Recently a new group of people who invent halacha different than what it says in Shulchan Aruch and poskim have done it again. They have created a new law that doesn't exist that permits women to remarry without a GET. They claim that when their Beth Din says that the husband wants to give his wife a GET, he does want to give the GET, even though the husband is yelling that he does not want to give a GET. They call this ZIKUI. I call it a bald lie and a formula for making mamzerim, which it is.
It is incredible that people have no shame and say complete lies that back their claim that although in Jewish history nobody ever did such a thing they are doing it and they are smarter than the previous rabbis.
The great flaw in all of this is that when the woman says my husband is repulsive to me there is no mitsvah upon the husband to give a GET. Not only that, it is a sin for the husband to divorce his wife if they have children, and if they have no children, it is a sin for the marriage to break up without at least efforts at repairing it. This is based upon the Rashbo in VII:414 "if he wants to divorce, he divorces, and if he does not want to divorce, he doesn't have to divorce." This is brought by all of the poskim in EH 77 two and three. See Gro #5 that nobody disagrees. Thus, the basic premise in all of this that it is a mitsvah for the husband to divorce his wife is wrong. Furthermore, if every single case where the wife wants a GET it is a mitsvah to give a GET and therefore Beth Din can assume the identity of the husband or whatever they call it to represent him and his will and force a GET, why in all of the generations was this hidden from those searching a way to save a woman from a terrible husband? See Teshuvose Marshal 41. Now, in the case where it is a mitsvah to divorce, such as in EH 154 at the end, and the Shulchan Aruch struggles to find a way to help coerce the husband, why doesn't it bring down this idea? Obviously, nobody ever thought of it there or anywhere because it is wrong. Furthermore, even if somebody did think of it, the fact is that most authorities ignored it. We then have the Chasam Sofer in two places in his teshuva that when there is an argument about whether to coerce a GET and the husband is coerced the GET is definitely invalid, even though some rabbis permit the coercion, it is not a doubtful GET but definitely no good. Now, in this case, the Beth Din is giving a ZIKUI based on the idea that they represent the husband who really wants a GET. Why, according to the Chasam Sofer, is this definitely not GET when BETH DIN can invent the husband's will based on their pesak? If so, some rabbis invented the husband's will and the GET is kosher, at least, it is doubtful. But the Chasam Sofer says that the GET is definitely no good. This is proof that Beth Din cannot speak for the husband. And if this is true, that Beth Din can speak for the husband anytime it is a mitsvah to divorce, why, when the Shulchan Aruch says clearly in 154 that a husband who is not a man must divorce by the teachings of the Talmud, that we can't make zikui?
The Latest Treifeh Excuses for Making Mamzerim - GET ZIKUI
The Latest Treifeh Excuses for Making Mamzerim - GET ZIKUI
The Latest Treifeh Excuses for Making Mamzerim - GET ZIKUI
It is incredible that people have no shame and say complete lies that back their claim that although in Jewish history nobody ever did such a thing they are doing it and they are smarter than the previous rabbis.
The great flaw in all of this is that when the woman says my husband is repulsive to me there is no mitsvah upon the husband to give a GET. Not only that, it is a sin for the husband to divorce his wife if they have children, and if they have no children, it is a sin for the marriage to break up without at least efforts at repairing it. This is based upon the Rashbo in VII:414 "if he wants to divorce, he divorces, and if he does not want to divorce, he doesn't have to divorce." This is brought by all of the poskim in EH 77 two and three. See Gro #5 that nobody disagrees. Thus, the basic premise in all of this that it is a mitsvah for the husband to divorce his wife is wrong. Furthermore, if every single case where the wife wants a GET it is a mitsvah to give a GET and therefore Beth Din can assume the identity of the husband or whatever they call it to represent him and his will and force a GET, why in all of the generations was this hidden from those searching a way to save a woman from a terrible husband? See Teshuvose Marshal 41. Now, in the case where it is a mitsvah to divorce, such as in EH 154 at the end, and the Shulchan Aruch struggles to find a way to help coerce the husband, why doesn't it bring down this idea? Obviously, nobody ever thought of it there or anywhere because it is wrong. Furthermore, even if somebody did think of it, the fact is that most authorities ignored it. We then have the Chasam Sofer in two places in his teshuva that when there is an argument about whether to coerce a GET and the husband is coerced the GET is definitely invalid, even though some rabbis permit the coercion, it is not a doubtful GET but definitely no good. Now, in this case, the Beth Din is giving a ZIKUI based on the idea that they represent the husband who really wants a GET. Why, according to the Chasam Sofer, is this definitely not GET when BETH DIN can invent the husband's will based on their pesak? If so, some rabbis invented the husband's will and the GET is kosher, at least, it is doubtful. But the Chasam Sofer says that the GET is definitely no good. This is proof that Beth Din cannot speak for the husband. And if this is true, that Beth Din can speak for the husband anytime it is a mitsvah to divorce, why, when the Shulchan Aruch says clearly in 154 that a husband who is not a man must divorce by the teachings of the Talmud, that we can't make zikui?
The Latest Treifeh Excuses for Making Mamzerim - GET ZIKUI
The Latest Treifeh Excuses for Making Mamzerim - GET ZIKUI
The Latest Treifeh Excuses for Making Mamzerim - GET ZIKUI
No comments:
Post a Comment