhic options.
    6) Rabbanut refused to register(or recognize) her second marriage and informed her that any children she will have with her new husband will be mamzerim.

    1. Recipients and PublicityOctober 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM


    2. RMT: I don't understand you. In Israel there is no such thing as a civil divorce. All divorces must go through the rabbanut. So how could she get a divorce without the rabbanut by going to "secular court"?; secular courts in Israel cannot issue marriages or divorces.

    3. I don't understand you. In Israel there is no such thing as a civil divorce. All divorces must go through the rabbanut.

      That simply is no longer true. While the Rabbanut will not recognize a divorce done by the secular courts a woman may get a civil divorce in Israel now. It is sad and unfortunate but it is true.

    4. What's sad is that you fell for tzadok's feminist lies. Domestic abuse is nothing less than the invention of the machasheifahs and their feminist YU/ORA/MO handlers who torment their husbands. 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.

    5. anti rabbanut - your statement is utter nonsense

    6. @Daas Torah - anti-rabbanut's statement is utter nonsense?

      The feminist fantasies like the one you posted above ("Sandie's Story"), where:
      - the wife is solely the victim and never the perp,
      - the wife is utterly innocent of any errors or wrongdoing,
      - the wife bears no responsibility for the marriage breakdown,
      - the husband is solely the perp and never the victim,
      - the husband is utterly guilty in the marriage conflict,
      - the husband is solely responsible for the marriage breakdown,


      (Let's see if your censor will allow this comment through).

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. rav tzadok

      While the Rabbanut will not recognize a divorce done by the secular courts a woman may get a civil divorce in Israel now.

      according to this page, , the option of civil divorce is extremely limited in israel (only for intermarried couples who had a civil marriage outside of israel). regarding this point, are you saying that what is written here inaccurate?

      i will note that they aren't totally accurate. some intermarriages are recognized. if a recognized church allows an intermarriage, the state will recognize it as well. hence, a muslim man who marries a jewish woman in a muslim religious ceremony has no problem.

    9. Ben,

      Note that the site says that was the law until 2005. In 2005 the Knesset changed the law allowing couples to seek divorce in secular court, and limiting the time that the Beit Din could prevent that:
      גירושין אזרחיים בבית משפט לענייני משפחה
      בשנת 2005 הוחלט בחקיקה כי הערכאה השיפוטית אשר אחראית על גירושין אזרחיים תהא בית המשפט לענייני משפחה. חוק זה בעצם קיצר את התהליך וכעת זוגות המבקשים להתגרש בגירושין אזרחיים מנהלים את כל ההליך מול ערכאה שיפוטית אחת.

      בית המשפט לענייני משפחה יהא מוסמך לדון בהתרת נישואין אזרחיים של בני זוג שאינם מאותה דת, ואולם מקום מושב של אחד מבני הזוג או של שניהם בשנתיים האחרונות הוא בישראל. החוק גם קובע מסגרת זמן של שלושה חודשים בהם חייב ראש בית הדין הדתי למסור את עמדתו לביתה משפט לענייני משפחה בהתרת הנישואין.

    10. rav tzadok

      yes but the critical line, that you quoted is:

      בית המשפט לענייני משפחה יהא מוסמך לדון בהתרת נישואין אזרחיים של בני זוג שאינם מאותה דת

      those couples who are not from the same church - they can go to the civil court, not someone married in beit din, k'dat v'k'din.

    11. Anti Rabbanut and EmesL'Yaakov, I just want to say thank you. Your absurd statements that domestic abuse is a Feminist myth show just how unreliable your statements are far better than I ever could have.

    12. Ben,

      I don't know if the couple that I am speaking of was married in Israel or not, however, the wife most definitely did sue for a civil divorce here in Israel, and they both are Jewish. I don't pretend to be an expert in Israeli secular law, I can only go with with the facts that were presented me in this case.

    13. Tzadok, please re-read my comment. I never once said all domestic abuse is a myth as you're falsely claiming.

      "Your absurd statements that domestic abuse is a Feminist myth"

      My comment pertained to why grossly one-sided, anti-male, women can only be victims, feminist fantasies of alleged domestic conflicts should be rejected by intelligent people.

      These men-are-monsters fantasy stories are passed off as proven facts quite commonly in the liberal secular media and in the feminist Jewish media such as the Jewish Press. Men in divorce conflicts are then demonized in a similar way as Jews were demonized by Nazi propaganda.

      Feminists like you swallow these propaganda stories hook, line, and sinker.

    14. Feminists like you swallow these propaganda stories hook, line, and sinker.
      I'm not a feminist.

      Otherwise I agree with most of what you write here. There is an unbalance, and has been for a while, however, please re-read the comment that you are defending above, and perhaps have second thoughts, because Stan clearly says that all domestic abuse is a myth. Rav Eidensohn said his statement was absurd, and then you defended him. If you do not want to be painted with the same nut-job brush, don't defend the indefensible.

    15. For some, like Stan, Zionism is the big evil, and the yardstick by which to measure one's enemies
      for ELY, it is feminism, or Femi-nazism, as he puts it. Every issue revolves around Feminist brainwashing and how many of us are victims of it etc.

      These strong biases or obsessions are not helping in your attempts to debate rationally.

    16. @Tzadok, Anti-rabbanut's comments may have been a little unclear, but they were not the comments of a "nut-job" as you claim.

      I'm not claiming that "domestic abuse" never actually occurs, nor am I a spokesman for Anti-rabbanut. However, the term "domestic abuse" as used by Anti-rabbanut could refer to the ideology, movement, and "industry" invented by feminist groups, lawyers, judges, etc., whose goal is to forcibly eject decent fathers, destroy families, hand over all assets and children to the mothers, and rake in huge legal fees, all based on false allegations of domestic violence against fathers.

      By this definition, the "YU/ORA/MO handlers who torment husbands" have jumped fully on board the fraudulent DV movement, and are spreading this evil ideology all over the "Orthodox" community.

      "Prof. Straus devoted most of his lecture to explaining the ways in which the true findings in his field are distorted, concealed and misrepresented, to make it seem that men are always the culprits and women are always the victims of intimate partner violence."

    17. I'm not claiming that "domestic abuse" never actually occurs, nor am I a spokesman for Anti-rabbanut. However, the term "domestic abuse" as used by Anti-rabbanut could refer to the ideology,

      Um sorry but no. Our felonious friend has said it before, and Rav Eidensohn responded, Daas TorahOctober 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM
      you are delusional. stop the stupid comments!

      Now coming to your actual points. No one counterfeits $3 bills. Why? There are no actual $3 bills. Domestic abuse/violence is real and in real cases it is horrifying. The vast majority of true victims never report or file for divorce ect. Unfortunately when such cases do come to light, often after the violence has escalated to extremes we find that neighbors, friends and religious leaders were ignoring the signs for years.

      This in it's own right breeds two problems:
      1) Activism- those who crusade for change for the supposed betterment of all mankind. Personally I deplore activism in all it's forms because it dwells in the extremes and makes victims of it's own. In it's desire to right a wrong it is an over reaction and thus equally unbalanced and harmful. Cases abound through history, such as the "rape crisis" of the '60s that lead to so many false convictions in the 80's. It also leads to counter-activism. Folks such as our felonious friend who would at the extreme end deny the very existence of any real problem.

      2) delusory and specious claims Remember though counterfeit bills, well here we go. Fueled by activism there comes the delusory and specious claims of abuse. Again you don't have to look too far into history for example, SRA, being another prime one.

      However we must be careful not to begin to deny halakhic rights and Torah solutions to true victims on account the specious ones. This is where counter-activists begin to become quite problematic. As they begin to label even mainstream centrist positions as belonging in the activist camp.

      For instance you and our felonious friend have repeatedly labeled me a Feminist. I am not, no more than I am a misogynist as folks from ORA and "pro-agunah" activist camps have been wont to label me. Further as we have seen in some cases here, you and our felonious friend have been quick to jump at women who violate Torah prohibitions, but make excuses for the men who do so. Such counter-activism undermines any actual validity that your position has.

    18. Tzadok, regarding Fink's article you linked to - it's an intellectually and halachically dishonest article that falsifies the Rambam to support the feminist agenda of forced GITTIN on demand. The article made no mention of the Rambam's statements prohibiting the divorcing wife from taking anything whatsoever from the husband, nor does it mention the Rambam's prohibition of MESIRAH and using civil courts.

      Fink's article is further proof that many so-called "Orthodox" rabbis are simply Reform feminist ideologues who are willing to allow a mechitza in their temples, although even this will be increasingly unnecessary as any men with any self-respect will flee from these fake "rabbis".

  7. ORA's case for a get or Rabbi Hershel Schachter's case for a get is not a case involving or bordering on physical abuse or any other type of abuse or where the evidence is not conclusive as to whether or not there is abuse. The ORA/Rabbi Schachter case would be where the wife thinks the husband treats her very well, but she decides to divorce for any trivial reason whatsoever such as she thinks he isn't a good enough souffle cook, or a good enough baseball player, or because he isn't tall enough or because she thinks he doesn't sing opera properly. The ORA/Rabbi Schachter position is that the wife is entitled to a get (regardless of what any beis din says) regardless of her reason for leaving. And so far as I can tell, the ORA/Rabbi Schachter position is that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to leave a marriage for such reasons. Furthermore, it would be wrong for the Orthodox community to encourage or educate those getting married or those already married to attempt to stay together even at the point that they have children because fundamentally the decision to divorce is one of individual choice and individual freedom and individual liberty. And the same would hold true that a wife who leaves for any reason or no reason has a right to a get if she kidnaps the children.
    The only exception ORA recognizes to the inalienable right to a get is if the wife steals a million dollars from the husband and runs away.

    1. Parent:
      I agree with your categorization on the lack of יושר on the part of ORA's position...

      I'll only add that in order to "free" this woman who is looking for a husband that plays baseball well from being "chained" to her "loser" husband, she may:

      A. Break the marriage, and then force a get after 18-24 months... since the marriage is irrevocably broken.

      B. Obtain a psychiatric evaluation, labeling the husband with either ADD, GAD, SAD, PD, OCD, etc....

      A popular justification of מורד\מורדת is to obtain a negative psychiatric evaluation of a spouse, without the therapist ever bothering to meet that spouse to ascertain facts, and without considering context (was the subject screaming FIRE! in the middle of the street for no good reason, or was there actually an uncontrolled blaze in a building the subject was standing in front of?

      Never mind that the best and brightest in psychology decree this deceptive practice of clinicians... it's a daily occurrence, anyway.

    2. Parent, I believe your description of the YU based ORA organization (the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot ) is quite accurate. ORA activists are simply feminist thugs destroying Jewish families and persecuting decent men without justification.

      Also be aware that in a number of cases where ORA is involved, the mothers have taken custody of the children in non-Jewish courts. These mothers are often intentionally alienating the children from their (normal, non-criminal) fathers, and/or preventing the fathers from having reasonable parenting time with their children (the Friedman-Epstein case is just one example of this).

      Destroying a child's relationship with their father is simply unspeakable evil, and is one more reason why ORA and its so-called rabbis and supporters should be ejected from the Orthodox community.

  8. tzaddok i know of several cases where the rabbanut put people in jail while visiting israel. cases like meyerovitch, like avi kenig. you just keepvery quiet about these. again talking from both sides of your mouth. i see you changed tactics, first you tried to argue your way out of the corruption of the rabbanut. but that failed dismally as you got nailed every time. now you just ignore the corruption as if it doesn't happen.

    again explain the corruption of the rabbanut. what about the equitable distribution and maintenance rulings that have no basis in halocho tzaddok?

  9. "The only exception ORA recognizes to the inalienable right to a get is if the wife steals a million dollars from the husband and runs away."
    I know pof an exact case where the wife ran to arko'oys and between the legal fees, the equitable distribution and forcing exaggerated payements of child support. This will cost $1 million to the husband. If you think ORA wouldn't demand a get, stop bain naive.

  10. Michael tzaddok please present the evidence that rav gestetner is corrupt. It must be over a year already that yo made this false allegation. You have had more than enough time to collect the evidence if it exists and to manufacture it since it doesnt.

    1. Ghost of Langer PastOctober 27, 2013 at 11:29 AM

      Gestetner is the sole signatory on his psakei din. Something that the entire khareidi world was outraged about when Rabbi Goren did it. It was the main halakhic basis for saying that Goren's psakei din were passul. Therefore Rav Elyahsiv's rulling should equally stand for Gestetner and all his psakei din are also passul.

  11. RDE:

    Notice this article from AMI Magazine's interview with Rabbi Hershel Schacheter where RHS smacks a husband's right to ask for "Shalom Bayis" (i.e. he wants to stay married) when the wife asks Beis Din to force him to divorce her:

    "It also became the style now that when a couple is getting divorced, the toanim tell the husband to say that he wants shalom bayis, so that the bais din assumes that she is a moredes (rebellious wife), and she doesn’t get the kesuba. Ridiculous."

    He essentially doesn't believe in a husband's right to stay married by asking for Shalom Bayis.

    1. Wow!!! Way to pull a sentence out of context and put your own spin on it. He is clearly saying that Toanim are telling their clients to decieve the B"D in order to get a better judgement leave the comment in context:
      Q: Did you come to this conclusion from personal experience?
      A: I was once asked to sit in on a din Torah to see that there wouldn’t be any shenanigans. I believe that it was a yeshiva against an administrator. The administrator just sat there while the toain [lawyer in bais din] presented the whole case. You have to hear from the administrator himself! How can the toain present the case? The toain can say all sorts of shekarim [lies], because he just says whatever the baal din told him. If the baal din himself says it, he’d be scared; he’d be shaking. You can tell if he’s telling the truth; nikarim divrei emes, nikarim divrei sheker. I thought it was terrible. What kind of a din Torah was that?
      Q: Is that experience indicative of dinei Torah today?
      A: Certainly. I remember another case where a widow had died and she had no children... This relative, I believe it was a great-nephew, pocketed all the money. The other members of the family wanted a din Torah. Someone asked me to watch. The head of the bais din asked the great nephew, “How many bankbooks were there when your great-aunt asked you to take care of her finances?”He answered, “Four.”The dayan asked, “How much money was there in each account?”Suddenly the toain screamed out, “Don’t answer! You’re not mechuyav [obligated] to answer!”That was the end of the case. Had this been a secular court, they would have thrown him out the window. What do you mean, you don’t have to answer? A chutzpah! The dayanim want to find out the facts. But that was the end; there was nowhere to go after that.
      Q: Are you saying that this is nowadays the general trend to obfuscate the facts?
      A: There are countless similar instances when the toain instructs his client not to respond to a question. It also became the style now that when a couple is getting divorced, the toanim tell the husband to say that he wants shalom bayis, so that the bais din assumes that she is a moredes (rebellious wife), and she doesn’t get the kesuba. Ridiculous...

      It is quite clear that he is complaining against lying Toanim. Sure a husband has a right to claim he wants Shalom Bayit, so long as he actually wants Shalom Bayit. However, if he is just making that claim, through a Toan none the less to get a better outcome... that is highly problematic.

    2. I'm with Tzaddok on this one. R' Shachter is obviously pained by the obfuscations, and he spares neither husbands nor wives - as should be.

      Note how later in the same interview he says:

      "A: It’s terrible. The dayanim themselves are misusing the system. Someone told me that he was divorcing his wife. He gave the get (divorce) first; he didn’t want to hold it up. So now every time there is a question about custody, his wife goes to court with impunity. Each time he goes to court for anything, the bais din sends him a seruv [summons]. They misuse the seruv. They vilify him, and if there would be a seruv against him, he would lose his job. He is a rabbi. "

      It's just a pity that he's as human as the rest of us - and I think that he's backed some questionable practices, too....

    3. RMT/Ploni: Rabbi Schachter is pro divorce-on-demand and believes if a wife wants a divorce the husband must give her one even if he doesn't want to get divorced. Rabbi Schachter doesn't like the entire concept of a husband asking a beis din for shalom bayis.

    4. Preb, that may or may not be, but you cannot get that from the quoted article.

  12. anti national rabbanutOctober 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    There is no need for a bais din to overturn acorrupt siruv on a woman who was lo tzias dina. The siruv was not chal and all rav gestetner was doing was pointing this out. It was hardly a psak to mattir m amzeirim. This attempt to discredit rav gestetner is laughable. Rav elyashiv discredited r bealsky over and over and wohlmark speaks for himself. the bais din that issued the siruv is a kangaroo bais din. the siruv was not chal and the garbage that rav gestetner = r goren is just that - pure nonsense. Making a clarification that a non existent siruv of a non existent bais din is non existent is like telling someone its the morning, you don't need a bais din for that.

    now tzaddok let's see some evidence that rav gestetner is corrupt. stop posting nonsence and accusing me of lying. for you to extrapolate that rav elyashiv holds no'us olai requires a get from a case of a man taking a second wife and being unable to support the first is pure shas double speak.

    1. Ghost of Langer PastOctober 27, 2013 at 5:31 PM

      Gestetner is the sole signatory on his psakei din. Something that the entire khareidi world was outraged about when Rabbi Goren did it. It was the main halakhic basis for saying that Goren's psakei din were passul. Therefore Rav Elyahsiv's rulling should equally stand for Gestetner and all his psakei din are also passul.

  13. you are a ghost arguing nonsense. when something has no validity in the first place it doesn't require a bais din to overturn it. show me where rav gestetner signed a psak being mechayev someone money on the basis of him alone. he is only reacting to garbage coming out of other corrupt botei din. he is undoing other's nonsense don't need a bais din for that. show me once again where he is mechayev anybody anything on the basis of a single signature.

    ghost since you are critical of rav gestetner totally unfairly i may add, which bais din do you find acceptable? by failing to answer this - the answer will be obvious..

    1. Ghost of Langer PastOctober 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM

      How is your excuse any different than Goren's?

      The Beis Din of Rav HaGaon Levin of course. It is the only one that Rav Elyashiv held by.

  14. ghost, if you don't get it you have a problem. he wasn't rendering a psak that requires a bais din he was simply stating the facts that the siruv was nonsense. really can't see that you don't get it. a bunch of corrupt thugs who call them selves a bais din put pout a false psak and that has to be undone by another bais din. please.

  15. So, from the responses so far, it sounds like the main difference is who the beit din is most likely to beleieve:

    The RCA beit din will beleive the wife
    The Rabbanut beit din will believe the wife, but still try for shalom bayit in the absence of clear physical danger.
    and the Chareidi beit din will assume that the wife is lying or provoked her husband (or beleives that a little shoving and yelling is not abuse).

    Is this accurate?
    If so, how do you explain these differences that seem to be sociological and have little if anything to do with halacha???

    1. The Rabbanut won't simply believe either side. They will hear both sides, look at the evidence, consider the halakha and try to work for the best possible solution.

  16. Tzaddok you are making false claims. The rabbanut arrests men from America throws them in jail and their wives who are in arko'oys are sitting in brooklyn or NJ. Ask Meyerovitch or avi kenig. Rabanut = kangaroo court.

    Olease tzaddok how much are they paying you?

  17. I stumbled on this email address robinsonbuckler@yahoo. com few days ago, so i emailed him about my bad relationship condition, how my lover left me, how he was with another girl, so Mr Robinson told me it would take 3days to get my boyfriend back, i waited for 3 days, unbelievable my boyfriend came to my house asking me if we could try things out again. He broke up with the other girl and we rekindled and got back together, he now show me care and attention. Mr Robinson was my last hope, my last chance after all the spell casters I tried before, Mr Robinson kept his promise! he is the greatest spell caster on the internet, call Mr Robinson (+)19715126745 for help..

  18. The spell cast by made wonders, if you have search for
    a powerful spell caster to restore relationship and they have all
    failed you then i will advise you to run to Dr Mack, you will have your
    lover back.🤗❤🙏🙌


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.