Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: ORA: Private coercion or Beis Din?:
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
James has raised a very important issue which we seem to have been missed in all the debate. When ORA holds demonstrations is it to be viewed as an agent of beis din or as private citizen? Rabbi Ralbag - a member of the Beis Din that urged Aharon to give a get to Tamar told my brother that the declaration of his beis din did not authorize demonstrations. It would thus seem that ORA is not the agent of this beis din. Is it the agent of any beis din? Does Rav Schachter's approval constitute a beis din or does he have a private beis din which authorized this?
Furthermore if Aharon's boss Rep Camp urged him to give the get or threatened to fire him if he didn't give a get - a threat he would do solely because of ORA's actions - is that considered force from a non-Jew? Even if Rep Camp says I am pressuring you to do what ORA wants you to do - does that make it complying with beis din?
What if a person saw the demonstrations and threatened to physically attack Aharon unless he gave a get. Is this considered legitimate force or would the resulting get be a get me'usa? If it is legitimate than it would be consistent with Bava Kamma 28 which is the sugya of physical action against others without the consulting or involvement of beis din.
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.
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 laymen - 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.
In sum. James asserts 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 his assertion 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!
As I commented there:
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.
Note: The Eidensohns keep posting sources that they want us to assume are in support of their position. They are not. That includes the CI posted today. I cannot respond to everything there, as it would take up all my time. If there are specific issues you would like me to address, please comment here. Thanks!