Friday, April 27, 2012

Mecho'oh continued

I heard this story in Sha'alvim many years ago. This is how it appears - in all places! - at
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DivorceRequiresDeath


In traditional Jewish Law (not to be confused with contemporary Israel), a woman cannot divorce her husband. Thus it occasionally arises that a man will refuse to give his wife a divorce, often in attempt to extort money out of her, and many legal devices are used in an attempt to pressure this recalcitrant husband into granting his wife a divorce. The story is said of Jewish Sage Rabbi Akiva Eiger, that such a man was brought before him once, with the hope that Rabbi Eiger would convince him to divorce his wife. Rabbi Eiger brings him into his study, and opens a volume of the Talmud to its first page. He turns to the man, looks him in the eye, and says, "The Talmud says here that a woman is freed from her husband in one of two ways. Through divorce, and through the husband's death. Which one would you prefer?" The man looks at Rabbi Eiger, laughs and says, "What, are you trying to threaten me?". He walks out of the study, walks out the front door, and collapses dead of a heart attack on the front steps.


It seems to me evident that Rabbis Eidensohn and Gestetner would have passeled the get - had the man had more emunas chachamim and acquiesed - as a get me'useh.


For a more traditional source, see the Talelei Oros to Ki Teitzei on the pasuk V'kasav la sefer kerisus. For the English, see below, pages 222-223:


30 comments:

  1. L'kavod harav,
    this is a really weak source and has nothing to do with what is going on in gitten matters today. Everyone agrees today the cases where humiliation is used actual force or threats of death can not be used...(as Rabbi Shachter explains in his shiurim on the topic..so I don't understand your point in quoting this source...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Without knowing the exact case above, this proof means nothing..In many of the cases today Rabbi Schachter agrees that they aren't cases where the talmud holds one can force so Rabbi Schachter himself holds threatening death in cases today is kefia..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course this is not valid Halachic evidence of any sort. That is not the point. Rather, as Rabbi Noah Weinberg zt"l would say, the fame and renown of the story, and the way it has been given over from generation to generation, demonstrate a nekudah of Jewish consciousness - which we seem to have lost - viz., that even if precise Halachic parameters are absent, it is the responsibility of responsible persons to work to end a broken marriage by all the means possible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yitzy Hillel: It's interesting that you mention that Rav Schachter is against death or threats of force (which I assume is accurate), because in this thread, Rav Dovid Eidensohn has repeatedly claimed that Rav Schachter is actually calling for violence against get refusers!

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/forcing-get-unresolved-issues-rabbi.html

    (See his comment, for example, including the phrase "Rabbi Schachter openly advertises for violence")

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not the first, and unfortunately, probably not the last, misquote by R' Dovid E.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Today's posek hador HaRav Eliashev shlita paskens that pressuring the husband is kneged halacha and any resulting divorce is a get meusa. And future children mamzeirim. The husband can adhere to Rav Eliashev's psak. And anyone else can publicize the implications of violating what his psak says cannot be violated. Regardless whether another posek might disagree, Eav Eliashev's shoulders are broad enough for anyone to rely on and publicize.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DC:
    1. There is no such concept as a "Posek HaDor." When the term is used, it used as an honorific, no different that "HaGaon." Its use connotes no pre-eminent Halachic authority.

    2. Where does RYSE write this? As some of the conduits to RYSE are corrupt persons, "oral traditions" in his name are meaningless.

    3. The husband has no right to create a Chilul Hashem regardless. He should give a get immediately and b'lev shalem.

    4. Usually the word "rely" is used for a leniency. You are seeking something to "rely" upon for a stringency. A "chumra b'she'as ha'dechak!"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 134):

    Question: We are dealing with a case in which it apparently has been shown that the wife hates her husband – heart and soul – because of his behavior which is simply abnormal. The woman therefore has the claim of ma’us alei with a clear basis. This couple has lived separately for over 6 years. The question is whether the beis din will comply with the request of the wife and require him to give her a get.

    Answer: Even if you grant that this woman has the status of one who says ma’us alei with a clear justification, that in itself does not require that the husband give her a get. Look at Shut HaRashba (# 135 - attributed to Ramban), Question: When a woman claims ma’us alei... is the husband obligated to divorce her....? Answer: ... You should know that she is not able to force her husband to divorce her since a woman goes out of the marriage sometimes according to her desires and sometimes not according to her desires. On the other hand the man only leaves the marriage only when he want to leave it... From all these you see that when a woman claims ma’us alei we do not force the husband to give a divorce... Concerning the kesuba and dowry that she brought him –according to the din she does not lose anything unless she insists on being a moredes for 12 months and all these 12 months she is not forced... However if she remains a moredes for 12 months and her husband wants to divorce her – she loses everything.... That is her din when her husband divorces her according to his wishes after 12 months. But if the desire to divorce comes from her – as we said before – he is not forced to divorce her. The words of the Rashba imply not only is the husband not forced to divorce her when she claims ma’us alei but that he has no obligation to give her a get! This is also apparent from the words of Tosfos(Kesubos 63).... Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2): If she says that he disgusts me and I can not have relations with him – if the husband wants to divorce her she does not get any money from the Kesuba at all. Rema (E.H. 77:2)... All of this is only when she doesn’t give a reason and justification for her words as to why she finds him repulsive. But if she does give a reason for her words... And we don’t force him to divorce her nor do we force her to remain with him. And if you want to claim that he must divorce her – it is obvious that since we don’t force her to remain with him then of necessity that there can’t be an obligation of the husband to give her a get. It is the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Look here...
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681716/rav-elyashiv-teshuva

    and

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681744/Ravelyashev-Coerced-Get

    This topic is not just Rabbi Eidonsohn vs Modern Orthodoxy as you have made it out to be thus far...

    ReplyDelete
  10. DC and Baruch:

    These cases are irrelevant to our issue. Demonstrations against a recalcitrant husband are not Kefi'ah. To appeal to an employer to intercede with his employee is not Kefi'ah. Were that the case, then even a wife's own remonstrances with her recalcitrant husband would be a form of Kefi'ah. There is no source anywhere to forbid a wife from employing any means of making her husband's life unpleasant until he divorces her, and - whether you like them or not - Get ORA's tactics in the Epstein-Friedman case fall precisely into that category. Thus,citations of teshuvos in which a psak is rendered that Kefi'ah in this or that case is forbidden is irrelevant to nidon didan.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is no source anywhere to forbid a wife from employing any means of making her husband's life unpleasant until he divorces her, ... Thus,citations of teshuvos in which a psak is rendered that Kefi'ah in this or that case is forbidden is irrelevant to nidon didan.

    Are you saying that the restriction of creating a get meusah applies to everyone except the wife - surely this isn't so?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am saying the opposite! That the restriction of get me'useh is limited to physical violence, cherem and superimposed monetary penalties (and, in Israel, imprisonment). Anything else is fair means of persuasion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. L'kavod Harav, while you have every right to think what you think, other Great Rabbi's disagree with you and think your shittas are causing posul gitten. I have an honest question for the Rabbi. Why should every man give an unconditional GET in all cases?? Has there ever been a protest against a woman for sinning in these matters? Could there be a case in your eyes where the man should not give a GET until the woman repents? Rav Sternbuch mentions a case where a woman runs to secular court and still gets Rabbis to back her to force gitten.(http://www.scribd.com/doc/61778392/Rabbi-Shternbuch-Allowing-GET-to-DEPOSIT)and others have teshuvas mentioning cases where woman deserve no help until they repent (http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/KOLKOREH-ERKAOT-70GADOLIM-SEALS.pdf) ....The underlying problem in many of these cases are woman running to secular court and ignoring the beis din procedure and then getting backed by Rabbonim like you to pressure the man to give an unconditional Get. Another case which the R' Elyashiv letter mentions is where the man goes to 1 beis din and refuses to go to the other (who has a reputation for favoring woman)...Do you disagree with that aspect of R' Elyashiv's letter. Do you think pressure can be used to drag the man to the womans beis din when he chose one himself? If he refuses, do you think it is proper to use the Harchakas in this case? I agree in cases where the man is cruel and refuses beis din and just uses the GET as leverage out of wickedness that we should follow the harchakas of R'tam, but can you picture a case where the woman is at fault? are there 2 sides to a story and is it possible in your eyes that the man holds onto a GET because improper things were done to him..and then on top it all, Rabbi's like you publicly promote pressure and bullying which only upset the man even more. I in no way promote woman to be chained to broken marriages and think husbands who are wicked deserve pressure according to halacah, but my point is that these cases are complicated and using terms like unconditonal Gitten must be given no matter what is a one-sided statement that is not always proper. Each case has to be viewed by a beis din and decided only once they know all the facts. Having the head of the ORA listen to one side of the story and establish the "facts" and then report his findings to Rabbi Schachter Shlitta (listen to Rabbi Schachter recent Agunah shiur on Yu torah if you don't believe me) and then pressure the husband based upon one sided accounts is what upsets people. I think, we both agree that both sides have a moral obligation to settle and get on with their lives. However, one-sided policies for this crises are in my mind the cause of the problem. No man in these cases want to go near certain Rabbis who have reputations for favoring woman. Until neutral Rabbonim come on the scenes who don't have an agenda..the men will run to the beis dins that support men, and the woman will run to the Rabbis who support them...this situation really depresses me, and I think this 9 of Av will give me another reason to cry about the golus that we are all in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. L'kavod Harav, while you have every right to think what you think, other Great Rabbi's disagree with you and think your shittas are causing posul gitten.

    So far I have not seen a coherent argument disputing what I believe to be straightforward logic.

    Why should every man give an unconditional GET in all cases??

    To prevent Chillul Hashem.

    Has there ever been a protest against a woman for sinning in these matters?

    I don't know.

    Could there be a case in your eyes where the man should not give a GET until the woman repents? Rav Sternbuch mentions a case where a woman runs to secular court and still gets Rabbis to back her to force gitten.

    1. There is no case in which a man should refrain from giving a get after appropriate Shalom Bayis interventions have failed.

    2. B'avonoseinu ho'rabbim, there are many corrupt Batei Din. Accordingly, it is no wonder that women feel they must resort to secular court. It is wrong, but understandable. In any event, once a secular court issues a civil divorce, the added factor of Chillul Hashem is a sufficient reason to issue a get forthwith.

    Another case which the R' Elyashiv letter mentions is where the man goes to 1 beis din and refuses to go to the other (who has a reputation for favoring woman)...Do you disagree with that aspect of R' Elyashiv's letter. Do you think pressure can be used to drag the man to the womans beis din when he chose one himself?

    In Eretz Yisroel, I understand RYSE's position (assuming it is his position). In Chu"l, not. In EY there is an organized system of Battei Din with qualified dayanim and competent oversight. In Chu"l there is total hefkeirus.

    I agree in cases where the man is cruel and refuses beis din and just uses the GET as leverage out of wickedness that we should follow the harchakas of R'tam, but can you picture a case where the woman is at fault?

    Perhaps, but the Chillul Hashem issue renders the point moot in any event.

    Rabbi's like you publicly promote pressure and bullying which only upset the man even more.

    Nebbich. Im Ikesh tis'akash.

    .this situation really depresses me, and I think this 9 of Av will give me another reason to cry about the golus that we are all in.

    On this we can - unfortunately - agree. Al da vadai ka'bachina. Hashiva shofteinu k'varishona v'yo'atzeinu k'vatchila.

    ReplyDelete
  15. L'kavod Harav, I am sorry for my ignorance, but what does the Rav mean by Chillul Hashem? If a woman goes against halacha doing a sin (which many Rabbi's\sources describe as a grave sin) and gains money and/or custody which may not have been given to her according to halacha, who is doing the chillul hashem? The husband for following the proper procedure and for being victimized (in some cases), While to make gitten cases national news articles and backing woman who do wrong is not a chillul hashem? Who decides chillul hashem? The Gentile world? I really don't understand what you mean above when I asked, "But can you picture a case where the woman is at fault? Perhaps, but the Chillul Hashem issue renders the point moot in any event." Can you elaborate please?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reb Yitzy,

    Perhaps this is a genetic defect, as I come from a staunch and long line of Yekkes, but I actually believe in Devarim 4:8 "U'me goy gadol etc." I don't have time to elaborate at the moment, but I hope I get a chance later today. Until then, 'ha'mayvin yavin.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Also, Rav Elyashiv's teshuvah does not deal with a case where the husband also wants to end the marriage. The case currently under consideration is DIFFERENT from the one in which Rav Elyashiv paskened.

    ReplyDelete
  18. On his brother's blog, Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn wrote:
    Someone said that this has nothing to do with ORA. I spoke to Rav Eliyashev shlit"o about coerced Gittin and this is an extremely problematic case, perhaps one of the worst, because they publicly humiliate the husband which is like murder in chazal,and even plain humiliations are forbidden as coercion by the Rashbo and the greatest poskim, including the Bais Yosef and Shach, and because ORA works on getting the husband fired which is coercion of money that we pasken invalidates the GET.See Michtova MaEliyohu at the end of chapter 19 he says in the name of "all of the rishonim" with perhaps some exceptions that ONES MOMONE is ONES or a GET given without the will of the husband and it is invalid.

    1. There is no source in Halacha that regards public humiliation by private individuals as Kefi'ah al ha'get. The Rashba forbids it when not warranted me'tzad the issur of malbin pnei chaveiro - not because it renders a get pasul.

    2. There is no source in Halacha that regards the efforts of private individuals to persuade a husband to divorce his wife - including by firing him from his job - as an Ones Mammon. An Ones Mammon refers to a fine imposed by a Beis Din. The Poskim opposed to the NY Get Law broadened the application to a fine imposed by a secular court.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Getting back to my earlier point, in Devarim 4:6-8 we learn (paraphraing AS) that our decrees and ordinances are our wisdom and our discernment in the eyes of the nations, who hear of these decrees and say: "Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!" And we are asked rhetorically: "And which is a great nation that has righteous decrees and ordinances such as this entire Torah...?"

    And the Sforno (v. 7) writes: "And the reason that it is proper to be meticulously concerned that we shall be perceived by the nations as sagacious and wise is on account of Hashem's closeness to us whenever we call out to Him - which indicates that He selected us from amongst all the nations. So if the nations consider us unintelligent fools ("sechalim"), this will be a Chillul Hashem when they say: "This is G-d's nation?"

    ReplyDelete
  20. L'kavod Rav Student,
    The shulchan aruch deals with the question in 154:21 whether one can force a GET through actual force or not in certain cases. Some Rishonim like the Rambam say yes, and some say no. Even amongst the machmir oppinions, R'tam says we can ostracize on some level in order to pressure the husband to give a GET. This whole business of broken marriages is not stated in the Shluchan Aruch, and I have yet to see a source that states that the Rishonim who the Shulchan Aruch paskens agree that in cases of broken marriages we can all of a sudden use force (Which Rabbi Schachter claims in 1 out of 3 of his shiurim on the topic.) Now, I know you hold that today public humiliation is not considered force, but why do you think that Rav Elyashiv's oppinion would change because of broken marriages? He states clearly in his teshuva Kuf Ayin Daled Kovetz Teshuvas (quoted above by Baruch) that a husband is not chayiv to give a Get in cases of meos Ali. Therefore he at least holds that what you are promoting is an issur from the torah of embarrasing a husband when he isn't chaivv to give a GET and would be inappropriate in certain cases today. Rabbi Schachter explained in his most recent Agunah shiur that the heter for public humiliation is because the man is sinning in one area of halacha otherwise it is an issur doraissa. Can you at least admit to that? I know there are oppinions like R' Yeruchum that mention that we should use force after a certain amount of time, but the Shulchan Aruch clearly paskens against this shitta and doesn't even bring it in 154:21. As someone who is interested in the truth and sources and not politics, I am not referring to the Epstein Friedman case in my discussion, but rather the more global problem that in my mind the one sided agenda that you and Rabbi Bechhofer endorse cause. Rabbi Bechchofer said Nebach when I stated above, "Are there 2 sides to a story and is it possible in your eyes that the man holds onto a GET because improper things were done to him..and then on top it all, Rabbi's like you publicly promote pressure and bullying which only upset the man even more." I say Nebach to the one sided extreme view that in my own experience prevents men from giving gitten. Instead of being quick to bully pressure without even knowing 2 sides of a story, why can't we expect BOTH sides to sit down and solve the issue. I do not promote woman being chained to men. I promote fair judgements, where in some cases the man is wrong and in some cases the woman is wrong. The statemtent that all men must give an unconditional Get once a marriage is broken (ignoring what the woman has done to the man) is a one-sided unfair, non halachik, feminist oppinion. Until, the Rabbi's who promote this realize this, they shouldn't be perplexed when men don't want to talk to them about these complicated matters and go to Rabbi's with different viewpoints. Is it wrong to promote neutrality in these issues?

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/siruv-against-rav-herschel-schachter.html

    Such things would be comical if they weren't ruining people's lives...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reb Yitzy cites:

    He [RYSE]states clearly in his teshuva Kuf Ayin Daled Kovetz Teshuvas (quoted above by Baruch) that a husband is not chayiv to give a Get in cases of meos Ali.


    Just to clarify: RYSE is not addressing whether klapei shemaya the husband must give a get. He very likely would agree that in the case of a broken marriage the chiyuv of an Oved Hashem is to give a get forthwith. He is addressing the issue of whether Beis Din can be mechayev a get in the case of "Ma'us Alai."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lkavod Harav, You are a lot more brilliant than I am and know a ton more torah than me, but do you really believe in what you wrote? In a theoretical situation where a woman runs to secular court and wins money and child custody against halacha and then goes to Rabbis who cry that a man must give an unconditional GET no matter what, and then the woman gets public pressure put on the husband by bullies who get the husband fired from his job, threaten and embarrass family members who have nothing to do with the case directly, call the husband an abuser in national papers, etc. The husband should give an unconditional GET because the Gentile nation will say this is G-d's nation?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Reb Yitzy:

    Yes, I do believe all that.

    As I mentioned earlier, and as RDE's posting of the "seruv" against Rabbi Schachter, Rabbi Sauer and Rabbi Union demonstrates, we live in a dor in which shu'alim ketanim mechablim keramim - the keramim of shoftim v'shotrim, corrupt Batei Din. This is ample limud zechus for a woman who wrongly goes first to a secular court. And if the - b'avonoseinu ho'rabbim - less biased secular court grants a secular divorce and what it perceives as an equitable resolution of the issues, then the husband should give the get forthwith. To not do so is, yes, a Chillul Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kind of off topic, but I've been involved in a number of gittin and there is something which I've got some difficulty understanding. Originally a function of the ketuva (not the only function, but it would seem to be the prime one)was to protect the wife from the husband unilaterally divorcing her. The ketuva adds a significant economic motive to prevent a hasty divorce. However, after the takana of Rabeinu Gershom requiring the woman's consent to accept the get, divorce requires mutual concent (the possibilty of the man acting alone through a heter mea rabanan being an infrequently used exception).

    What I've seen is that in order to get this mutual agreement, the spouse who is less in a rush to obtain a get, whether the man or the woman, can tie their agreement to pretty much any monetary sum they want, and whatever the ketuva said is rarely ever a factor one way or the other. I've seen where the woman had to pay tens of thousands of dollars, or accept nothing just to obtain a get without further hassle, and on the opposite side, I can certainly imagine a case where she asks for far more than the ketuva in order to agree.

    Without getting into a value judgement as to the ethics of this situation, I'm wondering why so much emphasis is placed nowadays on having a valid ketuva. It doesn't really offer any protecting anymore, so why all the pretending it does by being so makpid about the names, and making so sure it doesn't get lost? Just like writing tenayaim at the wedding is often just a cute formality for the photographer (if the two sides actually still have monetary issues pending at that point they shouldn't sign, and if the don't have issues, why bother signing?), why isn't the ketuva given a similar status? A quaint formality but nothing really significant.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yitzy: See the following from Rav Henkin in Kisvei HaGri Henkin vol. 1 pp. 115-116 in which he says that the get is a mitzvah, which means we can't physically force him but we can use other measures:

    ואם הבעל פורש מאשתו ואין חפץ בה וכן אם אינו יכול לזון ולפרנס והיא תובעת ממנו גט בכה״ג הוי הגירושין מצוה וחיוב מה״ת. וזהו פשטא דקרא ״וכתב לה ספר כריתות״ שהוא מחוייב בזה… ואפילו אם האשה ממאנת בבעל אם השתדלו לעשות שלום ולא הועיל ועברו יב״ח מצוה עליו לגרשה (דאין בנות ישראל כשבויות להבעל לשנוא להן – רמב״ם) ובדור הזה ובמדינה זאת גורם מניעת הגירושין לג״ע ח״ו

    ReplyDelete
  27. L'kavod Rav Student,
    Where can I get the full text of Rav Henkin online. Thank you for alluding me to the text, and I look forward to viewing the entire piece before commenting

    ReplyDelete
  28. I found the piece on the torahmusings blog in your comments on the R' Brodye Article. Rav Henkin's quote is being misrepresented because it mentions "If the husband separates from the wife, and doesn't want her... then it is a mitzva to give a get." Where do you see Rav Henkin stating that a case where a woman runs away and claims meos Aliu and then ticks off the husband, one is obligated to give a get? Rav Henkin is talking about in general when a man wants out of a marriage...and in many of the cases today..a woman wants out, where the man doesn't necessarily want out. Only till she serves him papers in secular court and then gets pressure from the ORA and their supporters does the man want out. Rav Henkin clearly say HABAAL PORUSH..not the other way around..Therefore, I am still waiting to be convinced that an unconditional GET must be given in all cases (no matter what the woman does to the man). Rabbi Bechhofer has honestly told me his view on the blog, and I have seen the problems with Rabbis demanding everything from the man and nothing from the woman. This is causing the crises and supporting woman in this fashion (especially when they go to secular court) is in my oppinion an overzealous feminist-bias approach which makes men going through divorces stay clear of Modern Orthodox Rabbis.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Herb:

    My perspective is that this is of a kind with why we are permitted to kill lice on Shabbos ba'zman ha'zeh. Jewish law is law, and its legislature is a Sanhedrin. As the Ran writes, it is conceivable that they may err, but the Torah admonishes us to follow them nevertheless. Accordingly, as they decree or rule on earth, so is decreed or ruled in Shomayim - until such time as a new Sanhedrin arises and - according to the proper parameters - overrides the existing legislation. The Rambam in his introduction explains why the Chachmei HaTalmud of Talmud Bavli have the same authority.

    This works both l'kulla (lice) and l'chumra (kesuvah). Although the kesuvah may have lost much of its effect, the law - to which Chazal gave great severity, equating the issur of not having a proper kesuvah with the issur of nidda - remains in effect. Since this d'Rabbanan is so chamur, we are reasonably stringent in upholding it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A comment on the DT blog. That just about sums it all up. As they say in Yiddish, tzum zach.

    Batmelech has left a new comment on the post "R' Broyde's Coerced Get & Protesting - a critique":

    @r. dovid eidensohn
    "It is good business"

    I am not sure that everyone come away with a postive impression and their stance on divorce.

    actually, what I read here, especially from you, very much disgusted me, and I am gratefull to read that there are different opinions.

    If it were only for the stance you promote, you would put me totally off jewish marriage and I would come to the conclusion that it is best
    1) to marry a goy, since the marriage is not considered valid and there will be not get-problem

    2) If stuck in a get-refusal situation to just go on without a get, then rabbis of your kind will be ready to help.

    Of course, i forgot the "sechel" solution, that would amount to introduce the hopefully soon ex-to-be to a sheyne Meydel who claims she wants to marry him, and so he will give the get out of egoist motives, i.e. out of his own free will.

    All three solutions seem quite immoral to me.

    You convey the impression that jewish law is immoral. And of course, your insulting your opponents does not help to make the impression more moral.

    ReplyDelete