Rabbi Dovid E.

Eidensohn/2 Phyllis Terrace/Monsey, NY 10952/845-578-1917 Cheshvan, 5774

Dodelson-Weiss: Rosh Yeshiva Mamzer Factory: Part Two

Our previous letter The Rosh Yeshiva Mamzer Factory was posted on my brothers Daat Torah blog and other places successfully, baruch HaShem. 2500 hundred hits are recorded and the number is growing. In that letter we mentioned the name of four Rosh Yeshivas who have demanded that the Torah community publicly humiliate Rabbi Weiss for not giving his wife a GET. We brought many sources, listed below, from the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas Mechokake, and Gro that coercion in MOUS OLEI invalidates the GET. We listed gedolei olam who considered such an invalid GET worthless and botel diorayso: Beis Shmuel, Chasam Sofer, Kovneh Rov, Chazon Ish. See below. But the letter itself amazes everyone. How could such a thing come to pass? Four major Rosh Yeshivas listed declare that halacha demands we do what the Shulchan Shulchan and poskim forbid? How is it that the Rosh Yeshivas violate what the Gro writes there (quoted below) that not one major authority permits coercion in MOUS OLEI? Again, those who clearly forbid coercion in MOUS OLEI are the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Gro, Beis Shmuel Chelkas Mechokaka, Kovneh Rov, and Chazon Ish. The Rashbo, Radvaz, Beis Yosef, and Chazon Ish forbid humiliating the husband. THERE ARE NO POSKIM WHO DISAGREE AS THE GRO STATES THERE. Except for Rabbis Kotler, Wachtfogel, S Kaminetsky and Y Perlow. Now I see that four more rabbonim signed the letter. How could this happen? It might be better if we dont know, but one thing I do know, there are no sources that permit MOUS OLEI, as the Gro states. So, what does this mean? Now let us examine their letter again, and see exactly what the eight Rosh Yeshivas and prominent Poskim are saying. First, we will present my translation of the letter of the Rosh Yeshivas. And then, we will itemize the parts of the letter, with my comments. You may wish to read my first letter attacking them as well, and then turn to the detailed critique of their letter in this, letter two. The letter of the Rosh Yeshivas below is in English, my translation from the original Hebrew.

Regarding the young man Avrohom Mayer ben Reb Yosef Osher Weiss who went to civil court and refused to go to Beth Din, and a Siruv has already been issued against him from the Beth Din Machon LiHora, and also, it is now longer than three years that he makes his wife an Agunah. 1

The claim that Rabbi Weiss did not answer the demand for a Din Torah is disputed. The Weiss family claims that they did respond, and they have twenty some pages of proof. Rabbi Yehuda Shain of Lakewood studied the issue and put on his blog at one time that anyone could ask for the twenty pages (they are also on my brothers blog Daas Torah). Rabbi Shain told me that one of the Dodelsons came to him about the twenty pages. Rabbi Shain told him that he should take the papers and study them, and if he could reject the proof claimed for them, that Rabbi Shain would reverse his support for the twenty pages as proof that the Weiss family did answer the summons of Machon LiHorah. The supporter never returned to Rabbi Shain. I just spoke to Rabbi Shain and he gave me permission to use his name in this letter, strictly for this point only. Rabbi Yehuda Shain has nothing to do with the contents of the rest of these letters. HOLD THE PRESSES!!! I just got a message on my telephone from Rabbi Shain. He said that he gave the twenty pages to a hundred people to study. That is, he posted on his website that anyone can ask for them and he sent out about a hundred packages of papers. Of these, Rabbi Shain estimates that at least 25 people spoke to him and said that they agree with the claim that the 20 pages prove that the Weiss family did answer the demand to go to Beth Din. Incidentally, I know Rabbi Shain very well, and if there is one person in the world I want to judge such an issue as the twenty pages, it is Rabbi Shain. And he feels that the twenty pages are proof. Also, I spoke to the Beth Din that gave the Siruv and they said that the Siruv had nothing to do with the GET. Therefore it was wrong to demand a GET because of the Siruv. A prominent Gittin Rov who was involved with helping another Agunah told me the same thing, that a Siruv is not about the GET, only a demand to go to a Din Torah. And it is forbidden to pressure the husband to divorce on the base of the Siruv. We continue to the next paragraph: The Din of Avrohom Mayer Weiss mentioned above is stated in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot 11:1 and 26:1 and Yoreh Dayo 334 that we are obligated to treat him as one who is in Nidui, not to enter his four amose, and we do not eat and drink with him and we do not bentch after the meal with him and we do not include him in anything that requires a minyan, etc. The question is: Did the Rosh Yeshivas see the twenty pages? Or, did they sign because somebody asked them to sign? Actually, did any of the Rosh Yeshivas see the twenty pages? I would like to know. Also, since the Rosh Yeshivas are signing a Din that really affects another person, the issue requires a Din Torah. How could these Rosh Yeshivas pasken to destroy the life of a person without talking to him? Did any of them talk to him? Did they hear his side? They heard the side of the cousin of the family of the wife, and they whipped out their pens and signed. That is not Torah. When a major Rosh Yeshiva issues a pesak

that benefits his cousin, that major Rosh Yeshiva has done something not in the highest standards of Torah, and not acceptable probably even in secular law. The letter continues: And we turn to the leadership of the Staten Island Yeshiva where he learns, to protest against him, and to make him leave the Kollel. This is known as coercion by loss of money, and the poskim consider a GET given by the threat of loss of money to be an invalid GET. See Teshuvose HaRashbo IV:40 who says this and quotes the Rayvod and Rach who agree that coercion by the fear of losing money invalidates the GET. See Moharik 63. We turn also to the company Artscroll where his father and uncle, who support him, work: They should protest [together] with the [Dodelson] family and fire them from their jobs. Because it is not proper that Torah should be given through them. Here a request is made to fire the father and uncle of the boy. This is a question of OINES that could invalidate the GET because the boy lives from his father to a degree. It is like firing the boy. And even if we fire ones father, that may also be a question of ONES. There are threats that are not taken seriously that are not OINES because nobody believes they would carry out what they say. But in this case, who is sure nobody would carry out the threat? They are pressuring people to be fired and they want them fired in the worst way. But my favorite line in this letter is the last statement here: Because it is not proper that Torah should be given through them. Here are eight people who signed a letter to destroy an entire family because the cousin of the wife told them to sign, which is a disgrace. And by signing this letter they show their utter ignorance of the laws of Gittin. They then decree that the Weiss family are not people who can give over the Torah, as if they are not much worse! People who defy all of the major poskim to say that the husband must be coerced with humiliation to divorce are a mamzer factory. And this mamzer factory, creator of invalid Gittin and mamzerim, declares that the Weiss family, who never did such hideous things, and who refuse to give a GET under pressure that invalidates it, that they are the wicked ones! And we have been asked by the family of the Agunah, may she live long, and by those who wish to save her from the chains of IGUN, what is the proper way that is permitted according to the Din of the Torah? Is it permitted to protest against this young man referred to before, and is it permissible to gather together in a group of protest and is it permitted to publicize this in public and in newspapers? 3

We hereby pasken that according to the Din of the Torah it is permitted and is a mitzvah to protest against the above mentioned young man, and to gather together in a public protest outside of his house, and also at other places, and to publicize in public and in newspapers in order to save a trapped woman from her travail, and an Agunah from IGUN. These Rosh Yeshivas pasken that one may humiliate the husband, in variance with all of the poskim, as the Gro says. We listed them above and in the original article below. This pesak is ridiculous, and the work either of ignoramuses or gangsters, or both. And an obligation rests upon anyone who has influence to prevail upon Avrohom Mayer Weiss referred to above that he should obey the law and give a GET. And upon this we sign on 22 Shevat 5773 Yaacov Perlow Shmuel Kaminetsky Aharon Moshe Shechter Aharon Feldman Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld Nota Tsevi Greenblat Tsevi Shechter Moshe Heineman Eliyohu Dov Wachtfogel Yaacov Hoffer I CHALLENGE ANY SIGNER HERE TO PRODUCE ONE SOURCE THAT IN MOUS OLEI WE MAY COERCE A GET! Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev ztl told me that any Beth Din that bends the halacha to free a woman in MOUS OLEI, that Beth Din loses chezkas Beth Din, meaning we dont recognize their right to give a GET. All of the signers should never be asked laws of Gittin, and maybe not even other halachos. Regarding such people it is proper to say:

The Rosh Yeshiva Mamzer Factory 1. Do you know the Halacha, if we may we force a husband to give a GET when the marriage seems broken? 2. Rabbis Kotler, Kaminetsky, Wachtfogel and Perlow have issued letters demanding that one humiliate the husband who is married to a relative of Rabbi Kotler and is within such a broken marriage. Seems fine, no?? 3. Do you realize that if you would obey the command of Rabbis Kotler, Kaminetsky, Wachtfogel and Perlow, and force a husband to give a GET (whether you publicly humiliated him or because he feared a loss of a job or money) that the GET given is invalid? Do you know that the children of the wifes second marriage may well be mamzerim? ( 134:5, Bais Shmuel Even Hoezer 134:5,0, Chasam Sofer Tes EH I:28, Kovneh Rov Ber Yitschok EH A:16:3, Chazon Ish Gittin 99:1) 4. The psak of Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ztl is that if a wife claims MOUS OLEI, the husband has no obligation to divorce her. (Kovets Teshuvose EH:174) 5. This is based on a teshuva in Rashba VII:414 who says that in MOUS OLEI if the husband wants to divorce he can divorce her, and if he doesnt want to divorce, he does not have to divorce. The Shulchan Aruch in EH 77:2 says the exact thing: If the wife claims her husband repels her and she cannot be in marriage with him, if the husband wishes, he can divorce her. This means he has no obligation to divorce her. The Bais Shmuel #7 and Chelkas Mechokaik #5 there comment that we do not compel the husband to divorce. The Gra there #5 says that the opinion of all of the major commentators is not to coerce a GET with MOUS OLEI. 6. The Rashba VII:414 states that even when a husband is obligated by the Talmud to divorce his wife, such as if he cannot function in marriage, we may not humiliate him to force the GET. This is accepted by Radvaz Vol. II:118, Bais Yosef EH: 154 " ", and Chazon Ish Gittin: 108:12. Surely, with MOUS OLEI this is forbidden, because in MOUS OLEI the Talmud does not demand a GET from the husband. 7. It is obvious that the above Rosh Yeshivas who signed a letter to force a GET with a womens claim of MOUS OLEI do not know the laws of Gittin or act as if they dont know the laws of Gittin. We are talking about a clear statement in Shulchan Aruch and Rama in EH 77:2 and :3, and a Gra #5 who says that everyone agrees with this that in MOUS OLEI we may not force a GET and the others we mentioned. 8. It is customary for people who pasken for others to offer a source. What is the source of these Rosh Yeshivas? 9. Marshal in a Teshuva 41 says that we may not coerce a GET even from a wicked person other than those cases taught in the Talmud where we do coerce a GET. He adds that if the wife claims that the husband is so terrible to her that he is liable for coercion of a GET, she must prove it. 10. It is time to establish that in the Torah community terror in making a GET is treifeh because it produces mamzerim and because if things are done properly there is no need for terror. 11. Anyone who wants to join us in this struggle or to question me may call me at the above number. Dovid Eidensohn Musmach as Rosh Beth Din in Gittin by Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ztl