- This topic has 97 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
This thread actually inspired me to go back and listen to a shiur by R Rosensweig of YU which a friend of mine actually sent to me a few weeks ago when we were having this discussion. A very interesting perspective (from a self-avowed believer in TuM) which is also not especially controversial. For a sneak peek, he both emphasizes that he is NOT talking about PBA’s straw man questions and emphatically states that it is incredibly important to get rabbinic guidance in matters of hashkafa. Being a 50 minute shiur it doesn’t go quite as far as all of PBA’s points but it’s still fascinating.
It actually gave me another question-are we talking about whether to ask or what to ask? I think that one of R Rosensweig’s points was specifically about the importance of asking for hashkafic daas Torah, but the question is also what’s necessary to ask about, which I think is PBA’s point and which, as of my last post, I haven’t really figured out the answer to.
Popa
“Maybe you should sometimes consider that something can be true and that you are just too stupid or ignorant to understand it”
1) that is unlikely
2) just in case it was the case I did I asked for clarification
3) I was not just referring to this example. I run in daas torah circles both of the “strawman” variety and your variety it is not uncommon to hear absolute nonsense or things that are counter-factual asserted as true because “daas torah” said so
ubiq: If popa’s correct you would not realize you are wrong when you think something is “nonsense”.
Popa
You are not the first person Ive heard this “distinction” between a prenup and kesuba from.
A real distinction would be the nature of the people behind the two obviuosuly ORa or whomever cant be comapred to chazal.
I’m not sure what you mean by “overheard” Here is a factual example I personally heard from a prominent Rav, he mentioned during the brain-detah hulabaloo a few years back that no person who lacked pulse and wasnt breathing ever survives and thus “Cardiac death” is final as aopposed to brain death. I told him this is simply incorrect as CPR revives people from “cardiac Death” Literaly daily (more than that actualy) He refused to beleive me. I asked a friend who was in the shiur what he thought of that he said I cant argue with Daas Torah. I’m sorry but this is nonesense. If you’d like I can provide others but I dont want to hijack this thread more than I have.
DY
so if a few lines were added to the prenup regarding the marital obligations it would bethe same as a kesuba? That is easy to fix
Of course it wouldn’t fix it. It wouldn’t fool anyone.
I’m not following you at all.
Harder to get divorced = strengthens marriage
Easier to get divorced = weakens marriage
This ain’t rocket science, yo.
Certainly true. The Gemorah (as I paraphrased before) certainly does consider the feelings of the husband that his wife is planning for his death or divorce (IIRC it was by the sugyah of her selling shibudim on his land??)
However, IF doing so would help Agunos, Chazal have a track record that we do things to help Agunos that we otherwise would never do. Certainly here, where all we are doing is preparing for an Aino Mesaerv L’din, we should remove the possibility of a woman becoming an Agunah.
However, if your general viewpoint (and I strongly suspect that your Rosh Yeshiva agrees to this) is that modern Agunos are not really Agunos, as they can and should give in to all of the husbands demands to get their Get, then there would be no reason to go one Etzba past the normal Halachic line.
The reason he can’t say that is because it isn’t politically correct? There is no place for cowardice in Halacha.
Unlikely. They’ve said far more unpopular things.
So what is the Sevarah? And what would they have said that would cause a similar out roar?
Haleivi:
That’s not what I said. What I said was that it would be ironic to use a pasuk which is forbidding a multiplicity of views, as the source to have a multiplicity of views. That does not mean that there is no source, nor does it mean that 10 million people should do ??? ??? ????.
Just because rebbeim told their talmidim controversial things doesn’t mean they belong on a public website.
Just because rebbeim told their talmidim controversial things doesn’t mean they belong on a public website.
V’hamavin Yavin.
Thank you.
Popa
You are not the first person Ive heard this “distinction” between a prenup and kesuba from.
Why is “distinction” in quotes? You seriously see little distinction between the two?
all we are doing is preparing for an Aino Mesaerv L’din
That isn’t an accurate portrayal of the prenup. It affects and binds people who are not Aino Mesaerv L’din into making payments where normative halacha doesn’t require it and where normative halacha permits him to choose not to grant a requested divorce.
they can and should give in to all of the husbands demands to get their Get
This isn’t the objection. The objection is that he has the halachic and moral right to choose to continue the marriage.
The reason he can’t say that is because it isn’t politically correct?
They have said it.
You make it sound as if I answered your question. I did not.
You are not the first person Ive heard this “distinction” between a prenup and kesuba from.
Maybe because the distinction is true?
Reminds me of waiting in line for the keilim mikvah on erev Yom Tov. A woman was waiting to toivel some plastic containers, and some guy was making fun of her. I pointed out that that some poskim do require it, because the same reason the Gemara uses to require tevilah for glass also applies to plastic.
So, the guy goes on an anti-chumrah rant, and yells, “People say not to eat strawberries, but Hashem created them!”.
I told him that Hashem also created the sheratzim in the strawberries, and He also created chazir, but we can’t eat those either.
He said, “You’re the second person to give me that answer!”.
Can we take the prenup conversation back to its thread? This was supposed to be a spin-off, not the actual discussion!
According to this qualification, we need to define “following daas Torah” as being “m’vatel daas”, meaning following it even when disagreeing. If a guy follows his rebbeim 90% of the time, but the other 10% not, because he doesn’t agree on those matters, he can’t really be said to be following daas Torah.
I think you are combining two distinct categories. Some people don’t respect the rabbi on anything other than saying what the Shulchan Aruch says. Other people respect the rabbi tremendously, even in non-halachic matters, but don’t go so far as to be mevatel da’as when they have strong reason to believe the rabbi is wrong. There is a big difference between these two categories which manifests itself in situations where the person does not have his own strong evidence. The second person will follow the rabbi whereas the first person won’t.
where normative halacha permits him to choose not to grant a requested divorce.
Whose “normative Halacha”? If you hold of the P’sak of the BDUSA, then it is their decision whether the husband will have to give a Get or not. Worst case, he will go to court and the Bais Din will say the he doesn’t have to give a Get.
they can and should give in to all of the husbands demands to get their Get
This isn’t the objection. The objection is that he has the halachic and moral right to choose to continue the marriage.
Hu Hadin, Hu HaTaam.
DY – Even if that is what PBA’s Rosh Yeshiva said, PBA wouldn’t post it here. So there is no reason for me to continue to chepper him on it.
Id suggest looking at a picture of Rav Chaim with his Baal Habatim and then look at a picture of Rav Schecter and His Baal Habatim, you will notice a big difference
Whose “normative Halacha”?
The one in S”A/Rama.
Worst case, he will go to court and the Bais Din will say the he doesn’t have to give a Get.
The BDA, as a matter of policy, will virtually never tell a husband he doesn’t have to give a Get if his wife wants one. Even if the halacha in S”A is that he doesn’t have to give. (Recall your earlier comment bemoaning something not being politically correct?) And see the Chazon Ish Gittin 99:2 that when beis din mistakenly tells the husband to give a Get when that is not the halacha, the Get is invalid m’doraysa. (i.e. the CI is pointing out some beis din’s do it wrong.)
To let me know what the Shulchan Aruch says, a friend is enough. Paskenning means his ????? ???? confess into play.
About your supposed irony, my point is that a Kehilla following a Rav will centralize the Torah, although we don’t have everyone following one Beis Din which would give complete centralization. But at least as closer to it as possible. It’s ironic that you would see the medicine as the disease.
Joseph – So your beef is not with the pre-nup, but the Bais Din that implements it. Go argue Halacha with Rabbis Hershel Shachter and Gedaliah Schwartz, not here.
To let me know what the Shulchan Aruch says, a friend is enough. Paskenning means his ????? ???? confess into play.
For some people the rabbi is just a friend who knows what the Shulchan Aruch says. (Lav davka Shulchan Aruch; I mean that he knows the relevant Torah sources.)
About my supposed irony, I think you are still misunderstanding my point. All I said is that the pasuk sets up a system where there is one centralized authority which everyone is beholden to, and it would therefore be ironic to use that as a source for each person to follow his rabbi, considering that that’s the exact opposite of what the pasuk intended. If you are trying to get as close as possible to the ideal, you can get a lot closer than having everyone pick a rabbi to follow. For instance, let’s say the current ratio is one rabbi for every 50 practitioners. Well if we eliminate half the rabbis, and make the ratio one rabbi for every 100 practitioners, it is more centralized.
Again, this is not to say that people should not follow a rabbi; it is to say that the reason why some people follow a rabbi might be different then the one popa suggested, and the difference in reasons might have practical ramifications regarding the circumstances in which one would not follow his rabbi.
DY
“Of course it wouldn’t fix it. It wouldn’t fool anyone. “
Exactly, you have your reasons for being against prenups they may be halachic, they may be hashkafic or a combination. you may even be right.
My only objection is to the idea that a prenup is wrong “because it is wrong hashkafically to plan for divorce before you are married ” This is silliness becasue part of what kesuba does is exactly the same ie. plan for divorce before they are married. You then added the artifical distinction that well kesuba does other things too, but you agree that if prenup did other things too it still “wouldnt fix it” In other words the oposititon to prenup, valid as it may be, is not becasue “it is wrong hashkafically to plan for divorce before you are married”
Joseph
“Why is “distinction” in quotes? You seriously see little distinction between the two?”
There is alot of distinction between the two but not all distinctions are real. Another distinction is that prenup is an english word as opposed to kesuba which is Hebrew. I assume you would dissmis this distinction as a “distinction” (Although there was a thread here regarding calling Shabbos Lunch “lunch” as opposed to a seudah, but I diress)
PAA
Does “mevatel Daas” mean following him even if you think it is wrong,(eg I dont understand wny my R”Y said no to prepare for divorce before marriage when chazal already did, but that is daas torah) or accepting what he says as right?(eg “One shouldnt prepare for divorce before marriage and kesuba is complelty different”)
Which is harder?
You’re misunderstanding me. Artificially adding other clauses to the prenup wouldn’t change its purpose, which is clearly to prevent a man from withholding the get.
I don’t understand why you are holding me to your interpretation of popa’s paraphrasing of his rebbeim.
ubiquitin:
What I’m saying is that there are different levels. Some people only care what the rabbi has to say if he is simply telling them the halacha. Others care what the rabbi has to say on other things as well. The thing is that in many cases, including the prenup example, there are two separate aspects – the metzius (how does a prenup actually affect the relationship between husband and wife) and the hashkafic response to the metzius (if it does have a negative affect, how do we weigh it against the aguna issue). Here is where the different levels of mevatel da’as come into play. What if I’m sure the rabbi is wrong on the metzius? What if I’m not sure he’s wrong but not sure he’s right? For some people that will make a difference for whether they will be mevatel da’as or not. Then again it also depends on the other factors of the case. For instance, if the husband and wife both couldn’t care less about prenups, they might be mevatel da’as even if they think the rabbi is absolutely incorrect on the metzius, the hashkafa, or both. But they won’t necessarily admit that the rabbi is correct. If, on the other hand, there is a lot at stake, they may refuse to follow the rabbi altogether if they think he is wrong, and even perhaps if they are unsure he is wrong. The point is that the only thing that can really be quantified are the two extremes – the rabbi is always right or the rabbi’s opinion is completely irrelevant. There is so much in between, which depends on so many variables, and indeed, I think this is what writersoul was alluding to. For many people there is probably not a neat, all-encompassing formula for when to follow and when not to follow or for when to admit that the rabbi is right and when not to admit. It is done on a case-by-case basis.
My other point that I was trying to get at with popa earlier, is that for many people the same is true in pure halacha. There can be instances where a practitioner strongly believes that the rabbi doesn’t understand the metzius, or perhaps doesn’t know (some of) the halachic sources. He would then be in the same predicament as by the hashkafic question.
I don’t know if this answers your question; feel free to re-express if need be.
DY: What stops the husband from showing up to court and the Bais Din Paskening that a Get should not be given? I don’t see the issue as “withholding a Get”, but rather the (related) issue of husbands not showing up to court to be judged.
IMHO, if the husband is just holding out for more money/rights, then the Bais Din will (appropriately) Pasken that a Get must be given. If he really believes that there is still a chance at keeping it alive (and Bais Din agrees), and she just doesn’t want to, she will be Paskened as a Moredes and will lose the support (via the Bais Din).
gavra: Aside from the hashkafic/social issues others have cited, it is a halachic problem with the prenup itself (rendering a future Get Me’usa due to the pressure of a kenas on top of the halachic invalidity of the prenup itself since at the time of signing he expected it to never come into force) in addition to what I mentioned above. See the original thread (linked in the OP) that spurned this discussion as well as Rav Elyashev’s cited teshuva there.
If he really believes that there is still a chance at keeping it alive (and Bais Din agrees)
S”A doesn’t normally give B”D the ability to disagree with his request. It is rules and evidence based as defined in the S”A. If he is asking for shalom bayis and she is asking for a Get, even if she is claiming ma’os alei S”A rules he cannot be made to give up his marriage. Even if b”d is of the opinion they’ll never get along too well. S”A specifies only in extreme cases (i.e. proven abuse, physical deformity, etc.) can a Get be demanded of him despite his unwillingness.
Clearly you’re not talking about the realities of the US judicial system and general absence of respect for seuvim issued by a BD.
It’s the civil courts that will determine how much support the husband pays, not beis din. He doesn’t have a choice. In most cases where he is withholding the get, the civil divorce has already been granted and there is no marriage to save.
It is halachicly assur for either spouse to litigate in secular court (arkaos) to adjudicate who gets what money, assets, support or custody. (They can submit the beis din decision to the court as their agreed upon settlement. If one party acts in contempt of beis din then b”d can make an exception and permit the other party to use of arkaos.) If she opens a case in secular court and receives money or assets from him through such a verdict, he has the halachic right (I can supply teshuvos from Rav Elyashev, Rav Shternbuch, Rav M. Klein, etc. to this effect) to withhold the Get until she reverses that and returns to him her ill gotten gains awarded to her by a civil court. Rav Shternbuch’s teshuva in such a case rules that he can even get a heter meah to remarry while the Get is held by b”d until she returns those assets to him.
The halacha is that a Get is given after all outstanding divorce/gittin issues has been finalized and settled by beis din. A civil divorce has no bearing on Hilchos Gittin as to whether a Get is obligatory.
Mods: Can we stop Joseph’s lie that the prenup creates a Get Meuseh? The Tshuvah he quoted as his source clearly said it doesn’t.
?????? ?????? ??? ????”? ?????? ??”?
???? ????”? ???? ????”?, ???”? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????, ?????”? ???? ??? ???????.
??”?. ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????”?, ??”? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????, ?????”?.
??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????, ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????,
??? ??? ??”? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????,
????? ???? ??????!
?????? ???, ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???????, ??? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???????, ?????? ??? ????”? ?????? ??”?, ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ??? ??”? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ????.
??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????, ????? ??????, ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????.
???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?’ ??? ????? ??? ????? ????”?, ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?”? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????, ?? ?????? ???? ???????!
???”?, ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????, ?? ???? ????? ?’ ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????. ??????? ????, ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???, ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???.
?????? ?????, ?????? ????? ????? ????”? ??”?.
??????? ????????, ????? ??? ????, ?? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????.
????? ?? ???”? ????????? ????”?, ?? ????? ????? ???? ????????, ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????’ ??????.
??’ ??? ????? ?’ ???? ????? ????”?, ????”?.
?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ????”? ????”? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? (??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????), ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?”? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? (??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???) ?????? ??? ?????, ????? ??? ??? ??”? ?????? ???? ??? ????? (?????? ???”? ???? ????), ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????. ??”? ???”? ???? ?????????
Interesting how he has no problem with an agreement to go to a specific beis din.
Of course, that’s totally different when there are no other conditions.
This is a halachic opposition to the monetary condition whereas only agreeing to a specific beis din (with no monetary provisions) doesn’t raise a halachic problem of Get Me’usa, so it is halachicly permissible even if it is hashkafically inadvisable.
What’s the hashkafic issue? If a couple signed an agreement to go to R’ Nissim Karelitz’ beis din, would there be a hashkafic objection?
Some would argue the same hashkafic issue that’s been mentioned previously in this discussion, namely that making special divorce provisions at the time of marriage is a bad way to start a marriage.
Why did you find it interesting that he has no problem with an agreement to go to a specific beis din?
I think it shows that the objection to the prenup is more subtle, less black and white, than being presented here.
The opposition seems to be based on the monetary provision causing a Get Me’usa due to the kenas. And specifying a beis din doesn’t present that problem. It isn’t an opposition to the idea of prenup prior to marriage in general.
bump
“A kesuba protects marriage and the wife by making divorce harder and more costly to divorce her. The prenup does the opposite by making marriage more expendable and easier to dissolve in divorce while making it more costly to stay married.”
That is completely false in our times; in fact it is almost the opposite that is true. The ketubah is not enforceable in any court, at least in galut. The prenup is the only protection a woman has against a husband divorcing her in secular court and leaving her a penniless agunah. No prenup makes marriage more expendable; the prenup requires a husband to act responsibly.
“It is halachicly assur for either spouse to litigate in secular court (arkaos) to adjudicate who gets what money, assets, support or custody.”
And only the prenup protects a woman whose husband divorces her in secular court. The form of he prenup that my wife and I signed require us to go to a specific beit din to arbitrate all this. By opposing the prenup you are enabling halachic violations.
“making special divorce provisions at the time of marriage is a bad way to start a marriage”
Chazal and rishonim disagreed when they forbade any marriage without a ketubah.
“”Cardiac death” is final as aopposed to brain death. I told him this is simply incorrect as CPR revives people from “cardiac Death” Literaly daily”
You are of course correct. Furthermore, cardiac death has no basis in our mesorah for being a definition of death — blood circulation was not even discovered until the 17th century, after the period of the rishonim!
“How do you know?”
He doesn’t, unless he has reviewed all the cases of the Beit Din of America. And to imply that Rabbis Schwartz, Willig, and Reiss don’t know the Shuchan Aruch is the kind of motzi shem ra that should get one banned from every frum web site. How about it, moderators? You would never put up with such a slander against a Charedi rav, much less a gedol. Do you accept “Joseph’s” slander as valid?
PBA- I need.a definitions section. Please define “daas torah,” “halachah,” “hashkafa,” “MO,” and “non-strawman” for me. It seems to me like that would clarify this issue a lot better than the other things discussed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.