Rabbis Could Have Saved Desperate Women From Using Haredi Kidnap-Torture-Extortion Gang But Did Not, Orthodox Rabbi Says

"A thousand years ago Rabbeynu Tam, the greatest rabbi of his day, forbade beating men up as a way of compelling a recalcitrant husbands to grant a Get. Why? Many argue because it created a very negative impression in a Christian world which any way at the time did not recognize or approve of divorce.…"

Rabbi Mendel Epstein, the alleged ringleader of the haredi kidnap-torture-extortion gang

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes about the haredi kidnap-torture-extortion gang that – for a fee that was close to $100,000 per woman – would kidnap, beat and torture recalcitrant husbands until they gave their wives a get (Jewish divorce):

…Torah is supposed to be pure, enlightening, and reviving, says the Book of Psalms. But this makes Torah out to be unfair and discriminatory. This whole episode revolves around the offensive fact that if a husband refuses to give his wife a religious bill of divorce she can never ever, ever remarry. How on earth can God’s law discriminate so against women, leaving them trapped and hopeless? And why do people then resort to violence outside of the law when one would expect the law to defend the disadvantaged?

A thousand years ago Rabbeynu Tam, the greatest rabbi of his day, forbade beating men up as a way of compelling a recalcitrant husbands to grant a Get. Why? Many argue because it created a very negative impression in a Christian world which any way at the time did not recognize or approve of divorce. Rabbeynu Tam was indeed worried about how we would appear to our non- Jewish neighbors. But at least the Christians found a way round it by annulling marriages, usually on spurious grounds. We too have this possibility. There is a principle in Jewish law “Whoever marries does so according to rabbinic law and therefore the rabbis have the right to annul a marriage.” But rabbis have consistently refused to make use of this power. Sometimes I wonder if its either pigheaded stubbornness or just male chauvinism. Sadly it lays women open to blackmail. But if we were really worried about making fools of ourselves and demeaning Torah in non-Jewish eyes, why are we not concerned about doing something about it?

According to Jewish law, if, after I have made a commitment, I discover something about the other party that had I known about beforehand I would never have bound myself in the first place, that agreement is null and void. Wouldn’t any woman say that if she had known what evil her husband really capable of before she married him she would never have married him in the first place? Isn’t that, equally, grounds for invalidating the marriage agreement? If, understandably, one doesn’t want to use this power cavalierly, why not at least occasionally, as a recent Beth Din in Israel did? This whole public relations fiasco would never have arisen if there had been a fair way of releasing a woman legally through the Torah.

Frankly, I’d love to beat up any bastard who so cruelly ruined a woman’s life and made her suffer till her dying day. But I cannot because I fear the consequences, I hate violence, and because it would be a terrible Chillul HaShem.

So I blame the rabbis who refuse to find ways of releasing women whose husbands withhold a Get for this public humiliation of Judaism. It isn’t enough that we have bred a generation of religious toughs who use violence as a way of resolving differences, but that we actually encourage them to do so because the law as currently applied is giving no alternative.

If the Talmud is so authoritative and important, and if there are religious authorities who rabbis simply ignore it when it suits them, how in Heaven’s name can I call them anything else but those who assist in desecrating the good name of Heaven and Torah? The Talmud says in Yoma, only death atones for anyone guilty of desecrating the Name of God. By refusing to act within the law we are only encouraging others to break the law.

Comments

[Jeff]

HUGE "Like".

[seymour]

"How on earth can God’s law discriminate so against women, leaving them trapped and hopeless?"

well yes, since that is the way it was done then. he is reading to much of today values into the torah.

nevertheless I agree with him

[Isa]

The RAMBAM permitted the beating of husbands who would not issue a 'get'
The RAMBAM explained the 'evil impulse' had to be beaten out of the evil husband.

However I thought that a husband could say he was forced to issue a 'get' and therefore the 'get' is invalid.

The only practical solution [in today's world] besides a 'bullet in the head' is for the woman to marry e.g. a convert who never went to the mikve. Any children from that are NOT considered 'mamzereem'

[m]

the bet din should change the law about the husband to be the only one to grant the divorce . it's about time . we are not in 5000 years BC any more .

the rabbi or rabbayim ,or the bet din should be the one to grant a divorce , based on the case , and not the husband , or else .........

[yankel]

Women have the option to marry only if the man signed an agreement that when she wants a get for a valid reason(that should be written clear) he should grant her that get and if not he will have to pay a big sum of money every day that passes by.This is probably the best solution.Its not against Torah traditions and its enforced in court.

[Jake]

Rabbeinu Tam also gave women the right to refuse a get.

As usual they leave out the men whoose wives refuse to accept a ghet as a negotiation strategy.

You just don't hear about it because of the well oiled woman's movement.
Two of the same American orthodox women who were founders of women of the wall Rackman and Haut are collaborating on a booh about agunot.

I was separated for seventeen days and Rivka Haut came after me. Someone told her I was refusing my wife a get. She put on her boots and got her riding crop and charged. She felt kind of stupid finding out I was separated for 17 days.

[(The other) Eli]

I really love Rabbi Rosen's blog. He's very progressive and liberal in his views, which is a refreshing change in orthodoxy.
His position at the Persian Congregation at Park East was a pretty nice fit for that too.

[Moe]

Rabbi Rosen is to the left of the RCA.

[HavaMina]

You can't blame rabbeinu tam for this one. R' Tam held that even decrees by the sanhedrin were open to discussion and could be ignored if the rationale behind the ruling doesn't apply to contemporary circumstances. One example among either is his ruling that gavinat akum was permitted for his community despite masechet avoda zera sayin the sanhedrin forbade it. As a result, rabbeinu tam explicitly provided his reasoning and fully expected rabbis in different circumstances would make their own independent rulings if his reasoning did not apply, or if there were overriding factors that needed to be addressed. That was *his* hashkafah - that halakha was flexible and needed to be adjusted for the relevant circumstances - which is explicity endorsed by Rav himself (the last member of a Sanhedrin). The people to blame for this are contemporary rabbis - including some who are regarded as gedolim - who simply don't understand how the halakha is supposed to work and have, instead, opted for a status quo outlined in static codes written in different times with different circumstances that no longer apply to us.

[adam6275]

As someone that works I have to say I have at times worked with people that I pick up the vibe of violence and in that case I may lie to avoid them going nuts. Ask any child with a parent who is physically abusive as well they are more likely to avoid violence. This opinion of the Rambam is absurd that a man if someone beats him will give a Get out of the right motives. He will only give it to avoid being beaten. All extremists today hide behind the Rambam anyway (Rabbi Kahane and others for example) so I don't know why suddenly in this area we take everything he says at face value as he was just a man at the end of the day. It also turns Judaism into Hockey where you just attract men who are untalented goons who enjoy beaten up men who have more skills then they do.

They are always two sides to a story and if we heard the guys side we wuld see that it isn't black as white in many of these cases but male religious leaders get pleasure out of beating up other Jewish men to "save" women who I see go crazy if you ever criticize some male Rabbis so they have their own agenda's.

Rashi also had no male children so many of our leaders did have unbalanced lifestyles.

This whole think that has been reported in all the NY/NJ papers in the NYC area is embarrassing to Jews as a whole as it makes us look like barbarians and it makes our God look horrible.

[Moisheb]

I don't know this guy but he looks scary if it would come down to it I would just give the get who needs this guy knocking on your door