Thursday, November 21, 2019

Get Me'usa explicit treat only?



On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:39 PM Rav Shalom Chaim Spira ; wrote:
Shalom Aleikhem Ha-Rav ha-Ga'on R. Daniel Eidensohn, shlit"a,
Thank you for the honour of the question. In response, I am enclosing a scan of Be-Netivot ha-Halakhah Vol. 1 (KTAV Publishing, 1996), pp. 47-52, where R. J. David Bleich answers your question [in the specific context of the 1992 New York Get Law] by arguing that even an implicit threat of financial coercion - if understood as such by a typical husband - will disqualify the resulting get. Of special interest is footnote 16, where Rav Bleich raises a havah amina that perhaps his "implicit coercion" thesis is at odds with Chazon Ish, but then answers Chazon Ish in such a manner to be consistent with his thesis. To this student, it seems intuitive that Chazon Ish is in harmony with Rav Bleich's thesis; see Section L of my prenup essay <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreementswhere I present Chazon Ish as such. 
Now, although you did not specifically ask me about the South African Get Law identified by Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer IV, no. 106, I see that in your post you raised the issue, so allow me to refer you to Section J of my aforementioned where I offer different approaches to that South African responsum. 
[N.B. My prenup essay assumes that Vol. 7 of Iggerot Mosheh (which includes the South African Get Law responsum) represents the considered ruling of R. Moshe Feinstein - delivered while he was in good health - and therefore needs to be carefully studied-and-applied like the first six volumes of the same work. However, after I already published my prenup essay (which I am no longer at liberty to modify since it is now being studied by a secular Canadian court, and be-Ezrat Ha-Shem Yitbarakh this will result in a very positive blessing for Canadian Jewry), this student discovered that Rav Bleich has issued contradictory indications on whether he accepts the provenance of Vol. 7 of Iggerot Mosheh. I refer to this concept in footnote 239 of my brain death essay at <http://www.scribd.com/document/375175373/Halakhic-Bioethic >. In any event, I don't think this will result in a practical halakhic difference: neither for coerced gittin nor for brain death. It's more of an academic fascination. And, of course, Kevod Torato ha-Rav has publicized this academic fascination at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-wrote-late-volumes-of-igrot-moshe.html ]

No comments :

Post a Comment

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.