I know that my opinion is but an insignificant drop in the sea of Torah, but I nevertheless feel obligated to express my pain and protest at the "Daas Torah" blog, http://daattorah.blogspot.com/, whose author seems intent on shackling wives to broken marriages, and on maximizing the numbers of mamzerim in Am Yisroel.
Since the Chillul Hashem is ayom v'norah, I would like to state clearly and categorically that there are alternative opinions concerning almost any point he might contend, opinions of gedolim v'tovim memenu.
The Internet is NOT the place to discuss such delicate matters in intricate detail.
See http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_law3.html.
Shalom,
ReplyDeleteBut since he already posts extensively in the Internet I would think that the rebuttal points to each of his points are necessary to be posted on the internet.
On the one hand, this points to a problem with the blog medium itself. On the other hand, at least a semi-free discussion is needed in a proper forum. Nowadays, so much of importance goes undiscussed because of fear and timidity.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is the best place that I know of for discussing delicate matters.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for giving us your opinion. You needn't belittle it.
ReplyDeleteIf no-one protests, no-one will know that protestations exist.
I can answer specific questions. To write the ma'aracha demonstrating each and every fallacy or inaccuracy would be inappropriate for the Internet.
ReplyDeleteEspecially if you don't have rebuttals.
ReplyDeleteThe opening salvo in today's post on the "Da'as Torah" blog makes clear that this is no "Milchamta shel Torah" but a "Milchamta shel Politika." One who has firm Halachic grounds (and a bit of Yiras Shomayim) does not begin ad hominem:
ReplyDeleteSome Thoughts on Rabbi Michael J Broyde's Article on a Coerced GET and Protesting When a Man Withholds a Jewish Divorce
by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
Rabbi Broyde's article about protesting to help Agunahs is filled with errors, which I display here. It is part and parcel of the new Torah emanating from the modern YU rabbis. Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, head of BDA Beth Din, sent away a couple seeking a GET with no GET by annuling their marriage on the grounds of a ridiculous claim of MEKACH TAOSE when after I spoke to him I am convinced he had no grounds for that. Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at YU and major posek for the OU, invented a new Torah to permit physical and unbearable emotional coercion in the case of MOOS OLEI with his vivid imagination, as he airly blows away the Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish with a logic that was invented in Gehenum. He quotes nobody who agrees with him, and doesn't display any rabbonim of today who agree with him, but he has helped Agunoth! Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit”o told me that any Beth Din that invents new ways to help Agunoth outside of accepted halacha that he takes away from them the Chezkas Beth Din, the authority of being a Beth Din. Thus, we have a situation where modern Orthodox divorces may not be recognized by others, and the children of these invented “help” for Agunoth may be mamzerim.
This sounds like Rabbi Nochum Eisenstein Redux - couldn't get the MO on Giyur, let's get 'em on Gittin.
Rabbi removing all the politics and focusing on the sources...don't you think its a chiddish to say that althought the Gra, Darchai Moshe, and Lavus all learn the harchakas of R'tam to be only in the original town of the husband (look in Rav Sternbuch 5: 354 where he says this) but if he leaves town he must be left alone other than that is kefia...today..I know that they chase the husbands from town to town...and get them fired from jobs etc...to say that today one can apply the harchakas of R'tam but then not follow the condition of the harchakas is a little bit of a chiddish..Rabbi broyde says today since there are no clear boundaries in communities one can apply the harchakas and it will never be kefiah....Rabbonim who argue with this rabbi broyde's chiddish will posul these gitten..
ReplyDeleteRabbi Sternbuch's teshuvah concerns a regular Din Torah and the issue of "Holchin achar ha'Nitba."
ReplyDeleteThe Harchoko of R"T is not subject to geographical distinctions. See:
שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק יז סימן נא
(This psak was issued by the TE, Rav Kulitz, and ylct"a ROY.)
אחרי העיון בכל החומר שבתיקים ובצדדי ההלכה, הוצאנו פסק דין בתאריך י"ד טבת תשמ"ה בזה"ל: "אחרי העיון בנידון ובחומר שבתיקים מוצא ביה"ד שאין יסוד מספיק לשנות פסק הדין שניתן ע"י כב' ביה"ד האזורי, לפיו אין לכפות על הבעל מתן גט לאשה, אולם חייב הוא לתת גט כפי שנפסק ע"י כב' ביה"ד האזורי, ואנו מציינים שדרכו של הבעל היא דרך רעה לעגן את האשה, ובעל אשר אומר שהוא שומר תורה ומצוות ואינו שומע לפסק הדין ואינו מציית לבית הדין, עוון חמור ביותר הוא בידו, ואנו קוראים לו שישוב מדרכו הרעה וינהג כמנהג בני ישראל הכשרים, ויקיים המצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים ויתן מיד גט לאשתו, ולא ישאיר בת ישראל עגונה. לאור האמור אנו מחליטים: א. ביה"ד אינו נענה לערעורה של האשה המבקשת לכפות על הבעל לתת גט. ב. הבעל חייב לתת גט ועליו לגרש את אשתו מיד. ג. אם הבעל לא יתן גט תוך שלשה חדשים מהיום בהתאם לחיובו כנ"ל ידון ביה"ד בדבר נקיטת אמצעים מתאימים נגדו כפי המבואר בשו"ע אה"ע סי' קנ"ד ובנו"כ.
והנה עברו יותר משלשה חדשים של ארכה שנתנו לבעל, ואין קול ואין קשב, הבעל מתעלם מהכל ועומד במרדו שלא לשחרר את אשתו מעיגונה.
לכן בהמשך להחלטתנו מתאריך י"ד טבת הנ"ל אנו אומרים לבעל את האמור באה"ע סימן קנ"ד סעיף כ"א: "חכמים חייבוך להוציא ואם לא תוציא מותר לקרותך עבריין".
ובעקבות זה אנו פונים לכל בר ובת ישראל בכל מקום שהם לבוא לעזרת הבת ישראל הזאת המעוגנת מעלה אשר מסרב לשמוע לקול בית דין לשחררה מכבלי העיגון ולפטור אותה בג"פ, על ידי כן שימנעו מלעשות לו שום טובה או לישא וליתן עמו עד שיגרש, כפסק הרמ"א באה"ע שם, וכאשר גוזר אומר על כגון דא, וכל כיוצ"ב, כאשר ניכר שסיבת דרישת האשה לג"פ הוא בגלל אשמתו של הבעל, בספר הישר לרבינו תם ז"ל בחלק התשובות סי' כ"ד ובזה"ל: "תגזרו באלה חמורה על כל איש ואשה מזרע בית ישראל הנלוים אליכם, שלא יהו רשאין לדבר עמו ולישא וליתן עמו להאריחו ולהאכילו ולהשקותו וללוותו ולבקרו בחלותו, ועוד יוסיפו חומר ברצונם על כל אדם, אם לא יגרש ויתיר אותו האיש את הילדה הזאת, שבזה אין כפיה עליו, שאם ירצה מקיים, והוא לא ילקה בגופו מתוך נידוי זה, אך אני נתפרד מעליו, וכל שיהא זכור בגזרתם וגזרתנו ישמור אותה, ואם יעבור שוגג לא תחול על השוגג".
וכל זה הוא אפילו כשהבעל איננו מאותן שכופין אותו להוציא כדיעו"ש, ויעוין גם בשו"ת מהרי"ק שורש כ"ט עיין שם, ומינה מבכש"כ בנידוננו שיש ספק כזה ויתכן שהוא גם מאלה שכופין אותו להוציא כאשר הרחיב את הדיבור בזה ביה"ד האזורי בנימוקיו לפסה"ד נשוא הערעור.
From the DT blog post by Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn:
ReplyDelete"Public humiliation of the husband is forbidden by every single rabbi I asked."
The language of RT is Sefer HaYashar is very clear that the recalcitrant husband is to be humiliated by Am Yisroel.
You don't actually expect Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn to respond to a well reasoned argument that is fully knowledgable of the sources and the various halakhic fallacies that he wants to throw around do you?
ReplyDeleteLet's see his outrageous statements have included:
1) The B"Y holds like the Rashba(when reading beyond the Teshuva of the Rashba that the B"Y brings will show that he doesn't).
2)That all of the Rishonim said that pressure of any kind was ossur(That was until he was shown that the Rashba was actually the minority opinion).
3) That Rov Poskim said that pressure of any kind was ossur(until a bunch of Teshuvot were brought saying otherwise).
4) That those poskim who said that pressure could be applied(the Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Shternbuch, Rav MOshe Feinstein, Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Ben Ish Hai, the Yaskil Avdei et. al) were mistaken(L'havdil) in their understanding as he would show all of us, and possibly even give a point by point rebuttal(haven't seen either yet).
5) That a Ketuba could be written in a way that would invalidate it, and that a Rav who was going to do marriages had to be an expert in Gittin(until shown the Shulhan Arukh, Beit Shmuel and Taz on Eh"E 54 that say otherwise).
He's not interested in the truth. He's not interested in debating the actual halakhic sources. Rather he prefers the propaganda method developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, "A lie, told often enough, becomes the truth." If you actually take the fight to him and challenge him with what his own sources say, he will simply ignore you, while he continues to deride and defame any Rav he doesn't agree with, modern Orthodoxy, other Hareidim, whoever doesn't follow his vary narrow views.
The Satmer Rebbe was said to have said about somebody that he was "an am ha'aretz in gantz Shas" - i.e., that he had learned all of Shas, and had learned wrong pshat on each and every daf. A person can quote many marei mekomos, and be wrong in understanding each and every one!
ReplyDeleteL'kavod Harav,
ReplyDeleteDear Rabbi Bechhofer i think I gave you the wrong source 5:344 not 354 of Rav Sternbuch..I apologize...its about agunahs and his solution to help them out..and discusses the harchakas of r'tam..thank you for responding to my post..I have seen the teshuva of both Tzitz ELiezer and Rav Yosef 8:25 in the case you mentioned...I agree that the Tzitz Eliezer quotes the version of the harchakas of R'tam which does not limit the case to geographical regions. However, as the sefer get meusa (By Dayan goldberg of Tel Aviv-Yaffa) which can be found on the otzar hachachma) mentions there are 5 versions of R'tam and the most authoritative is the one that the Maharik, Gra, Darchei Moshe, Levush, Binyamin Zev, tzemach tzedek, Maharshdam, Rav Sternbuch 5:344..mention "Yachul Leilech Chutz Laeer" Please read the gra yourself in Shulcahn Aruch 154:21 ...Rav Ovadia in yabia Omer 8:25 which is the same case as the Tzitz Eliezer that you quoted limits the harchakas to "Kol Haeer" not the entire Eretz Yisrael...The sefer Get Meusa shows many nafka minas between the versions of R'tam..but points out that according to the accepted version by most of the achronim..the reason the get is not kefia..is because he has the ability to leave town...so although I disagree with Rabbi Eidonsohn on many of his points...to say what we are doing today is the harchakas of R'tam but that all the achronim above would agree that the times have changed..and therefore don't have to hold by the limits of the harchakas is a chiddish...besides the point that the harchakas are all passive actions....to bus people in from different states to protest is a little more active than announcing to the tzibbur to passively ostracize the man (even if in back in the day that pressure was more intense)..which is what the words of R'tam actually says and what the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Yosef say to do in the teshuvas mentioned above.....I am not involved with the politics in these issues but still am worried that Rabbis may reject Rabbi Broydes chiddish which is his own svara (which he has every right to make on his level) but in the end the svara has no true source. Therefore my point is that before we do actions that have never been done in the history of Judaism...(the concept of the ORA which I personally know does dirty tactics like getting people fired from their jobs..and disrupting family simchas) and the fact that Rabbi Schachter Shlitta...admitted in his last shiur that he accepts the facts of the cases from the head of the ORA..as he mentioned 3 times in 10 minutes that the ORA better make sure to get the facts straight because he trusts them and embarrassing someone is an issur diroisa if they are wrong..)Then there should be a pure consensus between Rabbis that these actions are not considered to be creating posul gitten in the future. I am not convinced myself and plan on asking Rabbis if they think Rabbi Broyde's interperation of the Harchakas is the obvious pashut approach...or is the Rav Gestetner (which I just found today bc of the daas torah blog)...interperation of the harchakas )pages 49-52 of his kuntres..) the more pashut approach. so in final, I ask you for your honest evaluation of the sources and look forward to hearing from the Rav..kol tuv
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-gestener-kuntrus-on-get-meusa.html
ReplyDeleteחירופים וגידופים ומילי ללא טעמי. לא לחנם הלך הזרזיר אצל העורב...
Reb Yitzy,
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe that anyone who spent any significant time in yeshiva can learn the GRA the way Rabbi Eidensohn and Rabbi Gestetner purport to do. RT would have the Harchakos observed as broadly as possible in as many places and among as many people as possible.
What the GRA is explaining is why the harchaka of RT is any different than niddui, which invalidates the get as a bona fide form of Kefi'ah.
The difference is that a niddui adheres to the gavra - he is just as mandated to maintain his distance from other Jews as they are from him, and there is no escape for him anywhere. "Tamei tamei yikra" as does the Metzora in our parasha.
The Harchaka of RT is different, explains the GRA. The recalcitrant husband can go elsewhere, where he is not known - and he has no chiyuv to tell them that he is persona non grata in his city of origin.
This is because the Harchakos are not halachic as is a niddui. It is a voluntary effort to produce social pressure intense enough that to rid himself of the nuisance of the ostracism, he himself will decide that the giving of the get is the best course of action for him.
Of course, we will remain after him and keep hounding him from town to town. The Harchakos would lose their effect if they were easily eluded. But he is free to choose to stay one step ahead of us and go elsewhere - again and again and again.
That is the long and short of the GRA, no more no less.
L’kavod Harav,
ReplyDeleteThank you again Rabbi for taking the time and explaining your reasoning in the Harchakas of R’tam. I just want to point out that Rabbi Broyde himself states clearly in his article that the issue is boundaries in the harchakas of R’Tam. He rejects your reasoning and told me personally in an email that in a place with clear boundaries like perhaps New Square (and the pressure would be intense), he would agree the harchakas could lead to a posul Get. Rabbi Broyde holds that since the pressure is weak today one can apply the harhchakas and ignore the condition of boundaries because there are no clear boundaries of who we accept and who we don’t in general communities in America. So I have gotten 3 different ways of interpreting the harchakas of R’tam from three different Rabbis and each one basically said there reasoning was so pashut. My point is that the issue here is orach chaim but Mamzerus in Klal Yisrael. If one gadol learns the harchakas like Rabbi Eidonsohn…then thousands of people will consider future children from these gitten mamzers, so I want to make sure there is a consensus that Rabbi Broyde or your version is accepted by all, and not the other interperation.
Rav Sternbuch 5:344 clearly disagrees with your take one and two of R'tam..Do you still not agree that what you are saying isn't so pashut?
ReplyDeleteI fail to see anything in Rabbi Sternbuch that contradicts my understanding of RT.
ReplyDeleteI do note his extreme timidity in the application of RT. Considering how strident he is in other matters, I find this distasteful. A Kana'i should be more kana'usdik against recalcitrant husbands than he is against, say, the "Mizrachi" in the harsh tone he adopts in 5:278.
As to what you write:
So I have gotten 3 different ways of interpreting the harchakas of R’tam from three different Rabbis and each one basically said there reasoning was so pashut. My point is that the issue here is orach chaim but Mamzerus in Klal Yisrael. If one gadol learns the harchakas like Rabbi Eidonsohn…then thousands of people will consider future children from these gitten mamzers, so I want to make sure there is a consensus that Rabbi Broyde or your version is accepted by all, and not the other interpretation.
This is not the way Am Yisroel has functioned throughout this Galus. As vile as machlokos may have become, when it came to gittin, everyone was mechabed everyone's else's gittin. When there were Halachic issues, they were generally dealt with discretion, no one passeling the gittin of other Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos en masse - certainly not brandishing the threat of the brand of mamzeirus. The public and cavalier manner in which this threat is being brandished on the web is doubtless a new and great ikkuv of the geulah. 2000 years and we have learned nothing.
Mamzerut claim is really and truly a false claim that is meant to be more incendiary than it is helpful. It is pure propaganda, and your own reluctance because of it Yitzy is proof that it is, distastefully, working, and once again proof that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was a master of propaganda when he said "a lie repeated often enough, becomes truth." That is what this is, it is a lie that keeps getting repeated.
ReplyDeleteM'doraitta, we can force a husband to give a Get. The recalcitrance on the part of the Rabbanim was for the worry that the husband may not have the proper Kavvanna. Thus a forced Get(never mind R"T), an actual forced Get, is only possul m'd'rabbanan.
You throw on top of that Bitul Modaah, then what you are left with is a Get that is sofek possul m'd'rabbanan(at best, and then only by the stringent opinions which the B"Y rejects). But let us say that you have a sofek d'rbannan. Since when do we not rule sofek d'rabbanan l'kula?
Never mind that rejecting or limiting the harchakot of R"T is only a Chumra added on to a d'Rabbanan.
In short the claim of mamzerim is a despicable propaganda attempt and nothing more. Since the get would be a sofek d'rabbanan, we would say that b'diavad the remarriage is fine, and chas v'shalom that we would say anything against the children.
Rav Dovid Eidensohn's push to publish the names of these women and claim Ishet Ish in all of their marriages and that the resultant children are mamzerim is nothing less than a motzei shem ra, Hashem Yekaper.
.
ReplyDeleteRYGB: You are wrong. See the letter written by HaRav Ahron Schechter, HaRav Shlomo Miller and a third Godol Hador to HaRav Belsky warning him that his approach to gittin will result in mamzeirus.
ReplyDeleteDovid Chaim:
ReplyDeleteI have no idea to what you are referring. I do not know what Rabbi Belsky is doing and what others are protesting.
Dovid Chaim subsequently referred me to:
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/rav-y-belsky-objections-of-rav-s-miller.html
and:
http://www.israel613.com/books/DINTORA_BELSKY_YSH-E.pdf
The issue in that case is completely irrelevant to our discussion, as there the issue is annulling a marriage as opposed to coercing a divorce.
You see Gedolim DO yell mamzeirus when they believe that is the result. You said that is not okay.
ReplyDeleteThey don't yell mamzeirus when a get has been given. This is a case in which there was no get.
ReplyDeleteNo difference. If the mamzeirus is a result of no get or a result of a get me'usa (as paskened by a given posek), they are going to cry out mamzeirus. As the letter shows.
ReplyDeleteBig difference.
ReplyDeleteExplain the difference between remarrying with no get and remarrying with a get meusa.
ReplyDeleteAm Yisroel l'dorei doros has a mesorah not to be m'ar'er on the kashrus of gittin issued by Battei Din of any Torah background. Once a get is written, signed, sealed and delivered, ein potzeh peh u'metzaftzef. The alternative is too devastating to contemplate. This is, of course, totally irrelevant to a case in which there was no get!
ReplyDeleteI believe a mecho'o should also be made against the very end of this video:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiu3cjrwCI
where he goes further and pasels everything from Rav Schwartz Shlit"a.