Over Shabbos, I spotted the following advertisement in the Five Towns Jewish Times (page 23).
It is a collection for legal fees to help save a father and his three children from false allegations, where according to the letters from the Gedolei Harabonim, the one who issued these false accusations was his wife.
Not enough detail is given, but if I had to speculate, I would guess that this fellow is undergoing a divorce, and his wife hired a lawyer and wants various property as well as custody. And the false, or else "false", allegations are against the father, not the children. And indeed, they well may be false, just as they may be true. I've heard plenty of cases where, in order to win a court case for custody and the like, the wife will falsely accuse the husband of beating her or the kids, or worse. So while we are not privy to the particular allegations (and so they might be something rather innocuous), they might be rather bad, and even if bad, they might be made up, as the ad declares.
However, I was bothered by the first letter written in support of the fellow, from the Kollel Avreichim of Toronto. It is hard to make out, so read it in the physical paper (and if you wish, help him out monetarily). Roughly, it states:
Therefore, one needs to announce about this woman that according to Torah Law she needs to go away from the secular courts and to engage in the court case in a religious court, and as that Bet Din rules, so shall be established. And whoever holds back the Torah law in this matter is strengthening the hand of the sinners, and it is like the burning of the Torah, chas veShalom."
I was working from the smudged image, so this might be slightly off. But I cannot help but feeling empathy, at the least, for the plight of this woman, or at the least for any hypothetical woman in this situation. Let us say for a moment that her claims are true. This is certainly a possibility. What should she do? Should she go to bet Din? Rabbi Miller has clarified for us that all Poskim have ruled that in such a situation, she would not be neemenes; so they will not believe her and will consider her to have been motzi laaz on her husband. (Luckily for her, Bet Din no longer imposes lashes, or we would have another case of tuvia chata vezigud mangid, where Zigud was lashed since he was just saying effective lashon hara.) If her allegations are indeed serious, and are indeed true, and she feels as a result that the children should not be in his custody, what should she do? Go to a Bet Din where it has already been declared by all Poskim that they will not believe her and rule against her?! Or go to a secular court where justice at least has a chance of getting done? And if this is not true for the present case, what should a woman do in a parallel case, where this is true?
This is indeed troubling. And I don't think, by raising these questions, that I am effectively burning the Torah, chas veShalom, or aiding the hand of sinners.
Also, maybe the rabbonim supporting this fellow know details which confirms that the allegations are false. But from the argument, or rhetoric, in the letter, they are arguing that it cannot be true on the basis of a halachic argument, of the way a bet din will rule in a court case. Too bad for any woman where these allegations are true, despite the halachic impossibility or halachic extreme implausibility of their being true.
Note again: I am not privy to details of this particular case. I don't know what the unspecified allegations are. And I don't know who is correct. As I noted, people in custody cases (which I am guessing this is) sometimes make up false accusations; and sometimes they levy true accusations, which led to the dissolution of the marriage. One should certainly not judge negatively either of the parties involved; as we consider each, he / she is an absolute tzadik. But this issue goes beyond the particulars of this one case.
28 comments:
Wow this sugya felt like a Gemara shiur :)
There are so many instances where I've told women not to bother going to the Beis Din for the divorce, but rather to fight it out in Secular court first, and then try to obtain the get.
In a few cases, I was ignored. I was right every time. I can't reveal too much here, but the Beis Din is no longer a place for women. They are never believed, they are examined with scrutiny if they work, if they don't work, they are asked demeaning questions that are never asked of their husbands. And in the end, even if the Beis Din is not corrupt, the Beis Din doesn't really force a husband to give a get, and oftentimes that husband will withhold it for better custody, and complete freedom from paying alimony and child support.
It's astonishing, it's horrifying, and it's depressing. Good for this woman. I have no idea if she speaks the truth at all, but in our current climate, Beis Din can't help her or any other woman, unless the ex-husband is unusually kind, sensitive, and wants peace.
Why would she choose secular over a Beis Din? Well, maybe it's because the rabbis on the Beis Din are alligned with her husband. That is what happened to me, when I went to a Beis Din. I think it is absolutely outrageous that the rabbis in the case you have blogged are raising money for the husband, and calling the wife a liar. On what grounds? How do they know she is not a victim? Whatever information they are privy to, and we are not, I would hesitate to believe a word of it, knowing from my own experience how rabbis on a Beis Din can side with the male, for many different reasons, however the main reason being that he has a lot more money.
This is the state of the world we live in.... a world where a woman cannot go to a Beis Din and receive a fair judgment.
And that is no doubt why she has chosen the secular courts.
Rivka
meir says
This sounds riduculous.
A women is never believed!
Yes she is posul leidus. But so is the man if he is a party and not a witness.
Where does it say that a woman is in anyway different to a man who comes to court. Except that she may have more rights and may be able to send someone else instead of her.
Again I am not in this sugya. But as far as i remember the din is that beth din choose a woman (yes not a man) to live with them to find out the truth.
It is about time like i keep on writing here that dayanim started using the shulchan oruch.
And i may add, it is a disgrace on our Jewish society that botei dinim are seen to be unfair, which gives the impression that there is something wrong with shulchan oruch. i consider this the worst kind of chilul hashem. If anything this is the main case of chilul hashem mentioned not what today everyone comes up with. One reads continously stories of great rabbis that goyim preferred going to them even against a yid rather than to their own courts.
How much further can we fall?
Sometimes they can be put in a difficult position for instance if the wife tells the rov she has committed adultery in confidence but shouldnt tell the husband what should he do?
The truth is today each rov should have a qualified lawyer with him to hear all disputes. And also to provide chapter and verse for all his decisions like every judge and not hide behind a mantle of secrecy. It is true that according to shulchan oruch he only has to provide in writing the 'shaalo' and not the tshuva and can tell you go and ask your own rov we all use the same torah. But today very rarely two rabbonim seem to use the same torah, so it doesnt apply.
well i could go on, but i am shocked how a rov can put in print that a woman is not believed as much as a man.
meir:
against my better judgement, i'll reply, though not to engage in halachic debate.
"but i am shocked how a rov can put in print"
which rov did you mean? i would guess you mean Rabbi Miller, "the foremost Litvish Haredi Posek (decisor of Rabbinic law) in Toronto, and one of the most prominent Litvish Poskim in North America." though his words do not exactly equal that.
or did you mean me?
we don't know *what* the allegations are. they could reach the extent of molestation, for all we know, (and again, he could be either guilty or completely innocent,) but i didn't want to write this in the original analysis.
even if a beis din did put in an observer (i don't know if they do, nowadays), and thus delayed any divorce by some good amount of time, who says the woman wants to continue to live with her husband at this point? and an observer can readily change the dynamics of a relationship -- at the least, the man simply could behave himself as long as the observer is present, and thus convince the bet din of his innocence.
my question is (was) what a woman in this situation is supposed to do, given that it seems from Rav Miller's words that she would not be believed in court? where she has concerns for the well-being of her children, and knows that the religious court will not believe her and that he will get custody?
kt,
josh
meir says
ואם אינו ידוע מי הגורם אין הבעל נאמן לומר שהיא המתחלת שכל הנשים בחזקת כשרות ומושיבין ביניהם אחרות לראות בשל מי הרעה הזאת
that is the rmo 154:3
the rest of it is also interesting if a man is allowed to hit his wife and the gra.
"which rov did you mean? i would guess you mean Rabbi Miller"
you guessed right.
"my question is (was) what a woman in this situation is supposed to do, given that it seems from Rav Miller's words that she would not be believed in court?"
well if there is no evidence why should she believed more than the man on her word alone.
What should she do.
sometimes there is nothing one can do.
"and an observer can readily change the dynamics of a relationship -- at the least, the man simply could behave himself as long as the observer is present, and thus convince the bet din of his innocence"
If a man is used to abuse his wife out of habit it would be hard to change all the time an observer was present.
No sorry i must agree to the shulchan oruch here and you admit you have no better solution.
i must repeat this is your blog and i wont mind if you dont reply or even if you delete my post but i do thank you again for replying
"you guessed right."
then either he is right and you are wrong, or else you misunderstood him.
"the rest of it is also interesting if a man is allowed to hit his wife and the gra."
regardless of what it says there, a man is not allowed to hit his wife. as a culture, we have moved past that.
"What should she do.
sometimes there is nothing one can do."
sure there is something she could do. just what she is doing!! *if* the option is (and again, I am not saying that it is because I don't know the particulars of THIS situation) -- but IF the option is win in secular court, or lose in beis din and leave the kids in custody of an abusive man or a child molester, then I don't care what halacha says. I have the moral courage to say that she should not abide by halacha in such an instance. and i don't think you are a great tzaddik if you claim otherwise. (this is not the same as losing money.)
kol tuv,
josh
meir says
"What should she do.
sometimes there is nothing one can do."
sure there is something she could do. just what she is doing!! *if* the option is (and again, I am not saying that it is because I don't know the particulars of THIS situation) -- but IF the option is win in secular court, or lose in beis din and leave the kids in custody of an abusive man or a child molester, then I don't care what halacha says. I have the moral courage to say that she should not abide by halacha in such an instance.
"and i don't think you are a great tzaddik if you claim otherwise. (this is not the same as losing money.)"
You are putting words into my mouth or perhaps you dont understand me. he maybe foremost posek if he said what you quoted from him he is wrong.
If she has enough proof for a secular court then it would also suffice for a jewish court and if it doesnt then the jewish court is at fault not the halacha.
I may add although you need two eidim for killing someone you dont get off scot free without them you are put in a room without food or water until you die.
The same is with everything if the beis din has reason to believe you without eidim they have ways round it.
"You are putting words into my mouth or perhaps you dont understand me. he maybe foremost posek if he said what you quoted from him he is wrong."
that is a pretty confident statement from someone who started this by saying that he is "not in this sugya". whatever Rabbi Miller said, and whatever he meant, I can guarantee you that it is not amaratzus. and as quoted, he asserts that this is the position of "all the Poskim". you don't know to what he refers. but i also am fairly certain that you don't have, e.g., Yadin Yadin smicha.
whether he is right or wrong, this is like some high school kid who took some elementary physics assuming that Stephen Hawkins is wrong, and about something extremely basic. possible, but rather unlikely. the much more likely scenario is that the high-school either misunderstood the basics or misunderstood Stephen Hawkins' words.
"If she has enough proof for a secular court then it would also suffice for a jewish court and if it doesnt then the jewish court is at fault not the halacha."
Batei Dinim do not, as far as I know, always come to the same conclusions that a court would. The specifics are dependent on the particular case.
regardless, what does it matter if it is the bet din's fault. *IF* (and again IF, not certainly) this is how a bet din will operate, then I can understand why she wouldn't go to court. facts on the ground are not always what one would consider the ideal. see what Devorah wrote above, for example.
"The same is with everything if the beis din has reason to believe you without eidim they have ways round it."
certainly possible. though if so, the rhetoric in favor of the woman's husband may have just been that, rhetoric.
kol tuv,
josh
meir says
thanks
that is a pretty confident statement from someone who started this by saying that he is "not in this sugya". whatever Rabbi Miller said, and whatever he meant, I can guarantee you that it is not amaratzus. and as quoted, he asserts that this is the position of "all the Poskim". you don't know to what he refers. but i also am fairly certain that you don't have, e.g., Yadin Yadin smicha
No i dont have semicha.
Buy i consider i have common sense and derech erez meaning common sense comes before torah.
Since you agree to me in this, that the woman has rights, only i say even according to the torah.
why is it that although you are often averse to rashi and even gemorros, what has this top poisek got what they havent.
"Buy i consider i have common sense and derech erez meaning common sense comes before torah."
daas balebatim is often hefech daas
torah.
and that is not the way that talmud torah or pesak works.
at the very least, his error is not a BASIC one (as in the Stephen Hawkins example) to which one can simply point out one or two statements in Shulchan Aruch and be done with it. i don't believe that you can engage him on halachic grounds, if it came down to it. and you were implying that you could. unless his words mean something else, such that he would agree to something so basic.
"why is it that although you are often averse to rashi and even gemorros, what has this top poisek got what they havent."
i don't think you understand what i am saying here, or elsewhere where i am purportedly "averse".
why i (and that is *me*, not you) will sometimes differ with Rishonim in understanding a gemara is another matter entirely. there are some good methodological reasons, that are entirely separate from the content of this post.
kol tuv,
josh
Since mipnei chatoeinu we don't have a functioning court system the powers of batei din are very limited. No beit din would be able to impose a physical punishment of the sort required by halacha, and they could not even enforce a monetary fine.
So chas veshalom that this woman should go to a secular court, and if she should do such a terrible thing I hope her husband biymot hamoshiach takes her to a fully-authorised bet din to judge the situation according to halacha. Until then my opinion is that he should be quiet and accept this as a takana.
R' Waxman,
"IF the option is win in secular court, or lose in beis din and leave the kids in custody of an abusive man or a child molester, then I don't care what halacha says. I have the moral courage to say that she should not abide by halacha in such an instance. and i don't think you are a great tzaddik if you claim otherwise."
Wow! That is a heck of a sentiment coming from an Orthodox Rabbi! While I personally agree with you in that instance, I wonder how far you take this idea, and whether you have specific guidelines or it's a smell test, case-by-case thing.
For instance, imagine a fully empowered beit din standing side-by-side with a secular court. If a woman was raped, a secular court would send the rapist to jail for a long time, but the beit din would (at least for the purposes of this hypo) only order a fine imposed (and the marriage option). Would you support the woman going to secular court (presumably to take a rapist off the streets)? What if it were only a civil matter, and damages in beit din were severely constrained, and the woman could only hope for a small award, but in secular court she would be entitled to a much larger judgment - would it still be permissible then?
Basically, I'm curious as to where you draw the line here.
KT,
Hillel
meir says
i was about to close the subject but i see its still alive.
"Buy i consider i have common sense and derech erez meaning common sense comes before torah."
daas balebatim is often hefech daas
torah"
can you tell me please who coined that phrase. Its usually used by rabbis to say youre an am hoorets you wont understand anyway.
I have quotes a rmo. which says you put a woman there and i suppose she is believed otherwise there would be no purpose even though she is posul leidus.
I am surprised at you, that you believe blindly whatever todays rabbis or top poskim say without them bringing any proof and where the rmo distinctly argues with them.
You have heard it before from me.
i am sure his ksubos are all posul like all top rabbis today.
I have absolutely no respect for any of them let them come here and explain themselves.
to your other posters.
if according to halacha the man ought to go to prison then the beis din would send her to the courts.
And again although according to halacha children belong to the husband. The welfare of the children comes first. Why do you give the impression that the halacha is otherwise.
All along this impression is given as though the halacha is uncaring.
i must protest about 'elbon hatora'. i have quoted a rmo. i challenge you to find me an uncaring halacha. In the mishna there are instances when a man is 'forced' physically to give a get.
I like the poster who says 'mipnei chatoeinu' we dont have a functioning Jewish court. I say thank god we dont with such dayanim!
Rav Elyashiv as the jewish appeal court head in israel has written a sefer with his cases. Often overturning the lower courts. Usually the reason because they dont use common sense. A case in point a non frum man didnt want to pay his wife because according to the din if she didnt keep the laws he doesnt have to. He nicely says these laws dont apply to non frum people who dont keep the laws themselves.
meir says
So chas veshalom that this woman should go to a secular court, and if she should do such a terrible thing I hope her husband biymot hamoshiach takes her to a fully-authorised bet din to judge the situation according to halacha. Until then my opinion is that he should be quiet and accept this as a takana.
Am i hearing right?
this man who for all i know may be in the right, should just give up because his wife takes him to a secular court.
wherever does the din say that you must languish in prison or whatever sentence is imposed because you must not go to a secular court. Yes you must not take someone but if you are brought there!
This whole thing about secular courts in my opinion is all wrong. Today no beth din paskens din tora they call it pshoro similar to din.
since that is the case i would like to see who says you mustnt go to secular courts.
As you well know you read it all the time all the top orthodox people and rebbes go there. Can they all be doing wrong just because big money is involved.
"I am surprised at you, that you believe blindly whatever todays rabbis or top poskim say without them bringing any proof and where the rmo distinctly argues with them."
oy. first, i am not going to engage you on halachic grounds, either to say you are right OR wrong. this on principle, because otherwise this will drag on forever without resolution.
i didn't say that this rabbi was *right*. in fact, my whole was questioning an aspect of his conclusion. and it is quite possible that some other big posek would demonstrate where he is wrong.
this has NOTHING to do with BLINDLY agreeing with everything top rabbis or poskim say without their bringing proof. for rabbi miller notes that in assessing this situation, this is what all poskim say, and i would guess that he is not a liar. one could certainly find something in what all the poskim say which supports what he says here.
this is not being mevatel one's daas. however, i DO acknowledge that to get semicha, either Yoreh Yoreh or Yadin Yadin, one must display a certain level of mastery over material. And to be acknowledged as a top posek, by many other rabbis who also know how to learn, you must display a pretty expert grasp of the material.
if someone then comes who is "not in the sugya", and who appears to rely regularly on summaries of Artscroll and Mesivta, rather than the primary material with all its nuance, then I don't think that the playing field is even. he may be wrong in understanding these poskim he mentions, or those poskim may be wrong, or he may be misapplying it to this situation, or we may be misunderstanding him. but it is unlikely that an expert mathematician is going to err in a matter of 2 + 2 = 4.
in other words, it is a pretty safe assumption that Rabbi Miller would take your Rama and explain why it is irrelevant, or orthogonal, to the case at hand. and I am not going to engage you on this. don't take this, though, as inability, just unwillingness.
(in fact, i think you agree with rabbi miller, that assuming no outside observer is present or will be present, bet din does NOT believe her word over his, just because she alleges it. therefore it only has the status of motzi laaz. who says he was talking about other cases, about whether a woman is believed in general?!)
"should just give up because his wife takes him to a secular court."
i think what Joe meant is that he should give up on Bet Din and instead go with her to secular court.
kt,
josh
"Basically, I'm curious as to where you draw the line here."
a difficult question, one i cannot answer al regel achas, unfortunately.
kt,
josh
meir says
I think you have misunderstood me all along and by extension todays rabbonim.
So i will spell it out. I am quite sure that all these rabbonim of today are quite capable of learning certainly as good as me.
They are also quite aware that all todays kesubos are posul that is a good example.But for reasons which i wont go into, maybe like you said why bother, or others, they dont keep the torah.
My claim is not that they dont know the torah. It is that they dont keep it. As an orthodox blog maybe you should delete my posts, but that is just burying heads in sand or rather in shame.
This is a terrible accusation, and i have many more examples of it. we daven bring back our judges, what for if we have such good ones.
if you read the prophets the churban was because of them
sodom and gomorro again because of the judges.
if like you consider them to be so good why do people go to the courts. and that is both parties are willing to go. It usually costs much more. well i will tell you its not because they prefer non jewish law its because they know they wont get jewish law from our dayanim.
"in fact, i think you agree with rabbi miller, that assuming no outside observer is present or will be present, bet din does NOT believe her word over his, just because she alleges it. therefore it only has the status of motzi laaz."
I dont think the court will either believe her word over his without some proof. and what is proof for the court ought to be for the beth din.
you denigrate arstcroll and mesivta.
they have both put a lot of work into it. they have learnt all the gemmoros with all available meforshim and know it better than any rov who tries on his own and usually gets it wrong. So therefore my summary with using them is better than any great posek without them.
R' Waxman,
"a difficult question, one i cannot answer al regel achas, unfortunately."
Totally understandable - though if you have any sources you can point me towards (or, better yet, link to!), I'd appreciate it.
KT,
Hillel
Just focusing on one minor point.
Rabbi Miller obviously knows a lot more Torah source material than most of us do, however, a simple guy like me can still be right in disagreements with him especially when the issue concerns a controversial/political issue such as Agunah, divoce, molestation, discrimination against Sephardim etc.
Chaim
I meant to add, that because Rabbi Miller comes to these issues with biases and a certain outlook, that can outweigh the other advantages he has (i.e. he is brilliant and a big Talmid Chachom).
And this case, as you so eloquently explained in your post proves what I am saying!
This was a great post!
Chaim
Josh wrote: "IF the option is win in secular court, or lose in beis din and leave the kids in custody of an abusive man or a child molester, then I don't care what halacha says. I have the moral courage to say that she should not abide by halacha in such an instance"
Hi Josh,
I am Dan L'Kaf Zechus that you didn't express yourself well.
Wouldn't you agree that the true halacha is always moral and ethical? Wouldn't you agree, that if the halachic way appears immoral then either we are making a mistake about morality or we are mistaken about the halacha?
If you are convinced (like me) beyond any doubt that the halachic ruling in this case is immoral (at least when applied to other cases) then wouldn't it be wiser to say that they arrived at the incorrect halacha than to say that it is the correct halacha but don't follow it because it is immoral?
Obviously Rabbis can be mistaken about the halachah and give immoral rulings.
However, perhaps what you are driving at is that what do we do if the early halachic decisors such as Shulchan Aruch or Rema issued incorrect immoral rulings which is difficult to overturn as it is accepted as halachic precedent. Then I agree that we should act morally and ignore the early halachic ruling precisely because it is not the true halacha.
The true halacha can never be immoral! Obviously what Moshe was told by Hashem cannot be immoral!(as the gemara says "if it is "Reik (-empty)" it is Reik from you (due to your lack of understanding).
Are we in agreement?
I am interested in hearing your thoughts as I respect your opinion.
This is probably just a misunderstanding.
Michael
Michael (and Hillel, somewhat):
This is why I am not giving Hillel an adequate response al regel achat.
Whether halachic decisions are always moral, or not, is beside the point. (I am not clarifying here. Maybe I agree and maybe I don't. Why I agree, or slightly disagree, cannot be captured in a comment.) And forget that I am a rabbi. I am and was a moral human being before that. And in this hypothetical scenario, subjecting kids to the custody of an abuser would be immoral, even IF that is what halacha says.
The halacha is that in certain cases a man swears and is exempt. Even though sometimes a man will swear falsely. That is good, moral halacha and a good system of law. And both baalei din must accept the judgement of the court. Where the court rules correctly in favor of the liar, it is a terrible thing but still good halacha. It doesn't mean Moshe was given an immoral Law, and it doesn't mean the dayanim misinterpreted that law.
kol tuv,
josh
I see where you are coming from. If I understand correctly. The torah says to beleive 2 witnesses. That is fine morally and ethically. If these 2 witnesses lie and falsely testify that someone is a murderer and he gets the death penalty, then there is an immoral result, but it wasn't the halacha's fault. Just like it is not immoral to trust DNA, even though it is possible that the lab will act fraudulently. Hashem in the next world will make up for it.
I guess in a hypothetical case where the husband is wrong but is backed by false witnesses, then we have a heter of pikuach nefashos to protect the children and not comply with the Beis Dins ruling.
However, it would seem that in some cases (I don't know where to draw the line) even if you are one of the litigants and you know the other side is using false witnesses you should have the strength of charachter to comply with the Beis Din's erroneous ruling and trust that Hashem will make it up to you.
I would appreciate to hear your thoughts.
Michael
meir says
גמרא שבועות ל:
מנין לדיין שיודע בדין שהוא מרומה שלא יאמר הואיל והעדים מעידין אחתכנו ויהא קולר תלוי בצואר עדים וכו'
רש"י שלמד מתוך דברי עדים שאין עדותם אמת
גמרא שבועות ל:
מנין לדיין שיודע בדין שהוא מרומה שלא יאמר הואיל והעדים מעידין אחתכנו ויהא קולר תלוי בצואר עדים וכו'
רש"י שלמד מתוך דברי עדים שאין עדותם אמת
this gemoro almost present daf yomi says distinctly not what the present posters seem to believe that two eidim are always believed.
the beth din has discretion.
and as i have said all along the correct halacha is no different to secular law.
utterly irrelevant. that gemara is talking about where the dayan knows. but where the dayan does NOT know, and was not able to determine from their words that they were lying, they rule in accordance with the testimony of two eidim.
even where, in actual truth (which the dayanim do not know), those eidim were lying. that is what Michael was saying.
meir says
my point is
why do you and your posters have a question what happens if the beth din get it wrong what would you do.
or if the halacha gets it wrong.
why not ask the same question if the secular court gets it wrong.
why are they less infallible than the halacha.
i am trying to prove all along that there is no difference between them. they can both get it wrong in some cases. the gemoro gives an example where they killed a tanna sons from false eidus.
no one here said that the secular courts are infallible, as far as i can see.
it is relevant because here is a full page ad in a Jewish newspaper blasting the woman as a sinner for not going to beis din where she will not be believed. which raises the question of whether this would be the case if indeed she is telling the truth.
kol tuv,
josh
Post a Comment