tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post4700090523434361891..comments2024-03-28T02:08:17.990+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Rav Sternbuch:Husband should not be spiteful and should give a Get if there is no chance of reconcilliation and all issues are resolvedDaas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-83120952631540581332012-04-12T08:30:34.456+03:002012-04-12T08:30:34.456+03:00You've got to love this comment at the beginni...You've got to love this comment at the beginning:<br /><br />"from America where - due to our many sins - it is common that women rebel against their husbands and afterwards go to secular courts - Gd forbid!"<br /><br />Where do they get (sic) these statistics from? Husbands rebel against their wives by going to Nafkas and the like. What then? Can she say Maus Olay, or will Stan the Mevazeh Talmidei Chachomim insist that she sit quietly at home with him, while someone whispers "the Gedolim say you should give her a Get".<br /><br />R' Schachter is an Ish HaHalocho. Listen to all his Shiurim, 3000+ and you would never call him a feminist, Stanley. As I said, have the guts, either you or the Eidensohns to CALL R' Schachter with your Taynes. You may be surprised that he not only has cogent answers, but that you'll put your hat and jacket on next time before you ring him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-27598563938335263582012-04-12T02:33:22.101+03:002012-04-12T02:33:22.101+03:00תשובות והנהגות כרך א סימן תשפט
שאלה: אשה הסובלת ...תשובות והנהגות כרך א סימן תשפט <br /><br />שאלה: אשה הסובלת כמה שנים מבעלה הממאן לגרשה היאך להכריחו <br /><br />הנה קיימא לן שאם אשה מסרבת לגור עם בעלה ואומרת שמאוס עליה, אי אפשר לכוף אותו לגרש וכמבואר ברמ"א אהע"ז (ע"ז סעיף ג'), ואפילו זה כמה שנים שנפרדו והוא מסרב באכזריות לגרשה הלוא מבואר בתשובת הרא"ש (כלל מ"ג תשובה ו') שאם כופין על גט יש לחשוש שזהו גט מעושה ומרבין ממזרים בישראל, אבל מבואר ברמ"א אהע"ז (קנ"ד סעיף כ"א) אף שנידוי נקרא כפייה ואסור, מ"מ יכולים לגזור על כל ישראל שלא לעשות לו טובה או שלא לישא וליתן עמו או למול בניו או לקוברם עד שיגרש, ומיהו ב"פתחי תשובה" שם (ס"ק ל') מביא בשם ג"א שבהרחקות כנידוי לא הותר היום אלא רק לומר לו שמותר לקוראו עבריינא, וע"ש שטוב להחמיר כן, והסכים לכך החזו"א באהע"ז (ק"ח ס"ק י"ב), ומסיק בשם הרשב"א שאין לבזותו ולצערו ע"ש היטב. <br /><br />אמנם נראה שכל זה היינו לביישו עד שינהגו עמו כמנודה שלא ישאו ויתנו עמו ולא יעשו לו טובה, שדומה לנידוי ונחשב בזה"ז שאין נידוי כנידוי (החזו"א זצ"ל נתקשה מה שאוסר בפ"ת בזה"ז, אבל נראה כמ"ש), אבל כשאין מבזין אותו אלא רק שאין מכבדים אותו והיינו שמודיעים שלא יקבל כאן ובשאר בתי כנסיות עליה לתורה, ולא ישמש כש"ץ, לא דמי כלל לנידוי, אף שיש בה בזיון קצת, עיקר שידע שהציבור אינם מרוצים מהתנהגותו שמתאכזר לאשתו אבל לא נקרא כפייה כלל. <br /><br />ובזכרוני שראיתי עובדא אצל הגר"י ויינברג ז"ל באחד שסירב באכזריות לגרש אשתו כמה שנים, וציוה להודיע ולפרסם שלא יקבל עליה בבתי הכנסת, והיינו כמ"ש שזה לא נקרא כפייה, וכן נהגו בעיה"ק לפרסם מודעות ברחוב שפלוני עבריין ומעגן אשתו, ולע"ד אם יש לה אמתלא ראוי לכוף אותן גם בבזיונות, ובכתובות (עא א) בנדרה מאחד מהמינים והקים לה מפורש שכיון שהוכיח בזה ששונאה חייב לגרש, אבל כשאין שום סיבה ומאיס עליה יש להתרחק ממנו, אבל מצדד אני אם להתיר גם בזה לבזותן והבית דין חייבין לשקול היטב, וכן לא לחסוך שום השתדלות שתגור עמו כשדורשת גירושין ואין סיבה לכך רק טוענת מאיס עלי, וכשיש סיבה אף שאין כופין בשוטים, נהגו להקל לכוף בפרסום בבתי כנסיות כהנ"ל. <br /><br />ומה שהאשה לוחצת בטענה שמצערין אותה ולא תוכל לעמוד בנסיון עד כדי שתלך ל"ראביים" שמתירים, אין בכל זה סיבה לנו להורות ח"ו נגד התורה, ודרכי ה' נסתרות, יש סובל ייסורים בגופו, ויש סובל בממונו, ויש סובל בחיי אישות, ונקוה לה' שכבר הגיע סוף לייסוריה ויגרש, אבל לכופו במזונות גבוהים או בבזיונות כשלא הותר לא יועיל שאינו אלא גט מעושה ח"ו ולא חל, ועל אכזריותו במדת סדום עונשו בדיני שמים לבד.another teshuva by HaRav Shternbuchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-81320642157978560332012-04-12T00:56:01.936+03:002012-04-12T00:56:01.936+03:00Ora claims (see its website) that Friedman was the...Ora claims (see its website) that Friedman was the "plaintiff" in each of the custody cases. But this is extremely misleading. Friedman is the "plaintiff" in any matter relating to the case, no matter which party brings a particular motion, because he had brought the first motion in the case.<br /><br />As noted previously, Friedman had brought the August 2008 emergency motion only because Epstein was holding the child in PA and refused to negotiate or generally let Friedman see the child other than on Sundays. Also, Friedman canceled the October 2008 trial at which it was likely the child would be returned because that was required by the psak under which Friedman had gone to court in the first place, and the June 2009 trial was held only because Epstein refused the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-75174547252988455262012-04-12T00:47:44.641+03:002012-04-12T00:47:44.641+03:00http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/friedman-eps...http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/friedman-epstein-facts-beis-dins.html<br /><br />http://www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com/Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-80707572124756598962012-04-12T00:43:29.319+03:002012-04-12T00:43:29.319+03:00Yeshaya, please go and get lessons in halochoh. so...Yeshaya, please go and get lessons in halochoh. someone who does not appear at a din torah they are summonsed to without resorting to secular court has a status of lo tzias dina and can never ever use the facilities of bais din on any matter whatsoever to be mazmin someone for any unrelated matter. you can call up chaim berlin and ask to speak to rabbi aharon schachter and ask him why he could not be mazmin veretsky to a din torah because 20 years earlier he failed to appear when rav moshe summonsed him in respect of an unrelated matter.<br /><br />however a woman in arko'oys is far worse than somone who is lo tzias dina (which she probably is anyway when invariably her husband summons her to get out of arko'oys). <br /><br />since you claim the torah is unjust you are welcome to join the new religion set up by schlacher and YU. you are an embaressment. You can always post at schlachter-the corrupt-apikores.comStannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-26315144164062717052012-04-12T00:36:07.779+03:002012-04-12T00:36:07.779+03:00I have been researching the case of Meir Kin and t...I have been researching the case of Meir Kin and this is another example of mob justice at its absolute worst which is sickening and cannot be tolerated. This innocent man has had his reputation besmirched by the thugs of GetOra as well as the corrupt Brooklyn mafiosa. i will be presenting a very detailed listing of all the specifics in this case with all the info. that is publicly available in order to expose the filth that has been perpetrated in this case. I hope you will be so kind as to allow a full listing of all events and dates if necessary in a seperate article to expose what took place and another example of not only complete ivus hadin but how Ora and schlachter were once again involved in being malbin p'nei chavero be'rabim for no reason.<br /><br />Daas Torah, exposing these thugs is the last hope for many of these men who have lost everything and need an opportunity to have their names which were besmirched k'neged halocho restored.<br /><br />Shmuel above has hit the nail on the head in his posting. I will try and contact all those with siruvim by the BDA and ask for the details, the cold facts, so that this thuggish bunch of biryonim can be put out of business,<br /><br />After all, we already know from your brother about Schwartz's hafko'os kiddushin, Willig's cover up of his buddy Boruch Lanner, Broyde's reform views on anything and everything from Gittin to married women having to cover their hair, see comments of Rav Shlomo Miller on him, and Schlachter's corruption.Stannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-31992336233552119512012-04-12T00:23:58.738+03:002012-04-12T00:23:58.738+03:00How is she a moredet if Aharon was the plaintiff i...How is she a moredet if Aharon was the plaintiff in every civil case regarding custody and visitation? Watch the video posted below.jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-27285094372304361662012-04-11T23:46:07.329+03:002012-04-11T23:46:07.329+03:00its interesting to note that ORA did not list that...its interesting to note that ORA did not list that woman's seiruv at their website "seiruv list" since according to ORA only men can be found guilty in Divorce matters since they dont accept an Isha Moredet concept in Halocho!Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-26322524159458653772012-04-11T19:57:28.440+03:002012-04-11T19:57:28.440+03:00You are correct that nowadays, people extort money...You are correct that nowadays, people extort money for a get and the kesubah is ripped up. I know of a case where the boy was מחויב to give a get and a kesubah, but was advised to pay the extortion in order to settle things quietly and move on, and that is what she did. I know of a Rov that won't be mesader<br />A marriage unless the boys promises to listen to him if a divorce comes up. I wish all would do so.samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00347711971522389333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-82037641858181212002012-04-11T19:55:25.039+03:002012-04-11T19:55:25.039+03:00Daat Torah you are correct about what you say. Rab...Daat Torah you are correct about what you say. Rabbi Herschel Schachter and ORA and others "pull the wool over our eyes" by misquoting Halocho as in many cases the woman is a "Moredet" and therefore no Get coercion is called for because of her actions, but they fail to list any woman as a "moredet and yet list every divorce case as one that you must coerce the husband. Cmon Ora you need to look fair sometimes!!! Most Halachic cases allowing GET coercions refers to Men who leave their wives and not like many of todays cases where the woman leaves the husband or ejects him from the home etc.. Take a look at this case where a woman's rich husband managed to put a seiruv against her for going to Civil Court. see http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/rabbinic-hippocrisy.html Why is Halacha applied here differently than in all other cases where the woman goes to civil court? The answer is that in the Klein -Beren case here, the Berens are very rich and "convinced" The bais-din Mechon Lehorooh from Monsey to issue a Seiruv against their daughter-in law. Once again you see inconsistincies in Halocho and no uniform Psak Din in all cases because too many times, bribes and influence sway the Emes in Din.Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-22479796564744072632012-04-11T19:31:45.874+03:002012-04-11T19:31:45.874+03:00apparently the more I research ORA, the organizati...apparently the more I research ORA, the organization for the resolution of agunot, the more I see that they and Rabbi Herschel Schachter have attacked many men unjustifiably. Such as the Meir Kin case where the man even deposited a get, despite her going to Civil Courts and even obtaining a gag-order against him preventing certain pertinent fact to be mentioned in a Bais Din and even tried to have him jailed after speaking to a Bais din about these facts, and yet he was falsely accused of making his wife an Aguna where she clearly has a din of "Moredet". Yet Ora not only viciously attacked him, but posted a website against him called Meirkin.com. see Lonnakin.blogspot.com and http://rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/rabbinic-hippocrisy.html you will see many links and a wealth of information about this case. This appears to be a pattern with ORA attacking anyone who is a man especially if the woman has money or prominent connections as Lonna Kin is related to Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag who is her cousin. Incidently its laughable that Y.U, ORA, Herschel Schachter and many others would accept a GET written By Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag but wouldnt eat from His Triangle-K Hashgocho because its unreliable. Take a look at Rabbi Eidlitz' website kosherquest.org where he lists all the reliable hashgochos worldwide and leaves out the triangle-K. How can you accept his Gittin and not his food?????Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-66344563129250553322012-04-11T18:42:11.269+03:002012-04-11T18:42:11.269+03:00Rav Shternbuch clearly writes in the above teshuva...Rav Shternbuch clearly writes in the above teshuva that the husband is correct to refuse giving a Get until the wife withdraws and undoes the halachicly illegal actions she took in secular court.Reuvennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-60062219044844619272012-04-11T18:35:03.539+03:002012-04-11T18:35:03.539+03:00It sounds like Rav Sternbuch was not informed abou...It sounds like Rav Sternbuch was not informed about both sides of the story (he refers to some rabbis supporting her but doesn't seem to know anything about her). When a posek has not heard from both sides of the story, doesn't this considerably lower (or even obliterate?) the persuasive value of the teshuvah? <br /><br />The idea that he is not allowed to give a get unless the secular judgment is nullified is disturbing. A court is not allowed to give more than halacha allows, and if it does, she can't remarry? Yet it is OK to bribe the husband (who is sinning and being cruel) with large amounts of money (completely reversing the intent of the ketubah, which is that a man give the wife money upon divorce)? This seems strangely unbalanced. And he does not provide much in the way of reasoning for his position that she cannot receive the get unless the secular judgment is nullified.yeshayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-36634802317373077302012-04-11T17:43:43.384+03:002012-04-11T17:43:43.384+03:00This is totally false. The Beis Din that issued t...This is totally false. The Beis Din that issued the seruv against Friedman did not contain Schachter.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-64610101285014639702012-04-11T17:28:24.795+03:002012-04-11T17:28:24.795+03:00I like this teshuvah, because 1) he acknowledges t...I like this teshuvah, because 1) he acknowledges that a person refusing a get when there is no hope for reconciliation is being cruel and probably sinning, 2) he says we should inform the person of this, and 3) he criticizes batei din who are silent on this issue. He says no "force" or "coercion," using them as synonyms. This makes sense. ORA's tactics are not "force" -- they are informing him he is being cruel and sinning. He didn't listen the first time, and refused to even appear before a beit din, so we have to speak louder. Hence the demonstrations. A person's life is at stake. Of course we should not remain silent. Perhaps this time he will hear. If he is concerned about caving in and creating an inavlid get, then have him sign a statement saying that he is not doing it because of the publicity but because he has studied the sources, thought it over and decided that the right thing to do is to give the get.yeshayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-23526764110225324102012-04-10T17:46:49.358+03:002012-04-10T17:46:49.358+03:00Emes,
You've raised a very important point. F...Emes,<br /><br />You've raised a very important point. Feminists such as the Jewish Press, Rabbi Herschel Schachter , Rabbi Jeremy Stern and ORA ( Organization for the Resolution of Agunot ) are publicizing fraudulent "seruvim" for the purpose of harassing and slandering decent Jewish men. These feminists have also disgraced Chareidi rabbanim who have opposed feminist perversions of Judaism.<br /><br />The Shulchan Aruch seems to be clear that Torah Jews really should ostracize the Jewish Press, Schachter, Stern, and ORA, instead of their victims:<br /><br />"For 24 actions we ostracize a person ... (1) One who disgraces a Talmid Chacham ... (24) Those who ostracize one who has not incurred ostracizing ..." (Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), Yoreh Deah 334:43)EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-67324993079753129982012-03-29T03:01:29.089+02:002012-03-29T03:01:29.089+02:00Since virtually all the women on the Jewish Press/...Since virtually all the women on the Jewish Press/ GetOra list fall into this category of rebellious women who never did do t'shiva, yet herschel schlachter puts a siruv on them, surely the time has come to ostracise the Ivanka converter Schlachter himself.emesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-91705468409028810762012-03-28T22:15:30.403+02:002012-03-28T22:15:30.403+02:00Sounds like it might be time for some of us to sta...Sounds like it might be time for some of us to start finding a new rabbi...Dovynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-51171677472505805332012-03-28T12:24:47.077+02:002012-03-28T12:24:47.077+02:00thanks - the translation is back on. But I'll ...thanks - the translation is back on. But I'll remove the link until I have a chance to check it more thoroughlyDaas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-19602457881520869112012-03-28T11:35:38.717+02:002012-03-28T11:35:38.717+02:00On the site you linked for translation, they made ...On the site you linked for translation, they made stated that Rav Shternbuch intended this psak also against women who "Moser" their husbands for child abuse, spousal rape ect. <br /><br />Unfortunately they seem to have taken down the psak as well as their interpretation. <br /><br />Reading this in the Hebrew, that doesn't seem to be the case, but since the claim has been made that Rav Shternbuch considers a woman who goes to the police on account of spousal rape, domestic violence, or child abuse(sexual or physical)as a rebellious woman and that any Get that she manages to obtain, because her husband was so "forced" is therefore invalid. So the question is are these <i>actually</i> the Rav's feelings(it would seem not, but as I said the claim has been made)?Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com