Yosef Orlow Speaks

 

People tend to be smart. Many people go to schools where they study logic as part of most of their studies. Even in English class students have to write reports and essays that are based on logic. Math, all the sciences, law: all based on logic. There are popular books written on logic, also.

So many single people and married people can see through phony stuff.

Nowadays, there Rabbis who claim they can annul marriages. But this is illogical the way it's being applied! What man will want to dedicate himself to a woman who will run off tomorrow and get the marriage annulled at her whim? What man can even be sure his wife is his? Maybe she annulled their marriage in the afternoon, and just stopped by in the evening to pick up a few things.

And it makes a mockery of the prohibition against adultery. A woman can think: I'll sin and get it annulled later.

So annulments on the scale which they are now taking place are plain illogical, and downright stupid, not a word I throw around a lot. And people are smart. They may think "Who needs this stupidity? If this is marriage, it's not for me."

But I also don't buy the argument that some Rabbis have to water down the rules or they'll be out of a job, poor things. Ridiculous!! Starve to death, fools! But they won't have to starve to death. Because Jewish women have always been the spiritual mainstay of the Nation. They entered Eretz Yisrael, not the men. So the women would not rebel and turn to anyone else. They would fall into line.

And who is Joe Orlow to stand up to the great Rabbis who permit women to walk out their annulled marriages? You know what I say to that question?! Who are these annulling Rabbis to stand up to G-d!! And don't give me that "Lo Ba'Shamayim" jazz either. The Torah may not be in Heaven, but neither is it in that cesspool that annulling Rabbis mistake for their soul.

Poem about a Broken Family

NOTE: This is a common thing today, a marriage breaks, and children and parents and grandparents suffer. The suffering is only known to them, because nobody can imagine it who has not experienced it. HaShem Yerachem. 

Kina of the Chevlei Moshiach

Inbox

x

Chanoch	11:18 PM (12 hours ago)

Kina of the Chevlei Moshiach

written by Rabbi Chanoch Lebovic
in memory of R' Melech Chaim ben Moshe A"H
in honor of his third yartzeit 27th of Tammuz, 5775

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

A terrible epidemic has befallen us, due to our sins,
Around the world it spreads swifter than the winds.
Destroying pure jewish homes by tens of thousands, sadly
Wreaking havoc in one of the fundamentals of our faith, family.

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

Parents were so recently, affectionate and glowing,
False allegations, lies and attacks at each other they are now throwing
Jailing the parent of your child, like a murderer or thief,
It is more important to win, than to be a Jew, true to our beliefs.

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

How many thousands have fallen, been broken, and torn,
From their beloved children, many just infants, yet still do mourn
"Where is Tatty?" So tenderly and innocently asked,
The child painfully realizes that his father is just "Uncle Tatty", at last.

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

We must cry rivers of tears, like the mighty Euphrates
For the thousands of children, whom from their father were alienated.
Filled with hatred, fear, and disgust for their own flesh and blood constantly
Instead of hugging their dad and playing together with glee

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

We wonder why children are turning away, so many
From the very beliefs that kept and protected us so long from our enemies
Their bubbys and zaidys, uncles and aunts, happily gave their lives for it
Why are our children throwing it away? Dimming the candles their grandparents lit.

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

Raising kids in a toxic environment with hatred and lies,
Growing up in broken homes, and for his father he cries.
Nobody to go to shul with or to study with like any other yid
With such lousy role models what can we expect from our kids?

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

If we would have only prayed and held demonstrations for our own mishpochos,
Like for the three Israeli children, and the boys in Japan, with all our kochos
We'd have balanced and secure children, you'd agree without hesitation
And we would proudly have safe and happy families, for many generations.

Woe to our eyes that witnessed these horrors, woe to our hearts that were shattered

Audio of Telephone Conference #12 Rights of Parents and Children in Divorce

Click Below to hear audio. Cick once to reveal website and then click again to play audio.



Rights of Parents and Children in Divorce




http://torahtimes.com/2015/07/24/audio-of-telephone-shiur-12-eh/

Telephone Conf Shiur #12 EH - Rights of Parents and Children in Divorce

Shiur Telephone Even Hoezer #12 – Rights of Parents and Children in  a Divorce

1.       We know that there are discussions on the rights of a husband or wife in a GET divorce. Here we want to discuss the rights of a parent when the child seeks a divorce, and the right of the children when the parents seek a divorce.

2.       Let us begin by stating that the divorce of a child or a parent is a devastating thing. That is, when a person or couple want a divorce, this causes great pain to the parents of the couple and their children. Regardless of whether or not this pain has its own specific halacha, it is real. That is, a parent, even if we ignore the mitsvah of honoring a parent, has something to say about a divorcing child, simply because of the agony produced.

3.       Is a parent different than other Jews, who are commanded, “Love your fellow as yourself”? Is this how we love a parent, by breaking their hearts over the horrors of a child’s divorce?

4.       I once heard of a bitter battle over divorce, and it seems that a parent was so ill from it that I was warned not to talk to him about it at all, for medical reasons. Here we see that the horrors of the divorce could kill a parent. Is this not something to think about?

5.       The Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Dayo 240:1 tells us that we are commanded to honor and fear our parents. In paragraph 3 we are told, “How far does the mitzvah to fear our parents go? If one is dressed well and sitting at the front of the community and his parents came and tore his clothes and hit him on his head and spit in his face, he must not shame them, but be silent and fear the King of Kings who commanded this.”

6.       YD 240:24 “One is obligated to honor his father-in-law.” How much honor is given during the breakup of  a marriage?

7.       It is true that the son does not have to obey his father who prevents him from doing a mitzvah (YD 240:25) such as the son who wants to learn Torah somewhere he can succeed and the father forbids him to do this because there is an element of danger to travel there, or if the father forbids the son to marry somebody the child wants to marry. However, what if the father tells the son not to divorce his wife because he has children who need both parents? Here the father is telling the son to do a mitzvah, and the son must obey because it is a mitzvah and it is also a mitzvah to obey his father. And if the father says nothing, but will have great pain from the divorce and the suffering of the children, is this not also a violation of honoring a parent?

8.       See Rashbatz I:אונסא דאחריני that listening to a father who wants the son to make peace is a mitzvah. Furthermore, if the son is beaten to force him to obey his father, such as when the father commands him to divorce his wife, this is not a coerced GET because it is a mitzvah to obey the father and end the fighting.

9.       The Chazon Ish Gittin 99:2 ד"ה בב"י שם suggests that others disagree with Rashbatz and say that one is not obligated to obey his father in such instances. However, the Rashbatz clearly says that the son must listen to his father to divorce in order to make peace. That is, the father’s command is not enough to force the son to obey unless the son is already obligated by the Torah to do the mitzvah, whatever it is. Therefore, the sources the Chazon Ish brings to disprove the Rashbatz are only if there is no separate mitzvah to obey what the father has commanded. But if there is a separate mitzvah to do what the father commands, and the father adds his command, then the son must obey his father. That answers the questions of the Chazon Ish on the Rashbatz. We are not, ruling in this dispute, just mentioning it.

10.    Having said this, we mention the Chofetz Chaim who once counseled  a couple to divorce. Somebody said to the Chofetz Chaim, “And can the Chofetz Chaim tell people to divorce?” The Chofetz Chaim answered, “According  to you, why does the Torah command the laws of divorce when the couple must always make peace?”

11.    And what of the rights of children who are being torn apart by the divorce?

12.     See Pesachim 87b that HaShem told Hoshea to divorce his wife so he would be closer to HaShem and farther from material things, but Hoshea protested that he had children, and how could he divorce his wife? HaShem agreed with Hoshea not to divorce his wife. We see the importance of children not being separated from their father through a divorce.

13.    See also Pesachim 113: If somebody divorces his wife once or twice and then takes her back, this is intolerable, but if he had children from her, it is acceptable, because how can he leave his children?

   .   See Choshen Mishpot 290:1  “Beth Din is the father of orphans.” Beth Din is responsible for the welfare of little children. If the welfare of children depends to a great degree on the success of the marriage, should Beth Din not try to make shalom instead of accepting a GET right away?

.        There was once a massive program for some mitzvah. And I thought, for this mitzvah there is a massive program. But for saving marriages there are no massive programs. Indeed, what programs are there at all?

      The terrible problems with marriage today are convincing some people to refuse to get married in the first place. There is a huge increase in single-dom. What massive program is done for this?

  .   There are many broken children. What massive program is being done for the children?

  .   Gedolei HaDor told me that the entire system is a problem. There is something very wrong.

  .   Briefly, in earlier generations for thousands of years, people learned and earned. There was no special class of people who only learned, although here and there an individual did this at great cost with great difficulty. (Zohar Chodosh Beraishis)

     But, says the above Zohar, today we can no longer do learning without earning, and “if there is no bread there is no Torah.”

  .   Rebbe Yehuda quoted in the Zohar above says that whoever only learns and does not prepare himself to work is as one who takes paganism to himself. Without a good job or income a person just runs after a few dollars and has no peace of mind to serve HaShem and learn Torah.

     Rambam דעות ה,יא says that one may only marry if he has a house and a job. But if people married at seventeen and learned before then, when did the money for a house and a job come about?

     A child has no mitzvah other than to prepare for being an adult. If an adult must learn nine  hours and work three, as Rambam says ת"ת א,יב, a child must emulate this. That is, a child, from earliest years, combines earning with learning. After ten or fifteen years, the child, helped by parents to learn and succeed, has a good income, property and training in earning. He marries at seventeen or eighteen and has a paid up house and a job. He has money and peace of mind and shalom bayis. He raises his children to make money and succeed in learning and earning.

  .   Indeed, we find Gedolei HaDor throughout the generations who were wealthy. Rovo in Horiyuse י ע"ב told his students to achieve wealth to be able to learn without worries and distractions.

     Today, everyone must learn, and there is no source of money other than the wife and her parents spending money that is not there. It doesn’t work. And the marriage doesn’t work.

     It is time to go back to the way of Chazal. We no longer can raise children to learn as they did in Vollozhen, in constant proximity to starving. That is over with. Today, we must raise children who earn and learn as children, and enter adulthood with wealth, as was done in earlier generations for thousands of years.

  .   Again, I heard from Gedolei Yisreol of the past and present generations, that the present system is not working. Obviously, the divorces and broken children testify to that.

      The above  Zohar tells us that today there is no other path than “If there is no bread there is no Torah.”

     We must return to the old way of earning, learning, and achieving wealth in Torah and money.

     How this can be done, to truly emulate the ancient ways of Chazal, requires much thought, especially today when children cannot go to work by governmental decree. But to work for themselves is not forbidden. At any rate, we must consider the fiscal situation to improve marriage and family life.

     If anyone wants to discuss these things I can be reached at eidensohnd@gmail.com or 845-578-1917.

Dovid Eidensohn

Critique of Senior Rabbonim Who Do Not Publicly Protest the Remarriage of a Married Woman Without a GET in Philly

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/Monsey, NY/ eidensohnd@gmail.com/845-578-1917

This is a warning to the senior rabbonim of the generation, from me, the only person to publicly protest the Philly scandal of a married woman remarrying without a GET from her husband. I say this: the lady has a man visiting her every Shabbos. I don’t know how long this will go on. The mother and her “rov” are doing everything to conceal from her the great sin she will be doing. And the fact that no major Rov has publicly attacked this incredible sin greatly encourages the eventual sin. I heard this from a reliable source.

 If the eventual sin happens, I will ask a shaaloh if I am allow to put senior rabbonim in nidui. Regardless, a child born from this marriage will be a mamzer diorayso. If Shalom Kaminetsky produces a prominent Rov who permits her to remarry without a GET, something that will never happen, the best that can happen is that the child will be considered a doubtful mamzer, because all rabbonim in Israel and America feel that the child will be a complete mamzer. A doubtful mamzer is worse off than a mamzer gomur.

The woman has chezkas Aishes Ish and all known rabbonim have said she may not remarry without a Kosher GET. The husband, by the way, is happy to give a GET, but only if the wife returns to the Beth Din that handled the case, a very respected Beth Din in Baltimore. Then custody etc will be paskened and a GET will be given. For the woman to have a Rov tell her a brazen baloney story that she does not need a GET is ridiculous. Even Reb Moshe Feinstein, who, alone of all rabbonim for many generations, permitted a woman to remarry when she discovered that her husband was an active homosexual, says clearly that this is only permitted after absolutely every avenue to produce a GET has been exhausted. Thus, even if the husband was the most hideous person, which he is not, Reb Moshe would not permit her to remarry but would command her to go to a Beth Din and get a kosher GET. Shalom Kaminetsky is in active opposition to Reb Moshe Feinstein, and surely, all of the great rabbonim throughout the generations who did not permit what Reb Moshe permitted. Thus, the marriage of this married woman to a stranger produces mamzeruth. Who today disagrees with this?

 I have written several posts about this problem, and here I only want to threaten the senior rabbonim: Either publicly protest this nevolo of a married woman remarrying without a GET, or be attacked by me in public. And if the married woman does remarry without a GET, I will ask a shaaloh if I am allowed to put senior rabbonim who were silent in Nidui.

But forget about me: When this married woman has a baby from somebody who is not her husband, and the senior rabbis know that it is because they did not publicly protest, how will they look the mamzer in the face and explain their rishuse?

Time is of the essence. What a disgrace that a woman is ready to remarry without a GET, and no prominent Rov publicly condemns it. And what a disgrace that she is being led into Gehenum by Shalom Kaminetsky, a person who may one day be the Rosh Yeshiva of the Philadelphia Yeshiva.

Letter to AMI Magazine about their Support of ORA

David Eidensohn <eidensohnd@gmail.com>	12:02 PM (23 minutes ago)
to yadmoshe

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/Jewish Outreach Congregation/Monsey, NY 10952/845-578-1917

Ami Magazine:

I am a Talmid of Geonim Reb Aharon Kotler, Reb Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l. I have spent the last few years of my life fighting tooth and nail against invalid Gittin, as the Gedolim instructed me to do.

1.       The Gedolim in Israel, including Reb Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner and others, have stated that any Beth Din that coerces Gittin not in accord with the Shulchan Aruch loses its right to give Gittin, and all Gittin it issues are not accepted. I heard this in person from Reb Elyashev zt”l and it has recently come out in a Sefer Mishpitei Yisroel with signed letters from the greats of Israel and dozens of other rabbis throughout the world.
2.       Coercing a husband to divorce has three levels: One, if a husband marries a woman forbidden to him, such as a Cohen who marries a gerusho. Such a person can be beaten until he says “I want the GET.” Level two is a husband who is not a man, and the Talmud requires him to divorce his wife. But the only coercion permitted is to tell him that he is wicked for not obeying the Talmud. Rashbo VII:414 clearly states that humiliating such a husband is forbidden. The Gedolim in Israel have stated based on this and other sources that anyone who humiliates a husband and produces a coerced GET, that the GET is invalid, and children born from it may be mamzerim.
3.       The third level is a husband who marries a woman legally, and is not lacking in manly abilities. Such a person cannot be coerced, period. See Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3 and Rav Elyashev’s teshuva in Kovetz Teshuvose #174. Even if a Beth Din states that the man must give a GET Chazon Ish says that the GET given is invalid for two reasons not just dirabonon but even diorayso. (EH Gittin 99:2)
4.       If there is an argument among the authorities whether to coerce a husband and one rabbi or one Beth Din then coerces him to give a GET, the Chasam Sofer says that the GET is invalid by the Torah and the children are mamzerim diorayso. EH 28 and 116.
5.       When ORA turns loose the multitude to humiliate a husband and terrorize his parents and children, we have what Rabbeinu Yona in Shaarei Teshuva 139 a situation where “humiliation is worse than death.” This is surely a coerced GET and the GET created by ORA is invalid. All women divorced through ORA’s coercion or even through its threats, are required to have a kosher GET from a recognized Beth Din not one that accepts ORA.
6.       You may or may not agree with anything quoted here, but the children born from ORA and many of them will gravitate to Haredi institutions and eventually seek a shidduch, must be protected from the consequences of ORA doing its “good deeds.” Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik has said, “We must learn about haredim, because our children are going there.” And will they find somebody to marry after ORA “helped them”?
7.       There is more, and if somebody is really interested in this topic, contact me.
8.       I have a copy of the AMI article about ORA that states that ORA works in accordance with halacha. What halacha allows husbands to be humiliated and forced to divorce, which is exactly what ORA does?
9.       The picture in AMI of Rabbi Elyashev talking to Rabbi Schechter, the rabbi of ORA, implies that Rabbi Elyashev approves of ORA. I spoke to Reb Elyashev about coerced Gittin and he definitely dot agree with Rabbi Schachter about forcing a GET.
10.   The huge lettering in AMI about ORA “A GET cannot be used as a weapon” is simply part of the ORA lie that all men who don’t give a GET are demons. If so, humiliate them, and find as Rabbi Schechter does, inventions in halacha to break them. I know after years in this field that many husbands are not demons and have various situations where they fear to give a GET or because they have legitimate custody demands, etc. Once you demonize a whole class of people you can do what you want, and ORA does it.
11.   A disciple of Rabbi Schachter, at a mass rally to torture a husband, found one of my people, and began cursing me out. My friend called me up and told me what was happening. I told him, put that fellow on the phone. The person told me off and when he was finished, I said to him,”Everything you  said about me is true, but for one thing. I have sources for forbidden coercing husbands and your rabbi Rabbi Schachter does not. I want you to call  him up right now and get the source for his support of ORA. The person did it, and was told that his support was Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz and the rabbis of Washington, DC.  Eventually, this person called up my friend said that he was wrong. His rebbe was wrong, and Eidensohn was right. He became a good friend of mine and backs me completely. Of course, he looked up the sources. But if you lead with demonizing, you don’t have to read very far.
12.   Yes, I have the sources: The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 paragraph 2 and 3, the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo, the Beis Shmuel,  the Chelkak Mechokake, and the Gro, who says that nobody disagrees that coercing the husband to divorce is wrong. And the Rashbo VII:414 who forbids humiliations even for men who are not men and commanded by the Talmud to divorce, and the Radvaz IV:118 and the Chazon Ish 108:12. But if I don’t  talk about demons, who cares?
13.   One thing is for sure. When that child born from an mother with an ORA GET goes to the Haredi Shadchon, nobody will erase the Shulchan Aruch because the husband refuses a GET and is therefore a “demon.”

Jewish Outreach Congregation Program to Save Families, Children, Marriages and Torah

There are now crises in marriage, raising children, succeeding in school, and gender issues. Laws of Gittin are being  disregarded by people who don't know the Laws of Gittin, and this will lead to a generation filled with possible mamzerim. 

I am from the old generation. I spent hours talking to Geonim Reb Aharon Kotler, Reb Moshe Feinstein and other gedolei hador. I have semicha in having a Beth Din for Gittin from HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l, who added that I can have his name for my Beth Din. HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein wrote in his haskomo for my halacha seforim, "I know Rabbi Eidensohn for many years as one who delves deeply into complex halochose." The present system, as I was told by Gedolei HaDor, does not work. We have to go back to chazal and make things work.

Anyone, male or female, who wants to learn about the successful way to marry, find shidduchim, succeed in Torah and have children who succeed in school, should contact me Dovid Eidensohn 845-578-1917 or email at eidensohnd@gmail.com. 

Time is short. Children are being born who are in danger. Anyone who is serious about helping themselves and others should become involved. We need people who will learn how to do the things that make for success and save families and children from failure. I need men and women who want to learn and help themselves and others.

Shalom,

Dovid Eidenso

Chicago Beth Din Coerces a GET from a Husband Against the Torah

Response to a Beth Din Ostracizing a Husband for Not Giving an Immediate GET

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn Musmach Geonim Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev

1.       The Beth Din of Chicago  ruled that a husband must give his wife a GET. The husband plans to give his wife a GET but wants certain things to be worked out and arranged. But the Beth Din has ruled that as long as he refuses to give the GET soon he is to be humiliated and ostracized by the entire community. The husband has asked me my opinion and I reply that the Beth Din is completely wrong, and the GET if given under these circumstances is a coerced GET and invalid. Furthermore, a Beth Din that coerces a GET under these circumstances loses the status of Beth Din and all Gittin that it gives are not accepted. I heard this myself from the Gaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l, when I spoke to him at length about these issues when he gave me semicha to lead a Gittin Beth Din in his name.

2.       See also the Sefer Mishptei Yisroel with signed letters from Gedolim of this and the past generation about the terrible sin and mamzerim because of Gittin produced with humiliation, and the sin of going to such a Beth Din and accepting their Gittin. (Letter signed by Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, Reb Nissim Karelitz, Rav Noson Kupshitz and many others.)

3.       Again, any woman divorced by this Beth Din is not considered divorced, and if she remarries it will be considered a sin and her children perhaps mamzerim. She needs a GET from a kosher Beth Din.

4.         Where does it say in Shulchan Aruch that a husband who refuses to divorce his wife may be treated this way?

5.       The Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer has three categories of women who demand a GET.  The first level is when the husband is commanded by the Talmud to divorce his wife, and Beth Din is commanded to coerce him even with a beating, if he refuses. For example, a man marries a mother or a daughter.

6.       The next level of coercion is when a man is commanded by the Talmud to divorce his wife, and he is considered a sinner if he does not do this, but beating him or any serious coercion such as hitting him or putting him in the state of Niduh, is forbidden. Humiliation is considered a major coercion and forbidden for such a man. (Rashbo VII:414 Radvaz IV:118, Chazon Ish EH 108:12)

7.       The next level is when a woman demands a GET from a husband simply because she despises him completely. In such a case the Shulchan Aruch rules that no coercion at all is permitted. This is based on the Rashbo VII:414 and it is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas Mechokake and Gro in Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3.

8.       Most Gittin are in this latter category, where no coercion is permitted. This category is not even discussed in the Laws of Gittin Even Hoezer. It is discussed in the Laws of Kesubose, because we want the marriage to continue and refuse the wife the right to coerce her husband to divorce her.

9.       When the Ramo discusses the right of ostracizing a husband, he does this in the Laws of Gittin 154:21 and only permits it when the husband is specifically commanded by the Talmud to give his wife a GET. But when discussing the wife who demands a GET Ramo does not mention any kind of coercion that is permitted. See EH 77 par 2 and 3.

10.   Therefore, this Beth Din that demanded a GET and coerces it defies the Shulchan Aruch.

11.   The fact that the Beth Din decreed upon the husband to give a GET was wrong. And the Chazon Ish says that if the husband obeys the Beth Din and gives a GET when there was no right to coerce him, this is a forced GET and the GET is invalid, for two reasons, by the teaching of the Torah. The children born from such a GET are thus mamzerim. EH 99:2

12.   The Beth Din in Chicago decreed that the husband be ostracized and humiliated.

13.   The Chazon Ish 108:12 brings the Beis Yosef that humiliation is forbidden even for a person commanded by the Talmud to divorce.. Therefore, says the Chazon Ish, it is forbidden to do harchoko of Rabbeinu Tam as this is a humiliation. Surely in our case humiliation is forbidden.

14.   Senior poskim forbid Harchoko of Rabbeinu Tam unless a person is married to his mother or daughter and such hideous circumstances. These are the Shach end of Gevoras Anoshim, Chazon Ish EH 108:12, and the rebbe of the Beis Yosef Reb Yosef ben Leib who says we never heard of anyone doing the Harchoko of Rabbeinu Tam because it is considered a very serious coercion similar to a beating.

15.   The Gro EH 154:67 and others hold that Harchoko of Rabbeinu Tam is only permitted if the husband can leave his city and find peace. But today, communications are such that it is very unlikely that this will happen. Furthermore, today, people don’t know the laws of Harchoko, that only passive ostracizing is permitted. So once demonized, husbands are threatened with very serious coercions, leading to a definite problem of an invalid and coerced GET. Thus in the Chicago Beth Din letter all of the shulls must announce at the end of Shabbos dovening that the husband is in violation of the Beth Din order to give a GET. This is active, not passive, and it is humiliation, not ostracizing.

16.   I once had a discussion with Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, the Av Beth Din of Chicago, who signed on this ostracizing of the above mentioned husband.. What happened was that a man came to a prominent Rov in a large city and said he was interested in remarrying. The Rov asked him if he had a GET from his first wife. The man replied he did not, because he and his wife had gone to Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz for a GET, and he told them they had no need for a GET and sent them away. I called up Rabbi Schwartz and asked how a couple who was married with Orthodox Chupah and Kiddushin in front of kosher witnesses can remarry without a GET. He told me that there was no Biah, as the couple lived alone for a month without Biah. I asked him how he knew that there was no Biah. He said the doctor said that. I asked him how a doctor knows this, as Biah can be without tearing anything. He had no answer. But the main problem is that the poskim and the Shulchan Aruch are filled with stories of boys and girls making Kiddushin in the street, and the poskim consider that if there was a chance that they meant it and there were witnesses, then they are married and need a GET. There was no Biah in these cases. See Marsham Volume VI:158. Furthermore, the Rambam (Ishuse III:1 and 3) and Shulchan Aruch EH 26:4 “A woman can be married in three ways: money [an object of value such as a ring], a document and biah.” It does not say that without Biah money and a document are not valid. Thus Kiddushin without Biah makes a married couple that requires a GET. If Rabbi Schwartz disagrees, he disagrees with the Torah. And he does disagree with the Torah. Therefore, what he and his Beth Din rule is worthless.

17.   The recent scandal with Rabbi Schwartz’s National New York Beth Din whereby the FBI obtained from that Beth Din a letter condemning a husband who didn’t exist should alert us to the fact that Rabbi Schwartz’s Beth Din has no status of a Beth Din at all and their Gittin are worthless. Nonetheless, if a kosher Beth Din checks over the giving of the GET, the Sofer, etc., and rules that the GET is kosher, then it is kosher.

18.   Rabbeinu Yona in Shaarei Teshuva writes (#139) “the pain of humiliation is worse than death.” Surely humiliation is a very serious coercion, and it renders a GET invalid.

19.   The above husband should give his wife a kosher GET, not a coerced GET that is invalid.

20.   The Beth Din should calm things down and allow the husband to approach divorce without a feeling that he is among enemies.

21.   The husband has surely given me the understanding that he wants a divorce, but he doesn’t want to be coerced into it before he has satisfied himself about certain matters that every husband has a right to be concerned about.

Three Styles of Torah and Our Times - by Yosef Orlow

Yosef Orlow	Jun 7 (1 day ago)

The Danger Within

Two threats have always faced the Jewish Nation: the threat from without and the threat from within. The threat from within, from Jews who undermine adherence to the Torah, is the greater threat. When we collectively keep the Torah we are protected from external dangers. Yet no amount of fighting our enemies can save us if we don't keep the Torah.

At the time of the Gr"a, there were no great centralized Yeshivas until Reb Chaim Volozhin started his Yeshiva with the permission of the Gr"a. The purpose of the Yeshiva was to provide a place where students could learn full time, in an atmosphere protected from the multitudes of anti-Torah idealists.

 At that time, non-Jewish societies had become more accessible to Jews. Some Jews began to assimilate. As is the way of the wicked, some of these active assimilationists sought out observant Jews to drag them into the tide of assimilation. The response of the Gr"a was to have a Yeshiva that isolated the students from these heretical vultures. The outsiders trumpeted the claim that the "new" way was better than the Torah way; the Yeshiva imbued in its students the idea that the highest potential man can reach is to live his life entirely by the Torah.

The Yeshiva life was hard, but the students were willing to sacrifice comfort in exchange for the knowledge that they were on the path of truth; while those who rejected the Torah were living a life of meaningless vanity.

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch took a different tack for his place and time. His approach was to beat the opposition at its own game. Rav Hirsch went out to the assimilated youth to challenge their adherence to the ways of non-Jewish society. Whereas in the past non-observant Jews tried to diminish Torah observance by attempting to poke holes in the logic of Torah observance, Rav Hirsch poked holes in the logic of assimilation. Rav Hirsch armed Jews with rhetorical weapons to fend off the assimilationists. Jews could now venture into fields of employment that brought them into contact with the world at large, without severing their ties to the Torah.

Rav Yisrael Salanter had another approach. He taught that one's goal is not to be superior to the next man by diminishing him. One's goal is to be better than oneself. The message of the Mussar movement was self-perfection.

We read in the Torah about the command to Aharon to light the holy menora so the burning wicks would turn to the face or front of the Menorah. For this HaShem told Moshe to emphasize the importance of the center of the menora again and again. When Aharon obeyed he was complimented, as Rashi explains, "This tells us the glory of Aharon that he did not change what he was charged." When we have a Menorah of seven fires, each represents a unique dimension of holiness. There are many holy paths to the Torah. But they must all be one and united, as they face the center of the Menora, and all of the paths lead to HaShem in unity. That is the great challenge for Aharon, and for us as well.

Audio Tel Conf EH #11 - How to Pasken and A Husband Who Coerces Himself to give a GET

audio is at

Audio Tel Conf EH#11 How to Pasken and Husband who Makes His Own Coercion

Audio Tel Conf Account2_Failing Children and Family _ Earning, Learning, and Succeeding

click below

Audio about Children - Earning, Learning, and Succeeding

Shiur#10 EH - Chazon Ish Coerced GET

Audio of tel conference Chazon Ish Coerced GET

Telephone Conference Shiur #10 – The Chazon Ish and the Laws of Coercion of a GET

1.       There are times when a husband can be forced to give a GET, even with a beating, such as one who marries his close relative. And there are time when the husband cannot be forced with a beating to divorce his wife, but people can tell the husband he is wicked for not giving a GET.  See EH 154:21. And then there are times when the husband cannot be pressured at all to give a GET. Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3 and commentators.

2.       The Chazon Ish Even Hoezer Chapter 99:1 says that when Beth Din errs and rules that the husband can be forced with a beating and he agrees to give a GET only because of the beating, the GET he gives is negated by the Torah not just by the rabbis.

3.       If Beth Din had a case where the only coercion allowed was words but not a beating, and the Beth Din gave a beating, the GET from that beating is negated by the Torah and not just the rabbis. EH 99:1

4.       Rambam maintains differently, that if Beth Din made an error and coerced a GET with a beating when it was not called for, the GET is kosher by the Torah standard, but invalid by rabbinic standard. The Chazon Ish says that this is true only if Beth Din made an honest error, because they thought the halacha permitted a beating. But if a Beth Din deliberately beat a husband they knew should not be beaten, the GET is invalid by Torah standard not just rabbinic standard even according to the Rambam. EH 99:1

5.       The gemora in Shabbos 88b asks how today when there is no longer semicha from Moshe Rabbeinu  to be a Dayan, how can rabbis coerce a GET? The gemora answers that today we do the coercion because it was so established by the earlier Semuchim.

6.       The Chazon Ish writes there EH 99:1 that when the earlier Musmochim gave permission to coerce Gittin they meant to include a Beth Din that knew the halochose of judging, that knew the logic involved to be a Beth Din, and that mastered the laws of paskening. It would seem from this that any Beth Din that is not a master of the laws of paskening and knowledgeable about judging its laws and practice is not authorized by early generations to coerce Gittin. To coerce a GET without the permission of the earlier Musmochim is unacceptable (Gittin 88b).

7.       The Chazon Ish says there that a Beth Din that deliberately twists things to coerce a GET when it is not deserved has a status of no Beth Din. If so, all of those who deliberately give coerced Gittin the opposite of the Shulchan Aruch lose the title of Beth Din and their Gittin are not recognized. I heard a similar thing from Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l, that a Beth Din that does things against the Shulchan Aruch loses its status of a Beth Din. A similar statement is in a letter from Gedolim in Israel such as Reb Chaim Kanievsky and others. (Brought in the beginning of the Sefer Mishpitei Yisroel.)

8.       The Chazon Ish writes EH 99:2 “If the husband being beaten [by mistake] to divorce his wife suddenly feels like giving the GET, not because of the beating but a genuine personal decision, the GET is kosher. But this applies only if he decides that he really wants the GET before the GET is made. But if he says this after the GET is made the GET is invalid.

9.       The Chazon Ish says that a husband beaten to divorce when he should not be coerced, the GET is invalid, even if the husband was silent after the beating and he said “I want the GET” without complaining how the GET was obtained. Chazon Ish EH 99:2:2.

10.     If the husband is beaten to give the GET and he agrees because of the beating, but in his heart he declares that the GET is negated and invalid, if the beating was proper that he deserved the beating and deserved coercion, the GET is kosher. Ch. Ish EH 99:2:3

11.     The Chazon Ish writes that if Beth Din did not force with a beating or any kind of coercion, but they made a mistake and ruled that the husband is obligated by the Torah to give a GET, the GET is invalid by Torah ruling and not just by rabbinical ruling. Ch. Ish EH 99:2: par. 2.

12.     There are two reasons for this: One, when the Beth Din told him [falsely because they erred] that the Torah requires a GET, it created a pressure on him to obey the Torah, and this pressure negates the GET.

13.     Also, the GET is invalid by the Torah because if the husband had known that the Beth Din was wrong he never would have given the GET. EH 99:2.

14.     Thus whenever a Beth Din rules that a husband must give his wife a GET, if the husband is not a candidate for coercion, something very rare, the GET given is invalid by the Torah not just rabbinical ruling.

  15..   Rabbeinu Tam (Shita Mikubetses Kesubose 54b par beginning וכתב רבינו יונה    and ending with Rabbeinu Tam(  holds that Beth Din should not tell the husband that it is a mitsvah to give a GET. It should also not tell the husband that it would be a good idea to give a GET.  It would seem from the Shita that Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Yona who are quoted, are talking about a case where the wife said “my husband is repulsive to me.” In that case Rabbeinu Tam forbids even mentioning about a GET is a mitsavh or a good idea, but Rabbeinu Tam permits this minor coercion. We want to know the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Yona, why the disagree in Mous Olei if it can be coerced with a minor coercion to call the husband wicked or to tell the husband it is a good idea or a mitsvah.

   16.    Perhaps the reason of Rabbeinu Tam is that according to the Chazon Ish when the husband has been misled to believe that the Torah requires a GET, even without coercion, the ruling is in itself a coercion.

   17.  A Jew feels coerced when he is told it is a mitzvah to do something. Such coercion invalidates a GET. Therefore, Rabbeinu Tam may hold that not only ruling that the husband must divorce his wife, but even saying it is a mitzvah, or it is a good thing, is basically saying that HaShem wants this done, and wants the GET. If so, this can create a force that makes the GET coerced and thus invalid.

18.     It is clear from the Rashbo VII:414 and all of the mephorshim in Shulchan Aruch EH 77 par 2 and 3, that even with MOUS OLEI no coercion at all  is allowed. Rav Elyashev zt”l held it was not even a mitzvah to give a GET with Mous Olei.

 19 .    Rabbeinu Yona disagrees with Rabbeinu Tam and maintains that a minor coercion can be applied to tell the husband that it is a mitsavh to give a GET when the wife claims her husband is repulsive to her, and Beth Din can also say that giving a GET is a good idea. The poskim in Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3 maintain that no coercion is permitted, see also Rashbo VII:414. “If the husband wants to divorce he can divorce. If he does not want to divorce, he doesn’t divorce.” It would seem from this that no coercion at all is permitted, which is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam.

20.      The  Chazon Ish holds that pressure to give a GET because it is a mitzvah can ruin the GET. So for Beth Din to say it is a mitzvah might invalidate the GET, which could be the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam.

21.    The Tashbatz has a question about a father who commanded his son to give a GET. Does the honor of one’s father produce a forced GET? The Tashbatz I:1  ד"ה אונדא דאחריני says that the GET is kosher because “It is a mitzvah to obey one’s father because his words did not violate the Torah and they were intended to end a quarrel [between husband and wife and their families].” Tashbatz also holds that if the son is beaten to force him to honor his father and give the GET, the GET is still kosher, because it is a mitsah to obey his father.

22.     The Chazon Ish disagrees with Tashbatz in 99:3 ד"ה בב"י שם   and holds that coercion to divorce because the husband thinks it is a mitzvah to give the GET produces an invalid GET by Torah rulings not rabbinical rulings for the two reasons mentioned above.  Chazon Ish also quotes two Rishonim  Teshuvas Maimon and Ritva who disagree with Tashbatz about coercion to fulfill a mitzvah. They hold that coercion to do a mitzvah invalidates a GET  and the Tashbatz holds coercion to do a mitzvah does not invalidate the GET.

23.     Chasam Sofer Teshuvas Even Hoezer I #28 and #115. If so the machlokess if a mitzvah is a force to invalidate the GET is a doubt if the coercion is proper, and the Chasam Sofer holds that in such a case the GET is negated by the Torah not just rabbinical decree, and the children born from such a GET are mamzerim diorayso.

24.   Chazon Ish also holds that the  Tashbatz is wrong to say that a GET given because the father commands him is an obligation on the son because of honoring his father. He quotes a gemora and a Ramo to that effect. The Chazon Ish holds that the mitzvah of honoring a father does not include divorcing your wife because the father tells  you to do so.

25.   Tashbats holds that if a husband is beaten to force him to obey his father and divorce his wife, the GET is valid. The Chazon Ish maintains that it would seem that the GET is invalid EH 99:3.