ujm

Dr. Pepper, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue.

To take your example, suppose the husband summons his wife to Beis Din for the purpose of initiating Gett proceedings against her. But, unlike what you suggested, she accepts the subpoena and appears in Beis Din. Her husband begins proceedings by stating he came to give his wife a divorce. He lists a litany of complaints ranging from the she doesn’t prepare meals in a timely manner, doesn’t take care of the children well, is often unfriendly to him, doesn’t keep up the household properly, etc. She responds that she disagrees with his assessment, and believes the marriage is viable and whatever imperfections correctable. He says he tried working with her for years on all these issues but not much changed.

They are at a standstill. He demands to divorce. She responds in Beis Din that she wishes the marriage to continue and as per Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom she hereby invokes her right to decline to accept the Gett her husband wishes to present to her.

My contention in the above scenario is that, given the circumstances as presented, she prevails. It is her right to to remain married to his despite his wish otherwise. And he remains obligated to continue supporting her, living with her and providing her with onah and all her conjugal rights. I maintain that this is the clear and unambiguous Halachic result and that he is not able to receive a Heter Meah Rabbonim in this case. If anyone would like to contend otherwise let them present clear Halachic arguments against this obvious Halachic conclusion.

As an endnote, the same result would be true in reverse, and Halachicly even more powerfully (since in that situation it is a pure Torah Law rather than a post-Chazal rabbinic decree), with the spouses roles in the above scenario reversed, with the wife seeking a divorce but the husband seeking to continue the marriage.

According to the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch, the Cherem automatically was set to expire in the Hebrew year 5000 (around 1240 CE, as gadolha pointed out). When I was a child I also heard the 1000 year (after it started) expiration timeframe, but I’m not sure where that comes from.

Under CRG, what is the minimum number of countries a Heter Meah Rabbonim requires signatories from? Is one signatory from a country sufficient to count that as one of the minimum number of countries? What is considered a “country”, in reference to the requirements for a HMR, to be counted as one of the minimum number thereof (i.e. would the US and Canada be counted as two towards it; or would even two different States within the US be counted as two separate “countries” for this purpose?)

Is any person with Smicha (even if not a pulpit rabbi) qualified to be one of the hundred signatories (otherwise what are the qualifications to be a signatory)? And what are the qualifications where a HMR can be issued altogether?

Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT’L denounced college in a Teshuva, and in a famous speech delivered to his students, published under the title “The Counsel of the Wicked” (Vaad LeHaromas Keren HaTorah, New York, 1978). There he reiterates that everyone has an obligation to become great in Torah, we should not care so much about Cadillacs (yes, this was said in the “olden days”), and that learning Torah is what we should be pursuing, not secular stuff. He says in America you do not need college to make a parnassa, and we should be willing to live on little, not a lot, for the sake of Torah, and that R. Nehuray’s statement of abandoning all skills in favor of Torah applies all that more today that we live in a country where you can make a parnassa without college, with no miracles needed.

As an aside, the standard of livelihood required is bare minimum. “Kach hi darkah shel torah – pas b’melach tochal etc.” – Bread, salt and water – if you have that, you have parnasah.

There is a tape available in many Seforim stores called “The prohibition to learn in Colleges” (Yiddish), which contains addresses by Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT’L and Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L condemning college.

Retirement is one of the leading causes of death. Raising the age of (or, better, eliminating) retirement is one of the most unheralded methods to increase life expectancy.