NYS:Yeshivas must report abuse & Rabbis not asked first

VIN reported In order to clarify existing regulations requiring all staff members in New York state non-public schools to report suspected incidents of child abuse to the authorities, the New York State Education Department has updated its web page  to eliminate any possible ambiguities. 

 =======================================
Thus Yeshiva staff are officially mandated reports and are not to ask  permission either from the administration or their rabbis before reporting suspected child abuse.

Q: Before making a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, is a mandated reporter in a school legally permitted to first ask permission from the person in charge of the school?

A:  No.  Section 413(1)(b) of the Social Services Law provides that when a mandated reporter is required to make a report (which would be when the mandated reporter has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused or maltreated), the mandated reporter must make the report.  After making the report, the mandated reporter must notify the person in charge of the school that the report was made.  That notification comes after the report was made, not before.

Q:  Is the answer any different if the mandated reporter works in a school that is religiously affiliated and the person in charge of the school is a member of the clergy?

A:  No.  The mandated reporter must make a report once the mandated reporter has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused or maltreated.  The mandated reporter may not ask permission from the person in charge of the school, even if that person is a member of the clergy. 

Charity:Rav Belsky & Rav Shachter

Female circus volunteer removed by Chareidi protest

Haaretz

A female audience member who was invited to participate in a circus performance in Modi'in on Sunday was removed from the stage after a religiously observant viewer complained.

Rafi Vitis, an acrobat and host of "The Shambuki Show," at the city's Anabe Park, consented to the request of an ultra-Orthodox woman who found the participation of women offensive. He invited a male volunteer to replace the teenage girl, but was forced to suspend the show for a few minutes because other members of the hundreds-strong audience objected to the switch.

Fraud allegations against Hazon Yeshaya charity

JPost

The Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court ruled on Wednesday to extend the remand of a senior employee of the Hazon Yeshaya charity for a further seven days, following his arrest on suspicion of widespread misuse of funds. Police arrested four members of the charity last week. A strict gag order prevents publication of their names. Judge Michael Karshen said the suspect, who is currently in hospital and did not appear in court, was suspected of aggravated fraud, money laundering, falsifying corporate documents and forgery, but that police had dropped an additional suspicion of extortion.

In extending the suspect’s remand until April 18, Karshen said Hazon Yeshaya had received substantial donations totaling tens of millions of shekels for food distribution to the poor and for Holocaust survivors but police suspect a significant portion of those funds were not used for their stated purpose.

Rav Y. Belsky: Objections of Rav S. Miller & Rav A. Schechter

These are documents relating to a dispute a number of years ago. I am not chas v'shalom setting myself up as a judge in this case - but the gedolim were clearly very upset with what Rav Belsky- he should have a refuah shleima -  was doing in the case. As anyone who has met Rav Belsky - he is a very impressive talmid chachom - both in terms of his knowledge of  Torah and his readiness to act forcefully for what he thinks is correct. He also has managed to upset others over the years by his independence.  I happened to have had a meeting with Rav Belsky at this time and he noted that there were wall posters all over Jerusalem signed by Rav Eliashiv but he told me that in reality Rav Eliashiv agreed with him. There is also disagreement as to whether Rav Belsky was merely trying to frighten the husband into giving a get or that he was willing to issue a heter to remarry based on these ideas. The major concern with gittin and permitting a woman to remarry is that the get and the ability to remarry should be generally accepted by gedolim. Anytime a rav is involved in these areas and is viewed as doing things unacceptable especially when he does them repeatedly -  is something to be concerned about.

Rav Besky vs Rav Miller and Rav Schecter 20120411104504

Minchas Yitzchok: Going to court invalidates Get

A woman received a get on the condition that she would not go to secular court. She then violated the agreement and went to secular court. The Minchas Yitzchok said if she doesn't withdraw her claims from court her get is invalid. This teshuva has not been published in the sefer Minchas Yitzchok.

Minchas Yitzchak Invalidating a Get After Returning to Court-1

Oprah: Hasidic Jews - part 2

Oprah: Hasidic Jews - part 1

YU Conference: Rav Schacter, ORA & Tamar

Islam: Women in a permissive society

Time Magazine

New information in the Shaima Alawadi murder case in El Cajon, Calif., suggests that the family was cracking over a forced marriage for daughter Fatima, 17, and that Alawadi herself was preparing to divorce her husband. If female freedom turns out to be at the heart of the murder, it will highlight not so much the intolerance of Muslim immigrants by Americans, but the cultural restrictions on women in those communities and what happens when those restrictions clash with the relatively permissive rules of Western society.

Alawadi was beaten to death with a tire iron inside her home in El Cajon (home to 40,000 Iraqis) last month. For weeks the case has been regarded as a possible hate crime because someone left a note beside her unconscious body that read, “Go back to your own country. You’re a terrorist.” But Alawadi, 32, belonged to a culture in which families choose husbands for their daughters at a young age, and the daughters have no say in it. She was married by the age of 15. She had produced five children with her husband Kassim Alhimidi, who moved his family to the U.S. 17 years ago. Police executing search warrants on the family’s house, cars and phones found documents in Alawadi’s car indicating she was planning to get divorced. According to the New York Times, a family friend told police that Alawadi wanted to leave her husband and move to Texas. Her sister, however, denied that.

Islam in Britain: A horror movie

Widow with dementia gave $600,000 to Kabbalah Centre charity

LATImes

Susan Strong Davis, an 87-year-old widow, spends the day inside her Palos Verdes Estates home, tended round-the-clock by nurse's aides. For company, relatives say, she has her dog, the television and, on increasingly rare occasions, memories of the glamorous socialite's life she once lived.

"She definitely has some sort of dementia," said Viki Brushwood, a niece who visited from Texas in December. "I don't know if it's Alzheimer's or what. She is somebody who is not making decisions anymore."

But decisions involving large amounts of money are being made in Davis' name. In recent years, she has borrowed millions to build a four-bedroom house in Beverly Hills featuring three fireplaces and a pool, according to property records, court filings and interviews. She has also given at least $600,000 to a charity to which relatives say she has no ties and which is run by the controversial Kabbalah Centre, the Westside spiritual organization now under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service.

Beit Shemesh:Urban planning for chareidi cities

Haaretz

The city of Beit Shemesh lies some 20 kilometers west of Jerusalem. Established in the early 1950s, it was just another depressed development town with a population of 20,000, when work on a master plan for its expansion, which called for the absorption of 130,000 additional residents, began, in the summer of 1990. That a large and unified block of land, most of it under state control, was available south of the existing town, and the central location of Beit Shemesh between Jerusalem and the coastal plain, were key factors in the government's decision to plan and build what is now called Ramat Beit Shemesh. Since that time, the city's population has soared: Today it stands at some 80,000. Once a backwater, today a boomtown. [...]

The special requirements of the Haredi community pose significant problems for town planners. Their high birth rate and great number of subgroups, as well as the fact that boys and girls attend separate schools, results in an inflated number of educational institutions, which are an immense burden to finance, build and maintain. In Beit Shemesh today, no less than 70 percent of all schoolchildren are ultra-Orthodox. To avoid halakhic problems regarding Sabbath elevators, building heights are often restricted to not more than four stories, limiting urban densities.

Igros Moshe: Law requiring Get if civil divorce

This teshuva seems to make it impossible to justify publicly embarrassing a person solely for the purpose of giving a get - especially when he can not escape from the embarrassment by moving to a different neighborhood or community.

Igros Moshe( E.H. 4:106): This that there is an effort being made to pass a law in the state legislature that whenever a Jew becomes divorced in a secular court he is also obligated to give his wife a valid get in beis din – this is definitely a very major accomplishment. Such a law does not constitute an illegal coerced get (get me’usa) because of the involvement of non‑Jews. That is because the husband has the free will not to divorce his wife according to the secular law. It is only because he wants to obtain a secular divorce in order to be exempt from the financial obligations of his wife and that he will be able to legally marry another woman – and the secular government will not give it to him unless he has given a valid get to his first wife. Therefore he is giving the get of his own free‑will. This is exactly equivalent to one who doesn’t want to give his wife a get but when they give him thousands of shekel – suddenly he becomes willing to give it. This is not considered coerced (me’usa) since he has the free will to decide whether desire for the money is more important to him than the desire not to give the get. This is not considered coerced (me’usa) since he has the free will to decide whether the money is more important to him then giving a get. It is a daily occurrence amongst the Jewish people that a husband is given this choice.

The coercion which invalidates a get is when he is beaten or imprisoned or given some other affliction in order that she be given the get. Such cases are considered that he is being forced to give the get – only then is it in invalid. Similarly even in the case of financial pressure in a case where the government obligates him to pay as a punishment for not giving the get is considered as a get given with financial coercion because he doesn’t want to lose the money. An additional case is if someone takes a large sum of money from the husband and refuses to return it unless he gives a divorce – is also considered to be illegal coercion. [See the Shulcahn Aruch E.H. 134.4 in the Rema and Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 134.11)] In contrast if the husband is given money to motivate him to want to give the get – it is obvious that this is not considered coercion and it is a daily occurrence. So this concern for obtaining a benefit is exactly the same thing as giving a get in order to obtain a civil divorce. Even if he is imprisoned for a different matter and the wife has someone who is willing to intervene to obtain his freedom on the condition that he give her a get – this is not considered that he was coerced to give a get. That is because the cause of his suffering was not caused by his not giving a get – but because of an unrelated matter. The giving of the get only provides a remedy for removing the suffering. Therefore a get given to stop suffering from an unrelated matter is considered to be total free-will. This is quite simple and logical. This is a valid get even in a situation where he has no obligation to divorce her.

Minchas Yitzchok: Law requiring Get if civil divorce

This teshuva also would invalidate direct pressure to give a get by public humilation. The only pressure permitted is that which comes from something else which is alleviated by the giving of the get. If the sole reason for the pressure is to force the giving of a get - he says it invalidates the get according to all opinions.

Minchas Yitzchok(8:137): Question: There are frum people who are influential in the legislature who want a law passed that when a husband divorces his wife in secular court – that he would then be obligated to give a get in beis din. This suggested legislation is being done to benefit Jewish women so that their spiteful husbands should not be able to make them agunas. However you are concerned that doing so would invalidate the get as a get coerced by non‑Jews (get me’usa). In particular in cases where the halacha does not require that the husband gives a get. You also want to know if it is considered an illegal coerced get if it is given because the secular judge will require the husband pay additional money until he gives the get. Answer: This that the secular judge will keep adding the requirement to pay continually more money until the get is given – this causes the concern for a coerced get (me’usa) according to all opinion as is stated in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 134:4) in the Rema and commentaries. Look at Toras Gittin and the views expressed in Pischei Teshuva. I have seen in Minchas Meishiv (14) that he has searched for solutions in this type of case. In addition to the fact that his solutions are very complicated both in terms of halacha and in carrying them out – he ends up without a clear answer. The only possible solution in my opinion is to try and establish that the law does not explicitly require that a get be given. Rather it should be done indirectly by saying that as long as there is no valid divorce in beis din that there is no valid divorce in secular court. If done in this way, there is no problem of a get me’usa. This would be exactly equivalent to a husband giving his wife a divorce because he wants to marry another woman. Because of the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom it is prohibited to be married to two women so he must divorce his first wife. The giving of a get to avoid the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom does not constitute a get me’usa. That is because he has the option not to divorce his first wife and consequently he would not marry anyone else. And even if we would not be concerned for the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom but we are giving the get because of secular law which prevents marrying anyone else until the first wife is divorced – it would still be valid. See Aruch HaShulchan (E.H. 134:22), “ Even if he loves his wife but she hates him and torments him until he gives her a get – since the get itself is given of his free‑will and the pressure on him comes from a different direction – it is considered that he pressured himself. If you don’t understand it in this manner then the majority of gittin would be considered coerced and be invalid. That is because when a person gets divorced it is typical that there are various causes that he feels that he must get divorced. So therefore when the pressure is not on the giving of the get itself but from another source - it is valid.”

When does teacher's touch constitute abuse?

NYTimes

The New York City Education Department wanted to fire Michael Dalton, a music teacher in Washington Heights, after its investigators said that he had placed three third-grade boys on his lap in what they considered an inappropriate manner. 

He had tickled them in their midsection, the city’s investigative report said. He even cradled one boy, and cooed a lullaby, before kissing him on the forehead, the report said. 

But wait, said Mr. Dalton, when he finally had a chance to defend himself.  

“The facts regarding Mr. Dalton demonstrate a clear case of disparate treatment,” the arbitrator, Bonnie Siber Weinstock, wrote in July 2010. She ruled that the tickling and kissing were inappropriate, but not sexual. Ruing the lack of clear standards on what school employees could and could not do, she rejected the city’s attempt to fire Mr. Dalton and instead fined him $2,000.

Pesach: Minhagim regarding chametz

haaretz

Books with pages spread wide open, perched on balcony railings and shedding imaginary crumbs of not-kosher-for Passover food. Shelves covered in new paper, and masses of aluminum foil on kitchen counters and the stovetop. Signs on doors warning "Do not bring in hametz" - referring to leavened products - with several exclamation marks. All of these were signs in my childhood that Passover was approaching. Above all I remember the near-hysteria that overtook the women and girls in the house, which mounted as the holiday grew nearer while they, dressed in rags, pursued to the death every stain and crumb. 

I only understood the full depth of the madness created in people's hearts by this holiday when I watched my father and the man across the way standing balcony to balcony on the morning of Passover eve to scrutinize in the sunlight the leaves of lettuce that had previously sailed in the bathtub. As part of this essential activity, the two men - whose Passover chores consisted entirely of such washing of heads of lettuce, until the hametz inspection on the morning before the holiday began - made sure there was not the slightest suspicion of worms or other sorts of vermin on the leaves that were destined to grace the seder table as bitter herbs. When the examination was concluded to their satisfaction, they took clothespins and hung the leaves out to dry on the clotheslines.

Rabbis requesting psychiatric drugs for students

Haaretz  

[Update - new article from Haaretz]

This is not a reality show. It's a true story that's been going on for years. No one denies it, neither the psychiatrists nor their patients: Psychiatric drugs are being given to ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students, men, seminary girls and married women at the request of rabbis, yeshiva "supervisors" and marriage counselors. The furor that erupted recently after a psychiatrist prescribed pills to participants on the TV reality show "Big Brother" - apparently to help the production and not the patients - convinced some Haredi patients to come forward with prescriptions and documents attesting to a far broader practice. 

Haaretz spoke to psychiatrists and others knowledgeable about psychiatric treatment in the Haredi community, and collected testimonies from half-a-dozen patients and their families. About half of them are Haredi and the others have left the community. Each told a different story, mentioning the names of senior psychiatrists, rabbis and community functionaries.

Rav Schachter's "Daas Torah" letter:Context

Guest Post: Regarding Rav Schachter's Letter posted here

Epstein's abuse of the Beis Din process, Ora's lies and Rabbi Schachter

This is more general background, particularly points 2 -6.

1. Epstein violated the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case both before and after the case went to trial in June 2009. That Beis Din did not order a get to be given. At Epstein's urging the Court ruled that the child should remain in Pennsylvania because Epstein had kept her there for so long because Friedman had agreed to cancel an earlier trial set for October 2008 in order to bring the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din. This was despite the Court's finding that “both parties are fit and proper to have physical custody of the child” and that “[Epstein] has made minimal efforts to foster the relationship between [Friedman] and his daughter. The Court further finds that [Epstein]’s indifferent approach to [the child] having a mutually awarding relationship with her father is rooted in spite and is not beneficial to the child.”

2. At Epstein's request, the Washington Beis Din later sent Friedman several hazmanos. Friedman wrote back that Epstein could not involve another beis din after she had violated the orders of the Baltimore Beis Din thereby causing Friedman severe damage. The Washington Beis Din acknowledged in September 2010 that it could not intervene in the case.

3. Before even attempting to contact Friedman, Ora plastered Friedman's mother's neighborhood with flyers harshly condemning Friedman and containing pictures of Friedman and his family. This was on a day that Epstein (and presumably Ora) knew that Friedman would be at his mother's house with the child. This was in August 2010, before any beis din finding or seruv against Friedman. This makes a mockery of Ora's claim that it tries to handle cases amicably. (Jeremy Stern:

"When ORA takes on a case, we always try to solve it amicably at first, looking deep into its facts and following the paper trail, making sure we’re hearing as many perspectives as possible" -

http://blogs.yu.edu/news/2012/04/03/unshackled/)

4. Rabbi Schachter wrote a letter attacking Friedman (see attachment) in December 2010 (which Ora publicized, but is not currently (for some reason) on Ora's website) before any beis din had called upon Friedman to give a get, or otherwise found any wrongdoing on his part. The letter (especially in light of a speech by Rabbi Schachter, previously linked to on Daas Torah, see below) was a call to violence against Friedman.

5. The Union of Orthodox Rabbis sent Friedman one letter before purporting to put him in "seruv" - a letter that it did not label a hazmana but a "hasra'ah acharona." The letter was sent about a week before a civil court trial regarding custody to hear Epstein's contempt motion against Friedman demanding that the child's time with Friedman be limited to "supervised visits." So Epstein was seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of (at least) a third beis din (after the beis din chosen by both sides, and (at least) one other beis din chosen by Epstein, refused to order a get), while at the same time demanding in civil court that the child have only "supervised visits" with Friedman. Epstein extensively complained to the court about the get issue, essentially trying to use the civil court process to force Friedman to give a get - before any finding on this matter against Friedman in any beis din.

6. The Washington Vaad later seized upon the Union of Orthodox Rabbis action to issue its own letter harshly condemning Friedman, even though the Washington Beis Din had earlier acknowledged that it could not intervene.
---------------------------------------
One of the sources Rabbi Schachter cites in the December 2010 public letter against Friedman (Rabbi Akiva Eiger) is also referenced in the audio as grounds for beating someone over a get. (It is ironic that Rabbi Eiger writes about a husband who is leaving the city of the marital residence and that immediate action was necessary before it was too late, whereas in this matter it was Epstein who left the city of marital residence with the child and abused the beis din process so that her abduction of the child would be treated as a fait accompli in court.)

In the letter, Rabbi Schachter says that Friedman's situation is the same as "a slave whose master provides for him a Canaanite maidservant, that until now it is has been permissible, and now it is forbidden." In the audio, he explains that in such a situation the slave, or Friedman, as he writes in the letter, should be beaten, and that any person can take the law into his own hands to deliver the beating.

It is also very telling that at 42:45, Schachter says that in the case of someone desiring a get, it is wrong to pressure the other spouse without the orders of a beis din - when Schachter wrote the December 2010 letter, there was no beis din that had stated Friedman had done anything wrong or that a get should be given.

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/739308/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Options_for_Helping_Agunot#

see in particular:

4:00 - beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
4:30 - beat a slave for wrongfully remaining married to maidservant, analogizing this case to the get case, and that anyone can take upon himself to take the law into their own hands to beat the person
9:10 - beat someone up over a get
10:20 - bludgeon someone to death over a get
13:33 - have right to beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
26:50 - beating for a get with a baseball bat

ORA:Promoting chilul haShem in the media

ORA Free Tamar  (Partial listing)

• Guaranteeing a 'get' (Washington Jewish Week, 4 Apr 2012)Dave Camp: You Have the Right to Fire Aharon Friedman (Huffington Post, 30 Mar 2012)
• U.S. Congressman Embroiled in Tamar Epstein Divorce Controversy (Wheaton Patch, 29 Mar 2012)
• Congressman Refuses to Meet with Rabbis Over Staffer's Get Refusal (Failed Messiah, 29 Mar 2012)
• Panel on Agunah Crisis Tonight (Washington Jewish Week, 28 Mar 2012)
• Pressure on Rep. Dave Camp to Order Staffer to Give Wife Jewish Divorce (OpposingViews, 27 Mar 2012)
• Congressman's Aide Won't Divorce Wife (Drudge Report, 27 Mar 2012)
• To Give and To Get: Why a Congressman can't order his aide to give his wife a Jewish divorce. (Midland Online, 27 Mar 2012)
• Pressure on Rep. Dave Camp to Order Staffer to Give Wife Jewish Divorce (The Volkh Conspiracy, 27 Mar 2012)
• What should be done about Aharon Friedman's Refusal to Give His Wife a Religious Divorce? (Failed Messiah, 27 Mar 2012)
• Why a Congressman can’t order his aide to give his wife a Jewish divorce (Slate, 26 Mar 2012)
• This Year at the Passover Seder, Remember to Gossip (Huffington Post, 24 Mar 2012)
• Insisting on a Jewish Prenup (Forward, 21 Mar 2012)
• Petition for Freedom (The Missing Peace, 21 Mar 2012)

Burning chametz is dangerous for children

JPost

Last year in Bnei Brak and environs, 70 children were hurt while burning the remaining leaven (hametz) from their homes. On Friday morning, when the hametz is burned in a fire before Passover begins that evening, an effort is being made to prevent such accidents there and in other locations around the country.

Among the injured children that United Hatzalah of the Dan Region treated last year was a 10-year-old boy who was hurt when burning cardboard hit his face. A group of kindergarten children were injured when an inflammable spray can was “accidentally” thrown into the bonfire and exploded.

Child slavery in India is normal

NYTimes

After a firefighter rescued her, the girl described a life akin to slavery, child welfare officials said. Her uncle had sold her to a job placement agency, which sold her to the couple, both doctors. The girl was paid nothing. She said the couple barely fed her and beat her if her work did not meet expectations. She said they used closed-circuit cameras to make certain she did not take extra food. 

In India, reported to have more child laborers than any other country in the world, child labor and trafficking are often considered symptoms of poverty: desperately poor families sell their children for work, and some end up as prostitutes or manual laborers. [...]

“There is a huge, huge demand,” said Ravi Kant, a lawyer with Shakti Vahini, a nonprofit group that combats child trafficking. “The demand is so huge that the government is tending toward regulation rather than saying our children should not work but should be in school.”

An insider explains why the internet is harmful

McDonald's claims to be kosher for Pesach!

Netziv:Jews in Egypt did not keep Torah & Mitzvos

Netziv (Bamidbar 15:41): I am the L-rd your G‑d…I am the L‑rd your G‑d. This repetition is explained in Menachos(44a) as G‑d will give punishment in the future and He will give reward in the future. However according to the plain meaning it is describing two types of circumstances for serving G‑d. When the Jews were in Egypt there were some very spiritual people who were attached to G‑d and G‑d in turn watched over them in miraculous fashion according their spiritual level. In contrast the masses prior to being redeemed from Egypt knew nothing about Torah and mitzvos. Consequently they did not have Divine providence (hashgocha protis) as individuals for their deeds until they were actually redeemed from Egypt and accepted the Torah and mitzvos. After they accepted the Torah and mitzvos the nature of providence changed so that it was a direct result of their deeds – but it was concealed. That is why there is a repetition of this phrase. Corresponding to the first “I am the L‑rd your G‑d” it indicates that providence is a reflection of the individual’s deeds since it adds that the Jews were taken out of Egypt. The second time it states “I am the L‑rd your G‑d” without mentioning the redemption from Egypt and thus it refers to the relationship that existed in Egypt itself. Thus we see that hashgocha protis is dependent on observing mitzvos and is different for those on a high spiritual level…. In Egypt the Jews had not accepted the Torah and mitzvos and in fact did not know what they were – except for the greatest of the generation who had received the traditions from the Patriarchs. But in general Torah had been forgotten from the masses and those who wanted to serve G‑d did it according to what made sense or seemed nice. In contrast when they were redeemed from Egypt G‑d gave them all Torah and mitzvos…

[A related idea is found here ]

Chazon Ish (Letters I:208): Responded to the assertion that the Jews in Egypt were on the highest level in Torah, Mitzvos, faith and piety. The assertion was based upon the medrashism which said that the righteous women went to the fields and gave birth and left their children and there were many miracles done for them…The deduction being that surely because of these righteous women and these miracles – the entire Jewish people must of have been totally devoted to G-d and his mitvos. A further foundation of this assertion was the medrash which states that the Jews were only enslaved for 86 years and that this is insufficient time to become significantly dissolute and debased. The Chazon Ish said that these deduction have no basis since they are all against what Chazal themselves say on the subject.   He concludes that the assertion that it was impossible for the Jews to become ruined since they saw miracles is not valid. In fact the Jews saw miracles when they were redeemed from Egypt and at the Sea, as well as the Manna and at the giving of the Torah – and yet they made the Golden Calf. Furthermore there were 10 miracles at the Beis HaMikdash and many miracles and wonders done by the Prophets – nevertheless this did not prevent them from having free will to serve idols. one should not interpret the early generations in such a way that it is impossible for us to comprehend and learn from them. In fact they had free will and this is the main thing in avodas HaShem.

Rav Schachter: Withholding get is serious aveira

Plight of the Agunah - video

See from 40 minutes - 50 minutes where he states that not giving a wife a get in the case of ma'os alei is a serious aveira. That there are three levels of pressure - where the gemora says a divorce is required then the husband can be beaten. In cases where gemora doesn't say to force a get - you have the procedures  of Rabbeinu Tam - which is to put in him cherem and destroy his livelihood  - but that isn't done today. The third level is to humiliate him with demonstrations etc etc. He claims the 3rd level can be used in the case of ma'os  alei -where the wife simply doesn't want to remain married to him

Response to R' Jeremy Stern's criticism

 Guest Post:

If Jeremy Stern claims [noted on this posting] that there is anything false or misleading with the summary of the case as posted on this blog, or as described in greater detail with citations at stuffandnonsensesaidalice- let him say specifically what is not true. 

From the beginning of Ora's involvement in this case, Jeremy Stern has acted in a matter best described as immature, dishonest, inflammatory, and irresponsible, seemingly designed to achieve maximum publicity for himself and Ora. Indeed, one might question whether Ora and Jeremy Stern are acting with any regard for whether Tamar actually receives a get. Ora has done everything it could to turn a very personal matter that could and should have been settled privately into a national and international news story, without any regard whatsoever for the interests of the parties' child. He acts out of his own self interest and has twisted all the facts of this case from the beginning.

He also claims he has the backing of R. Schachter - This is true on paper, but R. Schachter made it very clear Thursday night at the YU symposium that he does not look into the details and basically lets Jeremy Stern do what he wants. The day after (Friday), after reading the article by the mediator Rosenfeld, R. Schachter told a talmid of his "maybe I was all wrong in the Epstein Friedman case - maybe I should have looked into the facts, and not just relied on R. Kaminetsky doing so" So much for completely destroying a person, and THEN looking into the facts.

Please see the following email (the text of which is still at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcor/message/2429) that for some reason, is not currently on Ora's website.

How can anyone believe that Jeremy Stern and Ora have any credibility whatsoever? He states clearly (see below):

 "From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media."

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Rabbi Jeremy Stern
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Response to the New York Times
To: Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot
Reaffirming Our Values:
A Response to the New York Times
Friday, January 7th, 2011 / ב' שבט תשע"א

Dear ORA Supporter, An article in the New York Times this week has brought national attention to the Epstein-Friedman agunah case and the plight of agunot. From our perspective at ORA, advocating on behalf of agunot is an internal issue for the Jewish community, not a cause to be advocated in the national media. To that end, ORA did not solicit the article, we declined to comment to the reporter, and we turned down many requests for interviews from other major media outlets. The NYT article contains one important factual error that warrants clarification, available here. The article has provided us with an opportunity to reflect on ORA's core values. Though some non-profit advocacy groups are focused on promoting the cause, our concern at ORA is with resolving each case. With that in mind, we advocate and raise awareness according to what is most effective for the cases at hand. We work very diligently in every case to verify the facts and perspectives, under the halakhic guidance of our posek, Rav Hershel Schachter, shlit"a. Divorce is tragic and challenging under almost all circumstances, often entailing much he said/she said. However, as a matter of public policy, in order to preserve the beauty and integrity of our Torah, a get must never - under any possible circumstance - be used as leverage to negotiate the contentious issues of a divorce settlement. I want to personally thank you for supporting our efforts on behalf of Tamar and the 60 other agunot whom we currently are assisting. Please feel free to contact me via email or at our office (212-795-0791). All the best, Jeremy

Dana Melnik: It’s Not All About the Get

Guest post by Dana Melnik

The concept of a Get, a Jewish religious divorce, in today's day and age has intrigued enough people to make national headlines, such as the New York Times, but the media has lost focus of what is really important here.  The child.   I am not an expert on paper, not a psychologist, not a lawyer and I don't have any fancy degrees.   I write this as a mother and a daughter.  Withholding a Get has been used throughout history, the majority of the time, to oppress the woman in which case I support organizations, such as ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot), efforts and attempts to try and break this trend, but in the Epstein-Friedman matter this is not the case. The divorce rate today is high. It's unfortunate for the parents but even more unfortunate for the children. People fail to remember that when kids are involved, the stakes are quite high.

For the most part, growing up, my understanding of divorce was that when a mother and father split, the mother always got full custody of the kids with the father having visitation and maybe seeing the child/children every other weekend.  It seemed pretty straightforward to me.  The father wasn't as attached as the mother and he was simply able to pick up, move on and establish a new life with minimal contact with his children.  It seemed like the norm to me.  After all, I had friends and even family whose parents divorced and this seemed to be what always happened.  However, all that changed when it came to my own daughter.

I moved to Maryland from New York with my husband, for my husband actually, with our 6 week old daughter.  For whatever the reasons were, our marriage didn't work out and we began the process of separation. There was a lot going on at the beginning and of course things were tense.  They are ALWAYS tense at the beginning.  Separating and getting divorced is NEVER easy, and there were bumps in the road, but we were determined to work on a good schedule that would accommodate both of us for our daughter’s well being.  Of course, the thought crossed my mind numerous times to move close to family since I had no one here to help me out.  With a full time job and a toddler, things can get really difficult, but how was I going to move away, when she had a father who loved her so much.  How was I going to explain, when she got a little older, that I intentionally took her away from her father just to make my life a little bit easier for the short term? What goes on between husband and wife should not affect the relationship a daughter deserves to have with her father.  I can tell you from personal experience and seeing the way my daughter interacts with her father and the relationship I have with my father, that there is NO substitute for that!  The child deserves two parents, not necessarily who are together, but who realize the importance of keeping things amicable and working together to raise the child. There seem to be two main factors that come in to play when parents get divorced and children are involved. The legal aspect in the court system and 2)  The emotional aspect. Unfortunately many states and their court systems don't take the idea of co-parenting, shared custody, into account when deciding custody.  Family law has left a lot of room for interpretation on custody and what is really best for the child, allowing the Judge, in every case, to pretty much determine a child and parent’s destiny. This has become an issue which affects not only the parents in very long drawn out custody disputes but affects the child tremendously. The idea from the beginning should be to involve both parents in the child's life equally.  Ron Henry, a children’s advocacy attorney in Washington, D.C.,  has focused his efforts on trying to "demilitarize" divorce.  He works on the legal reform level to try and get laws passed which make courts start every custody case with the idea of co-parenting.  Unfortunately, every state is different when it comes to its family laws and no state is perfect in protecting the child’s right to have two actively involved parents but there has been progress. The District of Columbia, for example, has a statute that creates a presumption of joint custody that Mr. Henry helped to write.  Maryland has no such statute and judges sometimes allow one parent’s manipulation to squeeze the other parent out of the child’s life.  In the case of Aharon Friedman, Tamar, took their child to Philadelphia and the court allowed her to keep the child there, making it extremely difficult for Mr. Friedman to establish a relationship with his daughter or even a workable custody schedule (he works a full time job).  This makes no sense to me as a mother who understands that a fathers right to an equal amount of time should never be taken away from him barring egregious circumstances, which is not the case here.

The second issue here is the emotional aspect of the parents.  The consistent argument here is that this issue has inflicted emotional pain on both sides, thereby not allowing the parents to think clearly for the child and what is in the child's best interest.  To that my answer is, grow up!  If the court has limited the father’s time with the child it does not mean that the mother shouldn't see the consequences a weak relationship with the father will have on the child down the

Most mothers don't believe that I have shared custody with my child’s father.  Our child spends half the time with her father and half the time with me.  I know my child’s father is an excellent father and my daughter loves him, so why should I fight for having more time?  Because I want more child support?  Because I'm her mother so naturally she should be with me?  Is it for emotional reasons?  I can't separate from my child?  All these reasons are selfish.  Most mothers fight out of guilt.  If I don't fight for my child and have them a majority of the time, what kind of mother am I?    What kind of mother is able to be away from her child half the week and be okay with that?  Well, how about a mother who is confident the daughter is being well taken care of by her father and if she didn't have a strong relationship with both parents in her life there is the concern of what might happen down the line.  Children want love and need two parents.

Mr. Friedman is holding on to what he believes is his last hope which might allow him to establish a relationship with his daughter.  Who can blame him?   Every man is the "tough guy" until they are actually put in that situation.

"Forcing a get if there is a civil divorce is evil!"

A close friend of my was speaking with a godol in Yerushalayim yesterday and mentioned that there are rabbis who claim that once there is a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - that the wife has the right to demand a get. His reaction was that such a rabbi was a rosho and was causing others to sin.

ORA's coercing a get: Publicly Humiliate family

Fliers are regularly distributed in Brooklyn where Aharon Friedman's family lives. Don't know of any halachic justification for publicly humiliating family

One of the involved parties requested that I take off the poster

Friedman-Epstein Facts: Beis din's involvement

 [update: 4/3/12  Just had a long talk with R' Jeremy Stern of Ora regarding this post which he strongly questions the accuracy of the assertions.

To clarify issues that might be misunderstood.
First of all this is a guest post - it was not written by me.
Second Ora has an alternative scenario which can be accessed by this link
Thirdly - Rabbi Stern and I have strong disagreements on the halachic level as to the acceptability of ORA's tactics but as he says he is not a posek and just accepts that of Rav Schachter and others.]
===============================================
Epstein filed for divorce in civil court, not Friedman.  Friedman never agreed to a civil divorce; it was imposed by the court at Epstein's demand.

It is true that Friedman brought an emergency child custody motion, but that was only after Epstein had abducted the child, violated an agreement with Friedman regarding custody, severely limited the child's time with Friedman, (for example, Epstein had refused to let the child spend time with Friedman on Shabbos or Yom Tov for more than two months) and refused to negotiate or go with him to a rav to find a way to adjudicate their dispute.  Epstein's continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to the Pennsylvania court, unless Friedman filed in Maryland.  In addition, Epstein’s continuing to hold the child in Pennsylvania would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. 

What else was Friedman supposed to do if he wanted the child to spend time with him?  Get into a physical tug-of-war by grabbing the child back?  Spend months trying to get Epstein to come to a neutral Beis Din, during which time Epstein would continue to severely limit or entirely eliminate the child's time with him, and then Epstein would file in the Pennsylvania courts at which time Epstein's abduction of the child would be a fait accompli?  So Friedman asked a shai'la, and received a psak  to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that he would bring the matter to Beis Din after the emergency hearing, before any further proceedings, such as a trial, in Court. 

And the key point regarding whether Friedman tried to have custody decided in civil court or Beis Din is that Friedman agreed to cancel the October 2008 civil trial to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din only because that was required by the psak and he wanted to follow halacha.  Friedman followed the psak to cancel the trial even though it was to his own severe disadvantage as: (1) Friedman had every reason to believe that the Court would have ruled in his favor at the October 2008 trial (based on the comments of the judge at the emergency motion and the severity with which the Comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act regards the abduction of children; even Epstein's lawyer, after lying as to whether Epstein had abducted the child, acknowledged that if she had abducted the child, it would look very bad at trial); and (2) even if Friedman prevailed in Beis Din (or the Beis Din would not ultimately decide custody), he would be at risk that the Court would ultimately decide the issue at a later date (the Court may not show deference to a Beis Din decision in custody cases, even if the parties have agreed to binding arbitration), and Friedman would be severely prejudiced in such a later proceeding by the fact that the child would have been in Pennsylvania for a much longer period.

And that is what happened.  The Baltimore Beis Din held several hearings into the case.  Epstein refused to follow the Baltimore Beis Din's orders regarding dismissing the civil case.  Thus, the civil trial was held in June 2009.  Epstein asked the court to rule that the child should stay in Pennsylvania because the child had been there for so long, which was the basis for the Court's decision that the child stay in Pennsylvania.  In fact, Epstein specifically argued that the child's time in Pennsylvania should be prejudicial because Friedman had agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial (in order to bring the case to beis din).  The Baltimore Beis Din has never ruled that a get be given.

Epstein and the rabbis supporting her are making a total mockery of the beis din system. 

Rabbi Schachter told Ami Magazine: "That we can’t have a bais din system that works is an embarrassment, a shanda and a cherpa."  Rabbi Schachter's actions in this case support and encourage the very manipulation and abuse of the beis din system he purports to oppose.

For those who are interested, a detailed summary of the case is at www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com

ORA's rally to force a get

Friedman-Epstein: Tamar's "matrydom" & R' Schachter folly!

I did a bit of investigation into the case and would like to convey what I have found. Contrary to the publicity of ORA and Rav Schachter who is the adviser and supporter of ORA - the Friedman-Epstein case is a very weak case - and is not that of an actual Aguna. A real case of Aguna is one in which husband disappeared and it is not known what happened. Another real case is one in which the husband is prohibited to the wife and yet he refuses to give a divorce. The present case is simply one in which Tamar decided she didn't want to be married to Aharon - also known as a case of ma'os alei.

Tamar made no complaints of being abused by her husband - she simply wanted out of the marriage. The claim of abuse is solely a circular one. She is abused because he won't give her a divorce and she wants to be divorced because he is abusive!

Aharon was in fact ready to give a get - he had one condition. She was to live in an apartment in Silver Spring so that he would be able to have access to his daughter. He said he would pay the rent. He was only asking for her to do this for one year - after that she was free to do what she wanted. She walked away from the deal and refused to negotiate. One of the most critical facts to understand this case of chilul haShem is that Tamar has consistently refused to accept mediation. It is her way or the highway.

The above facts make clear that there is absolutely no basis in halacha to require Aharon to give a get. Rav Shachter insists that the mere fact that Tamar wants out of the marriage is sufficient basis that Aharon must give a get. There is such a view asserted by Rav Chaim Palaggi - but apparently no one accepts this view. To give approval to ORA to persecute Aharon based on this principle - is simply outrageous. In addition the involvement of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in this case is viewed as a major mistake - both politically and halachically - by those familiar with him and with the halachic issues. Rav Belsky and Rabbi Ralbag collectively represent a problematic duo when it comes to gittin - that is for a later post.

Tamar is her own worst enemy and has created a prison of her own making - with the enthusiastic assistance of ORA and Rav Schachter and the passive compliance of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.

On the other hand, what is Aharon benefiting by not giving a get? The issue of custody is not clear. There are clearly halachic views that a daughter belongs with her mother and that the father has no basis to demand custody or even regular visiting rights. A simple answer is it is a case of spitting on a person who has tried being fair and going beyond what is required - despite the personal pain. When you galvanize the press and orchestrate demonstrations against him as a "monster" - I don't know too many people who would lie down and say "please step on me again". 

In sum, Tamar could have had a get on very favorable terms from the beginning. Instead she has gotten wrapped up in being a martyr and is primarily focused on the cheers and adulation of ORA.  She is more focused on beating Aharon into submission and humiliating him - than she is on getting divorced and starting life over again. At this point it is up to Tamar whether she wants to change what she views as most important.

Allegations of major extortion operation against Chareidi world

Haaretz

"This is going to be one of the biggest extortion scandals in the history of Israel," a senior ultra-Orthodox figure told Haaretz Sunday, following the arrest of four directors of the popular Haredi website Behadrey Haredim. 

 

The four senior directors of the website were arrested Sunday morning at their homes and the website's offices in Tel Aviv, and taken for questioning in Jerusalem. 

Some of the website's employees told Haaretz they were completely taken by surprise by the arrests, but rumors circulating in Haredi circles for the past year describe a system of extortion by the website's directors against dozens of Haredi figures, some of whom are very well known. According to the rumors, the directors would approach well-known figures and demand a sum - anywhere from several thousand dollars to NIS 100,000 - in return for withholding publication of potentially damaging information. On Sunday, the police interviewed dozens of people who revealed various details about the website in past few years.

Prohibiting Archaos (Civil Courts) & Mesirah

http://www.mishpattsedek.com/KolKoreh-70Rabbis.htm

Suicide-murder after mistaken child abuse allegations

Denver Post

Photos and memories are all that the families have of Tiffany and Dave O'Shell and their daughter, Alyssa, a beautiful baby with green eyes, a mop of red hair and a great smile. At three months, child protection workers took Alyssa and handed her to a foster mother.

"I know he would never hurt her intentionally," Tiffany O'Shell told a Commerce City police investigator about her husband and his treatment of their daughter, Alyssa. "He loves her to death."

Two weeks before, on June 17, 2008, Adams County child protection workers had taken Alyssa and handed her to a foster mother. They did so after a hospital found 11 broken bones in Alyssa's 3-month-old legs, but no bruises or other signs of abuse.

Dave and Tiffany had been allowed to see their daughter just once in those two weeks. Tiffany's lawyer was advising her to divorce her husband if she ever wanted her baby back. Clouds of suspicion swirled around Dave. Police were about to arrest him, he thought, for felony child abuse. He had grown more despondent day by day.

Nobody seemed to hear the family's pleas that there must be some other explanation for all those broken bones. [...]

Suicide rather than being old & gay

NYTimes

BOB BERGERON was so relentlessly cheery that people sometimes found it off-putting. If you ran into him at the David Barton Gym on West 23rd Street, where he worked out nearly ever morning at 7, and you complained about the rain, he would smile and say you’d be better off focusing on a problem you could fix.[....]

It was a topic he knew something about. Having come out as gay in the mid-1980s, Mr. Bergeron, 49, had witnessed the worst years of the AIDS epidemic and emerged on the other side. He had also seen how few public examples there were of gay men growing older gracefully. [...]

The inference was clear. As Mr. Bergeron saw it at the end of his life, the only right side of 40 was the side that came before it.

State religious school bans fathers from school party

YNET

The struggle for the face of state-religious education continues: Fathers of girls at the Noam-Haro'e religious school in Ramat Gan claim they were not allowed to participate in a school event for their six grade daughters' Bat Mitzvah on Sunday. The reason for the ban is modesty – a halachic prohibition on men to watch women sing and dance.[...]

The father, himself a graduate of the state-religious educational system, said classes were mixed in his day. Since then, he said, a radicalization process emerged introducing norms of modesty which he described as distasteful and unprecedented. Gal noted that in some cases separation was imposed as early as pre-school years.

Noam Haro'e is one of Ramat Gan's oldest state-religious schools. However, over the years the neighborhood's religious communities have been replaced by more Orthodox families who direct the school's religious character. According to Gal, "they eliminate the wishes of the silent, sane majority.

Chinuch as tochacha for teenagers & young adults

 The mitzva of chinuch is generally understood to be from about 5 years till bar mitzva. However there is another aspect of chinuch which is giving tochacha. Both are learned from the same verse in Mishlei (22:6).

Kiddushin(30a) says, Raba said to R. Nathan b. Ammi: Whilst your hand is yet upon your son's neck,[you should get him married] which is  between sixteen and twenty-two. Others state, Between eighteen and twenty-four. This is disputed by Tannaim. Mishlei (22:6) Train up a youth in the way he should go: R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ thereon]. One maintains, [Youth means] between sixteen and twenty-two; the other affirms, Between eighteen and twenty-four.

==============================

Rashi explains, When your hand is still on your son's neck - means when you still have power and influence over your son before he gets older and doesn't listen to your admonition you should get him married. ... Another explanation is that the time while you still have influence over him take care to teach him instructions & chastise him and this time is from the age of 16 until 22. Prior to this time he doesn't have the mental ability to accept your instructions & chastisements so much. On the other hand if you try chastising  him and pressuring him with punishments after the age of 22 there is concern that he might rebel - and this main understanding of this gemora. According to his way - meaning you should teach him in his youth the path that he should follow for the rest of his life. The time for this teaching is a dispute as to whether it is between 16-22 or 18-24.

Meiri (Kiddushin 30a), A person should always focus his attention of supervising his children and to continually give instruction and correction whether they are old or young. Nevertheless the proper time to make successfully reprimand him is from the time the mind starts maturing until it is mature. That is from the age of 16 to 24. Prior to 16 he doesn't have have sufficient maturity and after 24 he doesn't really listen anymore. So this is the best time to continually convey reprimands and instructions  regarding the son.:

Gang-raped, burned & murdered - police cover-up

NYTimes

The crime was shocking enough: an 18-year-old woman gang-raped, half strangled, set on fire and left for dead. But what sent hundreds of Ukrainians into the streets and rushing to her hospital to give blood this month was a police decision to free two suspects rumored to be politically connected. 

The uproar has shaken the upper echelons of Ukraine’s government. On Thursday, three weeks after the attack, the young woman died. Viktor F. Yanukovich, the president, and Nikolai Azarov, the prime minister, were among the first to offer condolences — along with vows that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. [...]

For Ukrainians transfixed by her ordeal, she came to embody long-simmering animosities over government impotence and impunity for the privileged in this former Soviet nation. It was only after the street protests and Mr. Yanukovich’s personal intervention that the police in the small southern town of Nikolayev re-arrested the young men. On Thursday, they and a third jailed suspect were officially charged with murder.

Silence & self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up

This is too much of he says/she says- without providing enough solid evidence - but it does a good job of reviewing the major issues and shows that despite progress - there is still a long way to go.

British Guardian

When Mordechai discovered his mentally disabled child was being molested, he reported the crime to the police. A local man was arrested and charged with repeatedly raping the boy in their synagogue's ritual bath. When news of the arrest got back to their Brooklyn community, the neighbours launched a hate campaign. But the object of their anger wasn't the alleged perpetrator, Meir Dascalowitz, it was the abused boy's father. 

For the last two years, Mordechai says he's been hounded by his community. "The minute this guy got arrested I started a new life, a life of hell, terror, threat, you name it." There were bogus calls to the fire department resulting in unwelcome late night visits, anonymous death threats, banishment from synagogue, even a plot to derail his move to a new apartment. "I lost my friends. I lost my family. Nobody in Williamsburg can talk to me. Nobody means nobody. We are so angry, so broken." 

Mordechai's persecution is part of a widespread cover-up of child sexual abuse among Brooklyn's ultra-Orthodox Jews. With echoes of the Catholic priest scandal, for decades rabbis have hushed up child sex crimes and fomented a culture in which victims are further victimised and abusers protected.

Forced Get: Rav Schachter's use of public humiliation

 In order to focus more directly on the serious halachic issues I am copying a sampling of comments from a previous post   Rav Herschel Shacter: Options for Agunot. 

[PLEASE STOP THE NAME CALLING - IT ONLY CAUSES READERS TO DISCOUNT YOUR STATEMENTS]

The issues of concern here are 1) Is there is an widely accepted basis of forcing a husband to give a get through public humiliation - after she has left him and gone to secular court and refuses mediation in a case where she claims she can't stand him (mo'us alei). In particular where there is already a civil divorce and no chance of reconciliation - does a beis din have the right and duty to force him to give a get. This would exclude suggestions which are clearly labeled as potentially l'halacha  but not applicable at present l'maaseh . Explicitly saying that it is perceived as a constructive proposal that needs agreement of gedolim. 2) Is  obtaining a get in this manner  a pyrrhic victory since it is viewed as an innovation and thus many poskim hold that use of humiliation produces at least a doubtful get and thus future children would be sofek mamzerim? 3) Does refusing a summons to a particular beis din - even one that is perceived as hostile or biased -  justify the beis din encouraging a public campaign of humilation and vilification? 4) Is there an acceptable protocol for obtaining a get when the wife doesn't want to remain in the marriage.

===========================================

Rabbi Dovid EidensohnMar 26, 2012 05:27 PM

I have listened to the first section of the lecture by Rabbi Shachter about Agunoth and I think it is completely wrong. He says basically that the various pressures available to coerce a GET, beating, Beth Din commanding the husband to divorce, or passive ostracizing, are things to discuss when a husband supports his wife and they are living together but the wife wants out. However, says Rabbi Shachter, if the wife has left the husband, and surely if she has a civil divorce, we may beat the husband with sticks to force him to divorce. This is completely wrong.

The laws of a woman who spurns her husband and wants a GET are not where RS says it is, in chapter 154 but in chapter 77. There the SA does not mention forcing the husband, as the Rashbo forbids coercing the husband with MOUS OLEI. Forcing is mentioned only in chapter 154 regarding a forbidden marriage where we can use force to coerce a GET. The next category in 154 is when the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not say to force the husband. In that case, the Beth Din can tell the husband he is a sinner and people can call him a ROSHO, but no humiliation or active pressure is permitted. Ramo says that in such a case, where the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not clearly state to force the GET, we may do a passive ostracizing. The Vilna Gaon and others say this only applies with two conditions: One, that the Talmud says there must be a GET, and two, the husband can escape the ostracizing by going to a different town. It is not permitted to ostracize the husband passively in a case where the wife wants a divorce, so the ostracizing is not mentioned in chapter 77 where these laws are taught.
The Ramo permits passive ostracizing only when the Talmud comands a GET and not when the wife wants a GET. THe Shach and Chcazon Ish forbid even passive ostracizing even when the Talmud commands a GET.

Thus, Rabbi Schachter is completely wrong, and he has no support for his opinion, and whoever follows his opinion such as ORA with its public humiliation of the husband will produce children considered by normative halacha to be mamzerim.

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn Mar 29, 2012 05:52 PM

Someone challenged me here: "1) The opinions you are putting forward are not universally accepted. There are a great many Acharonim and Poskim that allow a forced get עישוי כדין." Okay. A great many Acharonim and Poskim. Tell me one.

The halacha is clear: Some men, such as he who marries a forbidden women, is coerced severely and physically. Someone the Talmud demands that he divorce his wife but does not call for coercion, is not beaten, and any coercion is a problem and machlokes, but these are rare cases. We are talking here about MOUS OLEI, and I want you to tell me one major Acharon who permits coercing a husband to divorce his wife with public humiliation when his wife leaves him.

I have been careful in this blog and elsewhere to support my comments with sources. Where are your sources? Even R Schachter has no sources, other than the need to help Agunoth and the airy opinion that all of the sources I quote are only talking about when the wife didn't leave the husband, a ridiculous statement that no normative posek would make.

===========================================

Rabbi Michael Tzadok

Some clarification:

Are you asking specifically in the Friedman-Ephraim case or in general?

Regarding the Friedman-Ephraim case:

1) There is seems to be no valid halakhic reason to compel a Get עישוי גט by any method as the case has not come before a B"D.

2) Public embarrassment however is warranted on the sole fact that Friedman refuses to appear before a B"D. I have above quoted the Sh"A on that matter, see there.

Regarding עישוי גט for a wife saying is is repulsed by her husband מאוס עלי you have two categories:

1) No extenuating circumstances There are Poskim who rule that in such a case there are ways to coerce a get עישוי גט כדין(admittedly none of which rely upon public embarrassment). They are:

a)Rabbi Moshe Feinstein Iggrot Moshe EhE 3:44, 4:106

b)Rabbi Ovadiah Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 2:8 and 6:17

2)When there are extenuation circumstances. If there is abuse, emotional, physical or sexual, or for a variety of other reasons. In such cases the B"D may ossur the wife to the husband and thus act accordingly:

a) Rav Ovadia Yosef Yabia Omer Ehe 3:18 and 3:20

b) Rav Ovadia Hedayya Yaskil Avdei Ehe 5:67 6:15(and numerous other places)

====================

Yitzy Hillel Mar 29, 2012 11:29 PM

L'kavod Harav

After a week of research on the inyan of meos aliu, I have concluded that Rabbi Shachters actions can be defended: In his shiur plight of agunah minutes 48-101 he states that humiliation today is mutar and not even the harchakos of R'tam. In his other shiur that he talks about dead marriages and using any means in those cases, he was very vague about which cases and he must have been referring to cases of coffin osu that were mefaresh in shas otherwise that statements makes absolutely no sense.)

Your teshuva stresses the Rashba, Shach and Chozen Ish as the main sources for your oppinion. I found the following on this issue.

-Rav Sternbuch (5: 344) holds that in our generation we must ignore them and hold of the harchokes of R'tam in certain cases. He chooses the Rivash's Girsa in the Rashba (against the version of the Rashba in the Beis Yosef) which takes out the word humiliation and therefore advises that one can humiliate the guy on some level. He also argues with you and says the Chazon Ish holds that a get obtained through humiliation bedieved would be a valid GET

-Rabbi Yosef in Yabea Omer 8:25 paskens in a case of mius aley that we should apply the harchakos of R'tam. The Titz Eliezer signs off on those harchakos on the bottem of the teshuva. From this teshuva we also see that they are not choshesh for the Maharshdam's shitta which Rav Sternbuch and Rav Elyashiv are choshesh for because they mention the GET issue in their harchakas.

-Based on the above, I feel it is misleading to say that the Harchakos are off limits today, as some of the Gedole Haposkim in our generation have used them.

-I found the sefer Get Meusa (on the otzar hachachma database ) by Dayan Goldberg of Tel Aviv. In this sefer he comes out that obtaining a get through humiliation is not kefia he has a long footnote with sources which I will try to send to you in the coming days.

This sefer therefore agrees with Rabbi Shachter that humiliation is not even the Harchakas of R'tam. Therefore, following the husband from town to town would be ok. Also since this isn't kefia, your lumdus about the get isn't his rotzon wouldn't apply.

-lastly Rav Sternbuch writes that many of the great rishonim (Rambam, Rif, Rashi..)hold that in these cases we can even beat the husband for refusing the get when the woman wants out. Although the Shulchan Aruch doesn't pasken like them, this is something to keep in mind.

You asked to find any source showing that humiliation is ok...I ask you are there sources that clearly show humiliating is kefia and the get would be posel bedieved? The only source that I have found that mefaresh pasuls the get is the Maharshdam, which Rav Yosef and the Tzitz Eliezer weren't choshesh for in Yabea Omer 8:25.

However, I agree that from the fact the Eretz Yisrael Rabbonim don't talk about humiliating and rallies as being an option they perhaps would hold that what Rabbi Shachter is promoting is worse than R'Tam.

Although I attempted to defend Rabbi Shachter, I feel that you are right about getting approval from others before doing drastic changes in policy in halacha especially when the potential nafka mina is mamzerus.

For all those readers who will attack me for my above defense as being pro feminist and YU, I like Rabbi Eidensohn are interested in emes and sources and not name calling and hate. So if you disagree with what I said please explain how my defense is wrong and back up your claims with sources. I will be truly grateful. I think the blog will benefit if we could all stop the hate and venom and stick to trying to discuss issues of Jewish Identity in a respectful and pleasant manner,

kul tuv,

Yitzy Hillel

IDF Givati's "proud" tradition of hazing

YNET

Chareidim happy to see Livni defeated

YNet

Many haredim sees Tzipi Livni as the driving force behind the wave of incitement against them. To them, last night's results were payment in kind.

A source within United Torah Judaism told Ynet that "it isn't gloating or hitting someone when they're down, it is sending a message with a lesson to every rookie politician who adopts a dialogue of hate against the haredi public – it isn't worth your while. It may make a great media slogan, but the public does not accept it, and yesterday, Kadima voters proved they don't either. 

Pakistani wife abuse:Throwing acid in her face

Fox News

Younus' story highlights the horrible mistreatment many women face in Pakistan's conservative, male-dominated culture and is a reminder that the country's rich and powerful often appear to operate with impunity. Younus' ex-husband, Bilal Khar, was eventually acquitted, but many believe he used his connections to escape the law's grip -- a common occurrence in Pakistan.

More than 8,500 acid attacks, forced marriages and other forms of violence against women were reported in Pakistan in 2011, according to The Aurat Foundation, a women's rights organization. Because the group relied mostly on media reports, the figure is likely an undercount.