Thursday, February 6, 2014

Can a get be obtained by ostracizing the husband?

In view of the fact that Shira Dicker - Dodelson's PR consultant - claims that Gital obtained the Get  only after she conducted a massive media attack on R' A. M. Weiss. One whose purpose was to humiliate him and his family and cause his father and uncle to lose their jobs and to close down Rav Reuven Feinstein's yeshiva  as well as to change the accepted halacha etc etc. This was done in concert with a massive arm twisting campaign against many rabbis conducted by Rav Malkiel Kotler resulting in the infamous Kol Koreh which made a mockery of halacha and showed the willingness of these rabbis to dance and jump to an inappropriate tune [see the recent letter from Rav Shlomo Miller]. It is appropriate to review the halacha and to note that if that in fact this campaign were the cause of R A.M. Weissw giving the Get - then it is posul as a Get Me'usa.

However I belief contrary to Dicker that the Get is valid because R' A. M. Weiss refused giving the Get under these pressures and only gave it after negotiating a settlement under the direction and mediation of Rabbi Ronny Greenwald and Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky.

Guest post by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

May a GET be Coerced with Passive Ostracizing?

The laws of coercing a GET are in Even Hoezer 154. Paragraph 21 tells us that the Talmud sometimes permits a coercion of a GET with a beating or severe pressure such as putting  the husband in Nidui. Sometimes this is too strong a coercion and beatings and Nidui are forbidden, but we may tell the husband that he is a wicked person. The Talmud has ordered him to divorce his wife and he refuses. This applies to any case where the Talmud demands a GET but does not explicitly permit beatings or Nidui. There are other cases where the Talmud has not commanded the husband to divorce with a GET. In such circumstances, there is no permission for any type of coercion.

Briefly, as we will show, there are three categories of husbands in our question about ostracizing to force a GET. Those husbands who are commanded by the Talmud to give a GET or face a beating may be coerced to give a GET with passive ostracizing. Even active ostracizing is probably permitted because the Beth Din is permitted to beat the husband. The second level of husband who refuses to give a GET is when the Talmud commands the husband to give his wife a GET, but the Talmud does not say to beat him or apply the highest level of coercion. Such a person may not be coerced with humiliation, physical abuse, or Nidui. But he may be told, “You are a wicked person because the Talmud commands  you to give your wife a GET and you refuse it.” That is, we may tell the husband this but public humiliations such as a crowd of people shouting at him about this is forbidden because humiliation is a very serious kind of coercion and permitted only when beatings are permitted.

The third level is when the wife demands a GET because “my husband repels me” and I can’t remain in marriage with him. In such a case no coercion at all is permitted see EH 77 2;3 and all of the commentators there besides the Shulchan Aruch and Ramo who say “If the husband wants he can divorce and if he does not want he does not give a GET.” This is from the Rashbo teshuva VII:414 and accepted by the Radvaz, Beis Yosef EH 154 and Chazon Ish. The Gro #5 says that nobody permits coercion in MOUS OLEI “my husband repels me.” Meaning, nobody from the recent generations of the Shulchan Aruch, etc. In such a case nobody mentions any kind of coercion that is permitted. And nobody mentions ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam. This is only mentioned by the Ramo in the laws of Gittin as it applies to somebody who is commanded by the Talmud to divorce, not by somebody who is free not to divorce.

Those who seek excuses to coerce husbands where the Shulchan Aruch says not to coerce him, often refer to Rabbeinu Tam and his permission to ostracize a husband in a passive manner. We want therefore to deal with the common type of demand of the wife for a GET, when she says MOUS OLEI, my husband repels me. In such a case coercion is forbidden, but coercion is usually active coercion. But is it forbidden to coerce passively by ostracizing the husband?

The laws of a woman demanding a GET when we do not coerce the husband to divorce her are dealt with not in the laws of Gittin in the above chapter 154, but in another chapter and another section of Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer about the laws of KESUBOSE or issues among married people. See EH 77 paragraph 2,3. Both the Ashkenazi and the Sefardic commentator do not permit coercion if the woman claims my husband repels me or MOUS OLEI. If so, even the Ramo who permits ostracizing in the Laws of Gittin only permits it in the case where the Talmud demands a GET. But, in the vast majority of cases, surely MOUS OLEI, it is forbidden to ostracize the husband to coerce a GET even with passive ostracizing.

The Vilna Gaon says furthermore in his commentatory to the above section of Laws of Gittin, that we only permit coercion to divorce with passive ostracizing when the husband can leave the city and be safe. But if a general ostracizing is proclaimed in every city, and the husband cannot leave his city and be safe, it is forbidden.

The Shach in Gevuras Anoshim says that when the husband cannot function like a man, and the Talmud commands a GET, we do not beat him or make  NIDUI but we may ostracize him in a passive manner, but only if he can escape the ostracizing by going to another place. However, afterwards, the Shach says that because some disagree with this and forbid any kind of ostracizing because it is a very powerful coercion, it may invalidate the GET and we should not do it at all, unless the Talmud clearly states that a person may be beaten.

Thus, the Shach and the Vilna Gaon both forbid ostracizing in a passive manner if the husband cannot leave his city and go somewhere else. Today, where communication and organized Aguna organizations reach a husband outside his original city, the Shach and Vilna Gaon would forbid coercion with ostracizing even when the husband is commanded to give a GET by the Talmud. But to coerce in MOUS OLEI is surely forbidden by the Ramo, the Vilna Gaon and the Shach, who forbids it completely.

Thus nobody permits ostracizing a husband if he does not divorce when the wife claims “he repels me.” And if the husband has a condition whereby he cannot be a husband and the Talmud commands him to divorce his wife, the Shach and Chazon Ish forbid ostracizing in a passive manner to force him to divorce. But if the Talmud does not command the husband to divorce, such as when the wife claims “he repels me, “ nobody permits coercion, and certainly not such a strong coercion as being publicly ostracized until he divorces his wife.

If the husband is commanded to divorce by the Talmud as when he has problems fulfilling the marriage, the Ramo permits passive ostracizing, but the Gro and Shach insist that this is only true if the husband can escape the ostracizing by going to a different city. The Shach in Gevuras Anoshim says that a major authority says that it was unheard of to coerce with Rabbeinu Tam’s ostracizing, and the Shach rules that we should not use it today even if the husband is commanded by the Talmud to give a GET, unless the Talmud suggests beating the husband.

Therefore, the habit of some people to invent leniencies to coerce by seizing upon Rabbeinu Tam and ostracizing are wrong because of the great authorities who forbid it even when the Talmud commands a GET and certainly ostracizing is forbidden with MOUS OLEI when the Talmud does not command a GET.

40 comments :

  1. You continue to say that the husband is free not to divorce his wife in the case of Maus Ali. However here are the words of a Teshuva from Piskei Din signed by Rav Elyashiv, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu and Rav Yisraeli:
    ובכלל מורדת עם אמתלא, זה תלוי כפי ראות עיני ביה"ד כי לכל מורדת אמתלא, אבל אם האמתלא מתקבלת או לא זה קובע ומחליט ביה"ד. ובנ"ד נכון הוא שהבעל דורש ורוצה שלום בית, אבל כנראה היחס אל האשה בעבר המאיסוהו עליה, אע"פ שהבעל כשלעצמו הוא טוב וחשוב, ועיין כעין זה בתשובות הרשב"א (ח"א סי' תקע"ז) אבל בכל אופן אין שום מקום וחשש של אשה כזו, בעיניה נתנה באחר ח"ו. וכן אין מקום לטענת האשה כאילו הבעל חולה במחלת נפש, אכזר רע וכו', אלא פשוט לא איתדר להו
    וא"כ אם היא טוענת מאסתיהו אע"פ שאין אנו דנים בזה כהרמב"ם (גרושין י"ד ח') שכופין, אבל שמצוה לגרשה ולא לעגן בת ישראל דין הוא

    So according the this language there are is a positive commandment(to give a Get) and a negative(to not chain a Bat Yisrael) that the husband would be violating in not giving a women with the claim Mais Ali a Get. Can you please explain how it is that you see such a Get as being optional when Gedolim such as these have said that it is mandatory?

    Sorry I don't have exact Vol and Page number in the Piskei HaDin, however the header says:
    ט"ו באדר א' תשל"ח, תיק 197\לח
    Which ought to be sufficient to find it if anyone doubts that I have copied this portion accurately and I will be willing upon request to copy the entire Teshuva.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So according the this language there are is a positive commandment(to give a Get) and a negative(to not chain a Bat Yisrael) that the husband would be violating in not giving a women with the claim Mais Ali a Get."

      What does mitzva mean here? It seems to be that it is desirable as the Rambam uses it for something which is a good idea. Similarly I am not aware of a Torah or rabbinic aveira called not to create an aguna.

      Furthermore is this only in a case of ma'us alei where the beis din agrees with her that he is objectively disgusting? Would you agree that in a case where the woman says "you are not a bad person but just not for me" that the above dayanim would agree that divorce is totally optional?

      In sum, 1) does the term mitzva here mean anything more than "it would be nice"? 2) would this mitzva apply in all cases where wife wants divorce or only when she says he is disgusting to her and the judges agree?

      Delete
    2. Why would you think that the mitzvah to give a Get for Maos Ali is only applicable if the beis din agrees with her claim that he is disgusting? That teshuva Michael quoted doesn't state such a limitation of this mitzvah.

      Delete
    3. I found it on Bar Ilan - and you will note in the first line that they say the husband is not obligated to give a get. Thus at most the term "mitsva" means that they think it is good advice. Furthermore it is clear from reading the teshuva that this is given as advice or a good idea and not obligatory.

      פסקי דין רבניים משפטי שאול סימן כ

      א. יאמר מיד, שאין אנו רואים בפס"ד מיום ט"ו אדר תשל"ח, כפסק המחייב או כופה על הבעל לתת גט, וממילא אין סתירה בין פסק זה לפסק מיום כ"ג אלול תשל"ז. ובפרט למה שכותב ביה"ד האזורי בנימוקיו שכוונתם היא "שורת הדין והיושר כי על הבעל לפטור את אשתו בג"פ כשטוענת האשה מאיס עלי". וביה"ד מנמק בסעיף ו' לנימוקים: "הבעל פטור מלשלם את הכתובה בהיות והאשה הסכימה לבקשת הבעל להכריזה כמורדת, וויתרה על כתובתה, ובית הדין הכריז עליה כמורדת, על כן פטור הבעל לשלם לאשתו את כתובתה", היינו אם לא היתה האשה מסכימה להכריז עליה כמורדת ולא היתה מסכימה לוותר על כתובתה לא היו פוסקים כן. ולכאורה תימה, הרי היא הצהירה וחזרה והצהירה שהיא אינה מוכנה לחזור אליו ואין לך מורדת גדולה מזו, ואין תמיה הרי היא טענה וחזרה וטענה שהיא מואסת בו, באמתלא ברורה, ואין עיניה באחר, ומורדת כזו אין צורך בהתראות וכו', מכריזים עליה כמורדת מחמת מאוס עלי ואין לה כתובה (ע"ז סעיף ב'). וזה אפילו למאן דאמר שאין כופין בטענת מאיס עלי אלא אם רצה הבעל לגרש. ויתכן שכוונת ביה"ד שהם לא דנו וחקרו ודרשו בענין מורדת או יותר נכון לא פסקו מורדת רק לאחר שהאשה הסכימה לזה מפורשות, שאם לא כן, יתכן ולא היו פוסקים עליה מורדת אפי' של מאיס עלי, כי אעפ"כ שכל מאיס עלי טענה יש לה. כן יתכן והיו מוצאים טענה אלימתא שאין לה דין מורדת כלל, ובפרט שהבעל מחל פעם על הכרזת מורדת וחזר בו רק משום חשש של תביעת מזונות, הוי שהיא מורדת לענין מזונות בלבד. אבל אין להכנס לזה, היא הסכימה והיא מחלה, וגם בפנינו לא חזרה בה מזה. וא"כ דיינו אם נתן לה דין של מאיס עלי ולא דין של בעלו"ל, (ויש נ"מ גדולה כי דרכי הכרזה של העלו"ל הם שונים והנסיבות הם שונות וכן יש נפקותא לעניני ממון, עיין שו"ע סי' ע"ז סעי' ב'). ובפרט לפנינו כיום שיש מכתב כזה של הבעל על אשתו, ללא שום הוכחה ואפילו אחת, ואף על פי שהבעל מנסה לטייח דבריו ולטעון שהוא רק הגיב ולא הוא המתחיל, עכ"ז במשפחות כשל שני הצדדים אין לך אדם שמוציא שם רע על אשתו גדול מזה. ובצדק טוען ב"כ האשה, שזה לא גרע ממה שנכתב בס' ע"ד סעיף ג'. ובכלל מורדת עם אמתלא, זה תלוי כפי ראות עיני ביה"ד כי לכל מורדת אמתלא, אבל אם האמתלא מתקבלת או לא זה קובע ומחליט ביה"ד, ובנ"ד נכון הוא שהבעל דורש ורוצה ש"ב, אבל כנראה היחס אל האשה בעבר המאיסוהו עליה אף על פי שהבעל כשלעצמו הוא טוב וחשוב, ועיין כעין זה בתשובות הרשב"א תקע"ז. אבל בכל אופן אין שום מקום וחשש של אשה כזו, בעיניה נתנה באחר ח"ו. וכן אין מקום לטענת האשה כאילו הבעל חולה במחלת נפש אכזר רע וכו', אלא פשוט לא איתדר להו, וא"כ אם היא טוענת מאיסתיהו אף על פי שאין אנו דנים בזה כהרמב"ם שכופין, אבל שמצוה לגרשה ולא לעגן בת ישראל דין הוא. ומה שטוען הבעל שהאשה מעולם לא אמרה "מאיס עלי", הוכחנו לעיל שכן אמרה, ואפילו משפטים יותר גרועים מזה וא"כ אין ספק שהיא מואסת בו. ומה שלא הוכח, הוא, אם זה עם אמתלא ברורה או בלי, וע"כ מן הראוי הוא שיגרש את אשתו ויפה שעה אחת קודם.

      Delete
    4. BTW I could find no mention that is psak is from Rav Eliashiv as you claim. The psak is signed by

      פסקי דין רבניים משפטי שאול סימן כ

      שאול ישראלי, יוסף קאפח, מרדכי אליהו

      Delete
    5. The person who posted the above, I believe was going from Shu"T Mamar Mordekhai. That same teshuva is found there in vol 2. Early editions had a typo of Rav Elyashiv for Rav Kapach.

      That aside I think the line in question can't be taken simply as good advice, as it says דין הוא. I don't know of anywhere that the language דין הוא is used to imply good advice.

      Delete
    6. So it is not clear from this citation what the parameters are. It clearly says there is no chiyuv. You are saying that דין הוא never means advice and therefore means chiyuv? I think at most it means "it is the appropriate thing to do". Meaning it is optional but we prefer it.

      Delete
    7. Is there any clear-cut Halacha or Psak Din or shitta that clearly indicates that in a case where a wife demands a Get claiming Maos Ali, that the husband has no obligation, not even an obligation per Dinei Shamayim ("Beis Din shel Maala") that is unenforceable in Beis Din (shel Mata), to give her a Get?

      Delete
    8. I don't see how you are coming to that. The language clearly places it as a halakhic obligation, just one that the B"D is not empowered to use כפיה to enforce. There are many mitzvot, including milah, to quote the Sh"A 260
      מצוות עשה לאב למול את בנו וגדולה מצוה זו משאר מצוות עשה. So regardless that this mitzvah is greater than all the other positive mitzvot what happens if the father refuses to circumcise his son? Do we force him? No, see 261.
      There are many mitzvot which we do not beat a person, or otherwise force them to comply with, that however does not mean any less that they hare halakhically obligated to do them.
      Likewise there are many negative mitzvot that a Beit Din is not empowered to beat, or otherwise force a person to comply with.
      Which to me seems to be precisely what the language is saying here. Whether or not she is a moredet or has a good reason, the husband has a halakhic obligation to give her a divorce, and a prohibition of leaving her as an agunah.

      Delete
    9. RMT: Are you taking the position that if a wife wakes up one morning from a normal unabusive marriage and feels that single-life is more entertaining to her than married life, and on that basis demands a Get, her husband must give her a Get? (And if he doesn't giver her a Get, then she is defined as an "aguna"?)

      Delete
    10. Insight

      Read the teshuva. The position is not mine, it is that of those esteemed Rabbis. Obviously, as they say, the Beit Din should try to reconcile the marriage, however, when it is clear that the wife has no intent whatsoever of ever returning to live with her husband under any circumstances, then they say that he must give her a Get.

      Whether or not they are correct in their position, I am not debating currently. However, I find it difficult to say that the only valid halakhic position is that of R' Dovid Eidensohn when these were well respected Chareidi Rabbanim who wrote this Teshuva. Clearly they had a different understanding.

      Delete
    11. I don't think we are reading the same text.

      The psak begins with שאין אנו רואים בפס"ד מיום ט"ו אדר תשל"ח, כפסק המחייב או כופה על הבעל לתת גט,

      "The psak does not obligate or force the husband to give a get"

      It doesn't say he is obligated but we have no power to force him.

      If he is not obligated and beis din is not forcing him to give a get - that means it is optional i.e., reshus. Beis din does feel that he should and that it is appropriate i.e., mitzva - but there is not the slightest "obligation" to give a get.

      Delete
    12. @Right thing - RavEliashiv states such in his printed teshuvos as does Rav Obadia Yosef and others. The comments are scatterd in the archives - look for "ma'us alei". If you have problem I'll try finding it.

      Delete
    13. http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/rav-eliashiv-maos-alei-from-kovetz.html

      Delete
    14. I don't think we are reading the same text.
      Correct, they didn't see that the local Beit Din, namely the Jerusalem Beit Din, which was the one that ruled on 15th of Adar obligated the husband to a Get. However, that is not their ruling. Their ruling is what comes after, and the maskanah clearly states that the Beit Din HaGadol, ruled that the husband was obligated to give his wife a Get. When they state in their maskanah:
      א, על הבעל לפטור את אשתו בגט פיטורין כדמו"י
      That is plainly clearly cut. What the above commentor brought and what you brought in full is their teshuva for that part of their decision.

      Delete
    15. Daas TorahFebruary 6, 2014 at 6:45 PM
      @Right thing - RavEliashiv states such in his printed teshuvos as does Rav Obadia Yosef and others. The comments are scatterd in the archives - look for "ma'us alei". If you have problem I'll try finding it.
      Daas TorahFebruary 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM
      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/rav-eliashiv-maos-alei-from-kovetz.html


      Actually Rav Elyashiv doesn't clearly state that. He states quite the opposite in fact in several places in the Piskei Din.

      Frankly I am surprised and shocked that you are still pushing that position when it has been clearly shown here on this blog that that particular Kovetz was edited without the knowledge of Rav Elyashiv to contain material he never wrote, and then fraudulently put forward in his name. Even you brought sources showing that Rav Elyashiv clearly rejected the Kovetz Teshuvot.

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/rav-eliashiv-reliability-of-psakim-said.html

      Delete
    16. Here is the full teshuva under discussion:
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/205170387/Piskei-Din-Chiyuv-Mais-Ali

      I believe you will find that Rav Eliyahu and Rav Yisraeli have different logical paths that they take to get there, but they both come to the same conclusion and Rav Kapach simply writes that he agrees with both.

      Delete
    17. Daas Torah: Thank you.

      Rabbi Michael Tzadok: Rav Eliashiv's printed teshuvos indicate that he holds that there is no obligation, not even an unenforceable one from Dinei Shamayim/"Beis Din shel Maala", that he has to give a Get. So it isn't only Rav Dovid Eidensohn who holds like this.

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rav-eliashivmaos-alei-get-not-required.html

      Delete
    18. Though Rav Yisraeli brings this in his Teshuva I think that it bears emphasizing. It is the Rema Y"D 228:20
      אם האשה אומרת ששונאה אותו ונתנה אמתלה טובה לדבריה מתירין לה שלא מדעתו דאפילו אם כבר נשאה האומרת מאיס עלי חייב להוציא

      Delete
    19. RMT writes: Actually Rav Elyashiv doesn't clearly state that. He states quite the opposite in fact in several places in the Piskei Din.

      Frankly I am surprised and shocked that you are still pushing that position when it has been clearly shown here on this blog that that particular Kovetz was edited without the knowledge of Rav Elyashiv to contain material he never wrote, and then fraudulently put forward in his name. Even you brought sources showing that Rav Elyashiv clearly rejected the Kovetz Teshuvot.
      ========================
      You have raised an important issue - but you haven't proven which is the true view of Rav Eliashiv. The sefer Shakdan does indicate that Rav Eliashiv had problems with the printed teshuva - but it doesn't say it was in relationship to this issue and in fact he did have the printed teshuvos in his seforim collection.

      I assume that the resolution is that where beis din agrees with the wife that she had a clear objective basis for despising the husband that Rav Eliashiv would agree that the husband must give his wife a get. However the teshuva cited above does not deal with that case.

      The other basis for requiring a get and utilizing Rabbeinu Tam's hacharkos deal with the situation that the wife will lead an immoral life if she doesn't receive a Get. Which is also not the above psak. However this is discussed clearly by Rav Ovadiah Yosef and the Tzitz Eliear.

      Delete
    20. In previous blogs I have presented proofs that in MOUS OLEI there is no obligation to divorce. The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 2,3 is filled with the major poskim who all say it is forbidden to coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI. The Vilna Gaon says in #5 that nobody (of the Shulchan Aruch poskim) disagrees. So to come along with some contemporary rabbis who permit coercion with MOUS OLEI is ridiculous. But I have noticed that the Rabbonus, beginning with a certain prominent Rov of the past generation, is desperate to find some reason to coerce. This is because the Rabonut is paid by the government and if they would keep the Shulchan Aruch it would not be tolerated at last by the secular majority in Israel. And today, who knows how many rabbis have better things to do than to learn the laws of Gittin in the Shulchan Aruch. I have been told by prominent rabbis in Israel that the rabbonuse is a big problem with MOUS OLEI.

      Delete
    21. http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/rav-yosef-320-forcing-only-sometimes.html. Here Rav Ovadiya Yosef explains - by the use of combining a number of different issues why is is permitted to force the husband to give a Get. However it would seem that in a more normal case that he would not permit applying pressure to give a Get.

      Rav Eliashiv clearly differentiates between where there is a clear objective basis why she find him repulsive and beis din agrees and where she just wants out
      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rav-eliashivmaos-alei-get-not-required.html

      There is a machlokes between Rabbeinu Yona and Rabbeinu Tam. Rabbeinu Yona permits calling the husband a sinner if he doesn't listen to beis din to divorce. He seems to refer to all cases of ma'us alei. Rabbeinu Tam clearly disagrees.

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rabbeinu-yonah-maus-alei-mitzva-to.html

      The above post also discusses the Rema cited by Rabbi Tzaddok and the dispute as to whether the Rema actually held that view because as the Taz points out this contradicts what he says in E.H. 77. Rav O Yosef repeats there that in the modern world there is a need for pressuing a divorce - which was so in previous times - because the wife is likely to sin. TheTzitz Eliezar agrees with that reasoning.

      see also

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/rav-sternbuchmoredes-went-to-civil.html who says that a Get should be given if the marriage is clearly over and he is not giving a Get because of spite

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/maus-alei-husband-digustingwife.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/mamzerim-from-forced-get-in-maus-alei.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/maus-alei-forced-only-if-disgusting.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/maus-alei-accept-rambams-psak.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/agnuna-what-are-possible-solutions.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rav-yosef-forced-get-for-maus-alei.html

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rabbeinu-yerucham-forcing-husband-to.html

      Delete
    22. The Right ThingFebruary 6, 2014 at 7:37 PM

      Rabbi Michael Tzadok: Rav Eliashiv's printed teshuvos indicate that he holds that there is no obligation, not even an unenforceable one from Dinei Shamayim/"Beis Din shel Maala", that he has to give a Get. So it isn't only Rav Dovid Eidensohn who holds like this.


      As I have demonstrated numerous times that Teshuva has been altered from it's original printed form, and it was altered without the oversight of Rav Elyashiv. You can read his original Teshuva in the Piskei Din, which is quite different.

      Daas TorahFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:12 PM
      You have raised an important issue - but you haven't proven which is the true view of Rav Eliashiv.

      I would respectfully disagree. First Kovetz Teshuvot itself states very clearly that Rav Elyashiv had nothing to do with the compilation or editing of the sefer.
      Second the Kovetz Teshuvot itself says that it brought that Teshuva from the Piskei Din. However, there are additions there that are not found in that Piskei Teshuva, and further are not found in any of the Piskei Teshuva bearing Rav Elyashiv's signature.

      So simply if Rav Elyashiv had nothing to do with the sefer, and it contains material absent from his original teshuvot as found in Piskei din, and material not found anywhere in piskei din, all the while claiming that piskei din is it's source, it becomes quite quickly apparent which is the authentic Teshuva.

      assume that the resolution is that where beis din agrees with the wife that she had a clear objective basis for despising the husband that Rav Eliashiv would agree that the husband must give his wife a get.

      That would be the sum of his printed teshuvot. Thus it remains a machloket poskim whether the wife needs a good reason for despising her husband.

      Delete
    23. Dovid EidensohnFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:26 PM
      In previous blogs I have presented proofs that in MOUS OLEI there is no obligation to divorce.

      No you haven't, at least not a coherent one that matches the sources.

      The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 2,3 is filled with the major poskim who all say it is forbidden to coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI. The Vilna Gaon says in #5 that nobody (of the Shulchan Aruch poskim) disagrees.
      No disagreement there.

      So to come along with some contemporary rabbis who permit coercion with MOUS OLEI is ridiculous.
      Aside from Rav Shachter there is, under extreme cases Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Titiz Eliezer and the Ben Ish Hai. If you think that they are so ridiculous why don't you actually prove them wrong. Show where they erred in reading their sources. You claimed in the past that you would, and I offered to take your rebuttal to Rav Ovadia for you. Sadly you never did take me up on that offer.

      But I have noticed that the Rabbonus, beginning with a certain prominent Rov of the past generation, is desperate to find some reason to coerce.
      The Ben Ish Hai, and further the sources he relies upon, are at least two generations back.

      This is because the Rabonut is paid by the government and if they would keep the Shulchan Aruch it would not be tolerated at last by the secular majority in Israel.
      I am pretty sure that the Ben Ish Hai was never a part of Rabbanut.

      And today, who knows how many rabbis have better things to do than to learn the laws of Gittin in the Shulchan Aruch. I have been told by prominent rabbis in Israel that the rabbonuse is a big problem with MOUS OLEI.
      Please name these supposed Rabbanim that say such a thing, because it is a clear motzei shem ra, and we should know which Rabbis are willing to spread falsehoods to further their political positions. Every Teshuva that I have found in Piskei Din, including the one brought above, has said that we are not permitted to coerce a husband in the case of a Mais Ali.

      However we are not talking coercion we are talking chiyuv.

      Delete
    24. The above post also discusses the Rema cited by Rabbi Tzaddok and the dispute as to whether the Rema actually held that view because as the Taz points out this contradicts what he says in E.H. 77.

      However the Shakh there argues on the Taz and says that it is the view of Rema and it is his intent in EH"E 77:2.

      Rav O Yosef repeats there that in the modern world there is a need for pressuing a divorce - which was so in previous times - because the wife is likely to sin. TheTzitz Eliezar agrees with that reasoning.
      While he does have what to rely upon in regards to the Ben Ish Hai, Rav Ovadia's position is hardly accepted, even by Sephardi poskim.

      BTW as a side note the above Teshuva does well in defining what is Mais Ali and what is a Moredet. A woman is considered Mais Ali when she has a clear reason that is accepted as true by the B"D, otherwise she is a Moredet. The latter having very different halakhot.

      Delete
    25. Dovid EidensohnFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:26 PM
      In previous blogs I have presented proofs that in MOUS OLEI there is no obligation to divorce.


      Going with the way the Piskei Din cited above and Rav Elyashiv have defined Mais Ali and Moredet, we are talking about a woman who has a clear reason that the B"D believes.

      So the ultimate problem I have with this statement that you continue to make is that by the given definitions in halakha you are saying that even if a man beats his wife night and day with an iron rod, he has no halakhic obligation to even give her a divorce.

      Please if I am wrong in my understanding of your view correct me, but I do not personally see another way to understand your words.

      Delete
    26. Reb Dovid -

      you make a point regarding the Shulchan Aruch, that certain rabbis are changing the halacha. I wish to ask a general question, not relating to forced Gittin specifically, but rather about your understanding of the SA.
      And this is a question not a statement - so gentlemen like katche please do not attack me for asking the question.

      What gives the Shulchan Aruch absolute authority that wasn't enjoyed by previous compendiums such as the RIF, the Rambam's Yad, the Meiri etc ? I was told many years ago by my Rav that when the SA was published it was strongly attacked by the Gedolim of that generation and the next, until it gradually was accepted.
      One idea floating around is that it was instructed by the Arizal to R' Caro, hence it must have total authority. Why can't someone today produce a new digest of halacha or rule differently from the SA?

      Thank you

      Delete
    27. "That would be the sum of his printed teshuvot. Thus it remains a machloket poskim whether the wife needs a good reason for despising her husband."

      RMT: So you are acknowledging that some poskim hold that the halacha is that if the wife lacks a good reason to hate her husband then there is no obligation for him to give a Get? Otherwise how are you differentiating between the poskim who say she doesn't need a good reason and the poskim who say she does need to have a good reason?

      Delete
    28. How is the halacha different for a wife who is a moredes demanding a Get and a wife who is only saying maos ali without being a moredes?

      Also, doesn't halacha give a husband recourse through beis din to bring his wife in line and force her to stop being a moredes if she is a moredes?

      Delete
    29. Eddie,
      You ask what is the special authority of the Shulchan Aruch. We could discuss that, but in the case we are discussing it is not necessary. As the Vilna Gaon says in Even Hoezer 77 #5, nobody disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch and Ramo that in MOUS OLEI "my husband repels me" there is no right to coerce the husband to divorce. If so, and we see that all of the commentators printed around the Shulchan Aruch agreeing with Rabbi Yosef Karo and Reb Moshe Isserles who wrote the Shulchan Aruch, who can disagree? And yet, if somebody had a source, I would listen to it. But there is no source. If so, the only game in town is the Shulchan Aruch. I would really appreciate it if you can ask a rabbi who disagrees with me what his source is. And if such and such is his source, does it override the complete agreement of the Shulchan Aruch as I state?

      Delete
    30. Eddie,
      You ask what is the special authority of the Shulchan Aruch. We could discuss that, but in the case we are discussing it is not necessary. As the Vilna Gaon says in Even Hoezer 77 #5, nobody disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch and Ramo that in MOUS OLEI "my husband repels me" there is no right to coerce the husband to divorce. If so, and we see that all of the commentators printed around the Shulchan Aruch agreeing with Rabbi Yosef Karo and Reb Moshe Isserles who wrote the Shulchan Aruch, who can disagree? And yet, if somebody had a source, I would listen to it. But there is no source. If so, the only game in town is the Shulchan Aruch. I would really appreciate it if you can ask a rabbi who disagrees with me what his source is. And if such and such is his source, does it override the complete agreement of the Shulchan Aruch as I state?

      Delete
    31. VineFebruary 6, 2014 at 10:19 PM
      RMT: So you are acknowledging that some poskim hold that the halacha is that if the wife lacks a good reason to hate her husband then there is no obligation for him to give a Get?


      Yes absolutely. In fact I would argue that the majority of poskim and the Sh"A(Mechaber AND Rema) say that lacking a good reason that the B"D believes the term Mais Ali does not apply to her at all. She is a moredet.

      InsightFebruary 6, 2014 at 10:21 PM
      How is the halacha different for a wife who is a moredes demanding a Get and a wife who is only saying maos ali without being a moredes?

      Also, doesn't halacha give a husband recourse through beis din to bring his wife in line and force her to stop being a moredes if she is a moredes?

      See EH"E 77:2 and it will answer all of your questions. First with a moredet we have the halakhic responsibility to publicly emabarrass her. The Mechaber says that her status must be announced in the Synagogue every day, and the Rema says that every Shabbat will suffice.

      Unlike a Mais Ali a husband is not required to give his wife a Get immediately, but as the Rema says, only after a year. If she continues in her status as a moredet beyond the initial month of embarrassment, she is given a year in which she receives no support from her husband of any sort to rethink her ways. The Rema then clearly says that if she has not changed her ways after a year the man should divorce her so that he can remarry and be active in the mitzvah of Pru Uvru.

      While we cannot pressure him to give his wife a Get by Ashkenazi Halakha we can encourage him to be involved in Pru Uvru(see EH"E 1:4 and most especially the Rema there), and by Sephardi Halakha we can under certain circumstances be kofin to Pru Uvru(See the Chida Birke Yosef EH"E 1:10).
      Otherwise there are some differences in what the wife leaves the marriage with.

      Delete
    32. Why aren't we embarrassing moredes' every day or week as halacha states? I have never heard any denunciation in shul of the many moredes' out there. Not one in many decades or longer.

      Delete
  2. Can you point to us the letter of Rabbi Miller?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rav Eidensohn, isn’t it possible that Shira Dicker correctly reported the facts, and Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, Rav Malkiel Kotler and the other Rabbonim involved in the case disagree with your brother’s psak on Mous Olei? To many people that is the simplest and most likely explanation.

      Did Rav Dovid Feinstein or Rav Malkiel Kotler ever warn people not push too hard to avoid creating a posul Get? What evidence do you have that these Rabbonim pasken like your brother, aside from the general presumption that “great minds think alike”? Perhaps you have evidence to how these Rabbonim pasken that is so powerful that we must conclude that Shira Dicker must be lying or exaggerating. If you do, please share it.

      Delete
    2. Confused, why would you assume that a Reform Jewess like Dicker is telling the truth?

      Delete
  3. Did you see this letter from Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky? I wish he would send a public letter to Tamar, so we can know what happened.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=557479374348643

    ReplyDelete
  4. What letter from Rav Shlomo Miller? Did I miss a post?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.