There's a strong and growing consensus about the need to institutionalize pre-nups that protect women from recalcitrant husbands. However, R' Elyashiv opposes them, would consider coercion based on such a pre-nup to be a get me'useh and therefore passul. Without RYSE, there's no way to get the Rabbanut to agree to the implementatin of a pre-nup. Thus, R' Elyashiv is essentially holding everyone else hostage. That's the reality, without making value judgements.
I think that it's a cultural thing- R' Elyashiv makes an 'Umdenah' that people really don't consider that they'll get divorced when they get married. Thus, the pre-nup is an 'asmakhta' which is not binding. While that umdenah may be true within certain communities, it's certainly NOT the case in the communities where pre-nups are becoming the norm. Divorce is everywhere, young, old, wealthy, poor. It's impossible to ignore.
Furthermore, Catholicism treats marriage as a commitment that can never be broken. Judaism doesn't. Divorce is one of the 613. Apparently this umdenah, assuming it's true, isn't necessarily a good thing. It's perfectly legitimate to agitate for better education regarding divorce. chosson and kallah teachers can discuss divorce. Heck - it's mentioned in the ketubah, why would it be taboo to discuss with an engaged couple. There's an ethics of divorce. It's a mitzvah. It's Torah. Ve-lilmod anu tzrichin. The response to R' Elyashiv is not that he's wrong - whether he is or isn't, the entire chareidi world won't be convinced by anyone or anything that can be marshalled as a counterpoint. The response is - good, there's an umdenah - now let's go change the umdenah. Let's teach every naive, starry-eyed groom that divorce is real, and that with all of his great intentions, it can happen to him. No more asmakhta. He knows exactly what he's getting into.
Better - Take him to a Beis Din to watch divorce proceedings, let him see what a shambles a marriage can be turned into, and then go back and show him the same damn starry eyes and ear-to-ear grins in the wedding photos. Gevalt, there are still people out there that think that a successful marriage is easy!? Allowing them to remain in their blissful ignorance is educationally unsound, and now may even have negative implications for the plight of the agunah. Lan"D, that would obviate R' Elyashiv's objections to the pre-nup and advance the plight of agunot.
realistically, let's say that doesn't happen. Let's say some hold of pre-nups, and some don't. Let's say that one group threatens to refuse to marry into the other because of fears of mamzerut. At that point, should the pre-nup supporters, among whom I count myself, back down for the sake of consensus? Offer these agunot as 'martyrs of peace', to use Shimon Peres's term?
Should we, using Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as our paradigm, open the books, attempt total transparency of the system, and be totally forthright when a follower of RYSE comes to court someone who is, le-shitaso, a mamzer?
could this develop into 2 communities that eventually will not intermarry at all? BH and BS didn't let that happen, but there were plenty of other Jewish sects that were completely separate, and wouldn't intermarry. BH and BS were the exception, not the rule.
R' Moshe Feinstein, who obviated the problem of 'Bnei Niddah' and the problem of heterodox marriages with two very creative, controversial, and, ultimately, essential hetterim, was the exception, not the rule.
The Gemara in Pesachim 49b is the rule, not the exception. Think about it next time someone starts singing 'invei ha-geffen' at a wedding or sheva brachos or whatever. You've gotta see the whole Gemara. It's scary. The chachamim and chaverim were strongly discouraging intermarriage between themselves and amaratzim.
Chazal, by casting aspersions on their lineage, wine, and shechita, essentialy legislated the Samaritans out of the community without even calling their Jewishness into question. It was brilliant. Probably even necessary. But certainly proves that application of halakhot in this manner is very scary, very powerful, and very tragic if abused.
Personally, I can't in good conscience kowtow to the right, sacrificing agunot for the sake of consensus. I hope that one of the other alternatives comes to fruition.
10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Isaiah I
8 comments:
Umdenah has nothing to do with this. He feels that it's a forced get
The problem is that both sides have to be willing to work together. RYSE clearly is not a team player, and doesn't play well with others. So, I would think no go on compromise – unless the MO and moderate-Haredi worlds capitulate, in which case the 'compromise' will be to hold like RYSE.
As for Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, see the Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbat 1:4. Much of their 'compromising' was done at knife point, and Beit Shammai certainly was not singing "Give Peace A Chance" on their way to the Beit Midrash.
ADDeRabbi, IMHO, we are entering into a new Dark Age. We're standing at the abyss about to get shoved over the edge into the cavern of darkness. May G-d save us.
anonymous,
here's the lomdus of the psak, which you apparently don't get because you apparently haven't learned the sugya.
The text of the prenup says that the husband agrees to pay $X for every day that he and his wife are no longer living together as husband and wife that he does not give her a get. it's a good contract, by all counts. worded very properly, etc. thus, he's mechayev himself a considerable amount of money if a certain set of conditions are met.
the growing, enforceable debt will place increasing pressure on the husband to give a get. true, this get is forced. however, if the pressure is applied by Jews, in accordance with halacha (and in this case, there were binding stipulations made prior to the wedding about what would obligate him to terminate the marriage), then we apply the rule of 'kofin oso a she-omer rotzeh ani' - the pressure serves the purpose of 'clearing his mind' to be able to make a decision that 'deep down he knows' is the right one. before you dismiss this 'pintele yid' svara, it's Rambam Gerushin 2:20.
R' Elyashiv ascertains (i.e., evaluates the minds of most chasanim, i.e., creates an umdenah) that most chasanim, when they sign the prenup, never really believe that they will ever be in that position. thus, the prenup is an 'asmakhta' - a promise to give a large amount of money if certain extremely unlikely conditions are met. like 'i'll bet you a million dollars that the cleveland browns will win the super bowl next year.
thus, halakhically, there's no real debt. if the gov't then attempts to retreive the $$, it IS a forced get - i.e., passul - because there's no real halakhic basis to force him to pay.
thus, RYSE's evaluation of the mind of the average chosson will bear directly on whether or not the get is a get 'me'useh' shelo ka-din or an application of aformentioned Rambam. ayen sham
"Furthermore, Catholicism treats marriage as a commitment that can never be broken. Judaism doesn't. Divorce is one of the 613."
Interestingly, the authors of the Torah never gave laws for divorce, or singled it out as allowed. It's assumed by them, and the largest mention it gets (groan) is the rules of remarriage!
As for the rest of your post, I don't give a shit about asmachtas and umdenahs, or what the head cult leader has to say. The entire shakel v'taryeh is embarassing to anyone with a lick of sense.
Hey, Misnagid,
Which Isaiah were the verses I quote from? The original or Deutero-Isaiah? Please enlighten me!
The laws of divorce are referenced explicitly (Devarim 24:1-2). 'Sefer Kritut' is a technical legal term, and the only time that some sort of documentation for a legal proceeding is required by the Torah. I believe that you meant to say that marriage laws are only 'presumed'.
Asmakhta and Umdenah aren't obtuse concepts. An umdenah is an estimation. An asmakhta is an instance where the context of an agreement calls its seriousness into question. you can blame your Rebbeim for your negative experience with the Bavli, but don't blame the Bavli.
You'll do yourself - and the rest of us - a big favor by sticking to the rational and staying away from the emotional.
thanks for posting on this. i was reading the article last night, and it just made me sad. we were wondering why in a ketubah, you can get around the 'asmachta' issue fairly simply, whereas here, it is suddenly a problem. dare i quote blu? sigh.
-c
You wrote:
however, if the pressure is applied by Jews, in accordance with halacha (and in this case, there were binding stipulations made prior to the wedding about what would obligate him to terminate the marriage), then we apply the rule of 'kofin oso a she-omer rotzeh ani' - the pressure serves the purpose of 'clearing his mind' to be able to make a decision that 'deep down he knows' is the right one. before you dismiss this 'pintele yid' svara, it's Rambam Gerushin 2:20.
Wrong. This is only in the case of kofin, not chiyv get. About 10 percent of gitin today are kofin (you can verify this with any respectable dayan).
"Which Isaiah were the verses I quote from? The original or Deutero-Isaiah? Please enlighten me!"
I don't know.
"The laws of divorce are referenced explicitly (Devarim 24:1-2)."
You are wrong. Divorce is referenced explicitly, its laws are assumed to be known.
That section is devarim is often mistaken as the biblical law of divorce, but it's not. It's about a specific case of remarriage to the man she once divorced. The pharisees derived divorce laws from here because there are no laws of divorce (or marriage) in the Torah.
Compare this to the laws of marrying your childless widowed sister-in-law. In the chapter in Devarim, the divorce procedure is just referenced en passant to the law the author wanted to discuss, but no laws about divorce are given. Reread my original comment, and you'll see that this is what I meant.
"you can blame your Rebbeim for your negative experience with the Bavli, but don't blame the Bavli."
I will so. Those concepts are utterly bogus when used as they are in Bavli. They're pure Nostradamus, reading into texts things that are not there. Using them as in the examples of your post is pure bunk, uncritical thinking on display. The whole thing is premised on flawed reason: in nostradamus,that he could see the future, in gemara, that the torah is god's word. Genre mistakes lead to absurdities, case in point. Asmachtas and umdenahs can be valid tools, but not when hammering in ghost nails. The Talmud is one big ode to the genre mistake and uncritical thinking.
"sticking to the rational and staying away from the emotional"
How about you stick to the facts? Oh wait, that would make you an atheist.
Post a Comment