Couple who had child after 25 years - not because of segulos

Hidabroot      This video interview presents a clear contrast to the hashkofa presented in a previous post - A tzadik is born because of a clothes line

בכיוון אחר: גבריאל ועדה מוטי

קשה להישאר אדיש מול סיפורם האישי של עדה וגבי מוטי. אחרי 25 שנים של ציפייה, המתנה, תפילות ומה לא – הגיחה לעולם בתם רחל. מה עבר עליהם עד אז?
בתכנית "בכיוון אחר" מקיים העיתונאי דודו כהן שיחות עומק עם אנשים שביצעו תפנית רוחנית בחייהם. הפעם נתוודע, כאמור, לסיפורם של גבריאל ועדה מוטי.

Timely question: Did Moshe Rabeinu have a "Deri Luluv"

Guest Post from Pinchas Shalom

I went to get ד' מינים (Luluv & Esrog) tonight. After putting a few Esrogim aside i turned to the Luluvim. The second one i picked up was a beauty. It was a tall, fresh, deep green, and fully closed "Deri". 

I said, half to myself, "Moshe Rabeinu didn't have such a Luluv!!". (I thought it not debatable).

The fellow next to me, apparently overhead. He announced a bit louder "of course Moshe Rabeini had a Lee'lev just as nice!!".

A third patron now chimed in, "you think Moshe Rabeinu had Deri  Luluvim?"

The debate ensued, with the fellow next to me making the closing statement. "Its kfirah to say Moshe Rabeinu didn't have a Deri!!".

Senior Australian rabbi apologizes for rabbinical mishandling of abuse

The Age - Australia   Australia's most senior Orthodox rabbi has apologised for years of mishandling and cover-up of child sexual abuse within the Jewish community and urged abusers to hand themselves in to police.

"For whatever reason a culture of cover-up, often couched in religious terms pervaded our thinking and actions. It may even have been well-intentioned, but it was simply wrong," said Moshe Gutnick, the president of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australia, on Wednesday.

Ahead of the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement, Rabbi Gutnick told victims no one could know their pain and what they had been through.

"And the pain has only been magnified by our inaction. On this holiest of days, I sincerely beg your forgiveness on behalf of all of us who did not hear your voice.

"I can only assure you on my behalf, and on behalf of the vast majority of the Rabbinate, that we hear you now loud and clear." [...] 

D.A. Hynes defeated as voters choose the less problematic candidate

NY Times  Kenneth P. Thompson, a former federal prosecutor, performed the rare feat of defeating a sitting district attorney by beating Brooklyn’s six-term incumbent, Charles J. Hynes, on Tuesday in the Democratic primary.

The primary followed a fierce race that often seemed more a referendum on Mr. Hynes’s lengthy record than a choice between two candidates. Though Mr. Hynes had faced serious and sometimes divided opposition before, this year’s race pitted the 78-year-old district attorney against a single well-financed candidate who rallied anti-Hynes sentiment in the borough. Mr. Thompson, 47, used a torrent of negative publicity about prosecutorial behavior in Mr. Hynes’s office to paint the incumbent as unethical and out of touch. [...]

More recently, Mr. Hynes was forced to backtrack or re-evaluate several murder convictions from the early part of his tenure, and was dogged by his handling of cases in Brooklyn’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, most of whose leaders endorsed him. 

Mr. Hynes was seen as slow to prosecute child sexual abuse allegations against ultra-Orthodox Jews because of rabbinical resistance, but stepped up abuse prosecutions in the last year, and won a significant case involving a therapist who sexually abused a young patient. 

This put Mr. Hynes, politically, in somewhat of a precarious position, as some ultra-Orthodox Jews resented the prosecutions. But one Hasidic voter, who would only give his first name, Martin, said he had chosen Mr. Hynes at the strong urging of the community’s religious leaders. “The leaders told us he’d be better for us,” he said.[...]

2 members of a sadistic polygamous Breslaver cult - convicted of severely abusing children and women

Times of Israel  [see also YNET] The Jerusalem District Court convicted the leader of a “sadistic cult” uncovered in 2011 and his accomplice Tuesday on most of the charges levied against them.

The two were convicted of various sexual offenses, holding individuals in conditions of slavery, and abusing women and dozens of children. The names of the defendants were withheld from the public out of privacy concerns.  [...]

Initially, nine members of a well-known polygamous Breslav Hasidic family were arrested, including three men and six women, but only the three men were indicted. The children were placed with foster families.[...]

The leader of the cult was indicted on 15 counts, including slavery, physical, sexual and emotional abuse of minors — including some of his own biological children — unlawful imprisonment, indecent sexual acts, sodomy, rape, serious violent crimes and indecent assault, according to the indictment.

The accomplice, also charged with committing numerous violent sex crimes under the leader’s orders, was the one who most often committed the abuses and was known by the nicknames of “Satan” and “Evil Inclination” by the victims. The third man was only accused in one incident of physical and sexual abuse and was not convicted on Tuesday. [...]

Rav Kafach: Israeli monetary law determines halacha

The following excerpt is taken from Justice Elon's Mishpat Ivri (volume IV pages 1761-1762). It asserts an interesting rationale why secular Israeli law regarding money can be binding according to the halacha. This is important especially on the issue of divorce settlements where halacha and secular law greatly diverge.

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

A particularly instructive approach to the relationship between Israeli statutory law and Jewish law is taken by Rabbi Yosef Kafah. a member of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals and a major halakhic authority in the State of Israel. Rabbi Kafah's position is expressed in the leading case of discussed further below. In commenting on statements made by the district court as to the nature of statutory provisions expressly made applicable to the rabbinical courts as well as the general courts, he said:

It would seem that these statements concerning "laws explicitly directed to them [the rabbinical courts]" are based on a perception that the Legislature has acted to require the rabbinical courts to reach decisions that are contrary to their religious beliefs. Indeed, many people share this perception, but their logic begs the question. They assume the premise that these laws require the rabbinical courts to reach decisions that are contrary to the laws of the Torah, and on the basis of that premise they conclude that the law "violates pure halakhic considerations." But this conclusion is not inevitable; rather, the law should be viewed according to its plain meaning.

Section 1 of the Woman's Equal Rights Law provides: "The same law shall apply to women and men with regard to every legal transaction." Section 5 provides: "This law shall not affect the religious law in matters of marriage and divorce.26

The plain meaning of these provisions is that the Legislature established a binding rule only with respect to monetary matters, in regard to which it perceived the existing law as discriminating against women .... The legisla­ tive mandate is manifestly based on the assumption that legislation as to monetary matters would not affect religious law, since the legislation is con­ sidered "a stipulation as to a monetary matter"; therefore, it is not a [prohibited] stipulation to contract out of a Biblical norm. Consequently, it may be assumed that the Legislature had no intention to interfere with anything that is not "a stipulation as to a monetary matter." This is an instance of an ap­ proach that can lead to a proper understanding of a number of statutes that have not been so understood.27

In other words, just as under Jewish law there is freedom of contract, i. e., the parties to a legal transaction may agree on terms contrary to a particular halakhic rule, provided the agreement concerns a "monetary matter" (mamon) and not religious law (issur) ,28 so a statute of the Knesset, enacted in the name of the people by their elected representatives, is in the nature of an agreement by the people to conduct their affairs in accordance with the legislative provisions. As long as the matter does not concern religious law, such an agreement is fully effective even if it is contrary to a particular halakhic rule." This interpretive approach by Rabbi Kafah. which is particularly significant in that it is taken by a leading rabbinical court judge and important halakhic authority, is applicable not only to the particular question dealt with in the Nagar case but also, as explained more fully below ,to the broader question of the relationship between the rabbinical courts and the general legal system of the State of Israel.30

Most Israeli female medical personel are sexually harrassed

Times of Israel    Most of Israel’s female medical personnel have been sexually harassed at one point or other during their career, a study showed.

The research, to be formally released at a conference Tuesday, found that 69 percent of female doctors have been victims of such behavior, as were 62% of female nurses, according to a report in the Maariv newspaper. The bulk of the unwanted attention came from patients, the survey said.[...]

Participants were also asked how frequently they felt harassed. While they were given the option to report harassment on a daily basis, Kagan noted that most of them reported such incidents happened either once a month or once a year. Age was a factor, as the younger nurses and doctors reported harassment at a more frequent pace. [...]

Kolko case: Lakewood avreichim protest the disgusting treatment of victim's family

Just received this Lakewood pamphlet. I do not know who wrote it but it is now circulating Lakewood. It is good to see that there are those in Lakewood who get outraged by blatant injustice and chilul HaShem.    It provides a halachic defense of the victim's father actions and shows that he was not a moser. It severely criticizes those who drove him out of Lakewood.

Click for English Translation

 קונטרס והצדיקו את הצדיק Kolko case Defense of victim's family
  

Woman who testified against Weberman driven out of shul Rosh HaShanna

NY Post    The brave Orthodox Jewish teen whose testimony helped convict the prominent Brooklyn counselor who had sexually abused her was driven out of her own synagogue on Rosh Hashana last week.

The married, 18-year-old victim was in the Williamsburg synagogue where her family has prayed for the past decade when a man yelled, “Moser, out of the shul!” the woman’s husband told The Post on Sunday.

The word “moser” refers to a Jew who informs on another Jew to secular authorities.

“They stopped the praying until she left,” said her husband, Boorey Deutsch, 26. “Some woman tried telling my wife to stay there and not leave. She shouldn’t care what they say. But my wife ended up leaving.” 

“She felt horrible and mistreated. They treat survivors as if they are the abusers,” Deutsch fumed to The Post.

Deutsch and his wife have suffered harassment ever since she first accused Nechemya Weberman, 54, of sexually abusing her after she was sent to him for counseling as a 12-year-old. [...]

YU Abuse Report: Prof Marci Hamilton gives it failing grade

Verdict Justia    After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day.

Before launching into my analysis of this disappointing report, I should clarify my own role in the report, given that this is one of my key areas of expertise and given that I am a law professor at Yeshiva’s law school.  Here is the summary of my involvement: I met once with YU Administrators, at my request, to urge them to do the right thing.  And I spoke with Ms. Seymour twice to urge her team to do the right thing.  My advice was not sought otherwise, and I saw the report first in the press.  In my view, they did not do the right thing.

The YU Report Is Not a “Report”

The YU Report is, in fact, a policy statement.  First, it spends seven pages describing what the Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys did.  Fair enough.

Second, it provides a four-paragraph (that is not a misprint) summary of “Findings.”  Readers are told that “multiple incidents of varying types of sexual and physical abuse took place at YUHSB [and at other schools comprising the University] during the relevant time period. . . including, in some instances, after members of the administration had been made aware of such conduct.”  This is little more than a continuation of the cover-up that apparently already occurred.

Third and finally, the rest of the document describes YU policies and how they should be improved.  Appended to the document is another report and analysis of its policies produced by T&M Protection Resources.

YU reportedly spent millions paying Sullivan and T&M to produce a “Report” that anyone with knowledge of child-protection policies could have written after receiving YU’s policies and reading the Forward stories.  I do not intend to denigrate Sullivan’s work or the work of T&M.  Future policies and analysis of past policies are valuable fodder for such endeavors, but I would not have permitted my name to be on such a deficient and embarrassing document.  A document that was truly a “Report” would have included an actual report of the facts that prompted the need to review those policies. [...]

Finally, and most troubling to me, is that this document is an affront to survivors everywhere.  I have never read a document of this genre with less verbiage speaking directly to the survivors.  It is, in a word, cold.  YU needs to figure out how to become more child-centered in its approach to abuse, or it will be fighting these battles for decades to come.

After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/05/sullivan-cromwell-and-yeshiva-university-issue-a-disappointing-report-on-child-sex-abuse-that-is-short-on-facts-and-long-on-public-relations#sthash.aMv0STHi.dpuf

After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/05/sullivan-cromwell-and-yeshiva-university-issue-a-disappointing-report-on-child-sex-abuse-that-is-short-on-facts-and-long-on-public-relations#sthash.aMv0STHi.dpuf

After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/05/sullivan-cromwell-and-yeshiva-university-issue-a-disappointing-report-on-child-sex-abuse-that-is-short-on-facts-and-long-on-public-relations#sthash.aMv0STHi.dpuf

After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/05/sullivan-cromwell-and-yeshiva-university-issue-a-disappointing-report-on-child-sex-abuse-that-is-short-on-facts-and-long-on-public-relations#sthash.aMv0STHi.dpuf

After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/05/sullivan-cromwell-and-yeshiva-university-issue-a-disappointing-report-on-child-sex-abuse-that-is-short-on-facts-and-long-on-public-relations#sthash.aMv0STHi.dpuf

After many months, and many media stories about child sex abuse at the Yeshiva University High School (“YUHS”) in The Jewish Daily Forward, Yeshiva University released the “independent investigation” of child abuse that was led by Karen Patton Seymour, Co-Managing Partner of the litigation department of the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.  The report was issued on August 26, in the doldrums of the summer, the week before Labor Day. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/05/sullivan-cromwell-and-yeshiva-university-issue-a-disappointing-report-on-child-sex-abuse-that-is-short-on-facts-and-long-on-public-relations#sthash.aMv0STHi.dpuf

Breaking News: Kolko wants to withdraw guilty plea

Asbury Park Press    The lawyer representing a former yeshiva camp counselor in a Lakewood sexual abuse case wants to have his client’s guilty plea nullified, claiming the defendant was pressured by the community into admitting guilt in the case.

Alan L. Zegas, a Chatham attorney representing Yosef Kolko, filed a motion to withdraw his client’s guilty plea.

Kolko, 39, of Geffen Drive in Lakewood, had been scheduled to be sentenced in the child sex-abuse case on Wednesday, but Zegas’ motion prompted its postponement.[...]

Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson gave Zegas until Sept. 30 to file a brief outlining the reasons why he should consider allowing the guilty plea to be withdrawn.

Hodgson scheduled a hearing on the motion for Oct. 17. If Zegas doesn’t convince the judge to allow his client to withdraw his guilty plea, Hodgson will proceed to sentence Kolko that day, according to court officials. [...]

Rambam - sexual sins are a serious problem in all ages & all societies

In a recent discussion with Rav Nosson Kaminetsky, he showed me a very important observation of the Rambam that is relevant to many of our discussions. 

Rambam(Issurei Biah 22:19), ... You will never find a society in any era that did not have a serious problem with sexual sins and transgressions

 Not only are there problems in decadent societies  but also in the frumest society with the strictest community decrees - sexual issues such as adultery, homosexuality, child abuse are a significant problem. As a number of commentaries have pointed out, to the degree that one tries to restrict individuals in a society - to that degree the yetzer harah increases. On the other hand  if you loosen restrictions and have a weaker yetzer harah and habituation to temptation - but the ready access compensates and you still have problems. We still retain our free-will and opportunity for sin.
===========================
Update Sept 7 2013

Levush (O. C. Minhagim #36): It says in Sefer Chassidim (#393), “Where men and women can see each other such as at a wedding meal - one should not say the beracha of shehasimcha bemo’ono. That is beause that there is no joy before G‑d when there sexual thoughts.” However we are not careful to observe this ruling possibly because in contemporary society it is normal for women to be frequently found together with men. As a consequence of this reality, sinful thoughts when seeing women are not so prevalent [as when the sexes were kept separate] because they are viewed neutrally as one would view geese due to the constant habituation. Therefore since it has become normal to violate this concern – it is ignored

Sukka(52a): Abaye explained that the yetzer harah is stronger against sages than anyone else. For example when Abaye heard a certain man say to a woman, “Let us arise and go on our way.” Abaye said that he would follow them in order to keep them from sin and so he followed after them for three pasarangs across a meadow. However they simply parted from each other and he heard them say, “The way is long and the company is pleasant.” Abaye said, “If I were in that situation I could not have withstood temptation.” He went and leaned against a doorpost in deep anguish. An old man came to him and taught him: To the degree that a person is greater than others; to that degree his yetzer (evil inclination) is greater than theirs.

Avnei Milium(Introduction):… Our Sages say that whoever is greater his yetzer is greater. That is because there is no comparison of one who has bread in his basket to one who doesn’t. When the spirit is closed in, it makes a greater effort to break through the restrictions and escape. Therefore one who holds to the path of Torah without letting his lust to express itself – does not have bread in his basket because it is highly unlikely for him to do a really disgusting sin. Therefore his yetzer harah becomes stronger and the power of his lust which is being restrained is aroused to escape the restraints and act. It is different with a person who is not a tzadik since his yetzer harah has bread in its basket. Meaning the yetzer harah has the ability to influence through lust. Since the yetzer harah is not locked in, it doesn’t make efforts to go out. This is what Tosfos (Kiddushin 31a) concerning that the one who is commanded has a greater yetzer. That is the one who is not commanded to do the mitzva has bread in his basket because if he wants he can ignore the mitzva. However it is known that one who gets habituated to constant pleasure that it is no longer pleasing to have the same thing everyday. Therefore the power of lust and its strategies change everyday as is known that the way of drunkards is to search new ways to get pleasure…


Alshech (Vayikra 19:1-2): People have a yetzer harah. To the degree which they control it and sanctify themselves it increases in power. This is expressed by our Sages in (Sukka 52a): “Whoever is greater his yetzer is greater.” Therefore someone who is becoming spiritually great G‑d adds to his holiness  - at first “ruach”. Later as he becomes even greater and his yetzer harah becomes stronger, he is given soul to help him…

Place of Karaites in Modern Israel

NY Times  [...] That means that while most Israelis began celebrating Rosh Hashana at sundown on Wednesday, Karaite Jews are not set to start the Jewish New Year until Saturday — another example of the challenge this ancient sect has in holding on to its traditions in a state where Judaism is dominated by the Orthodox. 

For the Karaites, who split from rabbinical Judaism more than 1,000 years ago, being a couple of days out of sync is a mark of otherness. While most Israelis know little about them, other than to say that they pray “like Muslims,” the Karaites say that the Orthodox authorities — their centuries-old nemesis — have tried to wear them down in an effort to subsume them into the rabbinical mainstream. 

But a new generation of Karaite leaders has taken up the struggle to anchor their place in modern Israel.[...]

Generally, though, the community is estimated at 30,000 to 50,000, out of Israel’s population of eight million. There are also smaller communities in the United States, Turkey and Europe. Most came to Israel from Egypt in three waves starting in 1948, when the state was founded, and 1970. Many live in Ramla or the Mediterranean port city of Ashdod. Others are in smaller concentrations around the country.[...]

Divorce simply because you don't like your spouse - is very recent

Some of the comments dealing with marriage and divorce indicate that it is really primitive and disgusting that a person simply can't leave a marriage because they want to.Whether it is because they fell in love with someone else or because they find their present spouse boring or maybe even embarrassing. That there must be something seriously wrong with halacha because it doesn't acknowledge that the individual is the most important concern - and not the stablity of marriage, society or family. The following is from the Cambridge Brief History of Divorce which indicates these ideas reflect societies views only in the last 30 years. While it is specifically about England - it reflects changes that were happening in the Western World.

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

[...] Way back in the days of yore, when the church was more powerful than the monarch, marriage was a church institution and so divorce was also the preserve of the church. Marriage was for life and divorce exceedingly rare, although the church would occasionally grant a divorce “a mensa et thoro” which enabled people to live apart if there had been significant cruelty, but not to remarry. (Henry VIII, of course, did whatever he wanted.) In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it was possible to get a divorce granted by Act of Parliament, but such an option was only open to the rich. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 was the first divorce law of general application.

The 1857 Act introduced divorce through the court. Men were able to “petition the court” for a divorce on the basis of their wife’s adultery, which would have to be proved, as would the absence of any collusion or condonation of that adultery. Women who wanted to divorce their husbands needed also to prove an aggravating factor of the adultery, such as rape or incest. The High Court in London was the only place to get your divorce, and proceedings were held in open court, enabling society to be scandalised by the personal details revealed during the process.

The huge social changes in England during and following the First World War, particularly for the role of women in society, led to divorce law reform as it did to reforms in other areas. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1923 put men and women on an equal footing for the first time, enabling either spouse to petition the court for a divorce on the basis of their spouse’s adultery. The requirement to prove the deed and the absence of collusion remained, as did the procedural requirements. In 1937 another Matrimonial Causes Act introduced three more options for unhappy spouses to take to court, and so it became possible to divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and incurable insanity as well as adultery. These were termed “matrimonial offences”. As before, each allegation needed to be proved by the petitioner’s oral evidence. At this stage, parliament also introduced a bar to divorcing in the first three years of marriage.

The Second World War brought about another period of great social change, and a start to the modern era of life as we know it now. Marriages broke down under the strain of war, or its after-effects, in numbers never before experienced and at all levels of society. The church and the government became increasingly concerned that the divorce laws were no longer fit for purpose – unhappy couples would arrange for one spouse to book into a hotel at the seaside for a weekend to commit the adultery necessary for them to divorce. A Royal Commission in the 1950s could not decide the best way forward, and in the mid-1960’s the Archbishop of Canterbury took up the baton. His office prepared a report demanding reform of the law to ensure that people could obtain a divorce if they could show the breakdown of their marriage, and the government set the Law Commission to research the most appropriate way to modernise the divorce laws. This process gestated the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which although now consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 still contains the divorce law we are subject to today.

Like a great deal of social policy legislation, the Divorce Reform Act 1969 was a compromise. It enabled either party to seek a divorce on the basis of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, as the Archbishop wanted in the 1960s, but requires that the breakdown be proved by evidence of one of five “facts”: adultery, behaviour, desertion, or separation for 2 years and the other party’s consent to a divorce or separation for five years. You can see that although this Act removed the concept of a matrimonial offence, the old 1937 grounds of cruelty (now termed “unreasonable behaviour”) and desertion in essence remained. However, the big advance in 1969 was that there is no “fault” as such involved in petitions based on 2 or 5 years’ separation. Procedurally there were also changes: it was possible for the first time to get a divorce through the local county court rather than coming to the High Court in London. During the 1970s, courts developed the “special procedure” of divorce-on-paper that still represents the way things are done in the vast majority of divorces.