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.

Failing Children - Audio of Telephone Conference Shiur#1 of Account 2 failing children and family

Audio on Failing Children

Failing Children and Failing Families - New Telephone Conference May 31 Sunday 9:30 PM details below

This Sunday night telephone conference has different dial-up and code numbers than our Wed night telephone conference. The Wed night 9:30 program continues regarding halacha of Even Hoezer. But the Sunday conference is a new topic with new dial and code numbers. It is about failing children and failing families.

The new Sunday 9:30 program beginning May 31 is about failing children and failing families. Leading educators have said that each year things get worse. And yet, nobody is doing much about it. A few people are doing things or have good ideas how to improve things, and we want people to know the problems and how to avoid them.

To join the Sunday night at 9:30 PM telephone conference dial 641-715-3580 then enter code 198771#

The regular Wed 9:30 program
Dial 605-562-3130 then code 411161#

Why are we making this program for failing children?
A leading educator told me that he has taught school about thirty years. And every year more and more children are unable to succeed in school and may face a life of problems chas vishalom. Originally 2 out of 25 children had problems succeeding in school, and now the number has shot up close to triple that amount. Let us try to understand the problem and see how to improve things.

Audio of Shiur #9 - What is the Authority of Beth Din?

Audio of Shiur#9 - What is the Authority Behind a  Beth DIn?

Click below for audio at  http://torahtimes.com/2015/05/28/audio-shiur9-authority-of-beth-din/

Audio for Shiur#9 The Authority of Beth Din

Shiur #9 – What Beth Din is Empowered to Coerce a GET?

Telephone conference shiur #9 What Beth Din may Coerce a GET? May 27 9:30 PM call 605-562-3130 add code 411161#

Shiur #9 – What Beth Din is Empowered to Coerce a GET?

1.       We have previously discussed when a Beth Din may coerce a GET. Now we want to go into the power of any Beth Din, how they are authorized by the Torah to make a coerced GET.

2.       Gemora Gittin 88b: “Abayeh found Rav Yosef sitting and coercing husbands to divorce their wives with a GET. He said to him, ‘But we are plain people [meaning the rabbis in Babylonia  did not get the ancient Semicha and therefore are not MUMCHIM.] Rashi explains that in those days rabbis in Israel did receive the ancient Semicha that began with Moshe Rabbeinu and were therefore authorized by the Torah to fulfill all judicial functions necessary such as coercing a GET when appropriate. But Rav Yosef was in Babylonia, and the rabbis there did not receive this Semicha. So by whose authority did Rav Yosef coerce a GET?

3.       Rav Yosef replied, “We are messengers of the rabbis who got Semicha.”

4.        Tosfose there  D”H bimilso dishechicha explains, “We do the work assigned to us by the earlier generations [who had Semicha] in Israel.”

5.       We see from this that the entire capacity to coerce a GET and fulfill other functions of a dayan today  is because we received permission to do this from earlier generations in Israel who had semicha.

6.       Furthermore, the gemora says that we are not authorized by the early generations of Semuchim to fulfill the functions of a Torah Dayan in all things, only in those things that are common. But why is this? Why did the earlier generations grant permission for us to fulfill the will of the Torah with Semicha only with what is common to us?

7.       Perhaps this itself that the permission is not total reminds us that our status is not that of real Semuchim. We may only function according to the command of the earlier Semuchim. The earlier generations of Semuchim were the greatest of their time. And they passed on this Semicha to Babylonia and other countries who had no Semicha only if the rabbis there were very prominent scholars, the cream of the rabbinate. This means that today coercing a husband is a right only of the greatest rabbis. Not long ago a letter from the major Gedolim in Israel said the same thing. But their letter was a response to coerced Gittin from people who are not true scholars or who differ with the Shulchan Aruch. But besides these considerations, we may also assume that the permission given by earlier Musmochim applied only to great rabbis. If so, those who are not great and coerce a GET have made an invalid GET.

8.       In fact, see the Tosfose HaRid on the gemora above Gittin 88. He deduces from Bovo Basro that coercing to  divorce a wife is only effective because “it is a mitzvah to obey the sages.” Obviously, the power of coercion is only given to such rabbis who are considered by everyone, even one who has to be beaten to fulfill the Torah, as authorities. The Beth Din not universally recognized as great sages, may produce invalid Gittin. Did the earlier semuchim, the greatest rabbis, give permission for plain rabbis to fulfill the roll previously given only to the greatest rabbis? Probably not.

9.       Chasam Sofer in his teshuvose on Even Hoezer in two places 28 and 116 says that if the husband knows that two authorities differ whether or not the husband should be beaten, and then the husband is beaten and says, “I want the GET” because of that beating, the GET the husband gives is invalid by the Torah. This is because the husband only gives a proper GET under a beating when he accepts the rabbis as the true authorities to speak for the Torah. But if he knows there are those who disagree with the Beth Din that orders coercion, he does not accept them or their coercion and the GET is invalid, and the children born from it are mamzerim.

10.     A letter from Israeli gedolim, Reb Chaim Kanievsky, Reb Nissim Karelitz, Reb Nosson Kupshitz, Reb Chaim Mahyer HaLevi Wosner, and the late Gaon Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner published in the book Mishpetei Yisroel, together with other very  prominent signers, warns that today there are rabbinic courts that make invalid Gittin, and that everyone must beware of marrying a woman with a GET from them.

11..    Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l told me that any Beth Din that flouts the Shulchan Aruch that he takes away from them “Chezkas Beth Din.” They lose the status of a Beth Din.  It is highly possible that this is not just a decree of today’s rabbis to protect against some rabbis who don’t know the halacha properly. It is based upon the permission granted the generations after Semicha to practice coercions of Gittin, etc. The earlier Semuchim did not want everyone coercing Gittin, only those who are the senior rabbis of the generation, or who work with the permission of the senior rabbis of the generation.

 12.      The process of our doing the Dayan work entrusted to us by the earlier Semuchim, how does it work? Nesivose in Choshen Mishpot 1:1 says that the Torah gave the rabbis the power to give latter generations the capacity of Dayanuse, and the Torah allowed the rabbis, the earlier ones, to decide what kind of things can be adjudicated in latter generations. Thus, the work of the latter rabbis is valid by the Torah.

    13.   The Nesivose says that the Ramban and the Rashbo disagree and consider the Dayanuse done today has no base in the Torah, as we are not Semuchim. But it is valid by the power of the rabbonon. However, if the greatest rabbis in the world such as Rav Wosner zt”l and others of his class wrote a letter forbidding ordinary rabbis to force a GET, perhaps the original permission for latter rabbis to give a GET is violated because the original permission was only for great rabbis to make coercions.

 14.    Tosfose Sandhedrin 2b bottom of page says that although the Torah gave permission for judges to adjudicate it was necessary for the Torah to bring another passage to prove that judges can coerce Gittin. The Ketsose Choshen Mishpot 3 says that permission to coerce was given only to the seventy sages who together with Moshe controlled the Jewish people. Thus, to coerce we need very senior rabbis, the greatest in the world, they or their express permission.

 15.      In New York State a law was passed to force a husband to give a GET when the marriage is over. Such a GET forced by the government is invalid. Threats to the husband to take away money, custody of his children, jail, humiliation, produces an invalid GET. A woman married with an invalid GET has children that are possibly mamzerim.

 16.     In the next generation many children will be born from such Gittin and may be mamzerim. Some rabbis such as the ones who made the GET will consider them fine, and others, such as the above Gedolim, will consider them likely to be mamzerim. Klal Yisroel will be split in two.

 17.     If anyone has a problem with a GET, such as those who got a get from Epstein, a flagrant violator of the most basic teachings of the Shulchan Aruch, should not remarry with such a GET, and should contact people who can attempt to deal with the situation.

       Basically, such people must immediately get a GET from a respected Beth Din.

    18.   If they cannot get another GET they must contact a respected Beth Din to see what can be done. Sometimes, a Beth Din can determine that the Sofer and the Witnesses were kosher people and that the GET was kosher, even if it was done in a Beth Din of those who disagree with the Shulchan Aruch.

   19.   The Beth Din must determine the status of the mother and the status of the children born from the invalid GET. Are the children mamzerim? It is easier to help the children than the mother. A doubtful mamzer is much less of a sin than a doubtful wife, and a doubt of a mamzer is different than other Torah doubts. See Sheb Shematso I:1. But only a prominent Beth Din should be involved with this. Who would marry the woman or her children if a prominent Beth Din did not approve of their marrying?

  20.   The Beth Din may determine that despite being forced the husband decided to give a GET willingly.  See Chazon Ish Even Hoezer Gittin 99:3 that if a husband is forced but finally decides on his own and not because of the coercion to give a GET it is kosher. But an experienced Beth Din must rule on this.

     The laws of GET Meusoh are complex and there are various opinions. This requires a prominent Beth Din.

Audio of Shiur 8 - More on Negating a Marriage Because of Blemishes

Audio of Shiur 8 - More on Negating a Marriage because of Blemishes is at www.torahtimes.com. You can go there and select the audio's window on the top line or click the link below.

Audio of Shiur 8 - More on Negating a Marriage because of Blemishes

Shiur #8 of Telephone Conference - More on Negation of Marriage Because of a Blemish Wed 9:30 PM

Shiur #8 Telephone Conference – More on Negation of Marriage  because of a Blemish

Wed May 20  9:30 PM – Call 605-562-3130 then enter code 411161#

1.       We discussed in Shiur #7 last week that HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein is lenient but many Gedolim are strict about whether a major blemish negates a marriage. Today we want to look into this further.

2.       Gemora Kesubose 57b -  A woman is an Aruso, married to a man, but stays in her father’s house until the Chupa, when she becomes a NISUO, fully married.  If it is discovered that the Arusa has a major blemish, the marriage is negated. See Rashi there.

3.       This would seem to be a proof to Reb Moshe that a serious blemish can negate a marriage. However, this is only about an Arusa, but perhaps once someone has Chupah the conditions for negating marriage are themselves negated, as we discussed last week at length. See Shulchan Aruch EH 38:35,36 and Yevomose 107. A pious Jew does not want to have relations with a woman without marriage, and he cancels his conditions.

4.       Tosfose Kesubose 72b ד"ה על מנת  writes that even though the gemora says that a blemish can negate the marriage, the gemora in Kesubose 73b brings two opinions. One is that the woman’s marriage is negated and turns into a doubtful marriage, and she needs a GET. The other opinion is that the Torah permits her, but the rabbis require a GET. The Rosh 72b says that the opinion that it is a doubt is a sin diorayso to remarry without a GET and Tosfose Kesubos 72b  ד:ה על מנת says the same thing.

5.       If so, a marriage negated can still require a GET. Bais HaLevi and Ain Yitschok disagree with Reb Moshe  as he quotes in Igeres Moshe EH I:79:1. Ayin Yitschok of the Kovneh Rov I:34:7:44 quotes those who forbid her remarriage as the Chavass Yoir, Besomim Rosh, Rashbatz and Shevuse Yaacov. Thus, the gemora and the many authorities who forbid the remarriage based on a blemish would prevent a woman from remarrying even if her husband has a major blemish, even if there is a possibility that the marriage is negated, as is taught in Kesubose 73b.

6.       The gemora Kesubose 73b says that a woman who has a blemish of nedorim that a husband doesn’t tolerate, and therefore by the Torah the marriage is negated as the husband did not know this before he married her, nonetheless, Rabo holds that she needs a GET by rabbinical law. Rovo says that there is a doubt in the Torah itself if she needs a GET in such a case. Thus, even if the marriage is blemished, she needs a GET.

7.       Reb Yosef ben Leib considered the rebbe of the Bais Yosef writes in volume II:19:3 that the custom of rabbis is when rabbis argue about if a woman can remarry that even if a majority of rabbis permit her to remarry, if a minority forbid it, we are stringent and the woman cannot remarry. In a case of a person with a blemish, the majority of rabbis forbid a woman to remarry, and in that case, surely the woman has a problem remarrying.

8.       Tosfose there in Kesubose 72b says that some blemishes require a GET and some do not. Tosfose mentions the blemish of EILENUSE [whereby a woman can have biah but cannot have children, as she has a blemish in her entire system and is not like other women] does not need a GET. But other blemishes do not free the woman without a GET.

9.       Some rishonim hold that even when the husband did not know that she is an Eilunes, and he discovers that she is, even though this is a serious blemish, she needs a GET.

10.   Rambam Ishuse 4:10 – If one makes kiddushin whether the man is a Serise Chamo or Seris Odom, and so with an Eilenuse who is married with Kiddushin [Erusin] these are complete marriages [the couple is married by Torah law].

11.   Magid Mishneh quotes on the above Rambam that Rabbeinu Tam ruled that an Eilunes who was not known to be one and married with Erusin, that she needs a GET.

12.   Rambam Ishus 24:2 “One who marries a woman and does not know her blemish and she turns out to be an Eilunes, she does not get a Kesubo nor does she get the Conditions of a Kesubo, but extra gifts from the husband to his wife she does keep.”

13.   Rambam ISHUS 7:8 One who makes kiddushin [erusin] to a woman, and it is discovered that she has a blemish that render a woman unfit or one of the oaths that she made renders her unfit, and afterwards he discovers that she has this blemish, the marriage is a doubt if it is negated [because he did not make a clear condition].”

14.   From this we see that if the husband or wife did not make a clear condition and then it is discovered that they have a bad blemish, the marriage is a doubt, maybe it is negated, maybe not, and she needs a GET and without it she cannot marry.

15.   The Magid Mishneh explains that the Rambam paskens like Rovo that if it is discovered after the Kiddushin that the woman has a bad blemish it is a doubt and she requires a GET to remarry. The gemora there says clearly that she needs a GET if no specific condition was made to negate the marriage if she had this problem.

16.   This again is a proof that even in serious blemishes we don’t allow the woman to remarry without a GET, and many poskim hold like that, not like Reb Moshe.

17.   Rambam rules Ishuse 7:23 that if a man made a condition in Erusin that he did not want a wife with certain blemishes, and the wife had them, the marriage is negated. But if afterwards  he married her with Chupah or took her to his house and they were together and then he did not make a condition, the woman is married and she needs a GET. Thus, even if there is proof that Erusin is negated by a blemish, if there is Nisuin the conditions may be negated and the woman needs a GET. Thus all people who want to negate a marriage because of a blemish, if they did not make a clear condition before the Chupa, they are married and the wife needs a GET. How does this agree with Reb Moshe’s lenient negation of marriages, that seem to mean even if they were married a few years and maybe even if they had children, the marriage is negated?

18.   The Meiri Kesubose 72b D “H “One who marries a woman, etc.” says that when a man marries a woman who has the blemishes of oaths that men don’t tolerate, and he did not know about them, the marriage is negated and no GET is needed. This is a proof to Reb Moshe that a strong blemish negates the marriage.

19.   Reb Moshe and Chelkas Mechokake EH 39:9 say that the woman must immediately leave the marriage if she discovers a major blemish in the husband. But how do we know that she did leave immediately?

20.   Thus, the issue of a blemish to negate a marriage has various aspects and opinions. The majority who discuss this do not permit the woman to remarry without a GET. Then we have the opinion of Rosfose Kesubose 72b that it may depend on the level of blemish. If so, who can determine what the thoughts of Chazal were in considering this?

21.   The latest assaults on Shulchan Aruch by people who are inventing new ways to free a married woman based on some invention in defiance of the Shulchan Aruch, are far away from the ideas taught here. 

Audio of Telephone Conference #7 Negation of Marriage without a GET?

Click on the link below to get to torahtimes.com and on top of the windows is one that is about Negation of Marriage without a GET?

Audio of tele-conference #7 Negation of Marriage without a GET?

Telephone Conference #7 Negation of Marriage without a GET

Telephone Conference Shiur #7 -  Negating a Marriage without a GET

Shiur on Wednesday night 9:30 May 13 – Call 605-562-3130 then enter code 411161#

1.       HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein in EH IV:52 writes that if a woman marries and finds out that the husband has a great defect, that the marriage can be negated without a GET. Cases are that the husband cannot have BIAH, or the husband is a Shoteh.

2.       In EH IV:113 Reb Moshe permits the wife to remarry if her husband is discovered to be strongly involved in homosexuality. But this only applies if the wife, immediately upon learning about her husband’s problem left him and did not return.

3.       However, “If it is impossible to get a GET from him we permit her to remarry, but if it is possible to get a GET from him we must do everything possible to get the GET.”

4.       But why is there such a need to get a GET that everything possible, such as paying large sums of money, must be invoked? And the answer is, that it is extremely rare to find a Rov who permits a married woman to remarry without a GET, and even Reb Moshe commands us to get a GET at any cost, if possible

5.       Also, Reb Moshe in EH I:79:1 brings from the Beis HaLevi Simon 3 and the Kovneh Rov, AIN YITSCHOK 24:6 and BIARE YITSCHOK 4:3, Gedolei hador in the time of the Chofetz Chaim who were are not sure that the marriage is negated by a great Mum or blemish.

6.       The Kovneh Rov brings in AYIN YITSCHOK I:EH 24:7:44 that some authorities feel that there is a doubt whether if there is a great defect the marriage is negated: Chavass Yoir, the Besomim Rosh, Rashbatz and Shevuse Yaacov did not want to permit remarriage without a GET. If so many great authorities were not sure of the halacha with a great blemish and refuse to permit the wife to remarry, Reb Moshe took upon himself to permit this. But this does not mean that we do this as we see that the majority of the great authorities from previous generations did not consider the woman free to remarry.

7.       Reb Yosef ben Leib, considered by some the rebbe of Rebbe Yosef Karo, writes in volume two IV:19:3, Regarding a woman remarrying when she may be forbidden to do this, we are stringent and forbid this, even if most authorities permit it.” What if most or all other authorities forbid it? That is the situation with Reb Moshe’s opinion about permitting a woman to remarry when nobody agrees with him. But there is another problem with this heter.

8.        Reb Moshe  himself says that the person who wants to cancel the marriage can only do so when the great blemish is discovered and immediately, without delay, the person leaves the house and has nothing to do with the blemished person. This is found in Chelkas Mechokake EH 39:9.

9.       My question is: Let us assume that a blemish does permit a woman to be free of the marriage. But who knows that the wife immediately fled from the husband? Of course, now, hours or days or weeks later,  she may have decided to leave. But if she delayed even by a small span of time, she is not free. And is it not likely that the woman was in a great state of shock and struggled to think things over. Leave? Maybe yes, maybe not. Perhaps being alone is worse. What would people say? Who will support me? What will the children say? How will the children ever marry if people know that their father was an active  homosexual? What if the wife wants to  straighten out her bank account that has large sums that if she has a few days can be in her favor, but if she just runs away, she may lose everything? What is the halacha about that? Who takes the responsibility to say it is not a problem?

10.   Another problem is one I learned the hard way. I once needed a GET from somebody who would not allow a rabbi into his office. Reb Moshe had a teshuva permitting making the GET. A rabbi agreed to do the GET on the condition that he personally not give a document that the woman was properly divorced. Rather, he would write that according to Reb Moshe the GET was kosher. At that, I called Reb Moshe’s gabei and was told, “Just because it says that in the Teshuva sefer, does that mean that we do it?” I was stunned and just hung up. I called up Reb Aivigder Miller zt”l who told me, “Reb Moshe became stricter later in life and regretted some decisions he had made in earlier times. When the world was a complete disaster Reb Moshe felt he had to be very lenient. But as the word got frumer Reb Moshe pulled back.

11.   If so, who says that anyone should do what Reb Moshe permits in this case when all rabbonim disagree with him?

12.   I heard from the assistant to Rav Henkin, Rabbi Margolin, a similar thing. We used to doven in the same shull and we would talk. He told me that he constantly asked Rav Henkin to put out his teshuvose, because he was the posek hador in America before Reb Moshe, and he had a huge amount of teshuvose. But Rav Henkin refused. He felt that his teshuvose were for a lost generation, and he hoped that better times would come when his teshuvose were not appropriate.

13.   If so, when we find an incredible chidush from Reb Moshe, who says something that nobody else in the world accepts, and what the greatest authorities discuss in depth and reject Reb Moshe’s leniency, who can go release a woman from a marriage and have her remarry and have children after that? Probably, there is a serious doubt if Reb Moshe himself would continue to hold this opinion. And even if he does maintain his leniency, how can we permit a woman to remarry when all of the great rabbis who discussed this refused to permit her to remarry? And how do we know that she really left immediately when finding out the problem with the husband?

14.   Another problem. A marriage made with the understanding that it will only be viable if such and such are done. Or a marriage that is only viable if a person does not have a certain problem. If the condition is not fulfilled do we cancel the marriage? If the marriage was made with ERUSIN alone, only giving a ring, for instance, and the condition is not fulfilled, the marriage is off. But if the couple had CHUPAH or intimacy, the condition may be cancelled. See Shulchan Aruch EH 38:35.

15.    “One who makes ERUSIN with a condition [that cancels the marriage if the condition is not fulfilled],  but has relations with his wife without mentioning the condition,  [and the condition is not fulfilled seemingly canceling the marriage] she needs a GET [meaning she is married despite the condition that cancelled the marriage] even though the condition was not fulfilled.  We suspect that he negated the condition when he had relations with her or brought her into his home. Ramo – And if somebody else marries her she needs a GET from both of them.” We see from this that even when somebody says he will marry only if a certain condition is fulfilled, and the condition is not fulfilled, if he has relations or CHUPAH with his wife, we fear that he negated his conditions. This could be because “nobody wants to have marital relations that are zenuse.” See also EH 38:36 at the end that she is married after the intimacy and he must give her a KESUBO even if the condition for the marriage is not fulfilled.

16.   Thus although if somebody makes a condition to marry and the condition is not fulfilled the marriage is off, that only applies to ERUSIN, without CHUPAH or BIAH. But if somebody makes a condition that only with this condition is there a marriage and then there is CHUPAH or intimacy, there is a serious question if the condition is negated by the CHUPAH or intimacy. Because once a person has CHUPAH or intimacy and still presses the condition, the marriage is off. And the CHUPAH and intimacy were outside of a marriage, or Zenuse. Therefore, it is quite possible that any condition made for ERUSIN is negated upon CHUPAH or intimacy. But a woman married with CHUPAH or intimacy, even if we would normally assume that no man or woman would accept such a blemish in marriage, this is only prior to CHUPAH. But once there is CHUPAH conditions are negated so that the intimacy is not Zenuse. If so, in all cases where the marriage is negated because of a MUM or serious problem, once there was CHUPAH it is possible that the marriage is still viable to prevent BIAS ZENUSE.

17.   See Yevomose 107 “Nobody makes his intimacy Zenuse” and “a marriage made with certain conditions, those conditions are negated when the couple is together” means basically that the marriage with CHUPAH survives the requirement of conditions. This is a complicated topic but surely it is not a simple thing to free a woman who is married to somebody who has a great blemish MUM, especially as other than Reb Moshe nobody permits it, and everyone forbids it. And, as I mentioned earlier, Reb Moshe’s teshuvose often contain material that he personally refused to permit in later years. Perhaps this is one of them.

18.   It is a tragedy that in Philadelphia we have Roshei Yeshiva who encourage a woman to remarry without a GET, even though I am going to publicize that her remarriage is AISHESS ISH and her children from the second “husband” are mamzerim. Whoever permits this married woman to remarry without a GET deserves NIDUI. 

Audio Kabbala on the Diminishing of the Moon and Suffering

Audio file from Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn on the strangest teaching in the Talmud and Medrash, G-d's confrontation with the Moon at Creation.

Click on the link below to go to torahtimes.com, and then click on audio file about Moon.

Audio File on Diminishing the Moon

Telephone conference Marriage Recognized and Not Recognized by the Torah

Telephone Shiur #6 Wed night 9:30 PM    5/6/15   Call 605-562-3130 then code 411161#

Marriage Recognized and Not Recognized by the Torah  

  Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/845-578-1917

1.       What kind of marriage is recognized by the Torah?

2.       When a Jew gives a ring or valuable object to a Jewish woman and says “you are mekudeshes to me” or a similar phrase, the woman is married to the man. EH 27:1. Marriage can also be created by giving a document of marriage to the woman and she accepts it, and it says that she is mekudeshes to the man who gave her the document EH 31:1. Also, if the husband has marital relations with a Jewish woman with intent to marry they are married EH33:1. Two Orthodox witnesses must witness any act of Kiddushin EH 27:2; 31:1; 33:1.  

3.       If witnesses know that a Jew and a Jewess are together and having marital relations, and we know that they were once married but now are divorced, we assume that their being together in front of witnesses or with the knowledge of kosher witnesses is an act of marriage and they are married EH 149:5.

4.       But if the two were not originally married and then divorced, we assume that the two intended not marriage but Zenuse and there is no marriage. Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 149:5.

5.       If a husband and wife are together in a community where marriage is often not established by Torah ritual but by governmental or social style, and the people probably consider themselves married, either because they are ignorant of the Torah or deny the Torah or ignore the Torah, we have a problem if kosher witnesses knew of them.

6.       The Gadol of America, Rav Yosef Eliyohu Henkin zt”l, wrote in Lev Ivro that when two Jews marry in a secular ceremony but they consider it marriage, or the type of secular marriage has a name, civil marriage, that indicates marriage and not Zenuse, we assume that they are married. (Lev Ivro page 12). Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l disagrees EH IV:81. This is also a machlokess between the Ragetshover who is machmir and HaGaon Reb Yonoson Shteif who says the custom is to be lenient,  see Teshuvose Rav Shteif #118.

7.       If the husband and wife make a two ring ceremony, it would seem that both share in the act of Kiddushin, which could result in no Torah marriage at all. On the other hand, maybe the wife knows that her mother married with one ring, and she wants to give a ring only to be modern, but without violating the basic idea of Torah kiddushin. Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l wrote in Even Hoezer IV:13:4 that in such a case the couple must be told by the rabbi that the marriage is when the husband gives the ring, and the wife may give the ring only after she is married by the husband’s giving of the ring, as a celebration of the previous act of marriage. But if this was not done, Reb Moshe does not know what to say, because who knows what the couple was thinking?

8.       Also in the time of Rav Henkin even secular people recognized the role of the male as being the head of the house and the woman he married came into his possession. Therefore, any kind of “marriage” would satisfy the Torah requirements. But today with gender wars and the women insisting on being equal to men “marriage” means not what the Torah calls Kiddushin, when the wife is possessed by the husband, but rather a partnership. If so, the “partnership” marriage does not create Torah marriage.

9.       Because of this, couples without kosher Kiddushin living together in New York or other areas where Orthodox Jews live and the couple has a de facto marriage without Kiddushin, we have a problem if by Torah law they are married. If they are married and broke up without a GET, we have a problem if the woman can remarry without a GET. And if she does remarry without a GET, we have a problem if the children are mamzerim.

1 .   A woman in order to gain entrance to a country pretends to marry a man who is a citizen of that country,  and she stays in his house, so that they both appear as man and wife. The man makes a condition he will do the woman a favor so she can enter the country, but she must stay in his house for three months and then she must leave and they will separate. Reb Moshe says she is not married by Torah standards. Igeres Moshe EV VI:112

1.   A woman is married to a man in a Reform ceremony. The man and his ancestors were Reform. Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l in Igeres Moshe IV:75 says that there is no marriage. In that case the couple was together a short time and were not in a neighborhood with frumeh Yidden. Yet Reb Moshe says that if possible a GET should be given. But if this is not possible he permits the woman to remarry without a GET.

1.   A woman wanted to marry a Kohen but she is a divorcee. So she went to a Reform rabbi and married the Kohen. Reb Moshe says that she is not married to the Kohen because the Reform marriage is not a marriage. And if there are Orthodox people who know that they live together there may be kiddushin from biah, but that only applies to Orthodox people who don’t want to live with Zenuse. But people who go to Reform don’t  have compunctions with what we call Zenuse. So there is no marriage, because those who are hefker regarding Torah and mitsvose have no reluctance to make a Biah of Zenuse. Igeres Moshe IV:76.

1 .   In Igeres Moshe IV:77 Reb Moshe makes it clear that Reform people don’t make a ceremony of marriage acceptable to the Torah and they are deniers so that even Rav Henkin who considers civil marriage a Torah marriage would agree that this does not apply to Reform deniers of the Torah.

1    In Igeres Moshe IV:78 Reb Moshe says that a goy who is converted by a Conservative rabbi who is mechalel Shabbos who marries a Jewish woman with such a rabbi, she is not married. Rabbis known to be kofrim make invalid marriages and are invalid witnesses so she is not married.

1.   A woman who met a man and they married in civil court where there were no Orthodox witnesses and stayed together only a few days. She is not married as no Orthodox witnesses knew they were together. Igeres Moshe IV:80

1.   A Russian woman married there at a time when the government treated marriage as an easily broken thing and the government itself sometimes breaks up a marriage to serve the government. If the woman wants to be frum we can clarify what happened and find a reason to permit her to remarry. But if she won’t be frum we don’t  have to help her get married and live in sin. Igeres Moshe IV:81.

1.   See Reb Yonosan Shteif zt”l in his teshuvose207 is a Pilegesh permitted or forbidden. A Yevomo LaShuk who is a pilegesh is this permitted? See  his  teshuva at length forbidding a Yevoma LaShuk to be a pilegesh.

1.   A woman finds out that her husband is a mumar. Is this kiddushei toose? See Reb Yonosan Shteif 103. See degrees of Mumar in teshuvose Yam Shel Shlomo #41 that perhaps applies in this case also. See also Ayin Yitschok I:24 about mekach yoose in marriage.

1.   If somebody is married and takes another woman without kiddushin, and she stopped going to the Mikvah, and this goes on for many years, when she leaves the man, does she need a GET? Tsemach Tsedek from Lubavitch EH I:138 has lengthy discussion of this. He does not say a definite thing but concludes that there are proofs to be lenient. This is about a Pilegesh if she needs a GET.

  .  Regarding Pilegesh see Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 13:7: “A Pilegesh who lives only with one man who wants to marry somebody else must wait ninety days.” From this it seems that she does not need a GET because it only demands a delay of ninety days. The Gro there #19 says that she wants to have children. That is, they are married in practice if not with Kiddushin. And it would seem that there is no need of a GET as this is not mentioned. See Even Hoezer 26:1 a machlokess about Pilegesh forbidden or permitted.

  .   A husband is discovered to have a terrible fault such as being unable to have intimacy, we try to get a GET from him. If that is impossible, there is a great discussion in the Poskim. See Igeres Moshe EH1:80 at the end there his lenient opinion, and the opinion of the Gaon of Kovna in Ayin Yitschok EH 24 and Bare Yitschok 4 that this might be forbidden dirabonon.

2    Let us conclude that there is a great difference of opinion regarding many Jewish marriages, if they are valid or if people need a GET in order to remarry. We have previously discussed the issues of forcing husbands to give a GET that could make mamzerim.

2     It is a time to learn Even Hoezer, and each day, it is more important to learn Even Hoezer.