Orthodox woman’s plea for divorce | New York Post
Not being a navi, I cannot know why HKB"H is bringing the agunah issue out into the open in a way that is devastatingly denigrating to Torah Judaism, and which flies in the face of manifesting ourselves as an am chacham v'navon. As Am Yisroel in Galus is likened to an Agunah, perhaps we are being told that the Geulah will not come until we deal with the distortions in middos tovos, in values, ethics and morality, that have brought us to great heights of Chillul Hashem.
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer הרב יוסף גבריאל בקהופר
extremely well said.
ReplyDeleteextremely well said
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you are pinning this on HKB"H. This is man's failure, not his. Our failure to raise proper Jewish men and women. Our failure to prepare them for marriage. Our failure to use the halachic means at our disposal to address these situations. I suspect G-d is asking the same question of US.
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with Raffi. WRT trying to attribute this to the Almighty, see Hagiga 13: don't try to explain what is beyond your understanding. There is quite enough things we DO understand. It is quite clear why this Hillul HaShem is happening: because we have had time to prevent it and did not. Rambam says that a woman is not a slave. If she has a legitimate complaint it MUST be addressed PROMPTLY. Zero tolerance for delay or holding out on giving [or receiving] a Get.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Raffi brings up a very important point that is where the answer begins. In TaNaCh there is a constant back-and-forth between the people and Hashem as to who is responsible for the situation we are in. It seems to me that the answer is found in us having a dialogue with Hashem and seeing that we are meant to share in the reality that we find ourselves in... but it begins with having the dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI expressed myself as I did because Galus intrinsically and inherently makes this problem almost impossible to solve - both Halachically and sociologically. Of course such cases represent our failures, not Hashem's. But Hashem is throwing one of the most intractable problems in our faces, as if saying: "You people have failed to work on the tractable problems, well here's an intractable one. Deal with it."
ReplyDeleteAs is the case whenever Agunah issues rear their ugly heads, Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog http://daattorah.blogspot.com/ is at the forefront of the muck-raking. And, as always, it serves as a source of obfuscation and confusion, shedding far more heat than light. Once more, then, I feel the need to issue a general "histaygut" and to note that almost any position taken there is dubious and controversial, and that therefore, anything one might see there that seems improbable - Yahadus-wise - is probably questionable and likely erroneous.
ReplyDeleteIn a fight between two prominent rabbinic families, do you find the NYPost to be a better source of information than Rabbi Eidelsohn?
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is yes. The longer answer is that I was referring more to principles of Jewish Law, Ethics and Morality than to facts.
ReplyDeleteYou can blame G-d and you can blame Golus, and you can even blame mud-raking if you like. Personally, i blame the rabbis. They worship halacha more than G-d, and so they ignore the plight of the aguna, instead of finding solutions.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize this is on "Page Six". This is not on the front page or back page; it is not on the New York Times; it is not ANYWHERE in the Wall Street Journal.
ReplyDeleteWere you looking through the NY Post and came across this or did someone point it out to you? For myself, how I come to read/look at something plays a role in my opinion. Maybe it does not for you, and that is fine.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteBlame, better, the laity, that has undermined the rabbinate.
Reb Mordechai,
Someone pointed it out to me.
Blame G-d, blame golus, blame the victim, blame the laity...blame everyone apart from the rabbis. But the truth is for too long the establishment has been ignoring the cries of the agunot, and instead of finding solutions, we've refused their plight. We shouldn't therefore be surprised at this story coming out. So enough of the finger pointing and time to start looking a little closer to home.
ReplyDeleteWe have advocates for women who are denied a get and advocates for men who won't give one. Where are the advocates for doing the right thing under all circumstances and setting up a system that can promote that even in Galus?
ReplyDeleteSee http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-change-of-heart.html#disqus_thread
ReplyDeleteRYGB,
ReplyDeleteSome basic halachic questions regarding your opinion- without addressing any specific case(s) or individual(s):
In your halachic opinion, do you hold that you don't need to hear both parties before expressing a position (publicly or privately) regarding who is right or wrong when it comes to Hilchot Gittin? If your answer is yes- please list your halachic sources.
In your halachic opinion, is a spouse(s) permitted to practice halachic transgresions in order to receive a get (e.g. Chillul HaShem B'Pharhesia)? If your halachic opinion is in the affirmative, please elaborate regarding your halachic sources- also, in your halachic opinion, is there any sin which you would not permit to be transgressed for the sake of a get (if yes, please specify)?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRYGB,
Some basic halachic questions regarding your opinion- without addressing any specific case(s) or individual(s).
This has been addressed in response to your cross-comment on the Emes v'Emunah blog post. עיין שם.
RYGB,
ReplyDeleteSome obvious questions:
Do you think that one may transgress the gimel aveiros chamuros in order to convince the other side to give a get? Assuming you don't, what is your way of determining which sins could be transgressed for the cause, and which are not allowed? Do you have any hesitancy in expressing your opinion regarding a halahic question involving dinei nefashos without hearing both parties first? Why or why not? Please expound what you halachic sources are for the above questions.
You are barking up the wrong tree. The possibility that the one side is going to burn in hell for its methods of convincing the other side to give a get does not preclude that other side from itself facing the hellfires. The issue here is not which "sins" can or cannot be committed for the cause. The issue here is whether the recalcitrant side is performing an ethical act, and/or a Kiddush Hashem by then refusing a get. The answer is no. Perhaps a pox shall be on both their houses, but two wrongs do not make a right. The recalcitrant side is unethical and is Mechallel Shem Shomayim on its own demerits.
ReplyDeleteSee the conversation in the comments at: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/04/mechooh-continued.html
ReplyDeleteRYGB:
ReplyDeleteJust wondering- have you decided that Batei Din and Piskei Halacha regarding Dinei Nefashos could be decided and ruled without hearing the position of both sides? If so, what's your source to that position?
"...The possibility that the one side is going to burn in hell for its methods of convincing the other side to give a get does not preclude that other side from itself facing the hellfires..."
What are your halachic makoros, that you think you have a halachic mandate to freely discuss/decide regarding a topic of dinei nefashos and state your opinion as to who might be right or wrong- when you did not hear both sides?
"...The issue here is not which "sins" can or cannot be committed for the cause..."
What are the sources of the halachic mandate that you seem to think you have, to dismiss the facts and details of the situation as irrelevant, and make such a decision regarding dinei nefashos without listening to both sides?
"... The issue here is whether the recalcitrant side is performing an ethical act, and/or a Kiddush Hashem by then refusing a get. The answer is no..."
Again, you are understanding/discussing/deciding facts of a case of dinei nefashos without meeting and listening to both parties- what is your halachic basis for such behavior?
"...The recalcitrant side is unethical and is Mechallel Shem Shomayim on its own demerits..."
And yet once again, you are understanding/discussing/deciding facts of a case of dinei nefashos without meeting and listening to both parties- what is your halachic basis for such behavior?
Just wondering- have you decided that Batei Din and Piskei Halacha regarding Dinei Nefashos could be decided and ruled without hearing the position of both sides? If so, what's your source to that position?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you are talking about. We are not dan dinei nefashos ba'zman ha'zeh.
"I have no idea what you are talking about. We are not dan dinei nefashos ba'zman ha'zeh."
ReplyDeleteDinei Nefashos is also a commonly used lashon to describe a question that involves potentially serious ramifications on an individual(s) (e.g. potential damage to a individual's reputation), as opposed to a monetary claim.
You don't seem to have any problem judging and deciding issues that seriously impact human lives without hearing both sides. I'm asking what your halachic sources are for such action.
Strange that you quoted that story of the Chidah on the other link. I'm not sure why you don't also learn from that story that the Chidah didn't issue his psak before personally meeting both sides.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not "pasken" anything on the basis of the internal issues surrounding a divorce, but rather on the basis of Chillul Hashem and Hashpolas Keren HaTorah, regardless of who is "at fault."
ReplyDeleteWhat halachic right do you have to pasken regarding the justification or non-justification of what you pasken as "Chillul Hashem and Hashpolas Keren HaTorah", etc, without hearing the facts from both parties?
ReplyDeleteWhat halachic right do you have to publicly express your opinion on the topic as to who is guilty of what (e.g. in your words: "Chillul Hashem and Hashpolas Keren HaTorah"), without first speaking and listening to both sides?
Do you really believe it's halachically appropriate to publish your opinion and thoughts regarding a specific case, without even trying to speak to each side first?
We are treading water. I believe I have the rights and that it is appropriate. You don't. Readers will decide where they stand.
ReplyDelete"We are treading water. I believe I have the rights and that it is appropriate. You don't. Readers will decide where they stand."
ReplyDeleteI have simply asked for your halachic sources for your position/actions [in your words: "rights"].
If in your opinion, you have a halachic mandate for your words/actions [in your words: "rights"], please specify the halachic sources you are basing your position on.
...והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל...
ReplyDeleteFine. The Halachic basis is אפרושי מאיסורא. The איסור is חילול ה.
ReplyDeleteענפי חילול השם גם כן רבים וגדולים, כי הרבה צריך האדם להיות חס על כבוד קונו, ובכל מה שיעשה צריך שיסתכל ויתבונן מאד שלא יצא משם מה שיוכל להיות חילול לכבוד שמים חס ושלום... והענין שכל אדם לפי מדרגתו, ולפי מה שהוא נחשב בעיני הדור צריך שיתבונן לבלתי עשות דבר בלתי הגון לאיש כמותו, כי כפי רבות חשיבותו וחכמתו, כן ראוי שירבה זהירותו בדברי העבודה ודקדוקו בה, ואם איננו עושה כן הרי שם שמים מתחלל חס ושלום, כי כבוד התורה הוא, שמי שמרבה הלימוד בה ירבה כמו כן ביושר ובתקון המדות, וכל מה שיחסר מזה למי שמרבה בלמוד גורם בזיון ללמוד עצמו, וזה חס ושלום חלול לשמו יתברך שנתן לנו את תורתו הקדושה וצונו לעסוק בה כדי להשיג על ידה שלימותנו... (מסילת ישרים פרק יא)
You don't even have one source from Sifrei Halachah?
ReplyDelete1) No one is denying that it is incumbent on every individual to try to minimize a Chillul HaShem if they are able to- just as no one is denying that it is incumbent on every individual to minimize Chillul Shabbos if they are able to, or any other transgressions- if they are able to.
2) However, what are your halachic sources which give you a halachic mandate and justification in a scenario where there are two parties involved in a serious halachic dispute with many possible serious halachic ramifications, for you to decide to enter the fray and publicly publish your opinion on the case (and the actions of either side) based on hearsay- without making any honest attempt to contact the two sides to hear and determine the facts directly?
3) As this is a very serious halachic issue, with serious halachic implications, it would seem reasonable/appropriate for you to provide halachic sources for your actions (as opposed to Sifrei Mussar).
4) So once again:
I have simply asked for your halachic sources for your position/actions [in your words: "rights"].
If in your opinion, you have a halachic mandate for your words/actions [in your words: "rights"], please specify the halachic sources you are basing your position on.
...והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל...
5) Do you think that אפרושי מאיסורא is talking about a scenario of accepting and acting based on hearsay, without first attempting to verify firsthand what occurred (by speaking to both sides)?
ReplyDeletePlease confirm if the following points are accurate:
A) You have decided that a person committed a severe transgression based on hearsay (you admittedly never spoke to the two sides to determine the facts directly).
B) You have decided to permit/encourage punishing that person based on hearsay (you admittedly never spoke to the two sides to determine the facts directly).
C) You have decided to take part in punishing (in the form of your published writings) that person based on hearsay (you admittedly never spoke to the two sides to determine the facts directly).
D) You don't have any reservation in carrying out the above mentioned position based on hearsay (you admittedly never spoke to the two sides to determine the facts directly).
E) When asked for your halachic sources for the above mentioned actions/position you didn't address the scenario at all but cited a source in the Mesillas Yesharim which is of course undisputed, but also seemingly irrelevant.
a. Not accurate.
ReplyDeleteb. Not accurate.
c. Not accurate.
d. Not accurate.
e. Accurate.
You clearly did not read what I wrote in the post if you think your points a-d are at all relevant.
In any event, here are some Halachic sources for what I actually said:
Chofetz Chaim Klal 1, Be'er Mayim Chaim 8.
Shu"t Nachalah l'Yisroel siman 33.
Shu"t Maharam Schick siman 220.
Shu"t Machane Chaim Orach Chaim 2:22.
Let me expand on what I wrote in my last comment:
ReplyDeleteYou really didn't read what I wrote, right? You are just responding to what you have projected me to have written. That's OK. It's a common human flaw. If you had actually read what I had actually written, you would realize that your challenges are irrelevant to what I said. To err is human, and I forgive your misreading and resulting inappropriate innuendo.
For the sake of constructive meaningful discussion, instead of claiming that your are misunderstood- please elaborate. How were you misunderstood? What do you think was not an accurate portrayal of your position?
ReplyDeleteThe main point is that you have taken a strong public stand regarding a machlokes which you have admitted to only knowing the facts by hearsay. In addition, you have admitted that you didn't try to speak directly to both sides to hear the facts directly from them- before passing judgement or opinion.
I think most people in the world (religious or not) believe in the inherent right for both parties of a dispute to have an opportunity to be heard and to directly present their position, before being judged by others IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. I'm honestly surprised that you don't share that sentiment- and by extension that you don't feel the need to "bother" to contact the two parties involved, before writing about them and judging their actions in the public sphere.
You still haven't read what I wrote...
ReplyDeletePlease correct any of the following three points- if you think they are inaccurate. I think they accurately represent what you have written- but it's possible I misunderstood (If so, please correct- so to clarify your position)):
ReplyDelete1) You admit to publicly accusing a fellow yid of creating a Chilul HaShem based on hearsay and gossip (please elaborate where exactly you heard the information that you are now basing your opinion on?).
2) You admit to not trying to call the party you are publicly accusing of creating a Chilul HaShem, to hear their side of the story (perhaps a halachic defense?).
3)You failed to supply a halachic source as to how you could publicly accuse someone of such a heinous transgression- based on hearsay- without first trying to speak to both sides directly.
You are a respected Rav- what is your halachic basis for your positions/actions mentioned above?
1. I did not "accuse" anyone of "creating" the ChS. I assigned no blame. I stated that a ChS now exists.
ReplyDelete2. Since no. 1 is not true, no. 2 is irrelevant.
3. Ditto.
You really need to read more carefully.
Just one example of what you wrote (earlier on this very post):
ReplyDeleteRYGB: "The recalcitrant side is unethical and is Mechallel Shem Shomayim on its own demerits."
So you publicly wrote that someone is being "unethical" and "Mechallel Shem Shomayim," based purely on hearsay. You concede that you didn't even attempt to speak to the person first, to give them a chance to offer a valid defense- to give them a chance to potentially give a legitimate explanation that they did not transgress any halacha. Surely you would agree that a person who abides by halacha is not called "unethical" and "Mechallel Shem Shomayim"?
Again:
1) You admit to publicly accusing a fellow yid of creating a Chilul HaShem based on hearsay and gossip (please elaborate where exactly you heard the information that you are now basing your opinion on?).
2) You admit to not trying to call the party you are publicly accusing of creating a Chilul HaShem, to hear their side of the story (perhaps a halachic defense?).
3)You failed to supply a halachic source as to how you could publicly accuse someone of such a heinous transgression- based on hearsay- without first trying to speak to both sides directly.
You are a respected Rav- what is your halachic basis for your positions/actions mentioned above?
Of course a person can abide by halacha and still be called "unethical" and "Mechallel Shem Shomayim."
ReplyDeleteYesodei HaTorah 5:11 -
יא ויש דברים אחרים שהן בכלל חילול השם. והוא שיעשה אותם אדם גדול בתורה ומפורסם בחסידות דברים שהבריות מרננים אחריו בשבילם. ואע''פ שאינן עבירות הרי זה חילל את השם כגון שלקח ואינו נותן דמי המקח לאלתר. והוא שיש לו ונמצאו המוכרים תובעין והוא מקיפן. או שירבה בשחוק או באכילה ושתיה אצל עמי הארץ וביניהן. או שדבורו עם הבריות אינו בנחת ואינו מקבלן בסבר פנים יפות אלא בעל קטטה וכעס. וכיוצא בדברים האלו הכל לפי גדלו של חכם צריך שידקדק על עצמו ויעשה לפנים משורת הדין. וכן אם דקדק החכם על עצמו והיה דבורו בנחת עם הבריות ודעתו מעורבת עמהם ומקבלם בסבר פנים יפות ונעלב מהם ואינו עולבם. מכבד להן ואפילו למקילין לו. ונושא ונותן באמונה. ולא ירבה באריחות עמי הארץ וישיבתן. ולא יראה תמיד אלא עוסק בתורה עטוף בציצית מוכתר בתפילין ועושה בכל מעשיו לפנים משורת הדין. והוא שלא יתרחק הרבה ולא ישתומם. עד שימצאו הכל מקלסין אותו ואוהבים אותו ומתאוים למעשיו הרי זה קידש את ה' ועליו הכתוב אומר ויאמר לי עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר:
Rabbi Bechofer ,just wanted to give you a yasher koyach for your comments regarding the daas torah blog.It is amazing that someone who is so fwd thinking like rabbi eidenshon when it comes to the abuse issue in the frum world could be so terribly wrong and backward on the aguna issue.Please continue to be involved as we need a Talmud chochom of your stature to counter what is written on that blog.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how the Rambam you cited is at all relevant to my request for you providing a halachic basis to your decision to decide with certainty that an individual transgressed a severe sin (e.g. Chillul HaShem)- and publicly accuse him of that sin, based purely on hearsay (from you comments it seems you actually based your decision on the NY Post article).
ReplyDeleteI don't know what your halachic basis is to publicly accuse someone of committing a transgression purely based on hearsay- without speaking to the person, to find out their side of the story, etc.
This is a general principle in Halacha (and in secular law)- there's a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a valid court of law (or in halacha- Bais Din) where both sides have an opportunity to state their positions and then a decision is issued.
It seems you "jumped the gun" and decided that someone was guilty of a transgression without following halachic due process.
That's why I asked what your halachic basis was. And instead you began citing sources of examples of people who were already proven to have committed a chillul Hashem. Those cases aren't talking about when a blog or tabloid accused someone of chillul Hashem- it's when it was established following halachic due process.
Assuming you are reasonably intelligent, you are not reading and contemplating, but shooting first and asking questions later. ומעתה אקיים בעצמי אל תענה כסיל כאולתו.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that you seem to have chosen to attack the question rather than to give an answer.
ReplyDeleteI did.
ReplyDeleteR Berger:
ReplyDeleteThank you for the chizuk.
Do you still think you were correct in disseminating that NY Post article on your site?
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/12/weiss-dodelson-rav-shmuel-kaminetsky.html
Yes. You are incapable of grasping nuanced points. I did not say she was right in going to the Post. I said that once the article was published, both sides should do their utmost to diminish the Chillul Hashem.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently made the personal decision to distribute the NY Post article for your readers to review. Then you claim that you made "nuanced points"?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that there were also "nuanced points" in the NY Post article that you re-published on your site?
Where did you write that "both sides should do their utmost to diminish the Chillul Hashem"?
You re-published a link to a NY Post article (which I would assume exposed at least a few of your readers to the article for the first time). Likewise, on the other blog you seemed to state your support for blogging comments which certainly did not espouse any idea of being critical of "both" sides.
I forgot that you are an expert at moving goalposts. So let's stick to a simple yes or no answer. The answer remains, yes.
ReplyDelete"I forgot that you are an expert at moving goalposts."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I don't have any idea what that is referring to. What "goalposts" were moved?
Rabbi Bechhofer, I don't understand you. Let's say, arguendo, that the woman and woman's family involved in this case were guilty of intentional and unprovoked acts of vicious malice intended specifically to cause pain and damage to the man, such acts beginning long before any igun issue arose. Let's say that these acts were also intended to cause so much pain and harm that the child's father would have no choice but to give up any and all relationship with his son. Let's say that this family is known to be pathologically controlling and willing to do the most immoral things to get their way- let's even say that they would commit murder with a smile if they could get away with it, and that they've found a kosher alternative- the Shibuta of Retzicha. Let's say that they hired a spiritual heir of Dr. Goebbels, a publicist, to intentionally create and inflame an enormous bizayon hatorah and chillul hashem specifically so that the other side would capitulate to their acts of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteLet's just say these things are true. And let's say they were being inflicted on an innocent relative of yours. Would you so be so quick to assign blame?
I am not assigning blame. The antecedents are not relevant. In all divorces there is a "he said, she said" dispute as to who was/is cruel to whom. The bottom line is that a civil divorce went into effect in August 2012. To withhold a get subsequent to a civil divorce is to create a Chillul Hashem. Chillul Hashem is "no fault." If you are party to a CH that you can eliminate, your justifications are irrelevant, you must eliminate the CH. Issuing the get will alleviate the CH. Ergo, the person who has the authority to issue the get should do so forthwith.
ReplyDeleteSurely this is quite simple?
In this case, the chillul hashem is an irremediable and irreversible reality. Giving a get now will not mitigate the chillul hashem an iota. It would do nothing but reward wickedness and encourage future acts of cold blooded terrorism abetted by the torch and pitchfork masses. And by the way, yes, in every divorce they say that the other side is a monster and a pervert. Unfortunately in some cases it's actually true. And in this case the monsters want exclusive custody and exclusive right of decisions as to education. They deny it in public but that is only because only the weak are hobbled by honesty and good faith and truth.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting point you make, though, that the obligation to mitigate chillul hashem is universal, irrespective of whose fault it is and irrespective of cases where the chillul was engineered davka to manipulate the other party into mitigating the chilul, like making a bracha and insisting that the owner of the cake give it to you so that the bracha should not be levatala, also a chillul hashem. Yes, I know the proof from Dovid Hamelech, but I wonder if the rule you propose is generally valid. In any case, this is all theoretical. Nothing that the man's side can do would mitigate the chillul. The only way that would happen would be an abject and tearful apology by the other side, a public declaration that they were seized by a temporary madness, and they are seeking professional help in overcoming it what they now see as a grotesque perversion of the Torah and Das Yehudis. By the by, did you know that someone put up a website under the man's name, in which he admits homosexual desires and seeks male relationships? I have to say, from a strictly intellectual perspective, perhaps even from an aesthetic point of view, you have to salute the purity and beauty of this kind of utterly amoral scorched earth behavior.
ReplyDeleteBarzilai,
ReplyDeleteNot the Rambam I cited in a previous comment (YhT 5:11):
Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 -
יא ויש דברים אחרים שהן בכלל חילול השם. והוא שיעשה אותם אדם גדול בתורה ומפורסם בחסידות דברים שהבריות מרננים אחריו בשבילם. ואע''פ שאינן עבירות הרי זה חילל את השם כגון שלקח ואינו נותן דמי המקח לאלתר. והוא שיש לו ונמצאו המוכרים תובעין והוא מקיפן. או שירבה בשחוק או באכילה ושתיה אצל עמי הארץ וביניהן. או שדבורו עם הבריות אינו בנחת ואינו מקבלן בסבר פנים יפות אלא בעל קטטה וכעס. וכיוצא בדברים האלו הכל לפי גדלו של חכם צריך שידקדק על עצמו ויעשה לפנים משורת הדין. וכן אם דקדק החכם על עצמו והיה דבורו בנחת עם הבריות ודעתו מעורבת עמהם ומקבלם בסבר פנים יפות ונעלב מהם ואינו עולבם. מכבד להן ואפילו למקילין לו. ונושא ונותן באמונה. ולא ירבה באריחות עמי הארץ וישיבתן. ולא יראה תמיד אלא עוסק בתורה עטוף בציצית מוכתר בתפילין ועושה בכל מעשיו לפנים משורת הדין. והוא שלא יתרחק הרבה ולא ישתומם. עד שימצאו הכל מקלסין אותו ואוהבים אותו ומתאוים למעשיו הרי זה קידש את ה' ועליו הכתוב אומר ויאמר לי עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר:
Before continuing to respond, I must note that although I did not make the following point in this post, this is my position:
ReplyDeleteOnce a civil divorce has been issued, it is generally and, essentially, universally inappropriate for a husband to delay giving the get for any reason whatsoever.
Nothing that the man's side can do would mitigate the chillul. The only way that would happen would be an abject and tearful apology by the other side, a public declaration that they were seized by a temporary madness, and they are seeking professional help in overcoming it what they now see as a grotesque perversion of the Torah and Das Yehudis.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how to parse that long sentence! But to paraphrase:
The man's side can do something that would mitigate the chillul. A way in which that could happen would be an abject and tearful apology by the man, a public declaration that he was seized by a temporary madness, and he is seeking professional help in overcoming what he now sees as a grotesque perversion of the Torah and Das Yehudis.
I am not saying that this is the only or the best way to mitigate the CH, but it would be an effective mitigation.
In other Chillul Hashem News, see this article. Make sure to watch the video! What a Chillul Hashem.
ReplyDeletehttp://bit.ly/19hvbZD
No, that would not mitigate anything. It would simply mean that he saw he was losing so he gave in to the pressure of his father losing his job Artscroll and the child's mother sending him out without the coat he came in in freezing weather, and articles in shmutz newspapers, and accusations of homosexuality, and is trying to save face with professions of repentance. The commutative principle doesn't work in real life.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see the video. I happen to agree with the anti-draft people, if not their methods. These kids are raised in houses of kedusha and tahara and yiras chet, and are thrown into a milieu of nivul peh, arayos, chillul shabbos, and so forth. This is not a secret. The army is intended to be a melting pot, to force the yeshivaleit away from their lifestyle.
Have you ever heard of the concept of a hesder yeshiva? In a general sense, how about the notions of civic responsibility and good faith negotiations?
ReplyDeleteNow that you mention it, I have heard about the concept of hesder yeshivos! Must have slipped my mind. You're right. Hesder boys are raised in a environment as protected and cloistered as the boys in Meah Shearim. And the army accommodations for the hesder boys is just like the home atmosphere of the meah shearim boys. Same standards of kashrus, of nekiyus halashon, of tzniyus, of shemiras shabbos starting like the other rishonim and ending like Rabbeinu Tam.
ReplyDeleteAs for civic responsibility, I think they really believe that Shevet Levi, and Shevet Yissachar for that matter, is pattur because of their limud hatorah. They may be ivory tower fools, they may be deluded idealists, but I think they really believe that. Not all of them, of course. Some just think the chilonim are cattle and should die to protect them. But I think that maybe some of their leaders might be sincere and truly believe their hashkafos are not self serving lies.
I just saw the video. No big deal. It's not like Yoily Krausz was there.
ReplyDeleteBut I personally find it abhorrent. I strongly agree with you that the average yeshiva boy, whoever is going to work for a living, ought to find some physical way to serve and protect klal yisrael. But we're talking about the heirs of the old yishuv, and they have a whole nuther way of life.
Your not having watched the video is really working against you here. I think if you watched it you would concede the point to me.
ReplyDeleteI made my last comment before seeing your last comment.
ReplyDeleteLet us agree:
1. These were not just Meah Shearim types. A lot of those guys are not particularly sheltere...
2. Singing B'Shilton HaKofrim is a very serious CH.
3. Singing V'he she'amda is almost as serious a CH.
4. RSA being driven up in a Cadillac is unfortunate on many levels.
1, 2, 3, true. Not serious CH, but not very pluralistic.
ReplyDelete4. I don't know. You and I agree that a Cadillac is in bad taste in general, crudely conspicuous and megusham, but that is a concept appropriate for Bnei Torah. For regular baalei batim, the distaste almost always stems from jealousy, the unwillingness tzu farginen another person his success. As Ashleigh Brilliant says, "I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." But the idea that they want to show him kavod by transporting him in the most choshuveh kind of car is good.
You concede that you didn't even attempt to speak to the person first, to give them a chance to offer a valid defense- to give them a chance to potentially give a legitimate explanation that they did not transgress any halacha. Surely you would agree that a person who abides by halacha is not called "unethical" and "Mechallel Shem Shomayim"? Thanks for sharing this article..
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not agree that a person who abides by halacha is not called "unethical" and "Mechallel Shem Shomayim". See the Ramban at the beginning of Parashas Kedoshim.
ReplyDelete