Volume 55 Number 01
Produced: Mon Jun 18 6:24:51 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Buying a Get
[Shoshana L. Boublil]
Confidentiality of Therapists
[Alex Herrera]
Fiat Libellus Repudii
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Kosher Jew (2)
[Tzvi Stein, SBA]
The uniform of the day is ....
[David Ziants]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:11:36 +0300
Subject: Buying a Get
> From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
> All too often we read of Get related issues -- most frequently due to
> the halachik (gender) asymmetry of marriage and Get, and the
> characterization (by some) of women as chattel, we find a woman (or
> her family, etc.) having to buy her way out of an abusive, or
> non-functional (homosexual husband?) marriage in an attempt to be
> "free" -- that is to live as a normal, unencumbered human being.
First the source of the problem is not that women are viewed as chattel.
The problem is that there is a psika in place that states that if, in a
case where the court should render a verdict of "Kefiyat Get", the
husband says that he will give the GET in return for fulfilling his
conditions -- then the conditions need to be met.
The 2nd issue is that while some courts limit matters and say that this
refers only to logical conditions, other courts rule that any condition
the husband makes is sufficient to prevent a ruling of kefiyat Get and
force the wife to comply with the husband's conditions for a divorce.
> It seems the halacha as currently interpreted by the Gedolai haDor is
> not well suited for dealing with the pragmatics of several situations
> -- based on previous Mail Jewish Postings these include: 1 -
> abandonment (husband runs off to a distant locale but doesn't give a
> get) 2 - adultery (husband has another female "partner" who may or may
> not be an aishes eish) 3 - abuse (husband abuses wife and / or
> children) 4 - (and this is apparently newly public) homosexuality or
> any abhorrent sexual behavior.
Halacha HAS acceptable solutions for ALL of these problems.
Unfortunately, the problem is usually nowadays not the halacha, but
rather some of the Batei Din. Many times just by switching Beit Din, my
husband succeeded in freeing a woman from her husband in cases such as
those listed above. Unfortunately, the process can take sometimes
several years.
> It seems that there are three avenues that attempt to address this to
> one extent or another.
>
> 1 - using the government legal system to attempt to impose some kind of
> Get requirements -- a prenuptial agreement of sorts. ---- Whether this
> approach holds water legally or halachically needs to be discussed by
> those knowledgeable (or opinionated) in that field.
Halacha recognizes situations that call for a Kefiyat Get. The problem
is getting the Dayanim to actually render a judgement stating that this
is such a case. When reviewing decisions of various Batei Din it is
astonishing to find that while people are assigned to courts randomly,
there are some Batei Din that NEVER actually pasken Kefiyat Get while
others have this happen a certain percentage of the time.
Once a Kefiyat Get is paskened, most Batei Din will approve sanctions
against the husband. Some Batei Din keep giving the husband 'one more
chance'. Again, this can last for years...
> 2 - social pressure and social norms -- ranging from ostracism, cherem,
> to bone breaking or other threats of violence. ---- just telling it as
> I see it
>
> 3 - halachik means -- ---- Is there a serious halachic approach to being
> developed (taken) by serious scholars in an attempt to deal with this
> problem?
As noted, the halachic solutions are there. They just need to be
implemented. And that is where the bottleneck exists.
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Herrera <odat@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:49:01 -0500
Subject: Confidentiality of Therapists
> PEYRUSH RASHI: the therapist has to keep his mouth shut!
Civil law limits professional confidentiality. In the USA a therapist is
required to report child abuse to authorities when a client reveals
it. Even admitting to spanking one's children will force a therapist by
law (and liability) to ask pointed and uncomfortable questions of
parents. A minor child who reports that she is pregnant by an adult must
be reported.
I once took my wife to the emergency room. While the doctor examined my
wife, he asked her if she smoked. She admitted to it. The doctor then
accused her of abusing her children by smoking. His accusation angered
me so that I stood up and became physically intimidating to the
doctor. I realized the danger to my family this doctor posed. Thankfully
for both of us he backed down and muttered something about
"recommendations."
Bad and good will be the result in limiting professional
confidentiality, but it is not unusual to place such limits in law. If
the therapist takes on a chumra [extra stringency] or is strict rather
than lenient in his observance of such laws, it seems incumbent upon the
therapist to reveal these limitations to the client before they begin a
therapist/client relationship.
It is the fair and ethical thing to do.
FYI, my wife gave up smoking several years ago. I had nagged my wife
about her smoking even at the time the emergency room doctor pointed it
out. Smoking was not the point. When a doctor uses the word "abuse", it
also becomes a legal judgment and thus requires legal intervention,
i.e. calling child protective services or the cops.
Alex Herrera
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:32:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Fiat Libellus Repudii
I must say that I found Rabbi Teitz's response to my post to be an
excellent example of intelligent and constructive refutation, leaving me
with a great appreciation for the breadth and depth of his knowledge. I
try to respond in kind (with apologies if I fail).
> "Lo bashamayim hi" means no more and no less than that once the Torah
> was revealed, there will be no further revelation.
This is certainly the plain meaning through many commentators, that this
was an admonition against false prophets coming up with new additions to
the Torah, but it would seem to me that the expression has actually
achieved a broader meaning.
> Further, to say that "though the will of the majority, they have an
> ability to understand and interpret the Torah, even if their
> understanding is wrong" is meaningless, since if the majority
> understands the Torah's intent in a certain way, then by definition,
> that is the correct understanding.
I think that this is an interesting philosophical point ... are you
suggesting that the majority opinion of [smart, rabbinic] humans
determines G-d's position an issue [which is the ultimate truth]?
There seem to be arguments in the Talmud supporting a dichotomy between
truth and majority reason that we must follow (e.g. when the Sanhedrin
errs in judgement). You can also find this in R. Yosef's Sefer
Ha-ikkarim (3:23): (my loose translation)
"'not in heavens is it [the Torah]', that is to say that even though the
truth is according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is not seemly to ignore the
words of many to do according to one ... [or else there will be a great
discord among Israel and ...] every individual will come to think that
the truth is with him ...
>> This scenario reappears in various forms, for example the debate
>> between Rabbis Gamliel and Yehoshua ben Chananya ...
>
> This is a gross misstatement of what took place. First, there is no
> mention of majority.
I assumed that Rav Gamliel, as av bet din, was speaking for the majority
(or else the order would not be effective). Is there reason to think
this was only a personal squabble?
Respectfully,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:49:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Kosher Jew
From: SBA <sba@...>
>From: Abbi Adest <>
>> Not every Orthodox Jew views it as realistic to keep all the laws of
>> the Shulchan Aruch. Most just do the best they can. There are Jews
>> who feel comfortable relying on lenient opinions
>
> As long as they realise they must one day do Teshuva for their
> leniencies..
Are you saying once must do teshuva for following a lenient opinion?
With all due respect, I find that to be a seriously wrong hashkafa.
I think this whole idea of a "Kosher Jew" is very damaging but
unfortunately, it accurately reflects the frum environment. Clearly, no
one keeps halacha perfectly, and I will go as far to say the vast
majority are not only "slipping up" but doing things they know are
assur. However, everyone must put on an act that they are this mythical
"kosher Jew" and are doing everything perfectly. This has a negative
effect on self-esteem, contributing to alienation and depression,
because it can seem to the individual that he is the only one that does
anything wrong. Doing or saying anything that even suggests that one
does not do everything perfectly is simply not done. Even something as
minor as not always davening with a minyan is just not something you
would mention in "polite company", not to mention more serious
transgressions.
Transgressions and teshuva and growth are a big part of Yiddishkeit...
denying that they exist does not help anyone do better, and making
everyone "go it alone" is not a recipe for success. Sharing one's
struggles would seem to be healthier than putting on an act.
> Imagine telling the IRS, "I'll pay as much tax as I feel I am able to
> - realistically..."
So you are comparing Hashem to the IRS. Sadly, I think a lot of people
share that image of Hashem ... and we wonder why people have a hard time
developing love of Yiddishkeit, we have teens (and adults) at risk, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:14:18 +1000
Subject: Re: Kosher Jew
From: Tzvi Stein
>From: SBA <sba@...>
>>From: Abbi Adest <>
>>> Not every Orthodox Jew views it as realistic to keep all the laws of
>>> the Shulchan Aruch. Most just do the best they can. There are Jews who
>>> feel comfortable relying on lenient opinions
>
>>As long as they realise they must one day do Teshuva for their
>>leniencies..
>
> Are you saying once must do teshuva for following a lenient opinion?
> With all due respect, I find that to be a seriously wrong hashkafa.
Actually my comment was referring to the first part of the post, ie:
"Not every Orthodox Jew views it as realistic to keep all the laws of
the Shulchan Aruch".
But I admit, I should have worded it better, eg: "As long as they
realise they must one day do Teshuva for those laws in Shulchan Aruch
that they flout or disregard".
>I think this whole idea of a "Kosher Jew" is very damaging but
>unfortunately, it accurately reflects the frum environment. Clearly,
>no one keeps halacha perfectly, and I will go as far to say the vast
>majority are not only "slipping up" but doing things they know are
>assur. However, everyone must put on an act that they are this
>mythical "kosher Jew" and are doing everything perfectly. <<
I think you are very wrong. Nobody thinks that they are anywhere near
perfect - and neither did Chazal expect us to be so. 3 times daily they
commanded us to we pray to Hashem: "Selach lanu avinu ki chotonu.."
Most of us also say "Oshamnu etc" most days. And more such tefilos on
Mondays and Thursdays.
>Transgressions and teshuva and growth are a big part of Yiddishkeit...
>denying that they exist does not help anyone do better,
Exactly. See above.
>>Imagine telling the IRS, "I'll pay as much tax as I feel I am able to -
>>realistically..."
>So you are comparing Hashem to the IRS.
No I am comparing a person who picks and chooses which mitzvos to keep
and which not, to a taxpayer who makes his own rules on what tax to pay.
>Sadly, I think a lot of people share that image of Hashem ... and we
>wonder why people have a hard time developing love of Yiddishkeit, we
>have teens (and adults) at risk, etc. <<
Please explain this.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:21:42 +0300
Subject: Re: The uniform of the day is ....
From: Carl <casinger@...>
>> Within the parameters that Merkaz haRav set itself, the yeshiva never
>> became "black" in the sense that its kippa is still the kippa seruga
>> (knitted kippa) although sometimes a little bit larger, and only a
>> handful of its students wear black suits.
> I find it a sad commentary that we (myself included) tend to describe
> Jews by the knit of their yarmulke or the cut and color of their suit.
> Shame on us all.
You are correct it is sad and at Merkaz HaRav they also say outwardly
the same, and we shouldn't judge each other by the type of the clothes
etc.
You should be aware though, that the majority of the students there, do
not wear a suit (nor tie) at all. This is typical of all non-haredi
Israeli yeshivot. Also the majority of people in the shuls I frequent do
not wear suits and ties, neither on Shabbat nor during the week. I feel
proud to belong to this sector and I haven't worn a tie nor jacket since
being in B'nei Akiva in my teens.
A secondary school teacher, in London, once told me that although I
refused to wear a school tie then, I would do so on my wedding day.
Approx. 25 years later was my wedding day, and I didn't wear a tie.
David Ziants
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 55 Issue 1
