Fighting Great Sins against Biblical and Family People

Plan 2 for the New Agudah

Dovid Eidensohn

The first plan of the New Agudah was to savage Agudas Israel for its backing of toeiva which is forbidden by HaShem in open passages in the Torah. Our second plan is to work with others to make a massive effort for people of all religions men and women to become truly angry at Cuomo for destroying a human fetus and causing terrible agony to women and family. If our second plan works out, Cuomo will begin to realize that his hopes of becoming President are fading, and that the people who hate him and fight him are growing stronger. The Democrats in his party cannot ignore that. Once this begins, our leading fighters against Cuomo who visit Albany regularly and convince some politicians to refuse what Cuomo wants will only increase. If we continue a bit longer, the tide may turn.

But regarding fighting Cuomo and those who maintain that everyone must respect those who violate the Torah and the rights of family, let us mention  a letter from the Gaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt"l which is brought in my blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com. 

A major problem is the Law of Divorce in New York State whereby women can pressure a husband to give a GET under certain circumstances. Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz, a prominent rabbi now in Israel, has an article published on the Internet discussing the history of the two GET Laws of New York State. The first GET law was approved by the rabbis because it had nothing to do with a GET only with New York civil law. However, the second law was never approved by senior rabbis, which makes a great threat to New York State Jewish divorces. Senior rabbis in America and Israel have wondered why the second GET Law was passed without the  approval of the rabbis. There is further a complaint that nobody complained about it, except as we find Rabbi Malinowitz, who wrote his thoughts after the deed of making the second law.

The uniqueness of the Second GET Law is that it is perhaps a rare invention of a law that essentially only impacts severely on one religion, and in that, only on one segment of that religion. But the terror of the law is that a woman who leaves her husband with an invalid GET is still married. If she remarries a man not her husband she is living in serious sin and may never return to her husband and is further forbidden with the second man. If she has a baby by the second man the baby is a mamzer, forbidden to marry a Jewish woman unless that woman is a mamzeres. But this applies only to a baby who is known to be a mamzer. He can marry a woman who is known to be a mamzeres.

However, a man who is known only as a possible or doubtful mamzer, is in more trouble than a definite mamzer. A doubtful mamzer may not marry a Jewish woman who is a mamzeres and may not marry  a Jewish woman who is a doubtful mamzer. See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 4:24.

This leads us to another very serious problem with divorce and GET which is very prevalent today in America and Israel. The entire grim story is spelled out exactly by the recent book Mishpitei Yisroel written by the greatest rabbis of Israel and fifty great rabbis from America.

A woman wants a divorce, maybe because she hates her husband. The husband refuses, maybe because he loves his wife or because he has children from her who will be pained at the loss of their married parents. Or because a judge may split the children who will not only miss a parent but may miss their siblings.

A GET must be given by the husband willingly if the couple was married with Kiddushin. But if the couple was married with Pilegesh they may separate simply by any of them leaving the marital home. So we emphasize here the woman married with Kiddushin which is the vast majority of women. If she forces a GET she may not remarry. If she does remarry, the new husband’s children with her are mamzerim.

If the husband is pressured and divorces and wants to remarry, he has a problem. If he agrees to give a GET so that he can remarry and agrees for that reason to divorce his wife, she is divorced. This can lead to great complications for him and his children. But if he is not sure if he wants to divorce his wife, the GET is a doubt. Maybe it is kosher, and maybe it is not. If so, the husband and the wife may not remarry. And if the husband makes a great show and pressure that he must have a wife, we tell him simply all that he has to do is to give his wife a GET willingly.

Another battle for the A New Agudah is the war in New York State and some other states, England and Canada, regarding treatment of GLBTQ people. I refer to those states and countries which require children to study about GLBYTQ and to learn to treat them favorably whatever that means. Surely insulting them for their status is a crime. All of these laws deny Heaven and the Creator who ruled in the bible that sodomy is a capital crime if done deliberately in front of proper witnesses. Even if one does it privately it is a terrible sin. Indeed, the sin of “do not draw near to sin” is considered by Rambam a Torah crime and Ramban a rabbinical crime. “Do not draw near” is defined as one who talks to a woman out of desire or who behaves in a way that can easily get him to do a serious sin. But one who commits a definite sin such as sodomy is surely a sinner by biblical standards. Despite this, killing him without proper witnesses testifying to having seen the act is not punished with death.

Pesak from the Gaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l in a Divorce and the Gaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l with a person who wants to die.

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn

Some years back I was training to be a posek. I would go to various rabbis, dayanim and Gittin experts to learn from them. Once I came to a GET and I walked into the room with those getting divorced. A woman was crying bitterly and next to her sat a woman who looked at me with hate. Of course, she thought I was part of the Beth Din. But I was just a visitor who knew nothing of the people involved in the GET.

The head of the Beth Din was a friend of mine who explained that the man and women had a son. They were secular Israelis and then the husband became religious. The wife was madly in love with her husband. But although she tried her best, she could not tolerate being religious. Finally, advisors told the man to divorce his wife. The wife was crying terribly, because she loved her husband.

I was very disturbed by the decision of the advisors of the husband to counsel him to divorce his wife. Who gave the husband the right to give his son away to his wife who was not religious and would probably raise the son to be irreligious?  But I said nothing then.

Not long after this, I was visiting my rebbe in Israel, the Gaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l, one of the greatest Torah authorities. I told him how disturbed I was that the husband gave away his son. (I didn’t tell him what I thought about the advisors who couldn’t make a compromise with the husband and wife. If the wife is madly in love with her husband, but she can’t be the supper fanatic that he became, let him behave in a way that her love will tolerate. But I knew nothing about the husband and wife and why should I talk about such things? So I told him what I did know and awaited his response.)

Rav Elyashev told me: “If the wife would tolerate yaharas hamishpocho (go to the mikva regularly), he would not advise a divorce.” That is a tremendous ruling, something only the greatest sage can utter! It meant that the wife won’t keep Shabbos and maybe not kashruse and who knows what else. But if she keeps taharas hamishpocho the marriage continues. It means that the wife will be the mother of all of his children, and all of them will be raised by a woman who is not Orthodox.

I wonder what the Rov would rule if the woman did not love her husband madly. Maybe that was critical. Maybe he believed that her love would continue if he did not divorce her, and she would very slowly but surely become more and more religious. If she truly loves her husband, and the husband could be encouraged not to be a cruel fanatic, maybe that could improve things? But I did not ask that question. Maybe it was too late to ask questions.

One thing comes out from this sad story. When somebody is faced with such a problem, ask only the greatest authority. There is a postscript to this story that has nothing to do with divorces. I used to speak regularly to the Posek HaDor Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. Furthermore, I only asked him questions that if he did not tell me the answer, I would probably never find an answer for them.

I once asked him if a person is hopelessly ill and there is no cure. He is in agony and wants to die. Is it necessary to keep him alive even if he wants to die? I am not referring to mercy killing. I am talking about basic “keep him alive” care. Reb Moshe told me that in such a case the person may be allowed to die. I later discovered that his pesak is two open gemoras, Gittin 70 and Avoda Zoro 12. A dying person should be kept alive long enough to arrange his financial affairs with his children so they don’t fight over the inheritance. Perhaps we assume that he is willing to suffer that long, but longer is not necessary.

I once told this to the Gaon Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner zt”l and he replied, “Poshut azoy” that is obvious. I wondered why he answered that way and then I realized that since Reb Moshe was the Gadol HaDor in paskening Rav Wosner felt that to say he agrees would not be appropriate, so he just said, “poshut azoy.”

I once heard from the Gaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l that with a serious medical problem we may need three doctors.

Today there are many children who are not successful in schools and begin to take drugs. In Monsey two children overdosed and are buried in the Orthodox cemetery. 

For children like this, how many doctors do we need?

Goal 19 - RCA Prenup Makes Mamzerim Unlike Rav Ovadiah Yosef's Document that is Not a Prenup

 

The Problem with RCA Prenups

RCA Prenups are promises the husband makes to his wife that if she demands a GET from him for whatever reason he will either honor her request and give a willing GET to her, or he will pay her the sum of $150 a day until he gives the GET. We combine here two things. One is the claim of the RCA that their Prenups are crucial for family, and the other is my refutation of what the RCA claims. The text of the RCA is here in regular text and my comments are italic and bold. Text that I single out from the RCA text to comment upon is underlined in the original and in my comments. (In some situations where all text had to be equal this does not apply.)

Another issue is the claim some make that the Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef had a document that was like the RCA prenup and that he accepted the RCA prenup. That is wrong, as I will point out. The document of Rav Ovadiah Yosef is not about forcing a husband to give a GET, but about making Shalom Bayis. Also, the RCA prenup gives all power to the woman to force her husband to give her a GET, and the document of Rav Ovadiah Yosef has all power in the issue in the hands of the husband, who selects how much money he will pay her until they are united once again by the Beth Din, and crucially, the husband picks the Beth Din. This is completely different than the RCA prenup that assigns all power to the wife. Furthermore, there is a clear Mishneh in Nedorim 90b that a woman must not have the power to force a GET on her husband because we fear that she will use the power to find another husband.

This Mishneh is quoted by Rabbeinu Tam in Kesubose 63B in Tosfose. It is the source of the law that a woman who claims that her husband is distressing to her cannot force a GET, because we fear that she will have the power to divorce her husband because she likes another man. The RCA insists that all married woman have a prenup and the ability to force the husband to divorce her anytime she wants, which is direct contradiction to this Mishneh and the basic laws of limiting the power of a woman to force a GET.

We will further strongly protest people who don’t do sins themselves, but don’t accept the biblical blame on those who do these serious sins. They too deny the Torah.