Monday, May 7, 2012

"Immorality, liberality leads to murders": Chief Rabbi

YNet     Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar said that the recent wave of murders is the result of lax education and promiscuity. "A person who is allowed (to do) anything doesn't respect boundaries," the rabbi told Ynet.

"And so we've reached a situation in which young people – who aren't bad or criminals – murder someone who criticizes them; (a situation) in which women murder, children kill their parents and parents kill their children. I've heard about it and I'm frightened." 

Amar said that there is a "terrible crisis in the education of the (young) generation," mainly a lack of boundaries. "Today, people think that anyone who wants to maintain minimal modesty is primitive and belongs to a different generation. Things that were condemned by every other generation, considered abhorrent by the Torah, have become legitimate."

Abuse: More time for Justice

NYTimes Hawaii significantly strengthened its protections against child sexual abuse last month when Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a measure extending the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits filed by child victims. At least as important, it opens a one-time two-year window to allow victims to file suits against their abusers even if the time limit had expired under the old law. 

Like similar laws in California and Delaware, the Hawaii measure recognizes some wrenching realities. It can take many years, even decades, before child abuse victims are emotionally ready to come forward and tell their stories in court. But by then, they may be barred from suing by the statute of limitations. For example, many suits against the Catholic Church have been blocked because the church’s covering up for pedophile priests made it hard for victims to come forward until long past the time limit for bringing civil claims. 

Hawaii’s new law allows child victims to bring suits up to the age of 26 (it was 20), or three years from the time the victim realizes the abuse caused injury. The law’s leading opponent was the Roman Catholic Church, which has been working hard to defeat statute of limitations reform across the country.

Lag B'Omer is dangerous!

As Lag Ba’omer approaches, a released survey states that nearly 25 percent of parents disregard their children’s safety by not supervising dangerous bonfires.  [...]

Beterem, the National Center for Child Safety and Health, said that most people understand where to initiate bonfires – in an open area without telephone and electricity wires, trees, traffic and combustible products. But many parents are unaware and fail to prevent young children from approaching the bonfire, especially in windy weather.

ORA - "beis din should give authorization"

guest post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern admits (at 58:00) that public pressure on a husband for not giving a get is inappropriate halachically absent a ruling from a beis din that a get be given.  Nonetheless, Ora was publicly demonstrating against Friedman and his family for over a year before any beis din had called on him to give a get.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEi4SXT_fCA

ORA: 1 Million dollars vs 1 child

Guest Post: Rabbi Jeremy Stern acknowledges that if a wife steals a million dollars from the husband and runs away, "she acted completely inappropriately."  He also acknowledges that in such a case the husband is not required give a get absent the husband having a "fair day in court."  [starting at 58:47]

Apparently,for Rabbi Stern (and presumably Ora's rabbinical advisers such as Rabbi Schachter) one million dollars are far more important than a mere child.  Tamar Epstein abducted the child she had with Aharon Friedman, but instead of labeling Epstein's abduction of the child as completely inappropriate, Rabbi Stern calls Epstein's actions kedas ukedin.  And while Rabbi Stern acknowledges that a wife's stealing a million dollars from a husband is (absent the "husband's having a fair day in court") grounds for not giving a get, Rabbi Stern maintains that Epstein's abduction of the child is not grounds for withholding a get.

And if the husband were to agree to postpone adjudication in civil court to bring the matter to BD, but then the wife were to violate the BD's orders so that the case is heard by the civil court at a much later date, and the court were to rule (at the wife's request) that the wife can keep the money or the child because the husband had waived his right to recover the money or the child as a result of delaying the court trial in order to have the matter decided in Beis Din, the husband would hardly have had a "fair day in court."



Sunday, May 6, 2012

Ma'us alei: Husband disgusting/wife sensitive?

We have been discussing the issue of what to do when the wife declares ma'us alei to beis din primarily as to whether the husband is forced in some to give a divorce. Rambam(Ishus 14:8) says she can not be forced to live with him because she is not a captive who can be forced to be with someone she hates.   We have this teshuva of  Rav Ovadiya Yosef which indicates we have to see that she really views him as disgusting or repellant and not that she is interested in another man.There are clearly cases such as a wife beater or psychopath where there is no need to explain ma'us since any intelligent adult would also find him disgusting.

 But what if we see that the husband is not terrible - but she says she can't stand him. Do we insist that she has to put up with her dislike of her husband for the sake of the family? Or does ma'us alei simply mean - he is not my cup of tea and I want out. What is she could deal with him - if she was on psychiatric medication - does she need to take medication to preserve the marriage? What if he is not frum enough and it grates on her nerves how insensitive he is to Torah - is that considered ma'us alei. What if he is too frum and is machmir on everything - she can't stand it - is that ma'us alei.

In sum, does ma'us alei mean merely she personally can't stand him or does it mean that objectively this person has to be disgusting? Does she have to work on herself not to find him disgusting?

Haredi institutions implicated in massive financial scheme


The Jerusalem Police raided several ultra-Orthodox institutions Sunday as part of an elaborate fraud investigation. Five people were arrested.

Police believe that the suspects are involved in a massive student registration scheme, meant to defraud the state out of millions of shekels.

New Chareidim: Working is a reality


A small but significant segment of the haredi population is beginning to emerge, whose socioeconomic status could be defined as middle class, says a new study from the Israel Democracy Institute.

Although specific numbers are not yet available, the report, which was presented on Wednesday at the organization’s headquarters in Jerusalem, identified several defining characteristics of a nascent ultra-Orthodox middle class that sets them apart from other members of their community and which represent a new haredi sector that aspires to a more varied lifestyle. [...]

“But they also work hard to live in both worlds without losing their original identity. They want to maintain their culture and identity as members of the ultra-Orthodox community, but they are also inclined to go to the theater, read non-haredi newspapers, as well as the haredi ones, and be exposed to a greater extent to wider Israeli society,” he said.

New Chareidim:Mishpacha vs. Yated

.kikarhashabat

ערב הבחירות, ניטשת מלחמה של ממש בין שני עיתונים מרכזיים בציבור החרדי: משפחה ויתד נאמן. הרקע לכך, הפעם: החרדים העובדים. אחרי טור נוקב שפורסם אמש במשפחה נגד "יתד נאמן", באה התשובה החריפה מעל דפי הגיליון - מאמר של חברי-הכנסת גפני ומקלב. איך זה ייגמר? סיקור מיוחד (בכיכר)

Wife jailed for refusing get

.
A woman who has refused for 16 years to grant her husband a divorce was put behind bars last week - the first time a woman has been arrested in such a case.The 60-year-old woman, a teacher, has appealed to the Supreme Court, whose president, Asher Grunis, will decide today whether to keep her under arrest. 

If Grunis does not rule in her favor, she will remain behind bars until the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court hears her case in July. She can then file a petition over whether the rabbinical court has the right to imprison her.In 2001, the rabbinical court ruled that the couple's property be divided, but the woman did not accept. She said she deserved a much greater portion of her husband's wealth.

Rav Schachter's occasional misspeaking

Jewish Week  Understanding the non-significance of Rav Schachter's baseball bat comment

Some Orthodox Jews were wondering this week what it would take for Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a prominent rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University’s rabbinical school, to be relieved of his duties for making offensive statements — the latest of which has proved to be the most shocking of all.

At the same time defenders of the rabbi were questioning when the community would come to recognize the stature of the Talmudic scholar they revere and show more respect toward him.

The divide is not a new one in a Modern Orthodox community whose young men and women tend to show more obedience toward rabbinic sages and leaders than their parents do. And Rabbi Schachter has a history of making politically incorrect statements — but none as seemingly egregious as the one made last week to a group of students in Israel in which he appeared to advocate shooting the prime minister of Israel if the government “gives away Jerusalem.” [...]

R Bechhofer's pshat in Rambam - critique

To review briefly, I posted the following assertion by James.
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
I disagreed and responded : 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!

I also posted two sources which I claim indicate that forcing by unauthorized individuals makes it a get me’usa.

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.
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.
============================
Batmelech commented
So what happens if his mother, or worse: mother in law, insists he give a get???This would be a forced get in any case, because nothing is more fearsome than an angry mother, or worse, mother in law!!!
================
You can taunt James all you like, but he is absolutely correct. This is medukdak in the Rambam, but you missed the diyuk because you inaccurately translated hedyotos as laymen - implying it is a separate category from a BD that was in error. The Rambam is saying that a get compelled by an erroneous BD or a BD of simpletons is invalid. V'duk.
"Batmelech" also cut through to the heart of the matter:
Rabbi Bechhofer’s criticism of my position continued on his blog  

Yitzy Hillel asked Rabbi Bechhofer:
So what does Rav Sternbuch mean (5:344) that woman hiring thugs to beat men to give GETS is a Get Batul and causes Mamzurs. I am not talking about a fight between the husband and wife or family members, I just want clarify your statement that any actions that are not sanctioned by a beis din can never be Kefia?
Binyamin asked Rabbi Bechhofer
    The Rambam is in gerushin 2:20     "If the halacha does not require that he divorce her and the beis din erred, or if they were hedyotos, and they pressured him until he divorced, the get is posul" i.e. koshjer midioraisa and posul midirbanan. He does not say anywhere that if individuals pressured him the get is kosher. The Lechem Mishna explicitly says that if individuals pressure him where he is not required to give a get the get is posul midoraisa, same as if a non-Jewish court forced him to give a get.
Rabbi Bechhofer answered:
1) The Rambam doesn't have to say that if individuals pressured him the get is kosher. Any get that is not specified as batel or pasul is a priori kosher! The Lechem Mishne is very veit from pshat in the Rambam, u'devarav tzrichin iyun. All this, however, is lomdus. I believe my pshat in the Rambam, is emes, and any lamdan will be modeh al ha'emes.
2) But even if you don't, the logic which - despite your scoffing elsewhere - is represented by Batmelech's phrasing holds true. And that is why even according to the Mechaber, who does not pasken like the Rambam and holds me'useh al yedei a private citizen is me'useh, any pressure that does not entail: a) violence; b)direct financial penalties; c) niddui - does not create a state of me'useh. This is the yesod of Harchaka d'R"T. And that is why mei'ikar ha'din we do not need a BD to impose the harchokos. For, if a BD was essential to the process, Harchokas RT would be a form of Kefi'ah, and RT could not have sanctioned its use in cases in which he himself rules that ein kofin. Al karchach, the imposition of harchokos is not a Ma'aseh BD. What BD statement that the Harchokos are appropriate does is merely to verify that the activation of harchokos in this or that case is appropriate, and not creating undue nuisance for someone who does not deserve it.To turn the tables, your position is unsustainable. L'shitas'cha u'l'shittas haEidensohns, if I as a solitary individual would constantly go and harass someone until he gave a get, the get would be me'useh. If a Rav called a husband too late at night and that caused the husband to give a get, that would also be me'useh. If a very prestigious Rav called on the husband to give a get, and he felt he could not say no to such a distinguished personage, it would also be me'useh. Absurd, of course.

My Response:
Rabbi Bechhofer makes two points – the second assertion is that anyone who uses the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam – even without authorizing can not create a get me’usa. That is because the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam are  not considered force. It is an interesting point. But it is not clear that it is true. We see clearly from the fact that Rabbeinu Tam was not utilized for centuries because major poskim thought that it might create a get me’usa and that we see from contemporary poskim like Rav Sternbuch that they have a great reluctance to use them. I don’t think that Rabbi Bechhofer's assertion is obviously correct. The fact that Rav Ovadia Yosef says that beis din can authorize them at times - because of the needs of modern society – indicates he doesn’t think that they should be used indiscriminately. According to Rav Bechhofer – why the hesitation amongst great poskim? Why do so many prohibit the use of them? But Rabbi Bechhofer goes even further by saying that – even if beis din did not authorize Rabbeinu Tam – any and all harrasment would be permitted as long as it was not physical violence, monetary pressure or niddoi.
But even if Rabbi Bechhofer is correct that harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam do not require a beis din to authorize their use and can not create get me’usa - the question is and was whether ORA’s public demonstration or the screaming of neighbors or mother‑in‑laws are included in Rabbeinu Tam.
However Rabbi Bechhofer’s first assertion is totally absurd. He claimed that according to the Rambam - only a beis din is restricted to apply pressure according to the law. In contrast he claims that a layman who is not part of a beis din can apply any type of pressure and the get is still kosher. This “chidush” is explicity rejected by Rav Sternbuch, Chazon Ish, Lechem Mishna and I could not find a single source that explictly agreed with Rabbi Bechhofer “chidush”. Rabbi Bechhofer rejected the Lechem Mishna by saying, “The Lechem Mishne is very veit from pshat in the Rambam, u'devarav tzrichin iyun. He notes, “All this, however, is lomdus. I believe my pshat in the Rambam, is emes, and any lamdan will be modeh al ha'emes”.
This would mean that according to the Rambam any type of vigilante justice can not create a get me’usa – but only incorrect pressure applied by a beis din. Please find anyone – lamdan or otherwise - who agrees. It also does violence to the source of the Rambam – Gittin (88b) where only beis din can authorize pressure – any non-authorized pressure invalidates the get.

[[update May 14, 2012]]

I wrote: Rabbi Bechhofer, Please clarify your view. You noted that Rambam(Hilchos Gerushin 2:20) says that a beis din that errs or a beis din of hedyotos that force a get shelo kadin - the get is posul derabbonin. You made the diyuk that therefore if it is not beis din but individuals who force a get shelo kadin it is kosher. Obviously the Rambam was not referring to passive social withdrawal since that is not considered to be kefiya according to the poskim. It can only be dealing with issues such as financial or physical forces - and yet you said from the diyuk that vigilante justice can't posul the get.

Now you are stating that vigilante justice can in fact produce a get me'usa? So what is your true position?
Rabbi Bechhofer commented:"Three types of vigilante justice do produce get me'useh. These are specified by the Poskim: Violence, monetary sanctions and niddui. There is no precedent to ban any other form of persuasion, and the Harchokos in fact encourage other forms of persuasion. No one here has brought any definitive legitimate proof that demonstrations, petitions, and ostracism create a situation of get me'useh."
You can't have it both ways. The above statement contradicts the diyuk you made from the Rambam. If you always intended the above then you don't need a diyuk in the Rambam to permit someone not to speak to another person. However the case of the mother in law who yells at her son in law to give a get or the case of the father in law who takes his son in laws money to force him to give a get - you said were valid pressure when not done through beis din. You rejected the Lechem Mishna that rejected your diyuk.

Reply of Rabbi Bechhofer:

It is not a retraction. I believe that my pshat in the Rambam is emes. Nevertheless, since it is clear that many Gedolei HaPoskim either do not accept my pshat, or do not rule like the Rambam, I go on to clarify that my position stands independently of the Rambam, the distinction being that according to the Rambam any form of persuasion not initiated by BD would be valid, while the consensus of the Poskim (which I, of course, accept) is to exclude three forms of persuasion as kinds of Kefi'ah no matter how they are initiated. I believe this is pashut k'bei'ah b'kutcha.