Shema and Penitence

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

We want to cover two Torah teachings. One is the passage in Shema ואהבת את השם אלקיך. Why is there the word את? Let it just say “Love HaShem”?

The second Torah teaching is the Zohar in the beginning of Yisro. The Zohar quotes Yisro as saying “Now I know that HaShem is the true G‑d.” For some reason after the disciples of Rebbe Shimon compliment him strongly on his teaching, they become very emotional, even discussing what life will be like when Rabbi Shimon dies, and concluding that his teachings will descend from the other world.

Let us answer the first passage why there is the word ESS. The rabbis ask this question and explain that The ESS is added to require us to love one’s rebbe or Torah teacher. Now that seems to be an incredible thing. Can a human being, even a teacher of Torah, be put in the same passage as HaShem?

First the answer to the first question why we are commanded not just to love HaShem but to love ESS meaning an additional thing. What additional thing is there that we are commanded to love? The rabbis say we are commanded to love HaShem and His Torah scholars. But a Torah scholar is far removed from HaShem. What does all of this mean?

 Let us imagine that there is a beginning Torah student, and he has a very great rabbi. If we tell this student to love his rebbe, he has no problems with it. Because the rebbe is a person and his powers and problems are known and understood by people, even the beginning Torah student, with at least basic understanding.

However, when HaShem commands us to love HaShem, we have a problem. None of us including Moshe Rabbeinu ever saw HaShem. Moshe prayed to see HaShem and was shown a bit of HaShem’s tephilin. But not HaShem himself. Of course, even if HaShem wanted to show Himself to us, who among us has the eyes and the brain to absorb what he sees? Nobody, not even the greatest angel. Therefore, how can we love something we cannot possibly even see, not totally and not part of Him?

Therefore, the ESS is added to include rabbis and Torah scholars. Because as we love our rabbis and Torah scholars, Torah enters our hearts and heads, and once Torah enters our soul, the Torah brings with it miraculously, the love of HaShem. That is why there is a Torah. We cannot know HaShem, but if we know Torah, the Torah brings us, to some degree, depending on how well we learn, to know HaShem and love and fear Him. Thus, when the Torah tells us to love HaShem, it must add that we must do this by loving rabbis and Torah scholars. Then Torah enters our hearts and our souls, and we can come from loving Torah to loving HaShem.

Now we turn to our next question. Why does the Zohar make such amazing comments when Rabbi Shimon tells us about Yisro? It is because he was once the greatest pagan and then saw the truth and worshipped HaShem. To understand this we must understand a rule taught by the Kabbalists, that when HaShem created Adam He created his lofty soul and prepared him for the greatest holiness. But there was something else. He prepared Adam for the greatest Tumo and evil. Before Adam was brought by HaShem into this world and the Garden of Eden, Adam had to pass down from the high heavens, and on the way, he was accosted by an angel of evil, designed to tempt mortals and bring them to sin. It seems that this woman become pregnant from Adam! After Adam came into the world and was in the Garden of Eden, got expelled because of the snake and Eve, Adam refused to go near his wife for a long time. He lived alone and every night that same evil angel came to Adam and made him do terrible sins, giving birth to many evil demons. What do we learn from this? We learn from this that HaShem created people to achieve the highest heavens only after they pass through the greatest temptations and evils.

This is why the Zohar was so enthused about Yisro when he confessed that he was once the greatest pagan but now strongly believes in HaShem. Yisro without being a pagan is “light from light” which is less powerful than “Light from darkness.” But the pure darkness of being the greatest pagan in the world has a power to reveal the greatest light. For this the Zohar waxes greatly enthusiastic when Rebbe Shimon revealed that Yisro who was once the greatest pagan but repented that belief, was able to find the greatest levels. Yisro was “light from darkness” which is greater than “Light from light.” Yisro merited to be the father-in-law of Moshe, and merited to have the Ten Commandments and the Torah revealed in his parsha, Parshas Yisro. He achieved this mighty level because of his earlier worship of the idols more than others did. The Torah is filled with darkness and the pious enter the darkness with penitence, with Teshuva, and struggle until they turn the black denseness into the greatest and holiest light. Thus all of us are afflicted with darkness and sin to some degree, and when we determine to repent, our darkness turns to the greatest light. For this a human being was created, to struggle with darkness and to repent and then to merit light from darkness, the highest level.

This does not mean that HaShem requires all people to sin terribly in order to merit paradise and higher levels. Some people are tempted and conquer the temptation and they are tsaddikim who don’t sin and maybe never sinned. The gemora and the Ari z”l said that some people only died because it was decreed on all people to die, but they had never sinned. But everybody has temptations. Some resist and some fail. But everyone can repent and find Paradise.

Baltimore Beth Din Backs Aharon Friedman: Washington Rabbis with a New Torah Made in Sedom

A letter from Baltimore Beth Din states that they, not the Washington rabbis, are the official Beth Din to deal with Aharon Friedman and his wife, and that Aharon has obeyed the Beth Din and does not at this point have to give his wife a GET until issues of custody are properly determined.

The letter condemns rabbis who are not accepted by both sides as the official Beth Din, and not only do they mix in, but they attack Aharon who has done nothing wrong.

The pertinent issues revealed by the Beth Din are:
1) Aharon has done nothing contrary to halacha.

2) Until husband and wife settle the issue of child custody, Aharon has no obligation to give his wife a GET.

3) Aharon was never "מעגן" his wife because until she cooperates with a Beth Din to determine about the custody of the child, Aharon has no obligation to give her a GET.

4) "To the best of our knowledge, he has not refused to divorce her nor has he made unreasonable demands; rather, he has insisted that the child custody issues be resolved properly first, which is entirely appropriate על פי דין תורה."

6) The Baltimore Beth Din writes, "Regretfully, we must conclude that much wrong has been done herein, in unjustified actions taken against Mr. Friedman, in wrongful defamation, and in being מבזה חברו ברבים...

7) "It is therefore clear that there is and was no valid Halachic היתר to publicly shame him, demonstrate against him, or otherwise unduly pressure him to divorce her."

7)  The Baltimore Beth Din wrote, "Numerous actions were taken against him...let alone physical assault and attempted abduction with intent to forcefully coerce divorce, רח"ל."

8) Aharon's wife Tamar is from a wealthy family. Her mother paid rabbinic gangsters to kidnap Aharon Friedman, but he managed to slip away. There were witnesses to this, and eventually the Trenton trial of the rabbi-kidnappers required Tamar's mother to pay a large fine.

9) The Washington rabbis are against Aharon but they say nothing about Tamar, who is "married" to another man with no GET at all, something which guarantees that any child she will have from that new husband will be a mamzer. But the Washington rabbis have no time for these problems. They are too busy forcing Aharon to give a GET to a tramp whose mother is a convicted gangster and kidnapper. That is how they do it in Washington. I call it not Washington but Sedom.

The Tragedy of Women Married with Kiddushin Who Can't Escape Their Husband and They Want a GET: Is it Time for Pilegesh, a True Marriage where People Can Leave without Penalty or Pressure?

To Force a Husband to Divorce His Wife

By Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn

The Rashbo[1] tells us about two wives who demanded a GET because they were fed up with their husbands. One husband was unable to have children, and the wife wanted a child. The other husband was a regular husband perhaps having children, but the wife didn’t like him at all. The Rashbo says that there are three rulings. First of all, neither of the wives can force a GET from the husband. Rarely, such as when a husband marries somebody forbidden to marry him, the Beth Din can force him to divorce her. This force can be physical. But such is rare.

Second of all, the husband who cannot have children is obligated by the gemora to give his wife a GET. This obligation is not a Torah power, but a lesser rabbinic power. Furthermore, we are limited in the pressures we may make on him. It is forbidden to put him in Nidui, to humiliate him, or to use physical force to force a GET on the husband. We can, however, tell him that the gemora must be obeyed and if he refuses to give his wife a GET he is considered wicked. This is based on the teaching of the gemora in Shabbos 40A that one who violates a rabbinic law may be called a wicked person.

Thirdly of all, the Rashbo says that a husband whose wife complains that she wants a GET has no obligation to obey her. “If he wants to, he gives a GET. And if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t give a GET.” This ruling is quoted heavily in the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer Laws of Kesubos chapter 77. In paragraph 3 in the Ramo we find it. In paragraph 2 in the Shulchan Aruch the Beis Yosef, the mechaber, quotes the Rashbo. The Vilna Gaon writes there[2] that the majority of Rishonim forbid coercing a GET from a husband. He then states that today everybody agrees that a husband generally cannot be forced to give a GET.

The Beis Shmuel, considered the outstanding commentator on Shulchan Aruch by the Maharsham[3], also quotes the Rashbo: “If the husband wants to divorce, fine but he is not to be pressured.” The Chelkas Mechokake there goes further and says, “If a man is pressured or forced to give a GET and his wife remarries after her husband was forced to divorce her, we force her to divorce the new husband.” Thus not one commentator disagrees with the Rashbo that a husband cannot be forced or pressured to divorce his wife, unless there are extreme circumstances such as the husband marrying somebody who is forbidden for him to marry. Rabbeinu Tam quoted by the Shita Mekubetses in Kesubose 64A says that Beth Din should not even suggest that a divorce would be a good thing.

The Chazon Ish[4] states that when a person is not from the small minority of men who may be forced to divorce their wives, and he goes to a Beth Din that mistakenly tells him that he is obligated by the Torah to divorce his wife, then the GET he makes is invalid for two reasons: One, it was a GET  given by force as the Beth Din’s instruction are ONESS or force. Two, since the rabbis made a mistake to order the GET, it is a GET given by mistake. These two reasons make the GET invalid by the strong level of the Torah, not merely a rabbinical level.

The great problem is that our wives marry with Kiddushin, and cannot leave the marriage without the husband’s approval. This has made some women irreligious, and many women bitter. Therefore, some rabbis will encourage the woman to force the husband to give a GET. This is wrong and results usually in the GET being forced and invalid. If the woman remarries with an invalid GET and has a child, the child is a mamzer, at least most of the time. This problem of women becoming Agunose is growing worse with time, especially when so many rabbis violate the Torah and encourage the forcing of the husband to divorce. As time goes on, more and more rabbis encourage invalid and forced Gittin. More and more women refuse the suffering of an Agunah. When will it end?

The idea that a woman comes to the Chupah and takes Kiddushin, in an era where so many women regret their marriage, is frightening. What can be done in an age where divorces are growing and everyone marries with Kiddushin? But should the woman marry without Kiddushin?

A woman who marries with the understanding that she cannot leave her husband unless he dies or gives her a GET, is a candidate for Kiddushin. But how long can the resolution last until she finally collapses and goes to a rabbi who will force her husband to give a GET? That number is growing constantly.

I therefore say as follows. If a woman is ready to give up her happiness forever with a husband she does not like, let her take Kiddushin. But if she is not sure (and who is sure about this), she may not want to take Kiddushin. But to live alone is wrong. Therefore, the only solution for the large number of women who are not ready to be Agunose their whole lives, is something else. It is called marrying with Pilegesh. Pilegesh simply means that a real marriage exists. But there are not in Pilegesh the chains that bind Agunose. Anyone husband or wife can leave anytime.

But is Pilegesh permitted? Pilegesh is discussed in the very beginning of the laws of Kiddushin in the Shulchan Aruch 26:1. The Vilna Gaon there quotes a gemora in Sanhedrin 21A that a Pilegesh has no Kiddushin and no Kesubo. But it is obvious that Pilegesh is accepted by the gemora. There are those who disagree with the gemora, but that is the halacha. But even if there are those who forbid Pilegesh, since there are many who permit it, such as Ramban and Yayvets, who are strongly for Pilegesh, and the gemora permits it, it surely is appropriate for anyone who fears becoming an Agunah. Because this fear can turn a woman into a forcer of her husband to give a GET and the making of mamzerim. Therefore, anyone who is not sure about living the life of an Agunah, should marry with Pilegesh. If anyone wants me to deal with their marriage as Pilegesh, call me at 845-578-1917 or write me at eidensohnd@gmail.com.

---

[1] Volume VII:414

[2] Comment #5

[3] IV:73

[4] Gittin 99:2 D”H יש לעיין

ORA Makes Mamzerim

The Halacha of Gittin and ORA’s

Mamzerim 

By Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn

Blog www.torahhalacha.blogspot.com

Shalom, I am Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn. My blog mentioned above presents halacha with sources. We show that many people involved with Gittin don’t know halacha. They therefore invent reasons to force a GET and torture husbands that violate the Shulchan Aruch. These mistakes create invalid Gittin and eventually mamzerim. Here is an example of Rabbi Jeremy Stern speaking to YU seniors, encouraging people to do things that produce mamzerim. Let us see how. 

First, the effort by Stern in regular text. My comments and criticism of Stern are in bold italics, with sources from Shulchan Aruch and Rishonim and Acharonim. 

Rabbi Jeremy Stern, of ORA, Speaks to Seniors

By admin On May 24, 2013

by Shlomo Anapolle (’13)

This past Thursday, Rabbi Jeremy Stern from ORA, the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, delivered a presentation to Seniors regarding a major issue facing our community, the issue of Agunot. There are two ways that a woman can become an Agunah. One is when her husband withholds a […]  [My critical comment – Why is Jeremy Stern permitted to address the seniors of Yeshiva University about Gittin, which is a very sensitive and crucial halacha that belongs with people who have intense knowledge of halacha and have studied under Gedolei HaDor. We will show that his entire program is based upon not halacha but emotional and perhaps false sources. And why is it that only Jeremy Stern is allowed to speak to YU seniors about his opinions? I feel it is only proper that rabbis who know what they are talking about be allowed to talk to the seniors at YU. And if not, we will continue with our war with Jeremy Stern and classify it as a war against all those who honor Stern and establish programs for him to spread his lies. Yes, this is war. It is not against Jeremy Stern who is a young man in YU where people approve of his lies. It is a war against YU itself for their encouraging him.]

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

by Shlomo Anapolle (’13)

This past Thursday, Rabbi Jeremy Stern from ORA, the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, delivered a presentation to Seniors regarding a major issue facing our community, the issue of Agunot. There are two ways that a woman can become an Agunah. One is when her husband withholds a Get from her, and she is then not able to remarry. The more classical one, found in the Gemara, is when a man disappears and it is unclear whether or not he has died. For example, if a man traveled overseas by ship, fell overboard, and was not found after that. Because there is a degree of doubt  as to whether or not he survived, then his wife may not remarry because he may still be alive. Today, most of the Agunot cases fall under the first category. Rabbi Stern presented us with two current examples of this type of case: Steve Scher from Roanoke, Virginia and Aharon Friedman from Silver Spring, MD. [My critical comment. Aharon Friedman is backed by the Beth Din of Baltimore. His wife is a tramp who remarried without a GET. If she has a child from the other man the child will be a mamzer. And Jeremy Stern feels that the evil one is not the tramp lady whose wealthy mother spend big money so gangsters since arrested by the police would beat up Aharon Friedman. The evil one is Aharon Stern who has strong support from the Baltimore Beth Din. May I ask what Beth Din backs Jeremy Stern? Is it the YU personality who suggested beating up husbands and perhaps worse things, and who suggested killing a senior Israeli official because he wanted to make peace with the Arabs in Israel?]

Regarding both cases, we heard and saw conversations and demonstrations organized against these husbands in order to try and pressure them to give a Get. However, both have been still been withholding for close to 10 years now, as these issues are very hard to deal with, and require much pressure to make the husbands cave in. [My critical comment. “We heard and saw conversations and demonstrations organized against these husbands in order to try and pressure them to give a GET”. Demonstrations against a husband are designed to force him to give a GET. But such a forced GET is forbidden in the Shulchan Aruch. See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer chapter 77 par 2-3. All of the poskim forbid forcing a GET, the Shulchan Aruch Beis Yosef, the Ramo, the Vilna Gaon, the Beis Shmuel and the Chelkas Mechokake, with no exceptions. The source for these forbidding a forced GET is the Rashbo in teshuva volume VII:414 who describes different husbands when the wife demanded a GET and says that we never force the husband to divorce his wife. What is Jeremy’s source to permit forcing a husband to give a GET? Who does he have who disagree with the Rashbo, and all of the authors and commentators of the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer?]

Rabbi Stern then provided a modern day solution: a halachic prenuptial agreement. He showed us two examples of these documents, which are legally binding in the secular court system as well. The document requires the husband to pay the wife $150 per day from the day they separate until he gives her the Get. Rabbi Stern told us that 100% of the couples that have signed this agreement and have needed a divorce have given the Get and not had to pay.

To quote Rabbi Stern, “The reason one would make this type of agreement is to show to his wife-to-be that because he loves her so much, he doesn’t want there to be the possibility of hurting her down the line in case of disagreements.” Therefore, Rabbi Stern encouraged all of us to spread the word about this prenuptial agreement and help and make it a standard in our communities.

[My critical comment. If the prenup is kosher, why is it not mentioned at all in the Shulchan Aruch? Who mentions it anywhere? Somebody did dig deeply to find somebody, anybody, who believes in a prenup. It seems he found a source where a major Torah personality believed in prenups. The source is Nachalas Shiva (page 33 in my volume), a very prominent Sefer from a prominent Gaon of the past generations. There is written that if a wife is mistreated by her husband until she flees from him to her father’s house, the couple must come to Beth Din to straighten things out. If the Beth Din is not immediately available so that the wife must tarry a while in the father’s house, the husband must give her each month she is away from him a certain amount of money to cover the cost of her food at her father’s house. When the Beth Din enters the picture the wife will return to the house and everything will be straightened out.

            Question: Is this a prenup?  Is this a document that can force the husband to give a GET? Nobody in this case mentions a word about a GET. So this is surely not a source for a prenup. It is a source for paying for the wife’s food in her father’s house, until she is rescued by the Beth Din and returns to her home, as the Beth Din will not tolerate the husband mistreating her as he well knows. Thus, this is not a prenup that is designed to force a GET. It is a document to prevent a GET and save a marriage. This is not a prenup that produces for the wife huge sums of money that the husband cannot pay and must therefore give a GET. It is a document to pay a few dollars for a meals and it will end its payments when the Beth Din straightens thing out and the wife is back in the house.]

            Jeremy Stern writes, “The document requires the husband to pay the wife $150 per day from the day they separate until he gives her the Get. Rabbi Stern told us that 100% of the couples that have signed this agreement and have needed a divorce have given the Get and not had to pay.” [My comments on this: $150 a day is $4500 a month. In ten months it will be $45,000. In twenty months it will be #90,000. This the husband cannot pay. So he gives a GET. Is this similar to the case of the Nachlas Shiva? There the payment to the wife was only to cover her food in her father’s house, until the Beth Din takes over the case. Her food is surely not $150 a day. Jeremy notes that in all cases of those who signed a prenup the husband caved in and gave a GET. He was forced by the money involved. But paying for a wife’s food for a few weeks until the Beth Din takes over the case does not force a GET. Furthermore, the Nachlas Shiva’s case is seeking to return the wife to the husband to make Shalom. Jeremy’s case is the wife seeking to break the husband and force a GET. Therefore, we have no source anywhere to advertise as Jeremy does that all men should give prenups that will force them to give a GET immediately or any time when the wife demands a GET.

Furthermore, in Kesubose 63b Rabbeinu Tam proves that a woman cannot force a GET on her husband because if she could just get up and demand a GET and get rid of her husband we cannot believe her because “we fear that she wants to get rid of her husband and marry another man.” If so, since the prenup allows the woman to get rid of her husband whenever she so desires and marry somebody else, we cannot believe her in the first place. Thus, a prenup does not work as it is a forbidden document, because it is  forbidden to give the woman the power to force a GET and banish her husband so she can marry somebody else.

See Nedorim 90B that in earlier times a woman  could go to Beth Din and say that she has sinned with another man and thus may not be with her husband, and was believed and the husband had to give a GET. But later Beth Dins refused to believe her as they feared that she had the power to remove her husband and banish him and marry somebody else. We in latter generations suspect women of being ready to enable themselves to force the husband out of the house and then remarry a new husband. Because of this fear that she will banish her husband and take another husband, we refuse to believe her claims that could destroy the marriage. Thus, all prenups that can drive the husband out of the house and allow the wife to remarry are not acceptable, and the wife is not believed or empowered to use one. Again, a prenup is against this Mishneh and the pesak of Rabbeinu Tam in Kesubose mentioned before that “we fear that she has an interest in another man” and wants a GET from her husband to remarry. So prenups and claims that were once accepted that ended the marriage are no longer accepted, no matter what.

The Bottom Line from me, Dovid Eidensohn, is that a lot of people want to help women force a GET. I don’t blame Jeremy for starting this. I do however ask him personally to do what the other disciple of Hershel Schechter did, to check out my sources, and if they are clearly telling us that forcing a GET is forbidden, I want Jeremy to think about whether he wants to continue. And if he has found a source for his forcing of a GET, I ask him to please inform me of it.

Incidentally, the fellow who told me that Hershel Schechter quoted Gedaliah Schwartz as a source for forcing husbands to give a GET didn’t impress me. I once spoke to Gedaliah Schwartz and asked him why an Orthodox couple married in an Orthodox ceremony with Kiddushin and Chupa was sent away by him with no GET. He replied, “Because there was no Biah (marital intimacy).” Now, in my Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer the laws of Kiddushin 26:4 it says “A woman becomes married in three ways, with monetary value [like a ring] or with a document of marriage, or with Biah.” Each of these creates marriage without the other two. The Gedolim in their teshuva seforim discuss men giving a woman a gift and saying they are married, that this alone could create Kiddushin. Whoever doesn’t know this should not deal with Gittin.

The Quiet and Terrible Crisis of Orthodox Women and Mamzerim

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

What is the Quiet and Terrible Crisis of Orthodox Women all about? If it is a terrible crisis, why is it quiet? And if it is quiet, how can it be terrible and nobody talks about it?

For those who read regularly my blog at torahhalacha.blogspot.com, the quiet and terrible crisis is not so quiet. Indeed, recently when I talk to people, they increasingly interrupt our conversation to talk about Pilegesh. And although the idea is new, they are usually brought around to my claims that Pilegesh alone can solve the quiet and terrible crisis of Orthodox women. But what is the quiet and terrible crisis in the first place?

Let us talk about a couple getting married in an Orthodox marriage ceremony. Everyone is happy. Perhaps the happiest one there is the new wife. She is the target of my post here. Because if her marriage sours, what can she do? She will ask her husband for a divorce. If he refuses, and she realizes that he has no intention to ever give her an Orthodox GET, her life is over with. She is referred to by many as an “Agunah”. 

An Orthodox woman who is in such a predicament may stop being religious. As more and more women fall into this category, more and more women are either ending their religious affiliation, or ignoring part of it. Therefore, some rabbis have taken to counsel them to force a GET from their husbands. In Jewish Law, a forced GET is invalid, and if the woman remarries with a forced GET that is invalid, she produces children that are usually mamzerim. When these children grow older and realize the terrible term associated with them, we have a problem. We want to know who encouraged the mothers to make mamzerim? This will lead to a war of rabbis. I refer to rabbis who force Gittin to “help” woman, as “mamzer makers.” When the mamzer grows up and confronts that rabbi…

The Orthodox rabbis rabbis who counsel women to get forced GETS, do this because very few people in America know well the laws of Gittin. I once asked a prominent rabbi who is a big name in Gittin, “Where are the laws about not forcing a GET on a husband?” He didn’t know. Why? Because he learned the laws of Gittin and made Gittin, but he did not learn the laws of Kesubose. In the laws of Kesubose, Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3, all of the major commentators agree that it is forbidden to force a GET on a husband simply because the wife demands a GET. If a Beth Din clarifies that the husband is one of the rare individuals who deserve a forced GET, that is something else. But just because the wife is upset with the husband is not adequate grounds to force him to divorce. Technical material on this is in some of the posts of my blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com. The major source of material on this is a lengthy response of one of the most senior Rishonim, the Rashbo in his teshuvo in volume VII:414. There he says that even a husband who is unable to have children for medical reasons and is commanded by the Talmud to give a GET, may not be put in Nidui, humiliated or physically forced. Such a husband may be told that he is wicked for not obeying the rabbinical decree mentioned in the Talmud, but unless he does something very terrible such as marrying a woman who is forbidden in marriage to him, there cannot be a forced GET.

The great rabbis of Israel have published a book recently describing the terrible sin of making a forced GET. Some women even go to secular court where some Orthodox people and even some rabbis have convinced the government to allow civil courts to force husbands to give a GET. This produces mamzerim, and one secular court has declared, {Marsi vs Marsi), that a secular court’s forcing of the husband to give a GET is unconstitutional. But other courts go full blast and force the GET. And from these GETS come remarriages with an invalid GET that produces mamzerim.

A prominent rabbi once told me that a man came to him to remarry. The rabbi asked him who made his Get and he said “Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz said that I don’t need a GET.” The prominent rabbi wanted me to find out what this was all about and I called Gedaliah Schwartz and asked him about it. He openly told me that the couple came to him for a GET, but he told them that they did not need a GET. I asked him why this Orthodox couple who had an Orthodox Chupah and marriage could just leave without a GET. He replied there was no Biah. Now anyone who studies the laws of Kiddushin or marriage in the Shulchan Aruch turns to Even Hoezer chapter 26 paragraph 4. It says there that a woman can be Mekushes Married in three ways: If she receives something of monetary value like a ring she is married. If she accepts a document of marriage she is married. If she has marital relations (Biah) she is married.

Thus, marriage is consummated immediately when the husband gives the wife a ring and says “You are mekudeshes [married] to me.” Gedaliah Schwartz told a man and woman who had come for GET, that it was unnecessary, because there was no Biah (marital relations). But the ring itself without Biah created a complete state of marriage. So Schwartz is obviously ignorant of the most basic things a rabbi should know. And he is the head rabbi of the RCA Beth Din. Unfortunately, there are other ones, and they are listed in my blog on several posts at torahhalacha.blogspot.com.

What then is the solution? To marry with Kiddushin at a time when so many marriages spoil, is very dangerous. The woman may be ruined for ever as one who cannot remarry. Not to marry at all is unacceptable. What can an Orthodox woman do? There is only one solution. Pilegesh. In the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer laws of Kiddushin chapter 26:1 we find a discussion about Pilegesh. One who studies the paragraph and the commentaries there find that Pilegesh can be acceptable and can be forbidden. The acceptable side is based on what the Vilna Gaon there in his commentaries says is an open gemora Sanhedrin 21A that “A Pilegesh has no Kiddushin and no Kesubo.” Otherwise, a Pilegesh is acceptable in marriage. And “no Kiddushin” means that the husband and wife can leave anytime with no pressure, punishment or worries.

 There is, however, a problem with Pilegesh that causes some to forbid it. In a community where everybody else gets regular Kiddushin, and almost nobody gets Pilegesh, people may assume that Pilegesh is either somebody like others who has Kiddushin, and if the marriage ends by the woman walking out of the house and declaring that she is out of the marriage, people who don’t know this or don’t know the laws of Piligesh may assume she is a sinner and that her children when she remarries without a GET are mamzerim. Another problem is that people married with Pilegesh may be refused use of the Mikveh, because they may mistakenly believe that Pilegesh is forbidden. The solution of this is that somebody who wants to do Pilegesh contact a rabbi who accepts Piligesh people in a positive way. The rabbi can try to get the Mikva approved for his Pilegesh people, and failing that, can attempt to put together the funds to make a separate Mikvah. There are often in a community men with private Mikvas because they go every day and have no time to run to the local Mikvah for men and spend the money there. Sometimes, a rabbi can determine if a private Mikvah is good for ladies and if it can be used once in a while.

At any rate, anyone interested in Pilegesh marriage can contact me at 845-578-19147. Anyone who makes a Pilegesh marriage with me being responsible will have a regular marriage with the exception that anyone can leave whenever they want with no penalties. Technically, there are in Pilegesh certain rules that I will not get involved with. I want a regular marriage with all of the proper things that go with that. I would prefer making a Beth Din that would insure that the couple was not married previously or was married and then divorced properly. It would also discover if the couple is appropriate for Pilegesh as some people may insult them. It is a new thing. But being a mamzer is an old thing. That is the choice for those who live today in the Quiet but Terrible Crisis of Orthodox marriage.

I conclude that the crisis is here but quiet, but just wait till the children created from invalid Gittin grow up, and are found to be of questionable parentage. That will not be a quiet crisis. Meanwhile, I do what I can. I have semicha from the Gaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l on my halacha work that “I know Rabbi Eidensohn for many years as one who delves deeply into complex halacha.” The Gaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l stated orally that I may run a Gittin Beth Din under his name. Earlier, I studied intensely under the Gaon Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l to understand his Derech.

To Force a Husband to Divorce His Wife

By Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn

The Rashbo[1] tells us about two wives who demanded a GET because they were fed up with their husbands. One husband was unable to have children, and the wife wanted a child. The other husband was a regular husband perhaps having children, but the wife didn’t like him at all. The Rashbo says that there are three rulings. First of all, neither of the wives can force a GET from the husband. Rarely, such as when a husband marries somebody forbidden to marry him, the Beth Din can force him to divorce her. This force can be physical. But such is rare.

Second of all, the husband who cannot have children is obligated by the gemora to give his wife a GET. This obligation is not a Torah power, but a lesser rabbinic power. Furthermore, we are limited in the pressures we may make on him. It is forbidden to put him in Nidui, to humiliate him, or to use physical force to force a GET on the husband. We can, however, tell him that the gemora must be obeyed and if he refuses to give his wife a GET he is considered wicked. This is based on the teaching of the gemora in Shabbos 40A that one who violates a rabbinic law may be called a wicked person.

Thirdly of all, the Rashbo says that a husband whose wife complains that she wants a GET has no obligation to obey her. “If he wants to, he gives a GET. And if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t give a GET.” This ruling is quoted heavily in the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer Laws of Kesubos chapter 77. In paragraph 3 in the Ramo we find it. In paragraph 2 in the Shulchan Aruch the Beis Yosef, the mechaber, quotes the Rashbo. The Vilna Gaon writes there[2] that the majority of Rishonim forbid coercing a GET from a husband. He then states that today everybody agrees that a husband generally cannot be forced to give a GET.

The Beis Shmuel, considered the outstanding commentator on Shulchan Aruch by the Maharsham[3], also quotes the Rashbo: “If the husband wants to divorce, fine but he is not to be pressured.” The Chelkas Mechokake there goes further and says, “If a man is pressured or forced to give a GET and his wife remarries after her husband was forced to divorce her, we force her to divorce the new husband.” Thus not one commentator disagrees with the Rashbo that a husband cannot be forced or pressured to divorce his wife, unless there are extreme circumstances such as the husband marrying somebody who is forbidden for him to marry. Rabbeinu Tam quoted by the Shita Mekubetses in Kesubose 64A says that Beth Din should not even suggest that a divorce would be a good thing.

The Chazon Ish[4] states that when a person is not from the small minority of men who may be forced to divorce their wives, and he goes to a Beth Din that mistakenly tells him that he is obligated by the Torah to divorce his wife, then the GET he makes is invalid for two reasons: One, it was a GET  given by force as the Beth Din’s instruction are ONESS or force. Two, since the rabbis made a mistake to order the GET, it is a GET given by mistake. These two reasons make the GET invalid by the strong level of the Torah, not merely a rabbinical level.

The great problem is that our wives marry with Kiddushin, and cannot leave the marriage without the husband’s approval. This has made some women irreligious, and many women bitter. Therefore, some rabbis will encourage the woman to force the husband to give a GET. This is wrong and results usually in the GET being forced and invalid. If the woman remarries with an invalid GET and has a child, the child is a mamzer, at least most of the time. This problem of women becoming Agunose is growing worse with time, especially when so many rabbis violate the Torah and encourage the forcing of the husband to divorce. As time goes on, more and more rabbis encourage invalid and forced Gittin. More and more women refuse the suffering of an Agunah. When will it end?

The idea that a woman comes to the Chupah and takes Kiddushin, in an era where so many women regret their marriage, is frightening. What can be done in an age where divorces are growing and everyone marries with Kiddushin? But should the woman marry without Kiddushin?

A woman who marries with the understanding that she cannot leave her husband unless he dies or gives her a GET, is a candidate for Kiddushin. But how long can the resolution last until she finally collapses and goes to a rabbi who will force her husband to give a GET? That number is growing constantly.

I therefore say as follows. If a woman is ready to give up her happiness forever with a husband she does not like, let her take Kiddushin. But if she is not sure (and who is sure about this), she may not want to take Kiddushin. But to live alone is wrong. Therefore, the only solution for the large number of women who are not ready to be Agunose their whole lives, is something else. It is called marrying with Pilegesh. Pilegesh simply means that a real marriage exists. But there are not in Pilegesh the chains that bind Agunose. Anyone husband or wife can leave anytime.

But is Pilegesh permitted? Pilegesh is discussed in the very beginning of the laws of Kiddushin in the Shulchan Aruch 26:1. The Vilna Gaon there quotes a gemora in Sanhedrin 21A that a Pilegesh has no Kiddushin and no Kesubo. But it is obvious that Pilegesh is accepted by the gemora. There are those who disagree with the gemora, but that is the halacha. But even if there are those who forbid Pilegesh, since there are many who permit it, such as Ramban and Yayvets, who are strongly for Pilegesh, and the gemora permits it, it surely is appropriate for anyone who fears becoming an Agunah. Because this fear can turn a woman into a forcer of her husband to give a GET and the making of mamzerim. Therefore, anyone who is not sure about living the life of an Agunah, should marry with Pilegesh. If anyone wants me to deal with their marriage as Pilegesh, call me at 845-578-1917 or write me at eidensohnd@gmail.com.

---

[1] Volume VII:414

[2] Comment #5

[3] IV:73

[4] Gittin 99:2 D”H יש לעיין