Chazon Ish: Father-in-law forcing Get E.H. 69:23

Briefly this is a case where the husband is an epileptic and this fact was concealed before the marriage. The father-in-law took money from the husband and refuses to give it back until he gives a get. Chazon Ish notes that this constitutes forcing by a layman i.e., the father-in-law. To eliminate that problem he says a beis din should be convened and they should rule that the father-in-law should keep the money until the get is given. It is important to note that  marriage through deception is much more severe than a case of ma'us alei and the poskim are much more lenient regarding forcing a get.

Chazon Ish EH 69 23 Forcing of Father in Law

ORA: Private coercion or Beis Din?

[[update See Rabbi Bechhofer's incredible "chidush" that vigilante coercion can't invalidate a get - only an action connected to beis din]]

James (May 3, 2012) wrote : Even if it [ORA's actiities] is humiliation, (and I do not think it is) it is not humiliation ordered by the Beth Din. There is nothing new with publishing seruvim and calling the public to urge Aharon to give a GET. The only thing different is that ORA has decided to use the Internet to organize the public in a way that was never possible before the advent of the Internet. This is a private action

 James has raised a very important issue which we seem to have been missed in all the debate. When ORA holds demonstrations is it to be viewed as an agent of beis din or as private citizen? Rabbi Ralbag - a member of the Beis Din that urged Aharon to give a get to Tamar told my brother that the declaration of his beis din did not authorize demonstrations. It would thus seem that ORA is not the agent of this beis din. Is it the agent of any beis din? Does Rav Schachter's approval constitute a beis din or does he have a private beis din which authorized this?

Furthermore if Aharon's boss Rep Camp urged him to give the get or threatened to fire him if he didn't give a get - a threat he would do solely because of ORA's actions - is that considered force from a non-Jew? Even if  Rep Camp says I am pressuring you to do what ORA wants you to do - does that make it complying with beis din?

What if a person saw the demonstrations and threatened to physically attack Aharon unless he gave a get. Is this considered legitimate force  or would the resulting get be a get me'usa? If it is legitimate than it would be consistent with  Bava Kamma 28 which is the sugya of physical action against others without the consulting or involvement of beis din.

Chazon Ish (E.H. 69:23) describes a case that the wife's father refuses to give back money that belongs to the husband - unless he gives a get. The Chazon Ish says since the beis din did not authorize this it is kefiah by a hedyot. Therefore he urges that beis din be convened and rule that the father should not give back the money until the get is given.

Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 2:20): If it isn't required according to the halacha that the husband be forced to give a get and beis din made a mistake or it was a beis din of laymen - [Rabbi Tougher's translation is " a Jewish court or simple people compel him"] and they forced him until he gave a get - the get is not valid.  But since Jews have forced him he should give her a valid get [because he might think it was valid and when he marries another without obtaining a valid get it produces mamzerim]. However if goyim force him not according to halacha it is not a get.... since the law does not require it and the force was from goyim it is not a get.

In sum. It follows from the initial premise that as long as the force is unrelated to beis din we avoid all the tiresome discussion of what constitutes legitimate pressure according to Rabbeinu Tam or Rambam etc etc. Thus if this idea is correct - any and all types of force can be applied to force the get - because it is only vigilante action and not the legitimate psak of beis din!

Ma'us Alei: Forced only if disgusting

Husband is not forced in claim of Ma'us alei unless clearly disgusting

שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג - אבן העזר סימן יח

(ב) איברא דחזי הוית להמאירי (כתובות סג: עמוד רסח), שכ', ואף לשיטת גדולי המחברים (הרמב"ם), פירשו רבותי בדבריהם, דדוקא בשטוענת כך מן הדין, ר"ל שאף אנו מכירים בו שהוא ראוי להמאס מחמת רוב פחיתותו והפסד עניניו אם במדות אם בשאר דברים מכוערים, והדברים מוכיחים שלא בסיבת נתינת עין באחר הוא, הא כל שטוענת כן מחמת עקשות וגאוה והסתלסלות יתר אין שומעים לה. עכ"ל. גם בשו"ת מהרימ"ט ח"ב (חאה"ע סי' מ) כ', ואם היינו באים לדון דינא דמאיס עלי כד' הרמב"ם, היה צריך לחקור הדבר היטב שיהא ברור וניכר לנו שא"א לה להבעל ברצונה לו שהוא מאוס עליה, וצריכה לתת אמתלא לדבריה בכדי להאמינה. וכמ"ש הרא"ש והגמ"י בשם מהר"ם. ואף על פי שהרשב"א בתשו' המיוחסות (סי' קלח) כ' שא"צ לתת טעם ואמתלא לדבריה, זהו שיכולה לומר שהוא מאוס אף על פי שלא תתן טעם, ומ"מ אנו צריכים להכיר ולבחון זה מדבריה שכן הוא האמת שהוא מאוס בעיניה. וכמ"ש הרשב"א בתשו' שהובאה בב"י (סי' עז). עכת"ד. נמצא דאיכא פלוגתא בד' הרמב"ם בזה. [ועמש"כ להלן אות טו דמוכח להדיא מדברי מהרי"בל בתשו' ח"ג (סי' יג), שא"צ שום אמתלא לטענת מאיס עלי בכדי לכופו לגרש. ע"ש]. ומ"מ ע"פ סיום דברי מהרימ"ט נראה שיש הפרש בין אומדנא קלה כמות שהיא הנראית רק לעיני הדיינים, לבין אמתלא ברורה ונכוחה, אשר תבענה שפתותיה של האשה. וכמו שסיים עוד מהרימ"ט שם, ועוד שהרשב"א שם כ' דבאומרת מאיס עלי ואינה חפצה בו ולא בכתובתו, כיון שרוצה לצאת בלא כתובה ודאי נראה מדבריה שדעתה אונסה. ע"כ. ופשוט שאין זו חשובה אמתלא ברורה. ובזה מיושבים דברי הרשב"א שלא יסתור את עצמו בתשובותיו הנ"ל. וכבר הנתיבות משפט שם (דף ריז ע"ב) עמד בסתירת תשו' הרשב"א שבב"י (סי' עז) לתשובתו שבמיוחסות (סי' קלח) הנ"ל. והניח בקושיא. ומתוך דברי מהרימ"ט הנ"ל תתיישב סתירה זו על נכון, שאף שהיא עצמה א"צ לתת טעם לדבריה, מ"מ צריכים אנו להבחין ולהכיר שדבריה נכונים. וכ"כ ליישב קושיא זו בשו"ת פרי צדיק (סי' ב). וע"ע בשו"ת ויאמר יצחק (סי' קכו). ובשו"ת שערי עזרה (סי' ז). ובשו"ת וזאת ליהודה (סי' יא). ע"ש. ועכ"פ אמת שדעת הרשב"א היא דאין לכופו לגרש גם באמתלא נכונה, ומ"מ הרשב"ש מצרף בזה דעת הרמב"ם עם קצת מהחולקים עליו שבזה הושוו לכפותו לגרשה, וכמו שסיים אח"כ ע"פ דברי מהר"ם. ומכ"ש באמתלא ברורה כזו דמוקמינן לה בחזקת שלא נתרצית לו מעולם, וסופה מוכיח על תחלתה. ובזה א"ש גם יתר קושיות הנתיבות משפט הנ"ל.

R M. Klein: Get invalid by use of Court

 Mishna Halachos(14:60): [Translation copyrighted by Daniel Eidensohn] The secular procedure is that when a woman wants to get custody of the children from her husband who is also their father – she will go the secular authorities and claim that he hit her and others such charges and that she escaped with the children and she is now requesting an “order of protection.” The Rabbis who haven’t been properly mentored by great Torah scholars and are not sufficiently learned in Torah claim that this is not the prohibitions of mesira and going to secular courts. In fact not only is this actual mesira but it is kidnapping of the children with the power of the secular judges and it is literally in the category of actual murder. (Look at Maharam Mirzburk printed at the end of Mahari Veil page 173....) Anyone who files a complaint against a Jew to a non‑Jew needs to repent as one who is a murderer. This woman who filed a complaint against her husband and they imprisoned him or other such punishment – it is not an Order of Protection but rather kidnapping the children and actual murder. Thus if either the husband or wife uses this approach they are a murderer and one needs to be very careful of this.

Besides the fact that when a woman goes to the secular courts and intimidates the husband with an Order of Protection or other techniques, it is subsequently prohibited for the husband to give her a get because it is an invalid get which has been coerced by the secular courts. One of my acquaintances came and asked regarding his wife who had obtained an Order of Protection and as a result he had been imprisoned overnight until his lawyer obtained his release. He told me that he was afraid this would happen again and again because she would make up lies about him and torment him all his life. He had decided that he had no choice but to give her a get. The beis din was now prepared to write it. I told him that a get given under these circumstances was invalid by the Torah and it was prohibited to give her a get until she removed all of her charges from the secular court and he had received a letter from her that she would no longer bring him to secular court again. This is elementary and clearly the halacha according to the Torah. It is clear that it doesn’t matter whether the husband is actually sent to jail or that she files a complaint in secular court and they don’t actually jail him.

I told him that he should listen to my advice and that both he and his wife should come and I would listen to both sides and I would make suggestion as to which rabbis to go to who might be able to make peace. Why do they say that rabbis are just for the bad to give a get but not for the positive. In fact there are wise rabbis who can make improvement and to discuss with both sides and to explain to them they are just destroying themselves and their children. That they have to worry in addition to problem in shidduchim for this family because of the fear of future divorces and many other things. In short I gave the advice to at least try counseling....

Rabbi's sex abuse conviction overturned

YNET\

A New York Court overturned the sexual abuse conviction of Brooklyn Rabbi Baruch Lebovits last week.

Rabbi Lebovits, 61, was sentenced to up to 32 years in prison in 2010, after he was convicted of molesting a teenage boy, the New York Daily News reported.  

The appellate court agreed: "The late disclosure all but set a trap for the defendant which had already sprung at the time the notes were finally furnished," the ruling said.
 =====================
See Tablet Magazine August 22, 2011

 Lebovits was free on $250,000 bail following the arrest of a rabbi, Samuel Kellner, on charges of bribery and witness tampering. Kellner was charged with giving a boy—not the boy who addressed the court, but another alleged victim—$10,000 to falsely testify he had been abused by Lebovits and of threatening to bring more victims forward unless the Lebovits family paid him $400,000. Today, the matter is still unresolved

Ma'us Alei: Accept Rambam's psak?

The following is the view of Rabbi Tzvi Gartner in his RJJ article concerning get me'usa. In particular the problems of accepting the Rambam's view that in ma'us alei the husband can be forced to give a get. Rabbi Gartner is a well known expert on the subject and is cited in Rabbi Broyde's defense of ORA

ORA, child abduction and Congress

Why does Ora support child abductors?   [guest post]

Would those rabbis who have given Ora their rabbinical endorsement [Rabbi Kenneth Auman, Rabbi David Bassous, Rabbi Eliyahu Ben Dahan, Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Haim, Rabbi Ari Berman, Rabbi Azarya Berzon, Rabbi Yosef Blau, Rabbi Zevulun Charlop, Rabbi Menachem Genack, Rabbi Ozer Glickman, Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, Rabbi Meir Goldwicht, Rabbi Joseph Grunblatt,  Rabbi Shmuel Hain, Rabbi Basil Herring, Rabbi Elihayu Kaufman, Rabbi Barry Kornblau, Rabbi Norman Lamm, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, Rabbi Yaacov Neuberger, Rabbi Marc Penner, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Rabbi Jason Rappoport, Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet, Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, Rabbi Michael Rosensweig, Rabbi Yonason Sacks, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, Rabbi Michael Shmidman, Rabbi Peretz Steinberg, Rabbi Michael Taubes, Rabbi Elazar Meir Teitz, Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler, Rabbi Steven Weil, Rabbi Richard Weiss, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler, Rabbi Mordechai Willig] feel that the get is the only issue that the Jewish community should be concerned about if it were their child or grandchild that were abducted?

One of the abductors supported by Ora, is Anat Gelernter. [http://getora.com/pipermail/oravolunteers_getora.com/2006-September/000013.html].

Do Ora and its rabbis believe that Representative Lampson is wrong that the important issue in the case is Anat Gelernter's child abduction, rather than the fact that Gelernter does not have a get.  Congressional Record, May 16, 2000.

INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION

(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell about Yona Gelernter, whose three children were abducted to Israel by their mother, Anat Gelernter. On April 17, 1995, Chaya, Menachem and Chava were taken from their Brooklyn, New York home to Israel. As the parents were still married, Yona applied in the New York courts for emergency custody of his children. Additionally, because Israel is a signatory to the Hague Convention, he was able to apply for the return of his three children under the agreement. He filed his Hague petition in October of 1997 and on August 13, 1998, the Israeli courts ordered the immediate return of Chaya, Menachem and Chava to their father in the United States. However, when the mother learned that she had lost her case, she went into hiding with the three children. Yona has since hired private investigators in Israel to attempt to locate his wife and three children. He has not seen them since their abduction. Mr. Speaker, there are 10,000 American children out there whose stories are similar, 10,000 American children and their parents who experience the same kind of pain and devastation every day of their separation. This Congress must take action to solve this problem and help reunite parents with their children.  Mr. Speaker, we must bring our children home.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-05-16/pdf/CREC-2000-05-16-pt1-PgH3056-7.pdf

And do Ora's rabbis support Ora's attacking a member of Congress as comparable to child sex abusers [http://twitter.com/#!/oragunot] because the Representative has not commented on what halacha says about the get issue? 

When teachers bully students

Time Magazine

Chazon Ish: Negative information about rabbis

 [This was originally posted 4 years ago concerning the Tropper Affair]

amicusEJF (the defender of Eternal Jewish Family) questioned my public criticism of Rabbi Tropper's conduct in relationship to Rav Sternbuch, shlita and myself. The following quote of the Chazon Ish justifies my conduct. A person as influential as Rabbi Tropper has to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than others and is legitimately subject to revelations of his misconduct that are not appropriate of non-influential rabbis and roshei yeshiva. The quote of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky zt"l shows that it is also relevant for influential rabbis who are deceased.

Chazon Ish(2:133):Knowledge about a talmid chachom who shapes yiddishkeit is similar to that of an artisan. Just as one is permitted to convey accurate information about an artisan if there is to'eles so it it permitted to reveal information about a gadol if there is to'eles. Of critical importance is to be totally accurate otherwise it is slander. This implies that expressing negative information about others is relevant for those who are considered influential authorities – in order to understand the degree to rely on them.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emes L'Yaakov- Bereishis 37:18): I was asked by a student why the Torah tells the story about how Yosef was treated by his brothers – isn't it lashon harah? I answered firstly that the prohibition of lashon harah in fact only applies to the living but according to the Torah it is permitted to speak lashon harah about the dead except for an ancient cherem (Orech Chaim 606:3). And this cherem only applies to slander but not to facts even if they are not flattering.

Rabbi Broyde: "Sounds of Silence"- A response

Hirhurim [...] by Rabbi Michael Broyde

On April 23 2012 I wrote a short article entitled “Protesting Without Coercing” on a topic related to coerced divorce (see here) and this article was subject to a mean spirited ad-hominem by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn (it can be found here). Like much of the dialogue that occurs in our community, his reply is short on substance, but full of vile language. I suspect that I could write a full blown reply if I wanted to but, as I have told many, I do not expect to reply further. My friends have been befuddled, and I write this public letter to explain my decision not to reply further and to be silent.

First, these types of polemical replies – full of words like “slither,” “brazen” “bald lie” and “completely wrong” – almost always misunderstand (accidentally or blinded by zeal) my writing in a significant way. Polemical writings aiming to score points almost never are connected to tight reasoning or an honest assessment of the strength of their own case. This type of writing then becomes a tool to attract hits on the internet and not to discover the truth of Jewish law. 

Second, I have little desire to fight with another Torah scholar over whether he is right or wrong in a particular case; the discerning reader has seen two views and can figure the matter. It is better that I should be mochel any kavod hatorah that ought to be mine than to respond in a way that undermines kavod hatorah generally. I try to respond to all those who have written to me, publically when written to in public, and privately when written to in private: That is the give and take of Torah, and it is what makes halachic Judaism authentic. There is no failure in kavod hatorah when responding to criticism. But the name calling and vilification found in the matter at hand makes it hard to respond other than in kind, and doing so undermines the general principles of kavod hatorah. I simply cannot bring myself to diminish the honor of Torah. [...]

R' Taubers evaluation of Kedushas Levi Beis Din

Old Siruv against Rav Herschel Schachter

Rav Yosef: Forced Get for Ma'us alei - sometimes

translation - click here

שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג - אבן העזר סימן כ

(לד) המורם מכל האמור שהואיל ומצאנו חברים רבים גדולים ועצומים מרבותינו הראשונים דס"ל כשיטת הרמב"ם ז"ל שכופין את הבעל לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי. וכן תיקנו רבנן סבוראי בבי דינא דמתיבתא, ונהגו בתקנה זו עד סוף זמן הגאונים קרוב לשש מאות שנה, ועשו מעשה רב לכוף את הבעל להוציא בטענת מאיס עלי. אף על פי שרבים מהפוסקים אינם סוברים כן, וגם מרן בש"ע /בא"ה/ (סי' עז) סובר שאין כופין, מ"מ כשיש עוד צירופים להקל, שפיר סמכינן ע"ז הלכה למעשה. (וע' להגאון אגודת איזוב (חאה"ע ס"ס יט) בד"ה עוד יש). ובייחוד לבני תימן שאינם זזים מהוראות הרמב"ם בכל אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, וכבר נהגו בארצותם לכוף את הבעל לגרש בטענת מ"ע, כדעת הרמב"ם, לכן גם כאן בא"י שפיר דמי לפסוק להם כמנהגם. ובנ"ד הוכח בעדים שהנישואין נעשו נגד רצון האשה, ולמרות סירובה להנשא אל בעלה זה, כפו עליה קרוביה הר כגיגית בדרך תרמית ותחבולה להשיאה אליו. ונודע שדעת הרשב"ש להלכה דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציא, ורבו האחרונים שכ' לסמוך על הרשב"ש בזה להלכה ולמעשה. ובפרט שיש לצרף בזה כמה ספיקות וס"ס. (וכמש"כ בסי' יח אות ד). וכבר נודע בשערים המצויינים בהלכה מ"ש הרשב"ץ ח"ב (סי' ח) וז"ל, ואף על פי שיש בתשו' גדולי האחרונים שאין כופין בזה [בדין מאיס עלי] כלל, מ"מ אנן לא קטלי קני באגמא אנן, ומילתא דתליא בסברא, אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו ראות. ע"ש. וכן הוא בשו"ת יכין ובועז ח"ב (סי' מד). וע"ע בשו"ת מהר"א אבן טוואה בחוט המשולש (סי' לה). ובשו"ת מעשה איש (חאה"ע ס"ס א). ע"ש. הא קמן שאף הרשב"ץ דקאי בשיטת הפוסקים שחולקים על הרמב"ם, כשיש עוד סניפין פסק להקל כד' הרמב"ם. ודון מינה ואוקי באתרין. (ובתשובה אחרת הארכתי בס"ד להוכיח שדעת כמה פוסקים רוא"ח, שבית דין שפסקו לכוף את הבעל לגרש, ע"פ איזה פוסקים, אפי' טעו בדין, והוי גט מעושה שלא כדין, אין הגט פסול אלא מדרבנן. ומכ"ש בכפייה שבזמן הזה שאינה כפייה בשוטים, אלא בישיבה בבית הסוהר, ואין כל דמיון בין בית הסוהר של זמנינו לבית הסוהר שבזמנים הקודמים. והו"ל כספק ספקא בדרבנן. ולדעת הרבה פוסקים עבדינן ספקא בידים בדרבנן להקל, וכ"ש בס"ס, ומכ"ש בשעה"ד ומקום עיגון כזאת. וק"ו בן בנו של ק"ו בדין מאיס עלי שרבו הפוסקים המקילים הן מצד הדין הן מצד התקנה, ואפי' הרא"ש שחולק על הרמב"ם כתב, דבדיעבד שכפו את הבעל להוציא מה שעשו עשוי. וכ"כ הרשב"ץ, דאם נתגרשה בגט כזה תנשא לכתחלה. ועל אחת כמה וכמה בנ"ד שהנישואין היו בעל כרחה של האשה, דעבדינן עובדא לכתחלה.) ונוסף לזה יש מקום בנ"ד לפקפק על עצם הקידושין שנעשו ע"י איומים והפחדות, ועכ"פ הבעל בודאי עשה שלא כהוגן במעשה הקידושין, ואם כי לא נפקיע קידושיו מ"מ יש לכופו לתת גט. ומה גם שהאשה צעירה לימים ויושבת גלמודה גמולה דא מבעלה, ויש חשש לפי ראות עיני ביה"ד פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, אם תהיה תקותה לקבלת גט למפח נפש. בהיות שזה שנים רבות יושבת בדד כבולה בחבלי העיגון. וכבר הבאנו (בסי' יח אות יג) דברי הגאון מהר"ח פלאג'י דבכה"ג כופין את הבעל להוציאה בגט. וע"ע בשו"ת חקקי לב (חאה"ע סי' נז דק"ה ע"א), שהביא מ"ש בשו"ת מהרשד"ם (סי' נז), ומשאת בנימין (סי' מד), שיש להקל הרבה בעיגונא דאיתתא כדי שלא יצאו בנות ישראל לתרבות רעה, ולא יבואו ח"ו להמיר דתם, ובפרט כשהאשה ילדה ורכה בשנים. ושכ"כ הרא"ם בתשו' (סי' לו), שאין לך שעה"ד גדול מזה להשאיר האשה עגונה כל ימיה, ובודאי דנפיק מינה חורבא, וכ"ש בזמנים הללו שבעוה"ר רבו הפרצות ונתמעטו הצנועות. ע"ש. וכיו"ב כתב הגרח"מ לבטון בשו"ת נכח השלחן (חאה"ע ס"ס יד). ע"ש. ובנ"ד הרי כמה פעמים התחננו אליו ממש חברי בית הדין (בהרכבים שונים משך שנים רבות), ובקשוהו בדברי פיוס וריצוי שיואיל לפטרה בגט פן תצא ח"ו לתרבות רעה, והוא כמו פתן חרש יאטם אזנו, וגם לאחר החלטות ביה"ד לחייב את הבעל לגרש את אשתו (בחשבם אולי יקיים מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים (ב"ב מח), ובהסתמך גם על הפו' שכ' שאפי' להחולקים על הרמב"ם וס"ל שאין כופין במאיס עלי, מ"מ חייב לגרשה.) הבעל ממשיך בסירובו ונותן כתף סוררת לכל עצות והחלטות בית הדין. וכל דבריהם נשארו כקול קורא במדבר. וגם כשהאשה פקעה סבלנותה ואיימה בפני ביה"ד ובפניו שאם לא יגרשנה תצא לתרבות רעה, (ודברי התנצלותה לאחר זמן בפני ביה"ד ע"ז, נאמרו אך ורק ע"פ עצת עורך - הדין שלה), וגם בעיני ביה"ד נראה ברור שאין זה בבחינת גזים איניש ולא עביד, אלא קיים חשש מבוסס שאמנם אם ימשך מצב ביש זה לבלי סוף תצא האשה לתרבות רעה. ואין כל סיכויים שהאשה תסכים אי פעם לשוב ולחיות עם הבעל הזה, ולמרות מאמצים גדולים בדברי פיוס ברצי כסף ותחנות ובקשות חוזרות ונשנות פעמים אין מספר לאמר: הבעל עננו! ואין קול ואין עונה ואין קשב. ובדברים לא יוסר עבד. ובצירוף כל הסברות הנ"ל פסקנו בכח ב"ד יפה להלכה ולמעשה לכוף את הבעל לגרש עד שיאמר רוצה אני, ולזה הסכים גם ראש בית דיננו הגאון הגדול מהר"ר ראובן כץ שליט"א (הרב הראשי ואב"ד פה פתח תקוה), ובהיות שהבעל הקשה את ערפו ואמץ את לבבו ולא אבה לגרש גם לאחר פסק הדין דקמן, נלקח אל בית הסוהר ע"י השלטונות בכדי להכריחו לציית לביה"ד, ולאחר שבתו בביה"ס ימים אחדים, הסכים לגרש את אשתו, והגט סודר על ידינו בס"ד במותב תלתא כחדא ביום א' מנחם אב תשי"ט פה פתח תקוה ת"ו, לאחר ביטול מודעות וכו' וכנהוג. והותרה האשה להנשא לכל גבר די תצבי חוץ מכהן. והשי"ת יצילנו משגיאות ומתורתו יראנו נפלאות ויאיר עינינו בתורתו הקדושה אמן. עובדיה יוסף ס"ט

Does Rav Schachter permit beatings?! 3 tapes

Guest Post Yitzy HillelApr 29, 2012 10:27 PM

 

For all those who haven't listened to Rabbi Schachters 3 shiurim on Agunot on yutorah.com, I will briefly summarize them.

1) In his shiur called "Options for Agunahs" listen from 10-14 minutes. He does state what Rav Dovid Eidonsohn Shlitta has claimed and says that in 99% of the cases today where marriages are broken and two are no longer living together of course we can be kofin oso bshotin (use force with sticks!!!) Listen for yourself minute 13 to be exact: He brings down 3 categories and says almost all cases today are in the category of kofin oso bshottim. (He doesn't tell people to go do it but he says the cases fall into the category where physical force is permitted)

2), In the "Plight of Agunah" shiur, Rabbi Schachter clearly explains that force CAN NOT BE USED (minute 50-101 to be exact). He states clearly in minute 52 (WE DON"T EVEN DO THE HARCHAKAS OF R'TAM today like the Gevoras Anishim of Schach quoted by Pischa Teshuva 154:21) then he says in the end we just humiliate which is a much lesser pressure then cutting the guy off financially. He states we are machmir for (the gevoras anashim the shach). In minute 58 he says if we can't solve this issue we may have to go back to the takanas of the geonim (and the shitta of the Rambam) where forcing with actual violence is permitted in cases of meus alai if we have no choice...

In his most recent 2012 shiur ("Fighting the Agunah Crises" minute 23 to exact)), Rabbi Schachter claims that today we are actually following the harchakas of R'tam and bases the actions of the ORA on Chacham Ovadias teshuvot. He mentions that R' Tam held that one can't use force but could humiliate the husband, and He says that is what he relies upon today)

In Summary: (Please listen to the shiurim yourselves and you will find that Rabbi Schachter says 3 different approaches in all 3 shiurim.

1) todays cases are almost always where physical force can be used because the couple is no longer living together. (He doesn't say to do it but he says the cases fall into the category in Shulchan Aruch where physical force can be used.

2) Today we DONT do the harchakas of R'tam and are machmir for the pitcha teshuva (shach) which says (according to Rabbi Schachter)to cut off the guy financially. He says we only humiliate which is much less from of pressure that doesn't invalidate a GET. He states if things get much worse we may have to use actual force like the Rambam's oppinion (but he never mentions to use actual violence)

3) He says we DO follow the harchakas of R'tam based upon Chacham Ovadia. In this shiur he calls humiliation as part of the harchakas of R'tam unlike shiur 2, and he doesn't state or imply any allowances of actual physical force.

Can someone please listen to his 3 shiurim (to save you time just listen to the minutes that I quoted above) and try to explain his shitta in a coherent manner. I personally feel the above 3 shiurim totally contradict themselves and am wondering if anyone can explain how the shiurim don't contradict each other.