זיןף התורה
The words highlighted above in yellow do
not appear in the רעק''א
or in the שבות יעקב חלק א' סימן י''ד which the רעק''א is referencing. The reason these words were inserted was that
the author was trying to promote his agenda and give credence to a concept
which he has fantasized. In order to explain why this forgery was perpetrated It
is important to explain the agenda and why it is wrong.
A husband has the
obligation of שאר כסות ועונה (שכו''ע) if the husband refuses to meet the obligation
of עונה we
say he is being מעגן his
wife. We are also allowed to force him to give a get since he is violating the
obligations of שכו''ע. In Siman 77 he is classified as a מורד. Until modern times a
husband who did not want to go thru the GET process would just leave town and
never be heard from again. This is what the שבות יעקב is addressing, the instance of a מורד. In the scenario of a GET ON DEMAND the husband is prepared to
meet his obligations but the wife still wants to leave the marriage, there is
absolutely no requirement for the husband to give a get, since he is not a מורד. Therefore it is 100% prohibited from
applying pressure on the husband to facilitate the GET. This is a complete
contradiction to the feminist philosophy of GET ON DEMAND
In order to pander
to the feminist movement and not be considered old fashioned the author has
created a pseudo concept which has no basis in HALACHAH. He has claimed that
once a woman leaves a marriage and will not go back the marriage is broken.
Since the marriage is now broken the woman is anעגונה and now there is a Mitzvah for the husband to
give a GET. They are using the שבות יעקב as the source for this.
As explained in the previous paragraph this is a major mistake. They are also
misclassifying the woman by calling her an עגונה In the vast majority of cases she is not an עגונה but a מורדת. The HALACHA in these instances is that she has to be told to
return to her husband. The reason we do not hear of this happening is because
any Bais Din who told a woman that she must return to her husband would cause
the stream of dollars from women seeking the Bais Din to assist them in leaving
a marriage to cease. Since no one is willing to stand up to this crowd their
fraudulent Halachas have propagated and are now affecting the Yichus of Bnei
Torah.
In the instance of
the woman claiming מאוס עלי and having presented it in a manner which is
an אמתלא מבוררת ונכרת to a Bais Din she does not have to return to
the husband. This is extremely rare and the reasons for the rarity are out of
scope for this article. The Ramoh quotes the Tur on this scenario. I will quote
the statement of the Tur on this to make it clearer. In Siman 77 it says as follows ובאר
עוד בתשובה וכתב והסכימו חכמי אשכנז וצרפת שבטענת מאיס עלי אין לכוף לבעל לגרש לכן
יזהר כל דיין שלא לכוף לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי וכן אין כופין אותה להיות אצלו There is no greater
scenario of a broken marriage then one where the woman does not have to return
to live with the husband. We still say that even in this scenario it is
prohibited from forcing the husband to give a GET. This is a complete
contradiction to what the GET ON DEMAND people are promoting.
RAMIFICATIONS
1> No external pressure is applied. The Bais Din
tells the husband that he is obligated according to the Torah to give a get. He
obeys the Bais Din and gives a GET. This is a classic case of a גט בטעות . If
the husband would know that there is absolutely no obligation to give a GET he
would never have given a GET. This is a statement from the חזון איש in EVEN HOEZER Siman 99 paragraph 2 on a similar scenario ועוד דחשיב גט בטעות
דאילו הוי ידע שאינו חייב לא היה מגרש
2> Indirect pressure
applied. There are too many variables involved so this is not in scope.
3> Direct pressure applied. This would also invalidate the GET
because it is מעושה
שלא כדין
TOSHAV MONSEY
Excellent article!
ReplyDeleteA couple of points:
The HALACHA in these instances is that she has to be told to return to her husband. The reason we do not hear of this happening is because any Bais Din who told a woman that she must return to her husband would cause the stream of dollars from women seeking the Bais Din to assist them in leaving a marriage to cease.
While this was true about Mendel Epstein, AR and certain others, it is not true about everyone. For instance, a certain late dayan used to give away the money he got from cases that he presided over directly to tzedakah. He didn't make money at the dinei Torah! So, if he wasn't motivated primarily by money, what was it that brought him to take the risk of allowing married women to enter into adulterous unions?
I think the answer lays in another line from this article, although it doesn't cover it fully:
In order to pander to the feminist movement and not be considered old fashioned
The Ramabam notes that the nature of humans is to be influenced by the society that we live in. I believe it is Western society's abandonment of the value of marriage which has influenced many of these mistaken botei din. They have been influenced to think that giving a woman a right to abandon her marriage without due cause is what is right and just. Unfortunately, they subconsciously chose Western values over the Torah's values and laws. Once you add that in, comes admirable compassion, which is unfortunately as misplaced as King Shaul's compassion on the murderous Amaleiky king. And the consequences are unfortunately just as.....
What is so sad is that we often don't realize the very real battle that we face with our Yetzer Horah. We don't realize that our smarts itself has been corrupted by the Yetzer Horah. This is what is menat by the navie Yirmiyah אַל יִתְהַלֵּל חָכָם בְּחָכְמָתו ....כִּי אִם בְּזאת יִתְהַלֵּל הַמִּתְהַלֵּל
הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדעַ אותִי It is not an amazing IQ that one should feel confident about that it will lead them to the correct decision; it is the הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדעַ אותִי that should be the complete drive behind our decisions.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-herschel-schachter-says-tamars.html
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if he wrote a public letter retracting and saying that made an incorrect judgment call.
In the case being cited, there is no valid claim of (end of second line, beginning of third line) since A: the only relevant bet din specifically said no get is indicated, thus actions advocated bx the writer are improper. B: a validbet din specifically declined to rule for actions desired by the writer. C: the writer is undermining the agreed baltimore bet din. D: the ex wife has an alternative of continuing with the agreed bet din (and complying with their order (regarding visitation) ) which she declines.
ReplyDeleteIf the argument is "kfiyah al haMitzvot", then take such "kfiyah" abtions against an adulteress.
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't want to go public, at least instruct the local rabbonhm to invite him back to the community, to local social life (inc shabbat invitations, like all other (de facto) single people in the community), to local shuls, etc.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer:
ReplyDeleteI have always respected RSK; I am also very disturbed by this heter, for what reason did he support it, and why after the Psak from RDF there is no clear calling for the couple to separate. Having said that, plenty of recent pictures of RSK with RCHK , R' Chaim does not seem to be bothered by this story; what does that indicate?
In defense of Rav Schahcter, his missive is very limited in n scope and concludes with a qualification that renders its application to the Tamar Friedman case moot.
ReplyDeleteRav Schachter here is validating the concept that it is not necessary to obtain a ruling from a Bais Din in order to proper to prevent a husband from being מעגן his wife. One may rely on the instruction of a single reputable rabbi, in this case, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky who advised that " שמן הנכון לשכנע את הבעל לגרש את אשתו " , it is proper to persuade the husband to deliver a get to his wife. According to Rav Schachter, no further investigation is required in order to accomplish this goal.
That is the extent of the authority that Rav Schachter invests in Rabbi Kaminetsky. There is no blanket endorsement of every utterance that comes from Rabbi Kaminetsky, nor from any other Rabbi for that matter. Here Rav Schachter rules that we may follow the finding of Rabbi Kaminetsky that proper "persuasion" may be employed. But what is meant here by "persuasion' ? Does it include violence and mayhem? Enhanced interrogation techniques? Waterboarding? Does Rav Schachter approve of employing any means necessary in order to effect this end, whether legal or otherwise? I don';t think so. From the context of his ruling it appears that Rav Schachter only permits the use of administrative detention to prevent a husband from absconding before delivering a get. Indeed, such procedures are in place in the State of Israel.
Rav Schachter is not wrong. In another context, if an esteemed Rabbi tells you, "I have just seen Reuvain with a sword in his hand in hot pursuit of Shimon while shouting, 'Shimon I'll kill you.' . Go! Stop Reuvain while I call 911". You most certainly must follow through the Rabbi's instructions without carrying out your own investigation.
But most importantly Rav Schachter offers the deal-breaker in the last line of his letter; " אלא אם כן יתברר להדיא שטעה " UNLESS IT BECOMES UNQUESTIONABLY APPARENT THAT HE WAS MISTAKEN. I have taken the liberty of having the preceding writ large to emphasize that this ought to be the focal point of the argument.
Indeed, one should always take the advice of one's Rebbe unless, unless, unless (3 times unless) it is clear that the Rebbe made an error, either in fact or in judgment. Rabbi Kaminetsky has been proven obviously, inarguably, indubitably unquestionably, indisputably, incontrovertibly (and any other "ly" one can think of), wrong. Whether willfully, negligently, unwisely, naively or for whatever reason, Rabbi Kaminetsky presented as factual , a narrative that has been undeniably proven to be false. In accordance with Rav Schachter's argument, Rabbi Kaminetsky should not be followed in this matter.
To put the matter in the context of the aforementioned Reuvain pursuing Shimon, if it becomes obvious that what Reuvain held in his hand was not a sword but rather a container of bottled water, and what he was shouting wasn't "Shimon, I'll kill you.", but that what he was calling out was, "Shimon, you forgot your drink!", you may safely allay the Rabbi's fears and tell the cops when they show up , "Never mind, my Rabbi was mistaken."
I therefore conclude that Rav Schacther's declaration should not be viewed as an endorsement of Rabbi Kaminetsky's opinion on the Tamar Friedman affair, but rather as a resounding condemnation thereof.
@ Toshav Monsey
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing this letter back to the forefront. Not only is it ZIYUF haTorah, but ziyuf meyesodo, meikro, mitocho, umigabo! Haven't we learnt, Man desani lach, lechavrei lo sa'avid. At the end of his letter of *Lechol man Deboie* he states, *elo im ken yisbarrer lehedye sheta'a*, at that point RHS agrees to RETRACT.
Where is RHS retraction after the false declaration of TAMAR IS FREE! ???
Where is his retraction after RNG said - that he been had, relying on a Godol but was afraid to ask???
Where is the retraction of his Smicha bishtei yodov Declaration of Ve'im Hoire Hachochom Horav S'K n''y as a Dayan of Yodin Yodin veyeshev al haModin ???
Where is his retraction after R' Dovid uBeis Dino PAskened that this whole Sod H' Lireiov, ukvar Horeh haZaken, Siyata Dishmaya Lehoiros kehogen et al, fell apart and is Considered Worthless ???
Isn't R' Dovid uBeis Dino that the K's declared to be subservient and abide by his Psak:
keday lismoch olov, ve'az kvar hore hazoken ve'ein leharher achar horo'oso, umitzva lishmoa divrei chachomim since we believe in their hashkafa having emunas chachomim that we constantly rely on, in the belief that he has Siyata Dishmaya as in Sod H' Lireiov ???
Why doesn't NISBARRER LEHEDYE SHETA'A here also Apply???
What else would it take consider as Nisbarrer behedye shta'a???
Why doesn't RHS retract ??? We are now in the stages of after sheNisbarrer Behedye sheT'AA.
And there is no bigger ZIYUF and TZVIus than that!
Since Aveira gorreres Aveira,
the ziyuf kept on going with the Epstein Prod Fiasco fed sting, where he signed on to be dan the Husband from Argentina asher lo haya velo nivra, leMakos Retzach and Makos Mardus with a Baseball bat of the R' Akiva Eiger kind in Absentia, ad sheyomar rotze ani or ad sheteitzei nafsho, whichever comes first. Ve'ein lecho ziyuf godol mize to HACK a LAHAD"M husband even to death, for a dovor shelo bo leolam, velo hoyi dvorim meolam, Asher lo hoyo belomom at the same time of this make believe fed sting Aguno!
Now that RHS got stung BEHEDYE and already smelled the coffee, why doesn't he retract???
Let's take this one step further. Where does it state in Shulchan Aruch that you can do away with just a
cookie like a piece of cake. We do have a mekor once in Talmud masechet Gittin:
Al kaminetza ubar kaminetza chorav Beis Hamikdash, you just go ochel bei kurtza, eat the cake and have it too, and then get off Scott free. If you don't believe it, ben R'L' bug bug yochiach, he ate leteiovon velo nifga, got off the hook and is Scott free. Veda"l
This is Moshiach's Times kan sofrim tisrach. That is why we need to Protest beyesser se'eis ubeyesser oz!
This is very common with YU rabbanim. They pretend to be charedi or old fashioned, and some even come from that world, but many partake in new fangled notions as they desire. They wear the black hats and white shirts so you get confused.
ReplyDeleteSchachter quotes the gamara שמסר לו רבו שפחה כנענעת as a gamara justification for beating a person to divorce his wife today. The gamara case is so different. The fight case in the gamara is a Hebrew slave saying “But if the slave declares, “I love my master, and my wife and children: I do not wish to go free,” “ (Exodus 215).
ReplyDeleteכלי יקר שמות פרשת משפטים פרק כא פסוק ד
(ד) אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה. בזמן שהוא נשוי תחילה אז דוקא מותר לרבו ליתן לו שפחה, יש אומרים הטעם לפי שאם אינו נשוי יש לחוש שמא יאמר אהבתי את אשתי השפחה אבל אם הוא נשוי כבר עם ישראלית אין לחוש כל כך כי כבר דבקה נפשו באהבת הישראלית. ויש אומרים הטעם לפי שאם הוא נשוי חייב אדונו במזונות אשתו ובניו ואז לא ירצה שום אדון לקנותו ולהכניס ראשו בעול זה, על כן כנגד זה נתנה לו התורה זכות שיוכל ליתן לו שפחה להוליד ממנה עבדים, אבל אם אינו נשוי יש לו קונים הרבה בלאו הכי. ואולי יש עוד דברים בגו מחמת ביטול פריה ורביה כי אם הוא נשוי הרי הוא מקיים מצוה זו עם הישראלית ולא חששה התורה למה שיהיה לו עסק גם עם השפחה אבל אם אינו נשוי יתבטל ממצות פריה ורביה ויכלה זרעו עם השפחה הפסולה:
The קלי יקר brings down that the case deals with a Hebrew slave already married to an Israelite wife and has children from her. He should be happy with his Israelite wife and not demand to stay with the non-Israelite woman the master gave him. Such a slave a master is permitted to beat, to get him to cooperate to leave the non-Israelite woman. It’s ridiculous to compare this with permission to beat a Jewish man to divorce his Jewish wife!
Well done. You actually made me laugh. You do realise that it was the same rambam whom you are quoting who said that women have every right to a get on demand as they are not slaves.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the rambam is also getting confused about torah values?
The battle is really with people like you with no understanding of halachic process who see a recorded halacha and assume it is a blanket ruling for everyone and all times, and even worse, think that any different ruling is against torah values. Try to understand that forcing a woman to be a 'slave' is not in line with torah values. Try to understand that halacha is fluid and two opposite rulings can both be torah. Try to understand that before you preach about how holy you think you are, there is a deriasa to have derech eretz and chesed.
What I don't understand is how you can even consider yourself frum when you seem to enjoy and actively propagate the misery of others.
1) Do you find Torah humorous?
ReplyDeleteDo you find what you perceive to be a mistake humorous?
2) Where does the Ramabam use the term are not slaves?
3) We do not rule like the Ramabam in regards to a get for mauos alay, but all agree with the Ramabam's note about being influenced by the society in which we reside.
Now, you seem to be so arrogant that you were able to derive so many personal things about me through this comment. Astounding!
You decided that:
A) I have no understanding of the halachic process.
B) That I preach about how holy I am.
C) That I am unaware about the responsibilities of derech eretz and kindness.
D) That I enjoy to propagate the misery of others.
Buddy, it is time that you get off your soap box. It is time that you stop insulting people when you don't like their ideas. It is time for you to learn to be a bit tolerant. Listen to people. And most of all, it is time for you to pick yourself up and get out of the gutter. Behave with just modicum of decency.
Oh, and your ideas about halacha changing from what has been in codified in the Shulchan Aruch, will not ever fly with your sweeping, pompous and arrogant attacks. Good luck.
From the context of his ruling it appears that Rav Schachter only permits the use of administrative detention to prevent a husband from absconding before delivering a get. Indeed, such procedures are in place in the State of Israel.
ReplyDeleteAnd oh yes, before I forget, what is the hint hint hint of like a shifcha kenaanis, to beat him mealos hashachar ad tzeis haneshama ??? That's not what you call detention. And in the State of Israel they also invented a Get of *ZECHUS* aka Mezuke once the husband becomes a vegetable. Ve'ein ruach hachachomim noiche haymeno.
They also use detention of the husbands father for his son's Get. Vechi ma lo ultzoras beno??? No shibudei drav noson applies as well as lo yimsu ovois al bonim. Ve'ein onu lemeidin mechukei Sdom.
Can we get a translation of Rabbi Schachter's letter?
ReplyDelete"They are also misclassifying the woman by calling her an עגונה In the vast majority of cases she is not an עגונה but a מורדת.
ReplyDeleteThe HALACHA in these instances is that she has to be told to return to
her husband. The reason we do not hear of this happening is because any
Bais Din who told a woman that she must return to her husband would
cause the stream of dollars from women seeking the Bais Din to assist
them in leaving a marriage to cease."
Rabbi Eidensohn,
I've seen you post to this blog that a wife has the right to leave her husband and separate from him, if she decides she no longer can tolerate living with him.
That point of yours seems to contradict the above quote from this post. How do you resolve this stira?
Who is the author of the above article in this post?
ReplyDeleteWhat's going on with the Tamar Friedman case? Is she still living in sin with her paramour?
ReplyDeleteRabbi Schachter, in the Tamar Friedman case, has explicitly in writing justified his position on that case because Rav Kaminetzky took the position he took.
ReplyDeleteThe halacha, per the Shulchan Aruch, is paskened against the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteBeing in a photograph with a gadol does not mean a thing. There was photo an excommunicated man and his wife were showing around that showed them supposedly with Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlita. The look on Rav Reven's face though clearly showed he had no idea who those people were. How do you know what Rav Chaim was saying to RSK? He may have been chastising him.
ReplyDeleteyes
ReplyDeleteyou are right that no beis din can not force a wife to return. That is elementary halacha. It is also stated in the the gemora.
ReplyDeleteA beis din can say they don't see any justification for telling the husband that he should give a divorce, it can strongly state that efforts should be made to resolve shalom bayis issues - but the bottom line is it can never force a wife to return to her husband
If the wife destroys the marriage by refusing to return - then at some point their are poskim - including Rav Sternbuch - that say that if there is no marriage the husband is advised - though not required to divorce his wife.
so if the poster actually believes the wife can be ordered to return - I disagree.
Rabbi Schachter's position was never justified. Go back and read this blog from 5 years ago. He was wrong then as he is now. True greatness means to be able to admit mistakes. What is one's learning worth if you can destroy someones life, realize you are wrong and not have the decency to apologize.
ReplyDeleteCalm down! I'm on your side in this argument. I agree with every point you make, (except for those that I can't follow). I thought I was being clear that there was no defense for what RSK and RNG had done. Bli neder, I will not attend an affair where either attend, and I will walk out of any room where they may be.present. I have already removed from my home any sefer that carries an approbation by RSK and any literature of any organization that carries his endorsement.
ReplyDeleteI am also dismayed by the tacit approval given RSK by the esteemed Rabbis in Israel of the caliber of Rav Chaim Kanievsky who just last week welcomed RSK into his home with open arms.
My comments were limited to the validity of the letter by Rav Hershel Schachter in 2011, based on the facts that were believed by him at that time. Who would ever believe that RSK would be an instigator of such a nefarious plot?
At that time, if RSK had advised me that Aharon Friedman is known to him to be an evil psycopath, I would have believed him. After all, the endorser of the Chofaitz Chaim Heritage Foundation couldn't be guilty of Loshon Hora and Moitsi Shaim Ra, could he?
You cannot blame someone for accepting RSK's word as Gospel, (poor choice of words, don't you think) before he was "nitfass ke'ganov". I was horrified by the revelations that came to light on this blog. I could not believe what I was reading, but there it was, black on white.
Don't blame me for believing that Rav Schachter was as deceived as I had been. I may be wrong, but I think that Rav Schachter no longer maintains the same opinion of RSK as he held before.
what you are saying is reasonable, but nevertheless , it's really not comparable; this is not the first time such pictures happen, and for sure the gaboyim of R' Chaim are aware how those images are used
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Gemora or Halacha state that Beis Din cannot order the wife to return to her husband?
ReplyDeletewow? you really think that the wife is a sex slave according to the Torah?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you remember the bnei tisha midos - one of which is forcing her against her will?
Nedarim (20b): And I will purge out from among you the rebels and them that transgress against me (Yechezkiel 20:38). R’ Levi said these are the children that result from 9 improper types of intercourse. They are children born of a fearful relationship, rape, a hated wife, one whose husband was under the ban, when intercourse was done by mistaken identity, when they were fighting, when they were drunk, when he mentally planned on divorcing her, from a promiscuous relations and a brazen woman.
Shulchan Aruch(E.H. 25:2): A man should not have sex with his wife unless she is willing. If she is not willing he should placate her until she is willing. …
Shulchan Aruch(O.C. 240:10): If he is angry with her it is prohibited to have intercourse until he has placated her. He is able to speak with her prior to intercourse until she is willing
Or perhaps once learned Kesubos (63b)What is to be understood by ‘a rebellious woman’?24 — Amemar said: [One] who says. ‘I like him25 but wish to torment him’.26 If she said, however, ‘He is repulsive to me’, no pressure is to be brought to bear upon her.27 Mar Zutra ruled: Pressure is to be brought to bear upon her.28 Such a case once occurred, and Mar Zutra exercised pressure upon the woman and [as a result of the reconciliation that ensued] R. Hanina of Sura29 was born from the re-union. This, however,30 was not [the right thing to do]. [The successful] result] was due to the help of providence.3
Perhaps you have a different version of Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77) which doesn't say that beis din orders her to return to her husband?
I am not qualified to comment , but I like to hear from dayanim and in my case here in Israel , how they handle these cases. Also I keep in my mind there may be differences of opinion as one Av Beis Din said to me , it is written - הפך והפך בה - one can find support for your approach. Another dayan said to me that divorce cases are not about halacha but about helping people have ' seichel ' to get on with their lives. Here is a p'sak I saw - אין ספק שלפנינו מקרה מובהק של אשה האומרת שבעלה מאוס עליה, ויש כאן אמתלא מבוררת למה הוא מאוס עליה. מי ששמע את טענות ומענות הצדדים ועיין בכתבי הטענות יגיע למסקנה, שלא רק אשה זו, אלא גם נשים אחרות לוא היו במצבה היו מגיבות כמוה ואולי אף ביתר חריפות. ומכיון שכך ודאי שיש לומר לבעל שמצוה עליו לפטור את אשתו בג"פ, כאמור בשיטה מקובצת כתובות דף ס"ד וז"ל:
ReplyDelete"וכתב רבנו יונה וז"ל: דאע"ג דאין כופין לתת גט באומרת מאיס עלי, היינו כפייה בשוטים אבל ב"ד מודיע לו שמצוה עליו לגרשה ונותנין לו עצה שיגרשנה, ואם לא יגרשנה האי מאן דעבר אדרבנן מצוה למקרייה עבריינא".
ואף שבהמשך ד' השמ"ק כתב שר"ת היה אומר "שאפילו זה לא נאמר לו", כבר נהגו בתי הדין בכגון דא כד' רבנו יונה הנ"ל. [ויש לי הסבר על כך מדוע נהגו כרבנו יונה ולא כר"ת, אך אין כאן המקום להאריך].
ויש מקום לומר שבנדוננו שלא זו בלבד שמצוה עליו לגרשה אלא יש גם לחייבו בכך, וכפי שיבואר.
The point - the downside of posts like these , also prenups etc is that they focus on solving problems using law instead of helping people solve problems in a collaborative way , addressing the concerns of all. One can be a na'val be'reshoot ha'torah and the חורבן 'was caused because עמדו על הדין
Do you believe that the only thing that brought RHS to action was RSK's opinion? Sorry, but that is not the case. RHS had an agenda oh his own. He was behind ORA and their actions. He was happy getting into another case - especially if it would mainstream his opinions in this matter.
ReplyDeleteThere was the event at YU where Tamar was featured. RHS had another engagement that night. Still, he delayed going to the other event, in order for him to speak at the ORA/Tamar event. He makes it clear that he felt that ORA and their goals were very important. (Rumor does have it that he is not as close to or as supportive of ORA anymore.)
RHS was happy to be involved in the case. He was aware that the Baltimore Beis Din was being ignored. That presented a halachic problem. His answer and justification was that we needn't know exactly how we can justify defying the BBD; all we need is a psak by a great Torah scholar who claims to be justified and we can assume that he had Heavenly assistance and that he's correct.
There is no criticism in RHS trusting RSK with his money, or on other matters that do not affect others. But when it affects others, he is responsible to do his homework. One discussion with the BBD could have left him with enough doubts about RSK's psak. He didn't do it. That's the problem.
All that the pictures show is that they aren't aware that RSK defied Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak. How are they to be aware that he told the adulterers that they may stay together, when there's a letter from RSK saying otherwise?
ReplyDeleteThey are giving him respect as an old man who did do good things in the past. Despite all the kavod, I highly doubt that his opinion is considered by any of the big Talmidei Chachomim.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/447782/video-and-photos-moetzes-gedolei-hatorah-meeting-held-in-camp-agudah.html
ReplyDeleteWould you say that the members of the Moetzes aren't aware either? Of course they are but they are nothing more than a political party playing politics.
R'CHK has voiced his opinion against this TAMAR veAmnon Fiasco. The son of K pulled off many tricky Dick tricks to maneuver, stall, and mislead just like he promised the Eida to follow whatever R' Dovid Paskens, yet he did not. Read his letters of meolam lo hitarti and all the other meolam vead olam forgeries. R' Chaim has been mislead in the past by his surroundings, and this must be another one of them. Tze uvdok, and I'm sure we will hear so in the future kedei lehotzi miliban shel Tzedokim. R' Chaim never failed us! He is Kulo Lashem.
ReplyDeleteRDE, I did not mention anything about sex in my comment. I said the halacha clearly states that beis din has the right to force the wife to perform her wifely obligations to her husband. You didn't dispute this in your response. Rambam lists the wifely duties beis din can force her to perform at perek 21 7-10. S"A also has it. And it says beis din can force her to perform them. So if she absconds from her husband's home and her husband takes her to beis din and beis din orders her to perform her wifely duties, the halacha says beis din can enforce its ruling.
ReplyDeleteEnforcing its ruling for her to perform her wifely duties (and, again, I'm not talking about sex but the wifely duties listed in the halacha I'm referring to) entails requiring her to move back to her husband's home to perform said wifely duties that halacha requires of her and gives beis din rights of enforcement, as specifically enumerated in the aforementioned halacha.
Nepotism is what leads to those who have no experience or stalwartness from gaining positions of authority.
ReplyDeleteDon't promote family, friends, or those who it may be in your financial interest to into these positions and you won't have problems like these in the first place.
If every time a Leftist administration comes into power, bribery and corruption run rampant in Rabbinic circles, the world will start viewing Torah Judaism as one big clown show.
I am not at a computer where I can type in Hebrew and I have no access to Seforim now. There is a simple misunderstanding which I would like to clear up. There are 2 categories of women leaving their husbands 1> are justified this is the Psak Din that alan katz has quoted please read carefully it states ויש כאן אמתלא מבוררת למה הוא מאוס עליה this scenario is not to be confused with the next 2> A Moredes (not justified) this where the woman cannot justify leaving her husband these women are being classified as Agunas and RHS is claiming there is a mitzvoh to force the husband to give a get. This is false. There is no mitzvah to give a Moredes a GET.
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't she? No one told her (seriously) not to.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your position on the right of beis din to order the wife to return to her husband? There seems like there may be a disagreement between yourself and the host of this blog on this question.
ReplyDeleteWho says she'll listen if told to separate? There's nothing preventing her to simply ignore her rabbis telling her to break up and simply staying together with him.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. My position is that Bais Din should tell the wife to return. I will post about this after I get back from my vacation. No one has to except my opinion unless I can bring proof to this.
ReplyDelete1-2) i find the fact that the rambam whom you quoted holds the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make rather amusing. Look up Ishut 14:8.
ReplyDeleteThen perhaps you will never again state that allowing a woman to be free to remarry, have children, have a life is just a terrible western invention. I can barely believe it needs saying.
3) We don't agree with lots of things under specific circumstances. I don't recall the details but the rosh himself who started the whole -no get on demand - recorded an instance when he did allow a woman to demand a get.
The point that you are missing is that both ways are torah and when you clamour about how it isn't you just proving the points you so clearly listed. I can hardly imagine why a decent person would fight so hard to keep ppl miserable unless they had some kind of complex. How you can think that rabbis who are bending over backwards to provide gets are in the wrong. What is the matter with you?
We change what is in the shulchan oruch when necessary; it isn't written in stone. Almost everything the rema says. How long do you keep between milk and meat? When do you bring shabbos in? Do you want a longer list?
Why with this specific issue do you feel that we have to take the most stringent course? Specially when there is so much historic support to the contrary. And claiming that get on demand is not a jewish value? When the man who wrote the 13 ani maamims that define jewery supports it? Oh dear.
I generally agree with the whole post but I don't understand the first paragraph. Let's assume that in the case of רעק"א you detain the husband because of כופין על המצות. Fine. You can't extrapolate from that to where the husband is prepared to meet his obligations but the wife still wants to leave the marriage. In that case there is no כופין על המצות because there isn't any מצוה in the first place. Nothing about the highlighted words allows you to apply them to the latter case.
ReplyDelete---
I find interesting the honorifics RHS bestows on RSK, coming from RHS's perspective at the time of his writing. In the general yeshiva world, wouldn't the honorifics have been more profuse? Apparently RHS or the YU community has other terms than the general yeshiva world.
They rarely if at all, use RHS's name anymore as am endorser.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he's not too excited to endorse beatings.
Administrative detention is only allowed on sabbat, when a bet din cannot meet with all parties present, to determine if a get is warranted (if he announced he is leaving town right after shabbat.)
ReplyDeleteNOT for pressure purposes.
Demonstrate outside her house. Outside her uncle's house. Deny her visitation. Have the local school cancel her registration, till she's registered in a siver springs school. Deny the husband an aliyah. Cancel his shul membership. Forbid socializing with them.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Schacter quotes:
ReplyDeleteתלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא קמא דף כח עמוד א
ר"נ בר יצחק אמר: בעבד שמסר לו רבו שפחה כנענית, עד האידנא היתירא, והשתא איסורא.
I quote Sanhedrin 82a:
“So Moses said to Israel’s officials, “Each of you slay those of his men who attached themselves to Baal-peor.” (Numbers 25:5). Thereupon the tribe of Simeon went unto Zimri ben Salu and said unto him, Behold, capital punishment is being meted out, yet you sit silent [i.e., inactive]. What did he do? He arose and assembled twenty-four thousand Israelites and went unto Cozbi, and said unto her, Surrender thyself unto me. She replied, I am a king's daughter, and thus hath my father instructed me, "Thou shalt yield only to their greatest man". I too, he replied, am the prince of a tribe; moreover, my tribe is greater than his [Moses], for mine is second in birth, whilst his is third. [Simeon was Jacob's second son; Levi, to which Moses belonged, the third] He then seized her by her coiffure and brought her before Moses. Son of Amram, exclaimed he, is this woman forbidden or permitted? And should you say. "She is forbidden", who permitted thee Jethro's daughter? At that moment Moses forgot the halachah [concerning intimacy with a heathen woman], and all the people burst into tears; hence it is written, “Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman over to his companions, in the sight of Moses and of the whole Israelite community who were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (Ib. 6). And it is also written, “When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, 8he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. Then the plague against the Israelites was checked” (Ib. 7). Now, what did he see? Rab said: He saw what was happening and remembered the halachah, and said to him, O great-uncle! did you not teach us this on thy descent from Mount Sinai: He who cohabits with a heathen woman is punished by zealots? He replied. He who reads the letter, let him be the agent [to carry out its instructions]. Samuel said: He saw that “No wisdom, no prudence, and no counsel Can prevail against the Lord. (Proverbs 21:30). whenever the Divine Name is being profaned, honor must not be paid to one's teacher.[ I.e., seeing the profanation of the Divine Name, he did not wait for Moses’ ruling.]
רש"י משלי פרק כא פסוק ל
(ל) אין חכמה וגו' - אין כל חכם ונבון חשוב לנגד ה' כל מקום שיש חלול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב:
You are 100% correct. The Gra never brought down Bava Kama 28., of Eved shemossar lo rabo... that is only his own ziyuf of bringing it in so slick through the back door, so as to be metaher sheretz and promote beatings. After sabbat, they can convene a BD and see what's needed to be done for due process, there's no automatic bloody beatings recommended.
ReplyDeleteHe did not retrieve ORA's YMSV *TAMAR IS FREE*, same goes for SMICHA endorsement of the K's, as well as the beatings of R' AF and the Argentenian straw husband R'L'. He neither apologized to AF, nor told the noef vehanaofes to depart, shma mina dekoniche lei. This is unbecoming of a Rosh Yeshiva. He is a RY she'ovar olov es haklach. Time to resign, effective immediately. His org went from RA'c to BAD and even worse, peepers and sauna bathers, mechallelei shem shomayim berabim, Shomu Shamayim!!!
And that's the difference tween Rabonim and
Ra biners.
“Get on Demand זיוף התורה : Psak from R Hershel Schacter”
ReplyDeleteI support Rabbi Eidensohn. Rabbi Schacter’s applying Baba Kama 28a for supporting Mendel Epstein et al and Greenblatt-Kamenistky—is false Torah. I quote
“A false witness is doomed, But one who really heard will testify with success. The wicked man is brazen-faced; The upright man discerns his course. No wisdom, no prudence, and no counsel Can prevail against the Lord. The horse is readied for the day of battle, But victory comes from the Lord.” (Proverbs 21:28-31).
Wengrov, Malbim on Mishley, 225-226
“28-29. Unlike verses 19:5 and 9, here the reference is to moral tradition and heritage of Jewish faith and observance---the great body of sacred teaching, from Divine origins, that concerns the commandments and matters of faith and creed---which must be transmitted from generation to generation. When one attests to a true teaching that he received, his words will endure. If a person testifies, however, to a false tradition that he invented, whether about the observance of a mitzvah or a question of faith, his words will perish. This is ordained by Divine providence: truth alone live on. Should a “wicked man harden his face” to deny the validity of a true tradition, an upright person with good sense will understand which way the truth lies.
30-31. In private matters a man generally has free will, and by proper planning and zeal he can succeed. Matters of public significance, however, affecting for example an entire nation, are pre-ordained: there the Divine will prevails. Human beings must act and take necessary preparation---for example, planning military strategy and arranging forces and equipment for battle---but only the Almighty will decide the outcome. In such matters affecting an entire people, no received wisdom, innate understanding, or planning by skilled intelligence that can gauge the future, is any avail against His will.”
RHS is not the only dayan at BDA like that. His Chaver, R Willig is also known to pre judge and never change his mind no matter the evidence. The BDA oversees the prenup, how can anyone expect fairness if these are their dayanim? Other dayanim may be better at BDA, it doesn't matter, these two run the show.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I can't answer you, because I see that you are very far from comprehending what I would be saying. But let me just tell you this. I see that you write with frustration about the point of view you are trying to dispute. Please know that if you would be able to put your strong feelings aside and would want to have an open mind to understand that point of view, you would learn something that is new to you, but very basic to traditional talmiday chachomim. This is just a bit of advice. Take it or leave it. I expect you to leave it, but I'm presenting it to you for your sake and giving you the benefit of the doubt..
ReplyDeleteSo what if she does? She is then just an adulteress with no respect for the Torah. She doesn't need a "rabbi" to tell her it's not allowed. But at least then she wouldn't be able to claim that anyone gave her a "heter".
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, when Tamar contacted the Bais Din of Washington they DID contact the BBD when they were informed of BBD's role and they notified the parties that ONLY the BBD had jurisdiction and they would not take the case as she requested.
ReplyDeletei'm listening...
ReplyDeleteWith an open mind, or are you just waiting to disprove what I am going to say? Because this will take some time and effort on my part. Will it be worth it?
ReplyDeleteA BD needs to convene Bishloisho, as in tloso kechodo havina. That is 3 dayanim sitting together as one. When and where did that happen??? Did they do a hookup??? or how did they pull that Rabbit out of the hat??? RNG, RKS sr. And RSF nofutz beartzoisom thousands of miles apart, or is that the least of the ZIYUF problem? Sounds like the Hechsher of Kosher Kosher, Bossor Bossor.
ReplyDelete“Psak from R Hershel Schacter”
ReplyDeleteI went through Pacer. Rabbi Schacter did not testify and was not even mentioned in the Mendel Epstein et al trial. Rabbi Schacter endorses ORA as stated in ORA’s website: “ORA operates under the halachic guidance of Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS).”
Pacer: “Docket Text: ORDER directing Fredric Goldfein to provide testimony as to MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, JAY GOLDSTEIN, BINYAMIN STIMLER, DAVID ARYEH EPSTEIN, MORDECHAI EICHENTHAL. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 3/19/2015. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B) (mmh)”
Pacer: “Docket Text: ORDER that Aryeh Ralbag provide testimony or other information which he refuses to provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination as to all matters about which he may be questioned as to MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, JAY GOLDSTEIN, BINYAMIN STIMLER, DAVID ARYEH EPSTEIN, MORDECHAI EICHENTHAL. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 3/9/2015. (mmh)”
Pacer 3/19/2015: “NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: TRIAL Trial w/jury continued before the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. All jurors present (16) Continued with Israel Markowitz. Court Ordered lunch be provided for jury. (16) AHARON FRIEDMAN SWORN FOR GOVERNMENT Lunch break 1:00 p.m. - 1:45 p.m. Continued with Aharon Friedman.”
“Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion.” (Numbers 25:11).
ספורנו במדבר פרשת פינחס פרק כה פסוק יא
(יא) בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם. שעשה נקמתי לעיני כולם כדי שבראותם זה ולא ימחו יכופר על אשר לא מיחו בפושעים ובזה השיב את חמתי מעליהם:
The Israelites didn’t protest the sin of the Gold Calf: “This he took from them and cast in a mold, and made it into a molten calf. And they exclaimed, “This is your god,O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” (Exodus 32:4).
Zimri gave a psak, similar to the Greenblatt-Kamenetsky heter, that he could marry Cozbi: “Son of Amram, exclaimed he, is this woman forbidden or permitted? And should you say. "She is forbidden", who permitted thee Jethro's daughter?” (Sanhedrin 92).
A BD needs to convene Bishloisho, as in tloso kechodo havina. That is 3 dayanim sitting together as one. When and where did that happen??? Did they do a hookup??? or how did they pull that Rabbit out of the hat??? RNG, RKS sr. And RSF nofutz beartzoisom thousands of miles apart, or is that the least of the ZIYUF problem? Sounds like the Hechsher of Kosher Kosher, Bossor Bossor.
ReplyDelete“Psak from R Hershel Schacter” Pacer complaint 10/10/2013
ReplyDelete“7. An undercover FBI Special Agent (“UCE-1”) posed as an Orthodox Jewish wife whose husband was unwilling to consent to a divorce. A second undercover FBI Special Agent (“UCE-2”) posed as the brother of UCE-1, who was willing to pay for a kidnapping in order to coerce UCE-l ‘s recalcitrant husband into consenting to a divorce,…
“26. On October 2. 2013. UCE-1 traveled to Rockland County. New York for the beth din, There she met Defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN. MARTIN WOLMARK and JAY GOLDSTEIN. The meeting of the beth din was consensually video and audio recorded by UCE-1. UCE-l was then escorted into a back office to begin the beth din. When UCE-l asked Defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN who he was, Defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN refused to answer UCE-l’s questions about his identity, explaining that it was better “the less information you know about myself.
27. During the beth din. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE-l to explain her situation. Specifically, he asked: ‘Why do you have to be released from this marriage, even if your husband has to be coerced?” UCE-1 explained her situation and why she is desperate for a divorce from her husband, who refuses to give her a get. Defendant EPSTEIN directed Defendant JAY GOLDSTEIN to write down everything for the psak din.
28. About one hour into the beth din, Defendant ARIEL POTASH arrived to serve as the “shliach,” that is. the person appointed to serve as UCE-I ‘s agent to accept the get from the husband, since U CE-I will not be present for the forced get. When asked by UCE-I about his role. Defendant POTASH explained that he does “whatever the rabbis tell him.” Defendant POTASH further explained to UCE-I that there is no need for UCE-I to know who he is, saying: “I’ll make it even more clear - if you see me, two months ... down the street, you don’t know me, I don’t know you.” Two additional young males then arrived to witness the appointment of Defendant POTASH as the shliach. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK instructed both witnesses to sign a document, omitting their last names, attesting to the appointment of the shliach.
29. At the end of the beth din. Defendant MARTIN WOLMARK asked UCE-I about “the plan” for the forced get, and whether UCE-I knew the location and the timing. Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN confirmed the plan for the forced get was good, stating, “it’s at night. and it’s a weird place, it’s very good ... hopefully the patrol will not be out on patrol that night.” Defendant EPSTEIN also told UCE-l that during the forced get, “you should be out in public” among a lot of people.
30. After the psak din was issued on October 2, 2013, UCE2 transmitted $20,000 to MENDEL EPSTEIN by wire transfer.
31. On October 8. 2013. UCE2 met with Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN at his residence in Kings County. New York. The meeting was consensually audio recorded by UCE-2. During the course of the meeting. EPSTEIN and UCE-2 discussed EPSTEIN’s prior kidnappings as well as the details for the planned October 9. 2013. kidnapping of the Husband.”
Note: “The meeting of the beth din was consensually video and audio recorded by UCE-1.”
It doesn’t say in Pacer that the beth din was made up of Schachter, Kamenistky, and Wolmark. Can we see the video ? This is Zimri making up a beth din to permit his “marriage” to Kozbi. Sham shame shame.
Note: “UCE2 met with Defendant MENDEL EPSTEIN at his residence in Kings County.” I suspect that the whole of Brooklyn, Lakewood, Philadelphia etc is on Mendel Epstein et al Rabbi Schachter, Rabbi Kamenistky etc side, other than the victim husbands. Where is public remorse and regret ???
I do not believe that Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky is being given an ability to set policy anymore. In recent years, he had been most active at the meetings. Not anymore. (Look at the picture.)
ReplyDeleteThey have taken a position of giving him kavod for all his past accomplishments. They have decided that they won't allow this terrible indiscretion to destroy him. Whether right or wrong, this is the position that Rav Dovid Feinstein advocated for. (Others did have a different opinion, but this is the opinion that has currently won out in the American Agudah.) They give him all sorts of kavod, but internally they won't move based upon his opinon.
Epstein did not move on before he had the Ksav Seiruv in his posession from RHS of the BAD aka BDA. If he ate a cookie, that explains it. If memory serves me correct, i read here on the blog that he ate one to get immunity. Maybe on e of the Bnei neviim can help us out.
ReplyDelete“Get on Demand זיוף התורה : Psak from R Hershel Schacter”
ReplyDeleteRabbi Schachter justifies authorizing the use of violence to obtain a get from the Husband that they wouldn’t otherwise do. I don’t see in Pacer or in NJ.com etc where Rabbi Schachter participated similar to:
Pacer: “On or about October 2, 2013, defendants MENDEL EPSTEIN, MARTIN WOLMARK, and JAY GOLDSTEIN convened a beth din at defendant MARTIN WOLMARK's office in Monsey, New York. The purpose of the beth din was to issue a psak din authorizing the use of violence to obtain a get from the Husband. That beth din proceeding was recorded by UCE-1.”
Anybody who thinks women are second class citizens in the Orthodox world needs to visit the Orthodox world. Between the rabbinate, the halacha, and the general spunkiness of Jewish women, I fear more for the safety of the men than the women.
ReplyDelete"In studies of social animals, the highest ranking individual is sometimes designated as the alpha. Alpha animals usually gain preferential access to food and other desirable items or activities, though the extent of this varies widely between species. Alphas may achieve their status by superior physical strength and aggression, or through social efforts and building alliances within the group.
ReplyDelete"Gorillas use intimidation to establish and maintain alpha position. A study conducted regarding the reproductive behavior of male mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) found further evidence that dominant males are favored to father offspring, even when there is a greater number of males in a notably enlarged group size. The study also concluded that mating access dropped off less steeply with status; alpha, beta, and gamma showing more similar mating success, compared to what had been previously thought." Wiki
Get it?
RHS advocated blindly following the statement of a single talmud chochom in a complex case that was in direct contradiction to a legitimate Beis Din. Apparently RHS or the YU community has other standards of what following daas Torah and yoshor means, than the standards of the Ysiva World.
ReplyDeleteBut so did Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt!
ReplyDeleteMen are presumed to be guilty. Women are all angels. That's the view in most of Western Society today. And the Modern Orthodox world and the Yeshiva light world are very prone to this foolishness. And the rabbis are the worst!
ReplyDeleteRabbi Greenblatt viewd as giving a private psak, which he did not want anyone to even know about. It was not a directive for the masses. Rav Shmuel did give a directive to the masses, but he pretended as if it was the ruling of a beis din. Rabbi Shachter was the one who issued this Follow Blindly directive to the masses.
ReplyDelete@toshav If you're back from your vacation, see my comment to you above.
ReplyDelete@toshav You indicated you would follow up on your disagreement with the blog host where you maintain your position that a Beis Din has the Halachic right to order a wife who left her husband's home to return to him.
ReplyDelete"Until modern times a husband who did not want to go thru the GET process would just leave town and never be heard from again. This is what the שבות יעקב is addressing, '
ReplyDeleteSource? Where is this definition in the halacha?
"In the instance of the woman claiming מאוס עלי and having presented it in a manner which is an אמתלא מבוררת ונכרת to a Bais Din she does not have to return to the husband. This is extremely rare and the reasons for the rarity are out of scope for this article."
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely rare that when a wife claims מאוס עלי that she can actually halachicly justify the מאוס עלי claim, where here מאוס עלי claim is accepted by Beis Din and Beis Din says she has a right to not return to her husband's home (that she ran away from)? Is the author indicating that halachicly in a majority of מאוס עלי claims the wife is required to return to her husband's home?
The term Aguna always meant cases where the husband was missing with his whereabouts unknown.
ReplyDeleteReally? Can you provide proof?
ReplyDeleteIt's the exact description described throughout the halachic literature. In all the centuries. Classically it's a case where the husband never returned from a war.
ReplyDeleteThe application of the term Aguna to a woman who wants a Get but her husband doesn't want to give her it, is a modern day invention. You won't find that term used that way in the Seforim HaKedoshim.
So did this problem exist previously? Or just had a different name?
ReplyDelete