Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 177

Monday, December 13 1999

• Re: Fw: Episcopalians & the Earth
• Re: Abortion
• what counts as suffering
• Re: Avodah V4 #176
• Re: what counts as suffering
• Re: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem
• Re: Mesaye'a
• Re: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem...
• Re: co-opting music -- halakhic sources (finally)
• Re: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem...
• Re: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem...
• Re: poverty
• Re: prenups, lawyers, and Bach
• Homosexuality (was Re: what counts as suffering)
• Re: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem

On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:43:34AM -0500, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> SL Boublil wrote:
> >>and esp. in view of the Episcopalian drive to christianize the jewish 
> people>>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the Episcopalian are NOT 
> missionizers.

you are correct.  the episcopalians are the american version of the
anglican church, and they're one of those waspy bingo on wednesdays type of
churches.  

it is the southern baptists who are trying to convert the jews, hindus, etc.

janet

R' Carl Sherer wrote: 
>  I don't think it's correct to say that the fetus is "inferior" to a full 
>  fledged person. Rather, if the mother's life is in danger R"L, the 
>  fetus has the din of rodef and therefore one can abort the fetus to 
>  save the mother's life.

R' Ovadia Yosef (4:EH 1) makes this point about the status of a fetus, or at 
least about the prohibition against killing a fetus, implicitly.

He asks why the Rambam (and the Gemara) needed to argue "Rodef" at all, if 
the fetus is inferior. He answers that this is because there is an Issur 
Torah against killing a fetus, just as there is against killing the mother.

Mordechai Torczyner
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave

> lives are destroyed, no children suffer and learn to hate. As of
> homosexuality, well, from what I can tell observant Jews follow the
> rule of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." A predictable percentage of observant
> Jews are clearly, and for all I know actively, homosexual. They don't
> (or can't) hide it, and they don't ask anyone else to abide it. They
> are allowed to live their lives in peace, halacha notwithstanding.
> (Maybe halacha allows this. It's a complicated point.)
> 
> Withholding a gittin, however, is an act of personal destruction.
> Whether the halachic system countenances the grief that comes with
> this destruction is not exactly a "philosophical" question. (Since
> when does the halachic system countenance philosophy at all, at least
> in this sense?) It is a question of faith and revelation. In Talmudic
> times, grief was pretty common -- people routinely got sick and died,
> infant mortality was high, living conditions were rough, and only the
> Gedolim lived past forty-five. We are past most of that now. Halacha,
> or at least some halacha, is not.


I'm not sure that I understand this. Let me paraphrase to see if I do:

The prohibition of homosexuality does not need to be uprooted. It doesn't
really hurt anyone. You see, the Orthodox Jew who wants to conduct a
homosexual life style can do so by being a hypocrite and nobody really
cares, "halakha notwithstanding."

The harm that is caused when a married woman is not free to remarry,
because the get has been withheld-- that is real harm. Why? Because living
as a hypocrite is not an option for her. The situation is too public.

In Talmudic times, hypocrisy was not a tidy solution for anyone, because
you couldn't hide from G-d: "Ein etza, ve-ein tevuna... mi-neged haShem."  
In the dying weeks of the 20th century, we are past most of that now. What
a pleasant Orthodox Judaism we could all have now that we are free of His
presence! But "halakha, or at least some halakha, is not."

	This is what I think I understand of the first paragraph. The
second (on life expectancy, infant mortality, indoor plumbing and so
forth) defeated all my efforts at elucidation. But even the first
paragraph doesn't quite add up. There is some profound insight I must be
missing.

In a message dated 12/12/1999 5:43:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
DFinchPC@aol.com writes:

<< There a big differences between withholding a gittin, on the one hand, and 
 espousing
 egalitarian minyanim and homosexuality, on the other.
 
 No one gets hurt if women have to pray in the back of the shul. No lives are 
 destroyed, no children suffer and learn to hate. As of homosexuality, well, 
 from what I can tell observant Jews follow the rule of "Don't Ask, Don't 
 Tell." A predictable percentage of observant Jews are clearly, and for all I 
 know actively, homosexual. They don't (or can't) hide it, and they don't ask 
 anyone else to abide it. They are allowed to live their lives in peace, 
 halacha notwithstanding. (Maybe halacha allows this. It's a complicated 
 point.) >>

Stating that halacha prohibits certain actions does not imply that we 
listmembers should run out and stone those who perform these actions.  Yes. 
homosexual Jews are allowed to live their lives in peace, but one need not 
have great familiarity with Talmudic minutiae to recognize that this aspect 
of their lives is not consistent with halacha.

Continuing this argument, if one is in fact homosexual, whatever the cause, 
the halachic model precludes him (probably her, different discussion) from 
living a 'complete' life.  All I am inferring from this is that it is 
possible that halacha will require one to endure a tormented life.  (Warning: 
Netiquette Breach  THIS IS A PURELY ACADEMIC POINT, AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO 
SHUT OFF ANY PERMISSIBLE AVENUE OF RECOURSE TO SAID TORMENTED SOULS.) 

On a more basic level, there are times when halacha demands that one 
sacrifice his or her actual life, which would also imply that lesser, but not 
insignificant, demands are also possible.

At the risk of approaching nauseum, this does not mean that we can ignore the 
Agunot - I am just nitpicking on an idea that someone raised in an earlier 
post.

Meyer

In a message dated 12/12/99 5:28:44 PM US Central Standard Time, 
carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:

<< I'm not sure that I understand this. Let me paraphrase to see if I do:
 
 The prohibition of homosexuality does not need to be uprooted. It doesn't
 really hurt anyone. You see, the Orthodox Jew who wants to conduct a
 homosexual life style can do so by being a hypocrite and nobody really
 cares, "halakha notwithstanding."
 
 The harm that is caused when a married woman is not free to remarry,
 because the get has been withheld-- that is real harm. Why? Because living
 as a hypocrite is not an option for her. The situation is too public.
 
 In Talmudic times, hypocrisy was not a tidy solution for anyone, because
 you couldn't hide from G-d: "Ein etza, ve-ein tevuna... mi-neged haShem."  
 In the dying weeks of the 20th century, we are past most of that now. What
 a pleasant Orthodox Judaism we could all have now that we are free of His
 presence! But "halakha, or at least some halakha, is not."
 
    This is what I think I understand of the first paragraph. The
 second (on life expectancy, infant mortality, indoor plumbing and so
 forth) defeated all my efforts at elucidation. But even the first
 paragraph doesn't quite add up. There is some profound insight I must be
 missing.
  >>

If you read one of my postings, don't try to "eludicate" too hard. Rarely is 
there insight; never is there profundity. On top of that, I have trouble 
expressing myself well.

The points I tried to make are pretty simple. First, withholding gittin is a 
matter of choice. You don't have to do it. If you do it, you know you are 
likely causing immense pain to other people. It's not the same as promoting 
egalitarian minyanim. The consequences of the separation of men and women at 
shul do not cause immense pain to anyone. 

The same with homosexuality. There are many frum Jews who are homosexual, as 
a physical and psychological fact. That is their sexual orientation. That is 
what they are. For them it is not a matter of choice. This too cannot be 
compared to the volitional act of withholding a gittin.

Homosexuals who are Jewish are not hypocrites. Neither are heterosexual Jews 
who quietly allow them to live within the community. Homosexuals do not argue 
or advocate their sexual orientation in any rhetorical or dialectical sense. 
They did not reach their position through elucidation. They are stuck with 
it. It's a birthmark. So the sincere among them get along as best they can, 
and hope that the rest of us won't point a finger and banish them. Most of us 
would not do that. Most of us think it would be wrong (halachically or 
otherwise) to do that. Thus the sociological standoff of "Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell." Is this standoff acceptable halachically? I do not know. But has been 
ingrained for centuries in our community, and is much a part of our lives as 
the Shabbos Goy. I don't think it has made most Jews hypocrites.

I stated my last point most inarticulately, for which I apologize. I meant to 
say that "pain" means different things in different eras. In the times of the 
Sages, exceptional "pain," as we would see it, was quite unexceptional. 
People were numbed by death, disease, discomfort, privation, etc. Isn't this 
relevant to our understanding of halachic rules that, in a modern context, 
seem unduly painful or cruel? Can we cure our understanding 
"philosophically"? Or, as Abravanel concluded, must we return as always to 
faith and acceptance of revelation.

David Finch

--- "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@zahav.net.il>
wrote:


> 
> When a Dayan says, off the record (which is why I
> will _not_ mention his
> name) that he is afraid for his "Olam Ha'Ba" and
> therefore will _never_
> pasken Chiyuv Get -- I wonder...

IMHO such a "Dayan" is a coward and not qualified to
be a Dayan.

HM 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
> 
> May one serve as a counsel for evolutionists in
> their battle to keep
> creationism out of the curriculum.

So, What's the problem. 

I certainly have no problem keeping creationism out of
the public school system, although I do believe it
would be beneficial to Societal evolution, if
creationism were taught alongside evolutionary theory.
I just don't believe it is a halachik mandate to
support it's teaching in public school.

Furthermore, and more importantly, as long as
Evolution is not presented as the only possible origin
of the species, it is a perfectly acceptable theory.
And even if it is foolishly presented the origin of
the species, that does not necessarily contradict the
belief that G-d created the Universe. It only states
that his method was evolution. One can study and
believe in the theory of evolution and still be a
devout, G-d fearing Jew.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- "Daniel B. Schwartz"
<SCHWARTZESQ@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

 rabbis should
> > instead do things which they ARE capable of, such
> as denying those men
> > any honors in shul etc etc etc, as specified in
> the seruv which they have
> > violated.
> 
>     At the very least they should to that.  The
> community should also shun
> such people and despise them. 

I agree whole-heartedly with the above.  

It seems to me that the whole agunah debate misses two
salient points:

1) Halacha is not subject to our personal feelings
about it's fairness. 
2) Those who argue point 1), incorrectly conclude
that: therefore, nothing  can be done  about it.

Believing 1) is true doesn't mean nothing can be done.
 As of yet there has been no satisfactory solution to
the agunah problem that has been accepted by a
majority of thePoskim.  

A solution doesn't necessarily have to be halachicly
innovative, although if that were to happen it would
be wonderful.

Sometimes the solution can be "organic".  If society
would truly shun a recalcitrant husband, I  believe
this would be effective in a majority of the cases.  

We've spoken about Takanos on this list before.  This
would be a wonderful area for the Gedolei Hador to
apply strong Takanos,  Perhaps there is room for
universal agreement amongst the poskim to re-institute
a strong and legitimate Cherem on those social pariahs
who for no other reason but pure "Rishus", hold back a
get from their wives (as did Moshe Morgenstern, a
"Dayan" of the Rackman court, from his own wife when
he was a young man).  Presently, no such system
exists.  Most of these husbands have entire support
networks of their own to rely on and they continue to
receive honor and respect amongst their own.  The time
has come for the strongest possible condemnation for
such people backed by a complete and total  rejection
from all of Orthodox society.

I realize this does not solve all of the problems. 
There will always be the husband who rejects Judaism
along with his wife, the Christian convert, the
emotionally unstable, amongst others.  However, I
believe the above suggestion would be a good start.

HM 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:

> The SE forbade such, with an interesting addendum en
> passant: that in
> general, concerts (of classical music!) "ein ruach
> chachomim nocha meihem".


He's entitled to his opinion.

HM 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> I would never question the compassion of this or
> that Gadol. Would it be a 
> fair statement to say that for what we are sure are
> good reasons, the gedolim 
> of this (and prior) generations have decided that
> their resources should not 
> be focused on a manhattan project type approach to
> agunot? Further is it 
> "wrong" for lay people to "lobby" the gedolim to
> change this prioritization 
> decision or to ask what would klal yisrael have to
> "give up" if the resource 
> prioritization were changed?


There is nothing wrong with supporting a good cause
and lobbying the Gedolei Hador for support and action.
 But I am hard pressed to believe that we lay people
are more sensitive to this issue than are the Gedolei
Hador.

HM 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@columbia.edu> wrote:

> I'm most
> exasperated with those
> folks who cannot see that something needs to be
> fixed and retreat into
> pious platitudes and assuming other people aren't
> frum enough because they
> don't accept the inevitablity of oppression in a
> system which is supposed
> to be just.

Pious platitudes?  All I was saying was that I have a
tremendous respect for the integrity and compassion of
the Gedolei Hador, and I truly believe that they
wouldn't be who they are or what they are without
tremendous capacity for compassion. I neither said nor
implied other people aren't frum enough. 

If one gets upset with the staus quo and cries out in
genuine sympathy for the Agunos of the world, that
doesn't mean that they are the only one's with
compassion.  It only means that they are the loudest.
Having great empathy for Agunos doesn't mean a thing
towards solving the problem halachicly.  Pathos is not
a tool for halachic descisions. Psak Halacha requires
tremendous knowledge and analytical ability. Fealty to
the Torah sometimes requires stubborn and unbiased
considerartion of all halachic factors before a
halachic decisor can come to his Psak.  Compassion can
and should only be a factor where halacha allows it. 
Compassion can never supecede Halacha.
> 
> > The phrase often touted by the Ortho-femme's is:
> "When there is a
> > rabbinic will there is a Rabbinic way." Well, I'm
> sorry the Torah is
> > not that malleable.  Suppose all of Klal Israel
> decided to worship
> > Avodah Zarah.  Should the Rabbis find a rabbinc
> way?  Pretty
> > ridiculous, Huh?
> 
> This is such a red herring already. Plus a totally
> incorrect analogy.
> As a teacher might say, "you're capable of better
> work than that!"

There is always a risk when trying to reason by
analogy. I realize that the cases aren't comparable.
The Avodah Zarah case where it is a faulty will of the
people is not the same as an Agunah case where she is
virtually a prisoner of Halacha, through no fault of
her own. I was only trying to counter the specific
point of "When there is a rabbinic will there is a
Rabbinic way". I don't think I succeeded

>  (I
> know you are, you post a lot of good thoughtful
> stuff here.)

Thanks.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- ben waxman <benwaxman55@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> a tangent: on the radio this morning it was reported
> that the moetzet hagadolim has poskened that
> weddings
> must be limited in size and cost per person - 250
> guests max and no more than 10 dollars per person.

I am not a math expert but if my calculations are
correct, then the grand total of wedding expenses for
your daughter can not exceed $2500.

Sounds good.

Now I can afford that Porsche 911 I was thinking
about.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

On 12 Dec 99, at 14:35, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/12/99 12:07:20 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> << Non-lawyers tend to think of all lawyering as litigation (going to 
>  court), but actually there are probably more of us that don't go to 
>  court (ever) than those that do. Personally, avoiding the halachic 
>  issues of going to court (especially in Eretz Yisrael) was one of the 
>  reasons I never went into litigation in the first place.
>   >>
> 
> I know nothing of the official ethical rules for Israeli lawyers. 

That's because for all intents and purposes there are none :-) 

Seriously, the ethical rules here are a lot less stringent than in New 
York (for example) and deal mainly with charging minimum fees. 
Until a couple of years ago, they also gave you the right not to turn 
over a client's files (to the client or to another lawyer) until you had 
been "paid in full" (you can all imagine what kind of abuse that lead 
to), but the Supreme Court finally put controls on that.

Most 
> American states, however, have adopted variations of the American Bar 
> Association's Model Code of Professional Conduct. The ABA Code draws little 
> meaningful distinction between advocating -- "zealously" advocating, as the 
> rule goes -- positions for clients in court and out of court. Arguing before 
> a judge or jury is no different from sitting behind a desk in negotiations 
> with other lawyers, in drafting contracts, in rendering advice on legal 
> options available to surmount the client's dilemma. 

Yes, but negotiating with other lawyers and drafting contracts 
doesn't have the issur of arkaos and that was the problem to which 
I was referring. Sure, there can be problems of onaa, but those are 
no different for the lawyer negotiating the contract than they are for 
the client.

> In short, almost all lawyers have to deal with more or less the same set of 
> halachic issues in advocating client-based positions. 

See above. 

> Last year I studied in a shiur led by RYGB on Makkos. In Makkos, the Talmudic 
> approach to many (if certainly not all) criminal litigation issues is 
> remarkably similar to that followed in American courts. This approach tacitly 
> recognizes the dilemmas the Beis Din must face in attempting to give a 
> criminal or personal-injury defendant an even break. Makkos' answers are 
> quite pragmatic and down-to-earth. This is good news for ethically sensitive 
> modern Jewish lawyers.

That's not the only place you'll find that phenomenon. For example, 
compare the dinim of chazaka in the third perek of Bava Basra to 
(lehavdil) the laws of adverse possession in the US.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 12 Dec 99, at 19:49, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/12/99 5:28:44 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> 
> << I'm not sure that I understand this. Let me paraphrase to see if I do:

From the continuation, I think Shalom Carmy understood correctly, 
and therefore I am treating what Shalom wrote as if it had been 
written by David.

>  The prohibition of homosexuality does not need to be uprooted. 

It doesn't? Then why does the Torah refer to it as a toeva? Why 
does the Torah say "mos yoomsoo dmayehm bom," i.e. that the 
punishment is skilla. Granted that we do not have batei din today 
that are capable of being dan dinei nefashos, and therefore we do 
not put people to death, but does that mean that we are permitted 
to call a known (i.e. one who proclaims it after hasraa, to avoid the 
lashon hara problems) homosexual to the Torah or to count him to 
a minyan any more than we could with a known mechalel Shabbos 
befarhesya in a case where the chilul Shabbos is meforash in a 
pasuk?

It doesn't
>  really hurt anyone. 

Go try to tell that to their parents and siblings. Or to their spouses 
and children if they are "afflicted" or "discover" it later in life.

You see, the Orthodox Jew who wants to conduct a
>  homosexual life style can do so by being a hypocrite and nobody really
>  cares, "halakha notwithstanding."

Just because we don't go around "outing" people (which would 
involve an issur of lashon hara in many cases), I would not 
conclude that "nobody really cares." 

> The points I tried to make are pretty simple. First, withholding gittin is a 
> matter of choice. You don't have to do it. If you do it, you know you are 
> likely causing immense pain to other people. It's not the same as promoting 
> egalitarian minyanim. The consequences of the separation of men and women at 
> shul do not cause immense pain to anyone. 
> 
> The same with homosexuality. There are many frum Jews who are homosexual, as 
> a physical and psychological fact. That is their sexual orientation. That is 
> what they are. For them it is not a matter of choice. 

Although it's not politically correct to say so today, that is highly 
debatable. Before the American Psychiatric Association was 
pressured into saying it wasn't so (in the late 60's or early 70's?), 
homosexuality was generally regarded as volitional. 

> Homosexuals who are Jewish are not hypocrites. 

They're not? What about lo sohu braa, lasheves yetzara. That a 
man is meant to fulfill the mitzva of pirya v'rivya. Doesn't that go to 
the very essence of a Jew and indeed to the very essence of a 
human being? What about that arayos are yehareg v'al yaavor and 
homosexuality is clearly arayos? We're not talking about someone 
who doesn't daven with a minyan every day. We're not even talking 
about someone who eats chazer (for which the punishment is 
malkus, yet today would probably ostracize someone from the 
community if R"L they ate chazer purposesly knowing that it was 
assur in a case that was not pikuach nefesh). We're talking way 
beyond that. The only issurim that are as chamur are avodah zara 
(almost not found today) and shfichus damim (and lashon hara 
according to the Chafetz Chaim BTAT). You want to tell me that 
someone who calls himself a Jew can engage in something that is 
yehareg v'al yaavor, even in private, and NOT be considered a 
hypocrite????? Do you think that a fruhm Jew who murders R"L is 
not a hypocrite?

Neither are heterosexual Jews 
> who quietly allow them to live within the community. 

See what I wrote above regarding counting homosexuals to a 
minyan or giving them an aliya (and if anyone has a tshuva which 
says explicitly that we do not count them for a minyan or give them 
aliyos, please pipe up!).

Homosexuals do not argue 
> or advocate their sexual orientation in any rhetorical or dialectical sense. 
> They did not reach their position through elucidation. They are stuck with 
> it. It's a birthmark. 

That's being politically correct....

So the sincere among them get along as best they can, 
> and hope that the rest of us won't point a finger and banish them. Most of us 
> would not do that. Most of us think it would be wrong (halachically or 
> otherwise) to do that. 

I would not kick them out of shul. I question whether they can be 
counted in a minyan or called to the Torah. 

Thus the sociological standoff of "Don't Ask, Don't 
> Tell." Is this standoff acceptable halachically? I do not know. But has been 
> ingrained for centuries in our community, 

CENTURIES????? I (and many others on this list) am old enough 
to remember when there was a wide consensus that being 
homosexual was volitional. Personally, I continue to believe that it 
is, although it is not politically correct to say so in the waning 
weeks of the twentieth century.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 9 Dec 99, at 2:41, Joe Markel wrote:

> Something that everyone is overlooking here is this:
> 
> The Torah is perfect.

No question about it. But that doesn't mean that we as human 
beings are always capable of discovering what the Torah has in 
mind. If WE were always able to solve all problems using Torah, 
there would be no such thing as chiddush any more - everything 
would have been discovered. So on the one hand, the statement, 
"when there is a Rabbinic will, there is a Rabbinic way," is overly 
simplistic, but on the other hand, that does not mean that the 
scholars among us should stop seeking halachic solutions.

> Hashem knew what he was doing and foresaw that there will be agunos.

Again, no doubt about it. That does not mean that we are required 
to make agunos suffer or that we are permitted to let them continue 
to suffer, but the fact that something happens is a siman that 
Hashem wanted it to happen. Why is it some people's fate never to 
marry R"L? Why is it some people's fate to remain widowed or 
divorced for long periods of time R"L? Why is it some people's fate 
to be agunos R"L? Because for reasons that are beyond our 
comprehension, Hashem decreed that it would be that way. 

In all fairness, I think it should be noted that the woman whose get 
started this entire discussion has NEVER questioned her fate, has 
NEVER questioned her fruhmkeit (and I am also a close friend of 
her son, albeit a different son than the one who is Micha's close 
friend), has NEVER questioned why Hashem brought this tzara on 
her R"L, and will undoubtedly receive a tremendous reward in Olam 
Haba for the years that she suffered as an aguna (and for the years 
she suffered in her marriage before that). It doesn't make what 
happened to her "okay" or "right," but it does lead me to question 
the agendas of those who propose simplistic solutions like "if 
there's a Rabbinic will, there's a Rabbinic way." For whatever 
reason, Hashem decreed that she would suffer fifteen years as an 
aguna (and many years before that in her marriage), and as a 
believing Jew, I believe that Hashem will more than make that up to 
her in Olam HaEmes after 120....

> Also, the halacha perscibes beating the mesarev.
> 
> Although this is not always possible, social pressure and ostracism may be
> brought to bear.

Beating the mesarev will likely land you in jail in most countries 
and jurisdictions, although I know that it has happened in certain 
instances. But I agree that we could and should do more in the 
areas of social pressure and ostracism. If everyone walked out of 
the shul every time someone who calls himself fruhm but is 
mesarev to give his wife a get walked in, I think that would have a 
powerful impact.

> If everything has been tried to no avail, then we must assume that Hashem
> wanted it that way.

I agree with you, but I do not believe that means that we should 
stop trying, because we mere mortals do not know for how long 
Hashem intended that it be that way.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]