Profile Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Challenges in Torah Marriage

A great part of the Torah Family and Marriage is marriage with Kiddushin and a Kesubo. Kiddushin is from the word "sacred" and involves a marriage that sanctifies husband and wife. But there is a price to for that sanctification. For the husband or wife to leave the marriage made by Kiddushin is a difficult process. The woman has a much greater problem as she cannot leave the marriage unless the husband dies or gives her a GET divorce paper willingly. If he is not willing and is forced to give it, the GET is invalid, and children from the next marriage are probably mamzerim.

In earlier generations women usually did not have independent sources of money so they had to stay with the husband no matter what. But today women work and don't need support. This leads to much conflict, and the husband may not give her a GET willingly so she is stuck, maybe forever. We have explained elsewhere that today this creates two situations unlike earlier generations. One is that a woman who is not religious enough to maintain Kiddushin no matter what may not marry with Kiddushin. Two, when certain rabbis want to "help" women in this difficulty by offering them invalid and forced GETS, if the woman accepts, she is a sinner, and her children by the next husband are usually mamzerim.
On the other hand a woman or even a man with biological needs not being met in marriage will likely find some sinning to do, which is a terrible thing. Therefore, a husband and wife must marry, but to marry with Kiddushin and not honor it is a terrible sin. What can be done?
I therefore have suggested a solution that is perfectly legal by the Torah. The husband and wife can marry without Kiddushin by accepting the level of Pilegesh, meaning they are married, and their children are perfectly acceptable like other children of Kiddushin, but with Pilegesh the husband and wife live together as long as they are both satisfied with the arrangement. When one wants to leave it is permitted and there is no hassle or sin. However, to have a proper Pilegesh marriage a rabbi should be involved who will instruct how to behave so that everything is completely kosher.
If somebody is so religious that they will maintain their religiosity with Kiddushin no matter what, perhaps they don't have to think about Pilegesh, but today, this is getting more and more rare, as so many rabbis and married people are forcing a GET from the husband.
In very early generations, such as the time of the Geonim who were many generations before Rashi and the authors of the Tosfose in the gemora, around the time of Islam's arrival, the rabbis permitted women to force a GET. Nobody knows what connection there is between this permission and Islam, but it happened. There were other periods when people felt that the rabbis had addressed a crisis by permitting a forced GET. Those days are gone.
The Talmud finally decided that the earlier power of women to declare they despised their husbands and could leave are gone The reason is based upon an ancient Mishneh that although in earlier times women were believed when they claimed they deserved a GET and sometimes it was forced upon the men, this changed in latter generations when we suspected women of lying so that they can find another husband that they wanted instead of their present husband. This is called "we fear that the woman has put her eye on another man" and wants to leave her husband by lying about her relations with him. This is the rule today. We no longer allow women to just walk out of a marriage despite her claims that the husband is awful, etc.
Rabbeinu Tam and the RI, the greatest rabbis of their time a bit after Rashi, maintain with proof, that the Talmud did not allow a woman to force her husband to give her a divorce based upon her claims against him. This is brought in Kesubose 63b in Tosofose beginning "But if she says MOUE OLEI". There Rabbeinu Tam says clearly that we fear that she will lie and find another husband that she prefers over her old husband.
Rabbeinu Tam proves this from the gemora there where the law of a woman who claims her husband is disgusting to her is discussed. The gemora wants to know if the woman is forced to remain with the husband, because as time goes on, perhaps things in the marriage will straighten out. Rabbeinu Tam asks, "If, as some believe, a woman can claim that her husband is disgusting to her and this causes the rabbis to force the husband to give a divorce, why is this ignored by the gemora? The gemora only asks if we force the wife who complains that the husband disgusts her to remain with him, but there is no discussion at all anywhere in the gemora that we should force the husband to give a GET. Perhaps at some time in history the great rabbis had to provide such a ruling, which is possible when all of the rabbis agreed to it, but the Talmud completely ignores is. In fact, the gemora states clearly that we fear that a woman will lie in order to free herself from her husband and find another husband "her eyes are upon another man." If so, it is obvious that no woman can force her freedom from a husband with a claim that he is disgusting to her. Only if a proper Beth Din determines that they personally know that certain bad actions have actually happened in the house do we then talk of a forced divorce by the husband. But this cannot be done just because the woman says that her husband is disgusting to her.

If somebody wants to discuss these matters with me I can be reached at 845-578-1917.
Dovid Eidensohn - Talmid of Geonim Reb Aharon Kotler, Reb Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev, all of them zt"l.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Selling Chomets to a non-Jew on Pesach: How? Text in Hebrew based upon Aruch HaShulchan YD 320:15




וזה לשון הערוך השלחן י"ד סימן ש"ך סעיף טו' וז"ל כל דבר שנהגו בו באותו מקום לקנות בו, אם הוא מנהג קבוע הוה קנין גם לענין בכור, כמ"ש בח"מ סימן ר"א. ולכן אם המנהג לקנות בערבין היינו באוף גאב שקורין זאדאטאק או שקונין בהאנט שלאק וכיוצא בזה אם הוא מנהג קבוע מהני ופטור מבכורה. ואם מהני מנהג במקום שע"פ הדין אינו מועיל כמו קנין בדבר שלא בא לעולם בארנו שם שיש מחלוקת ורוב דיעות ס"ל דמהני. וכן קנין על פי דינא דמלכותא מועיל. ולכן אם על פי דינא דמלכותא קונין מטלטלין בשטר כמו שהמנהג במדינתינו שמוכרין סחורה בקאנטראקט ועל פי דינא דמלכותא מועיל, מועיל גם בבכור. וכן בררנו שם דקנין דרבנן מועיל גם לדאורייתא ע"ש. וכל אלה הם רק לאחר פסיקת המקח. דקודם פסיקת המקח אין מועיל שום קנין כמ"ש עכ"ל

ומה שנוהגים לעשות כמה מיני קנין לא אדע אם זה טוב מן הדבר הפשוט והברור על ידי שטר העולה בדינא דמלכותא שהשיטות של תורה אין הגוי רגיל בהם ואיך יבין והם גורמים בילבול ואם הגוי לא מבין כל השיטות של התורה זהו לכאורה קילקול ולא תיקון. לכן לכאורה יותר טוב לעשות קנין פשוט שהוא מובן לגמרי להגוי ולא לומר לו כמה דברים שהוא לא מבין ומי יודע אם הבילבול יקלקל.


How to Get Married


The great problem for an increasing number of people is how to get married. There are many shadchonim. There are many programs for singles. But, as one of the experienced leaders of these groups told me, people are not marrying after a divorce, and many are divorced. The divorces cause such pain, such a drain of finances and energy and great struggles and hate, that getting married is a challenge that is not being used as much as we would like.

The Talmud and the Code of Laws tell us that marriage is something to be done at a young age. Then people are ready for it, but as they age, something changes, and it is harder to marry. But those of us who believe in the Torah as taught in the Talmud, know that marriage at a young age is the way to go.
My mentor Rabbi Dr. Shmuel Toledano of Israel, was a major Kabbalist. The senior Kabbalist in the world wrote about him that surely Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) possessed him to write his many books, usually very deep and lengthy books going into the words of the Vilna Gaon on Kabbala. Once I was visiting him, and I told him that I want a blessing for my children that they marry well and soon. I insisted that he sit down, while I mentioned each of my ten children, and he responded.
The first child was my oldest daughter. He heard her name and immediately blessed her. She married a major Torah scholar at the age of seventeen. Next was my son. Rabbi Toledano paused a bit before he answered. This son married into a prominent Torah family, but it took a bit longer.
When I heard the pause for my son, I thought, well, it won't be as fast as I would like, but I am going to try my best to make it fast. At any rate, things worked out nicely, Baruch HaShem.
A major master of helping people with their troubled marriages is Mort Fertel, author of Marriage Fitness. He is not a professional therapist, but thought through his own program, which seems to be much different than general therapeutic thought. He maintains that if you want a marriage based on love, you are making a mistake. People change as they get older and the love declines. What you should do, is to marry not out of love, but with commitment. That is, you see someone that you know has the proper traits you desire, but you have no special love for her. Marry her committed to the marriage, and the love will come of its own and last, says Mort. His rule is, “Love does not last, but commitment creates lasting love.”
In Yeshiva there was a fellow who was getting older but not getting married. I went over to him and asked him if he knew the phrase "hefsed merubo." Of course, he knew it. It meant "A great loss." That is, sometimes when there is a great loss a person has to do something that would ordinarily not be done. I asked him, "If you had married a few years ago, by now you would probably have children. Isn't that a great loss?" Not long after, he married.

If we find somebody with the right attitudes that we respect, and agree to commit to the marriage, there is hope that the children born will not be "hefsed merubo" but living and happy children who smile because of the commitment of their parents.

Friday, March 24, 2017

Kiddushin and Pilegesh


by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
The gemora in Sanhedrin 21A tells us that general marriage of Jews requires two things, Kiddushin and Kesubo. That is, the husband gives his wife a ring and tells her that she is hereby married to him. Once he does that, she can never be free of him unless he either dies or willingly gives her a GET, a bill of divorce. A Kesubo is a document declaring how much money the husband promises his wife when he divorces her or dies.


Today, as predicted in the Talmud, there is great upheaval in families, unlike in earlier generations. Many are the divorces, the bitter battles and hate, and it gets worse all of the time. But the woman who is in agony cannot obtain relief without a GET given by her husband willingly. And he is not always willing to give her a GET willingly. This causes great turmoil, and it even effects rabbis. When rabbis see the pain of the women who cannot escape husbands they hate or despise, they realize that these women have such pain they may give up their religion. Therefore, these rabbis will sometimes force the husband to give a GET through humiliation, or public demonstrations against him and his family, or other matters. These forced divorces are invalid and if the woman gets an invalid GET and remarries, her children are mamzerim. Therefore, Kiddushin with its iron control of helpless women, is a major problem, perhaps the major problem for many helpless women. What, therefore, can be done, if anything?


First of all, we must be realistic, and face the horrible facts, as they are, and not as they are not. A woman trapped in a bad marriage who can't take it, is most likely, today, going to go to one of the many rabbis who want to "save" women from their helpless entrapment with husbands they hate. These rabbis will force the husband to give a GET. And because of the general anger in society at husbands who cause pain to their wives by not giving a GET willingly, many people will join the fight to force the husband to give a GET. There are movements today that have succeeded in using the secular courts to force a GET on a reluctant husband. Such a forced GET is not a kosher GET, and the children are mamzerim born from it, but the secular courts are not concerned, and in major cities, it is rabbis themselves who got the laws passed.
Things are going to get worse, much worse, before they get better. So what can be done? In Torah terms, nothing can be done, other than to create invalid forced GIttin that make mamzerim. That is surely not a solution.


But there is another solution. Before I explain what it is, I want to say that there are two types of women who suffer terribly with husbands they hate. One is religious enough to tolerate her pain until she dies no matter what. And the other is not religious enough to last so long in pain, and will go to a rabbi who forces a GET that is not kosher and makes mamzerim. Keep this in mind as we get to the solution for many women in agony.


The solution is Pilegesh. Pilegesh is a kind of marriage without the problems of Kiddushin. The woman or man can leave any time with no moral or Torah problems. It is a true marriage, but each person is free to leave when they want.


Now I want to say something very important. The great authorities who talk about Pilegesh among the Rishonim and acharonim, sometimes permit with Pilegesh things that I don't want anything to do with. I also want to say that if anybody on their own goes out and makes a marriage of Pilegesh, I want nothing to do with it. That could make major problems for the couple who make such a marriage, for reasons we will soon discuss. The proper way of doing Pilegesh, as I would participate in doing, is when a couple comes to a Rov or Beth Din and clearly announces their acceptance of Pilegesh laws as the Rov or Beth Din describes. They may leave any time, but while they are married they must be faithful to each other. The proper way, as I would guide the couple, is to establish a true marriage, with two faithful spouses, and if any of them wants to leave, they can leave. But they should notify the Beth Din or Rov of their leaving, which protects them from people accusing them of having Kiddushin and leaving without a GET. If I was involved, and I knew they were Pilegesh, and had it in writing with witnesses, nobody could accuse them of violating Kiddushin, because they are clearly Pilegesh. Pilegesh marriage means that the husband and wife live together in a house, and the wife has an honorable part of the house where she lives as a faithful wife with her spouse.


I wish to add this. If a woman can endure the terror of Kiddushin with a husband she hates, it is possible that some Rov will tell her that there is a problem with Pilegesh, but others will tell her that there is no problem. Especially today, Pilegesh marriage rather than Kiddushin means the married woman would no longer have to live in fear that maybe she will commit some terrible sin because she just can't take it anymore. But the only way to be sure is not to have Kiddushin at all. Somebody who cannot tolerate Kiddushin for their entire lives, should not take Kiddushin at all. Such people should definitely take Pilegesh, but as I explained, if I was dealing with a couple who chose Pilegesh, I would insist on a real marriage with two faithful spouses. But if anyone wanted to leave and break up the marriage, there would be no problem. But if I was involved, I would insist on their leaving their marriage with signed letters and witnesses, preferably a Beth Din.


Anyone interested in talking to me about a real Pilegesh marriage, can call me at 845-578-1917.Thank you, Dovid Eidensohn Disciple and Musmoch of Geonim Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Divorces and Broken Families: What Can Be Done?


Some years ago I spoke to a man who was separated from his wife for ten years and refused to give her a GET. He was expelled from the local shulls but was not fazed. I suggested that we learn a bit in the Shulchan Aruch, namely, the beginning of laws of marriage, where the subject of marriage and having children is discussed. The man heard some of it and jumped up saying, “I need a wife.” He then began to talk about how he would get his wife back.

I saw from this that a Jew who believes in the Torah who cannot be moved by thunder of rabbis at the pulpit, or anything of the kind, can suddenly be transformed by the holy words of the Code of Laws, with teachings going back to the earliest biblical teaching. It is there that we find the teachings about marriage and children, and it is also there that we find how to sustain marriage and succeed with children.

I add to this my program of Shalom Bayis Beth Din, which is a program of education, at any age, to prepare people for marriage and raising children. I spoke to my dear friend a major therapist Dr. Dovid Montrose (pronounced Montray) in Chicago, and suggested that we begin classes at the age of three. He disagreed. Such a program, said he, must begin at the very time of conception, exactly when the parents begin bringing a child into the world! In more practical terms, we can stretch this a bit, of course, but education is key. And the key to education is to tell people what it says in the Torah, straight from the great rabbis who learned the Torah of Moses and the great prophets, and pass it on to us, especially in the Shulchan Aruch where are laws are.

I have ten children and they have various very senior positions, especially like my son Rabbi Shmuel Zalman in Beis Shemesh, who is a principle of many schools, which is impossible unless you have his training where he can teach the best teachers how to teach properly and not make mistakes that many people do make. Another son, Ephraim Hershel, is an assistant principal in a large school in Lakewood, NJ. My daughters are sought after teachers and senior teachers and one of them has to stand up to major rabbis who insist she became a principal in a school, but she has to take care of the children.

Then there is another issue I deal with, the problem of money. I have an entire program that explains how many of the greatest Talmudists were very wealthy. How can that be? How can somebody who spends his time learning Talmud become very wealthy? And yet, Rovo demanded from his students that they master wealth in money and wealth in Torah! (See Huriuse 10b) I have a solution, one based entirely on the teachings of the Torah.

If we can raise children to have confidence in their financial future, instead of raising children to watch television, maybe we can get somewhere.

Monday, February 13, 2017

Struggles of a Tsadik in Our Times and Comments from Rav Dovid Eidensohn

Notice from Rav Dovid Eidensohn: When this was first published I received a call from a prominent Posek who pointed out that this troubled tsaddik that I quote had a lot of trouble with Torah Jews, and this can leave a negative impression on a lot of people that we have no proper Torah leadership. On the other hand, my blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com is filled with my bitter complaints against senior rabbis who make invalid Gittin and mamzerim. It is also filled with complaints that besides me and my brother Daniel we have a dearth of people who complain about senior rabbis who encourage women to remarry without a kosher GET. There is now a woman who remarried with the encouragement of senior rabbis with no GET at all, and almost nobody is telling her today to beware of mamzerim for children except me.
In fact, when this senior rabbi was finally attacked by major poskim for lying about the facts of the case and encouraging the woman to remarry with no GET and absolutely no logical Torah reason, a Beth Din of very senior rabbis was announced to deal with the problem, but guess what! weeks later nothing was done! I called up one of the major poskim on that Beth Din and asked him what the Beth Din decided. Should the woman remain with her new husband with no GET or not? The important posek then answered me, “This is not  your business. The Beth Din was made for the benefit of Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky. Ask him if  you want to know what the Beth Din ruled.” Then I realized that the very senior rabbis on this Beth Din were working for the very man who encouraged a woman with lies to remarry without a GET.
 The two names of people that I single out in the blog are Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, the Rosh Yeshiva of Tiferes Yerushalim, the son of Reb Moshe Feinstein, who created the entire fake Beth Din to invent protection for a first rate liar and mamzer maker, Shmuel Kaminetsky. And Hillel David, who told me it was none of my business, is somebody that I say to him, “It is my business. And if  you made a Beth Din with David Feinstein to support a mamzer maker, then you are a mamzer maker, and deserve to be denied the right to sit on any kosher Beth Din.”
Moshe Heinemann is a major mamzer maker, who advertises in the Internet that everyone should support Ora, the organization that forces husbands to give a GET and thus makes mamzerim. Rabbi Hershel Schechter, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University and the head of the OU Kashruth division and a major posek, has called for forcing husbands to give a GET and even to get violent with them. He is a mamzer maker. And then, there is Shmuel Kaminetsky, considered by Agudas Yisroel to be a Gadol who is a liar, a  mamzer maker, and when somebody asked him if he would continue to support the woman who is remarried without a GET, he replied, “It is an argument of the rabbis.”
Thus, I consider it my job to tell it like it is, and if people think that the above people are great tsaddikim, and the Agudah honors them as major speakers, etc, along with other organizations, let the world know, I am different, and I will continue to be different. I spent much time talking to Reb Aharon Kotler, and he once hinted to me that I understand his derech in gemora. I spent much time talking to Reb Moshe Feinstein, and he gave an haskomo on my halacha sefer: “Rabbi Eidensohn is known to me for many years as one who delves deeply into complex halachas.” Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner Rov of Bnei Braq wrote in his haskomo, “Words of truth are recognized” and “words are written Lishmo.” I have many more haskomose from the greatest Torah teachers of the past generation. I also have a very strong semicha from Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l, which includes his personal name to use for my Beth Din in Gittin. Now my chaverusa was furious with me that I asked the Rov for that, but when you are in my line and want to talk to the Gedolei HaDor, the only way is pure chutzpah, and I played it to the hilt.
 We now turn to the troubled tsaddik and his remarks. I believe he has suffered and is surely not the only one. Let us hear what he had to say, which is only his personal suffering and not the suffering of all Jews.

I am presently over 40 years of age, and see it as a chessed from Above that I continue to look and remain "young at heart" amidst all the trials and tribulations that I've undergone - first with the "erlich" society, and then with my seven and a half years of marriage with my ex-wife.
My parents [they should be well] are coming from the same time and place that you're from; only, they are both baalei teshuva from after their marriage in the 60's day and age. When I was 7 years old our TV broke, and they didn't bother fixing it. (My father was then listening to Rav Miller's tapes, and he hated TV.) A year later we moved from White Oak (Silver Spring area) to Baltimore, and I began 3rd grade in T.A. My parents had always encouraged us to increase in our yiddishkeit; only, socially we never really "clicked" with the community at large.
Seven years later made aliyah, and moved to Bnei Brak. if we didn't socially "fit in" with Baltimore, well... just try to figure what the "Bnei Brak move" was to us teenage kids!
I myself was 15 years old at the time we made aliyah, and I was left to my own devices to "break in" with my surroundings. My parents only saw positive in the "erlich" surroundings, and any dissention on our part was seen as a sign of "rebellious Americanism". [Little did I know then - it was totally inconceivable by any stretch of the imagination - that the main "beis din" there would some time later smear an individual hounded by his rebellious wife to give a GET (the infamous "Chaimsohn" case) - posting a "teshuva" from Rabbi Akiva Eiger well out of context; creating a GET MEUSEH, and allowing a married woman to the shuk!]
I myself went to learn in yeshiva here in Yerushalayim, finally finding myself "at home" with a more American crowd - but not for long. In the year 5749 the "olam" erupted in mahlokes over the "gimel vs. eitz" controversy, and I found myself in disfavor with those around me. I simply couldn't comprehend what was happening right before my eyes: Grown men, kollel yungerleit with beards and payos, distinguished rabbanim and roshei yeshivos had joined in the fray with extreme zeal - slamming and smearing all those who challenged them and their "daas torah"... They were clearly aware of the chillul hashem going on around them with 7 year old kids gleefully cursing out known Rabbanim who happened to side with their opponents. They claimed they were following Rav Shach... If they only cared a shred what Rav Shach REALLY wanted vis-a-vis the"Yated" model that they dressed him up to be. I did see it though, as a "siyata from Shamayim" the fact that we moved from Bnei Brak to Yerushalayim on Isru Chag (Tishrei) that year - the day that Bnei Brak erupted.
But the one thing that bothered me tremendously at the time was that at my yeshiva the one concept they attempted to "burn into us" bochrim was what they called "hisbatlus"; namely - we had to "nullify" ourselves before "daas torah" (strictly by THEIR definition). I simply could NEVER be led to believe that the typical "shtoddy" American bochur, clean-shaven with a Borsalino hat doubling his facial features, who smoked and talked politics in seder- that HE had a clear ticket to Olam Haba, merely because he "nullified" himself to his Rosh Yeshiva; while I simply could not. (To me this smacks of Christianity.)
Other than this I did feel, at the time, that I could yet "go with the flow", and that we all still had the same fundamentals in mind - serving Hashem, and growing in Torah.
When I got married I was close to 23 years of age - still living in this "bubble" thinking that we all had the same goals and ideals in mind. It took me several years of shaking up and rude awakenings to get me out of this thinking process. I was already aware then of the paradox of "top bochurim" selling themselves out to the wealthy in terms of shidduchim, and I myself would have none of it at all. I had begun taking to the teachings of the GRA some time before, and I recognized that for me there was no other way. At the time I naively assumed that this was basically the accepted approach in the yeshiva "velt" as well; I simply could not be led to believe that the modern day "daas torah" was off on a far different track altogether...
To talk about my marriage, which lasted 71/2 years, is a story in itself... At this point I'd rather not talk too much about it, but it started going REALLY sour after my wife began splurging money, and I told her that I wasn't going to bother her too much about this; rather I would simply leave kollel to go out and work. This really unnerved her, and she began smearing me hours on end behind my back. It was particularly an insult to one of the local rabbanim, whom she was closely connected with prior to our marriage, and had previously convinced her to get married with me in the first place. Even still, he wasn't chiefly the one who ruined our marriage - it was someone else (who signed his name "Rabbi ...", despite his haughty and greedy policies which had ruined other marriages as well). He's been dead for several years now; even still, I'll never forgive him - just to hear his name repulses me. But time itself reveals all that people try passionately to hide... my ex-wife who wanted so badly for me to remain in kollel - she eventually connected with a lawyer who had a similar story to mine, and subsequently proceeded to deplete his monetary resources.
My turbulent nature with present "modern chareidi" society (a paradox in terms like "warm ice") causes me to minimize any talk which is liable to create conflict, and misrepresentation. I definitely consider it obligatory to expose the treachery of modern day RA - banim who create "new faces" to our Torah which negate it entirely. The higher they are - the harder they must and will fall! I am afraid; however, to open up a can of worms which will be gleefully misused and distorted by nay-sayers and baalei machlokes, (who "are what they eat") to only further disgrace the Torah, and thereby do the opposite of what my intention is. Therefore, I jotted down in a single line the peirush of the GRA in Megillas Esther. There - he explains at some length how during the Ikvesa DeMeshicha the level of chutzpah will be so overwhelming - that even the gedolei hador will defect to the interests of the younger ones.
I hope that I've cleared up here any misunderstanding, and I fervently wish that you continue to make the TRUE voice of Torah resound in our midst - over the rattle and ramble of all the phony "daas torah" pervading the media today - which is actually "daas taavah/toaivah".

Thank you for listening!
Hatzlachah! May Hashem be with you always,






Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Post by Chaim Levin about money and learning comment by Rav Dovid Eidensohn


Chaim Levin



Comments below in italics from Rav Dovid Eidensohn
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif
BS"D

Shalom uvrachah! Thank you for responding to my enquiry last night!
I received your follow-up e-mails. As I was going through your blogspot I saw it necessary to add the following comment, and the computer gives me problems trying to upload it directly: 
           
"Someone in Yeshiva could go for a few years on the sums of support demanded for marrying a Kollel fellow, and people were found who would pay it."

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR HERE!!!

The Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha'ezer 2) says clearly in the name of the Rem"a that one should not bicker over money in regards to this - as it is not "properly earned money". See the Biur HaGr"a 7 [regarding the apparant internal contradiction upon face glance in the Rem"a] that "if he would marry her anyway (without money) then he need not worry".
This is not a "technical issue" - it is fundamental! All of the raving and ranting against fraudulent Ra-bannim distorting Torah and divrei chaza"l - the "quiet defection" all began years ago when these "top talmidim" sold themselves to materialistic families in marriage; with the "holy" ideal of being able to "live and learn in peace and comfort without financial worries". It was ultimately this "peace and comfort" which caused them to slip and slacken from the duty and authority that the Torah will demand of them as recognized Rabbanim - aside from the obvious fact that there is nothing more lethal to a person's Yiras Shamayim than living together with a materialistic woman. This type of defection did not begin in America either - it was tragically prevalent in Europe as well.
The Chafetz Chaim told his son in his old age that all of his Torah is credited to his wife - from a poor and simple upbringing. He said, "What would have been with me now, had I not married your mother?". What would have become of me had I accepted then the offer of 10,000 rubles from a distinguished tycoon in Vilna?"
Yes - the Chafeitz Chaim worked for a living - writing and selling books. And this certainly did not detract from his Torah in any way!
END QUOTE FROM CHAIM LEVIN
Comment from Rav Dovid Eidensohn – [The Vollozhner Yeshiva had the world’s leading Torah scholars but they learned and did not earn. Top students there could eventually find rabbinical positions, some that paid well, and some found wealthy families that supported their learning in Kollel for some years. Some had little support but lived with little and relied on HaShem’s help. When I learned in Lakewood under Reb Aharon we stayed in Yeshiva because of Reb Aharon’s influence, and I don’t know how many people had big backing, but it was generally limited. There was a top student who learned by Reb Aharon but his father said if you learn in Lakewood you are not my son. Those were difficult times. When Reb Shneur took over Lakewood he realized he could not support the influx of students and was worried about taking over the Yeshiva which under his father had very little money especially for the students when they married. But Rav Yosher Ber Soloveitchik saw that Lakewood was at risk that it may close down, and he ordered his students, the YU rabbis, to support Lakewood. Other factors such as President Johnson’s war on poverty where huge sums were disbursed for the poor, and who is poorer than a Lakewood Kollel person? made a difference. There were various American Kollel students, and I don’t think it is fair to lump them all together. Some I know were worried that the influx of money was detrimental to the Yeshiva, and some welcomed it. But still some where tsaddikim and not interested in money per se, and some were interested. But I don’t think there is a rule to just dismiss everyone who had some money to be considered a spiritual failure.]

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Joe Orlow talks about Chaim Levin’s complaint that a Beth Din accepted a GET from a man who was a vegetable. Comments from Rav Dovid Eidensohn.

 A report about a Bais Din in Eretz Yisrael has been brought to my attention. The Bais Din was petitioned by a wife seeking a divorce from her husband. The husband is in a state where he is uncommunicative. Let me expand here for a moment why I use the term "uncommunicative". There are cases where people come out of comas after years. A while back there was an article about a normal boy who was "missing" a part of his brain. The amazing thing is that when someone does not have activity in this part of the brain, doctors will declare this person "brain dead". Yet this boy, without this section, was fine. 

Experts like brain surgeons and others who study the brain probably have many cases that don't fit the accepted medical models. This is important to consider in light of the following. The Bais Din decided that they could act on the husband's behalf. This is without precedent in Halacha, according to my understanding. The husband, being alive, cannot give his wife a Get. So his wife remains his wife. But the Bais Din decided that were the husband to be communicative, he would communicate that he wants to give his wife a Get because he, the husband, is in an apparently permanent uncommunicative state. So the Bais Din "divorced" the wife.   

The Bais Din issuing this ruling was overruled by a higher court in the Bais Din system known as the "Rabbanute". The higher court decided the wife remains married. Then the higher court of the Rabbanute was overruled by a civil court. The civil court said the Rabbanutes's lower court ruling remains in effect and that the wife is divorced. This raises two questions:

(1)   What kind of education and vetting is there for Rabbanute judges? Clearly, the lower court did not act according to Halacha.
[Comment from RDE –Major rabbis in America such as Moshe Heinemann in Baltimore, Hershel Schachter in New York, and Shmuel Kaminetsky in Philadelphia promote forced Gittin by humiliating husbands and such devices, something clearly forbidden by all commentators to the Shulchan Aruch in laws of Kesubose 77 paragraphs 2,3. Plainly, these rabbis, the cream of the students of Rabbi Aharon Kotler and Rabbi Yosher Ber Soloveitchik, do not follow the Shulchan Aruch, as all of the commentators there forbid pressuring a husband to give a GET. I spoke to Moshe Heinemann and to a student of Herschel Schachter while the student was on the phone with Schachter, and I am sure that Schachter does not know the laws of Gittin either. Shmuel Kaminetsky is considered by the Agudah to be a Gadol but the major poskim rabbis who criticized him for telling a married woman to remarry with no GET and make mamzerim had only derision for him. The Gaon from Brisk in Israel said that Kaminetsky is forbidden to teach Torah.]


 (2) What kind of high court puts itself in a position where it can be overruled by a civil court? [Commentary from RDE - This took place in Israel where the majority are not Orthodox Jews. And yet, the government accepted Orthodox rabbis to have official government positions. Having little choice because of their minority status, many prominent rabbis accepted that Orthodox rabbis will have governmental power but not Conservative or Reform rabbis, and with this came the problem of the government courts who can overturn at least some rabbinic decisions.]


 In the U.S. we are in a similar position where unlearned and/or renegade Batei Din are releasing women wrongly from marriages. Furthermore, civil courts, under so-called "Get Laws", force Gittin, thus leading to women wrongly released from marriages. This leads, in some cases, to Mamzerim being born.

[Commentary by RDE – Joe is right about that and in his original paper continues about the great problems of Kiddushin making women helpless if the husband does not want to give her a GET. Let me explain a bit. I believe that a woman who won’t honor Kiddushin by remaining with their spouse even when the marriage is broken until the husband gives a GET willingly, is forbidden to make Kiddushin. And to remain single is also a sin, as taught in Shulchan Aruch. The only solution is to marry with Pilegesh. Pilegesh is a real marriage and the children are the true family of the parents. The basic condition is for the woman to come to the husband’s house and live there with him as husband and wife, with the understanding that there is no Kiddushin, but Pilegesh rules, so that either spouse can leave whenever they want to, with absolutely no penalty. The couple must behave as a married couple regarding not having relations with others. If somebody wants to marry with Pilegesh another thing is to have a rabbi tell a few other rabbis and people in the community that these two, the husband and wife of Pilegesh, are not married with Kiddushin. Again, in my blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com I devote more detail to Pilegesh. Anyone interested can write to me email at eidensohnd@gmail.com or call me at 845-578-1917.]



A GET for a vegetable and the focus of outcry against it

Question from Chaim Levin:
Chaim Levin <chalevin5@gmail.com>




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif
BS"D

I'm trying to clarify why there isn't more outcry over this new "ruling" by the so called "Safed Rabbinate" to invent a non-existant "get" that someone classified as a "vegetable" can divorce his wife...
It is clearly discernable from the Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 121 that a "shchiv mera" cannot arrange that a get be given to his wife unless we ascertain that he was in full faculty of his mental state at the time (also at the time the get is given).


Reply from Rav Dovid Eidensohn:

Chaim, very good question. Let’s first make clear what your question is: A married man became a “vegetable” and had no normal mental capacity to decide and declare things. His wife was therefore trapped in a marriage with a vegetable who could never give her a GET willingly, as he had no capacity to decide to give his wife a GET and to utter the statements that are required to give one’s wife a GET. And you correctly quote the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 121 that a GET may only be given when the husband gives it willingly and says that he wants his wife to be divorced. A vegetable cannot do this. But an Israeli Beth Din ruled that the woman is free to remarry, because the husband would surely want his wife to be divorced in light of his situation. When a senior Israeli rabbinic court decided to overruled the first Beth Din and declare the GET for a vegetable invalid, a secular court overruled the religious court and said that the GET was valid, even though the husband never said one word about giving his wife a GET and had no mental capacity to even think about doing such a thing.

And Chaim, your point is “why there isn’t more outcry over this new ruling" is surely a very valid point. It is not a point against the Beth Din which surely erred in its ruling. It is a ruling against those of us who were not moved to protest such an outrage as accepting a divorce from a man who was a vegetable and could not think or speak those things needed to produce a GET.

As for myself, I feel the real discussion must be something else: What can we do when there is a government sponsored rabbonuse where people are free to invent rulings that produce mamzerim and the secular courts back them so there is no recourse?

In such a case, who should we attack? The erring Beth Din, or the entire system? And if the entire system, does that mean we do away with the rabbonuse? If there were reasons to make an Orthodox rabbonuse, do we now reverse this?

Yes, Chaim, your question is a good one. But many people are confused. If there is an Orthodox rabbinate, and if it is  under the control of a secular government, we are inviting the outrage of the Tsevas Beth Din. So who do we scream at, the Tsevas Beth Din or the secular court that backed them or the entire structure of an Orthodox Beth Din capable of making such rulings that are backed by a secular court and a secular government. This makes for a lot of confusion, and confused people don’t usually sound off when they don’t know who to complain about.





Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Problems with Kiddushin, and a Solution

Problems with Kiddushin, and a Solution

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

 A woman who accepts Kiddushin, can only leave her husband with his willing giving of a GET. A forced GET, one made with humiliation or threats or one made by the decree of the secular court makes an invalid GET and the woman who remarries with such produces in general mamzerim. Therefore, for a woman and even a man, taking Kiddushin is a very serious problem. It should only be accepted if the woman is ready to give up her happiness if her husband refuses a GET. And in the Modern Orthodox camp and other camps, even some deeply Orthodox people, we see clearly that a lot of women are not ready to give up their happiness, and do what they can to force the husband to divorce and then make mamzerim. Therefore, for such women, taking Kiddushin is a sin and she should not take Kiddushin.On the other hand, the Shulchan Aruch opposes living alone. Living alone is unnatural especially in young people with burning biologizes. So what happens when somebody is not ready to give up their happiness for Kiddushin?The solution is Pilegesh, a union of man and woman mentioned in the Code of Laws and the Gemora in Sanhedrin 21A. The union or marriage of man and woman without Kiddushin can never produce mamzerim, and it can never produce forcing two people to remain together.Pilegesh is not the preferred way of Orthodox marriage, but it is approved when there is a need for a marriage that does not have the problems of Kiddushin. Today, most marriages are problems with Kiddushin, surely for women, and even men cannot just leave without a lot of trouble and maybe years of work and expense. Therefore I believe that people who are not sure about honoring Kiddushin if the other spouse refuses a GET, should not remain alone, but should marry with Pilegesh.


A possible problem with Pilegesh is that people don’t see, in general, people marrying today with anything other than Kiddushin. Furthermore, if a person is strong enough to give up their happiness to honor Kiddushin, they should marry with Kiddushin, and for them Pilegesh may be a problem. I personally only recommend Pilegesh for somebody who cannot be positive that they will put up with the problems of Kiddushin, such as having a broken marriage the rest of her or his life. I also fear that today and tomorrow for sure, honoring Kiddushin properly is something that few people can be positive about until they taste the horror of a broken marriage.


Another problem with Pilegesh is that there are two ways of marrying with Pilegesh. One way is to marry with Pilegesh rules and publicize this, which is the proper way to do it, and the other way is to keep it quiet, which can make problems. For instance, if people see a couple living together and having children, they assume that the couple is married with Kiddushin, at least if the couple is Orthodox. If so, when the Pilegesh couple decides, or one of them decides, to leave the other one, they have the right to do so. And they can immediately remarry somebody else. But people may think that they are leaving each other without a GET required by Kiddushn, because most people do marry today with Kiddushin. If so, people may mistakenly assume that if the woman remarries without a GET her children in the next marriage will be mamzerim!Therefore, anyone who wants to marry with Pilegesh, should contact me, and I will first of all explain exactly what their marriage entails, and what it does not entail. Yes, they can split at any time, but while they live together in the same house, they must honor their marriage. Failure to honor the marriage can be a big problem.Also, it is important that I notify key people in the community that I assume responsibility for the Pilegesh marriage, and that this is not Kiddushin, so a remarriage will not be a problem.


A recent Matsav article about Open Orthodoxy replacing Kiddushin leaves not a trace of disagreement, as if Matsav itself considers Open Orthodox much more important than those who properly write in protest on the Facebook site of FrumMen that Open Orthodox are not Orthodox. After all, a senior Open Orthodox person said openly he does not accept the stories in the Torah, so how Orthodox is Open Orthodox? Surely Matsav knows about that apikores, and yet it has no mention at all of any criticism of Open Orthodox. Yes, there is Modern Orthodox, but they had a rebbe Rav Soloveitchik who was a stickler for true Torah Halacha. But Open Orthodox is far removed from Halacha. They want to be Open, to do what they want.There are problems with marriage and family today. And to the rescue come apikorsim and Open Orthodox and “rabbis” who make mamzerim. From now on, don’t marry anyone until you check them out thoroughly, especially what rabbis gave them a GET. Details about this problem are in the very important book Mishpitei Yisroel, with dozens of articles by Gedolei Yisroel. 

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

From My Brother's Blog daattorah.blogspot.com - GET Law punishing husbands for not giving their wives a GET is unconstitional

Friday, January 20, 2017


Masri vs Masri - New York court finds Get Law unconstitutional

In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.


In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.

======================================================[...]
It was of the view that "the relief [the wife] seeks from this court so obviously runs afoul of the threshold tests of the Free Exercise Clause that the court need never reach the delicate balancing normally required in such cases." Id., at 534. It wrote:

The court is not unsympathetic to [the wife's] desire to have [the husband's] cooperation in the obtaining of a "get". She, too, is sincere in her religious beliefs. Her religion, at least in terms of divorce, does not profess gender equality. But does that mean that she can obtain the aid of this court of equity to alter this doctrine of her faith? ....


Id., at 535. After extended analysis, the court answered:

It may seem "unfair" that [the husband] may ultimately refuse to provide a "get". But the unfairness comes from [the wife's] own sincerely-held religious beliefs. When she entered into the "ketubah" she agreed to be obligated to the laws of Moses and Israel. Those laws apparently include the tenet that if [the husband] does not provide her with a "get" she must remain an "agunah". That was [the wife's] choice and one which can hardly be remedied by this court. This court has no authority — were it willing — to choose for these parties which aspects of their religion may be embraced and which must be rejected. Those who founded this Nation knew too well the tyranny of religious persecution and the need for religious freedom. To engage even in "well-intentioned' resolution of a religious dispute requires the making of a choice which accommodates one view and suppresses another. If that is permitted, it readily follows that less "well-intentioned" choices may be made in the future . . . .
The tenets of [the wife's] religion would be debased by this court's crafting of a short-cut or loophole through the religious doctrines she adheres to; and the dignity and integrity of the court and its processes would be irreparably injured by such misuse...


Id., at 542-543.
It is clear from the legislative history that it was precisely this purported "unfairness" of a Jewish husband's refusal to provide a Get that drove the enactment of the DRL §253 requirement of removal of barriers to remarriage:

....Although the statute is phrased in ostensibly neutral language, its avowed purpose is to curb what has been described as the withholding of Jewish religious divorces, despite the entry of civil divorce judgments, by spouses acting out of vindictiveness or applying economic coercion. See Governor's Memorandum of Approval, McKinney's 1983 Session Laws of New York, pp. 2818, 2819. The statute seeks to provide a remedy for the "tragically unfair" situation presented where a Jewish husband refuses to sign [*6]religious documents needed for a religious divorce. Id.

Though this is the purpose of the statute, the statute makes no express reference to Jewish religious divorces or Jewish religious tribunals. The absence of references to Jewish religious practices was hardly unintentional. The statute represents an obvious encroach-ment by the civil authorities into religious matters, particularly with respect to perceived unfairness in the religious divorce doctrines of one particular religion. In an attempt to skirt some of the difficult constitutional questions raised in the context of the relationship between church and state, the drafters of the statute wrote in neutral language and avoided any express singling out of Jewish practices. However, even approached with linguistic backhand, the contention has been raised that the entire statute is unconstitutional. The existence of constitutional questions was noted by the Governor when the original legislation was presented for signature. However, he was determined to sign the legislation because of the absence of "impelling precedent" and confidence in the courts to resolve the constitutional questions. See Governor's Memorandum of Approval, McKinney's 1983 Session Laws of New York, pp. 2818, 2819.


McKinney's Cons. Laws of New York Annotated, DRL §253, Practice Commentaries (Scheinkman) C253:1 (2016).
Noting the potential constitutional infirmity of DRL §253 in terms directly applicable to Plaintiff's request that maintenance be so calibrated per DRL §236B(6)(o) as to apply financial pressure on Defendant to induce him to provide a Jewish religious divorce, the Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman wrote:

DRL §253 is really designed to induce or compel Jewish spouses, especially men, to "voluntarily" accede to religious divorces or else be precluded from obtaining a civil divorce decree. Viewed as such, it is questionable whether the statute can withstand constitutional challenge.

It cannot be doubted that marriage is a personal relation and the state may fix the rights, duties, and obligations which arise out of the relationship, including the terms on which the relationship may be terminated. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190...(1888). The state may allow civil divorce, even though one spouse object to the decree on the basis of religious conviction and even though a religious divorce cannot be or has not been obtained. See Williams v. Williams, 543 P.2d 1401 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1976), appeal dismissed, cert. denied ...426 U.S. 901.... Religious practices, even those relating to religious marriage practice, may be regulated, if offensive to overriding public policy. See Reynolds v. United States, 8 Otto 145, 98 U.S. 145...(1878)(criminal prosecution for bigamy).[FN4]

This statute does not purport to prohibit a religious practice on public policy grounds. Instead, it is intended to coerce parties to seek religious relief on pain of being deprived of civil relief. While it may perhaps be permissible for secular courts to compel a party to perform a contractual obligation, though imposed in a religious writing (as allowed by the Avitzur decision), it seems doubtful that a civil statute can compel, by mandating the withholding of relief, a party to a civil action to undertake religious proceedings or submit [*7]to religious authorities and practices. The statute may be susceptible to the conclusion that it interferes with the free practice of religion and transgresses the separation of church and state.


McKinney's Cons. Laws of New York Annotated, DRL §253, Practice Commentaries (Scheinkman) C253:1 (2016) (emphasis added).

In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.


5. Findings

Defendant is a young, well educated man in good health with an earning capacity far in excess of the very meager income reflected on his 2015 tax return. Moreover, evidence of record indicates that his earnings and financial resources exceed the amounts stated on his tax return and net worth statement, and, in addition, that Defendant has willfully failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations in this case. In view of the foregoing, the court imputes to Defendant gross income in the amount of $75,000.00 per annum. Applying the statutory guideline for post-divorce spousal maintenance to the parties' income as determined hereinabove, spousal maintenance owing from Defendant to Plaintiff would be $9,696.00 per annum (or $808.00 per month, $186.46 per week) for a minium of 2.1 years and a maximum of 4.2 years.

In accordance with the post-divorce maintenance guidelines, the court fixes Defendant's maintenance obligation at $9,696.00 per annum ($808.00 per month, $186.46 per week), taxable to Plaintiff and tax-deductible by Defendant, for a period of four (4) years, and finds that this guideline obligation is neither unjust nor inappropriate in light of the factors set forth in DRL §236B(6)(e)(1).

Child Support

At this time, Plaintiff is the custodial parent. Unless and until Family Court alters her status as the custodial parent, Defendant's child support obligation is $843.83 per month (or $194.73 per week), calculated as follows: [...]

The foregoing constitutes the decision of the court. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to submit revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a revised Judgment of Divorce, consistent with this Decision, for settlement on ten (10) days notice to Defendant.