[Avodah] forcing a GET

[Daniel Eidensohn]

What does the applicability of the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam have to do 
with your mistaken assertion that the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema posken 
like the Rambam? How does this show that  there is an obligation for a 
man to get divorced in a stam case of ma'us alei? Nobody is disputing 
that the harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam were sometimes used in a case of 
Ma'us alei. It is stated clearly however that for hundreds of years they 
were not generally used. Contempoary poskem such as Rav Eliashiv and Rav 
Sternbuch clearly express concerns that even such passive pressure might 
produce a get me'usa. Others such as Tzitz Eliezar, Rav Ovadia Yosef and 
others assert that our contemporary society needs their occassional use. 
But more to the point you claimed my brother's halachic views are that 
of a daas yachid - Despite clear and overwhelming evidence to the 
contrary- you refuse to acknowledge your assertions are wrong.

On 5/9/2012 10:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Both the SA and the Rama say that iqar hadin is like the Rambam and
> we may use kefiyah even when the gemara doesn't explicitly require a
> divorce. However, the SA has a "some say" not to, and the Rama lauds
> the minhag of some areas not to allow kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh
> ani", and avoid the dispute. Where the gemara*does* require a divorce,
> which I am not insisting is our case, there is not even a "yeish omerim"
> against the Rambam. So yes, we do hold like the Rambam -- we just
> prefer lemaaseh not to rely on him lekhat-chilah for beyond iqar hadin
> reasons
On 5/13/2012 1:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Stam SA: Anyone who they said must divorce, you can force him even 
> with sticks. 2nd opinion: Veyeish omerim -- anyone who they do not say 
> "force him to divorce," only that "he must divorce", you cannot force 
> him with sticks. Notice neither limits the use of non-corporeal 
> kefiyah in cases where he must divorce. The machloqes is on "afilu 
> beshutin". The yeish omerim says that in cases the divorce is 
> mandatory but qefiyah isn't specified by the gemara, We tell him, "The 
> sages obligate you to divorce." And if he won't divorce, you are 
> allowed to brand him a sinner. So, in such cases, you may ostracize 
> the guy. Then, after the Rama says that it's better to avoid the 
> machloqes and not use qefiyah beshutim in violation of the yeish 
> omerim, he writes: But if he has a wife sinfully, everyone agrees 
> kofin beshutin. Wherever it says ein kofin beshutim, we also do not 
> put him in nidui. Then his discussion of harchaqos RT, which is -- 
> again -- everything short of nidui. The Tzitz Eliezer 17:52, Yabia 
> Omer 8:25 and R' Sternbuch 5:344 all invoke this se'if in their 
> discussions of ma'us allai. So I feel pretty secure in saying it applies. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/30b3f80d/attachment-0002.htm>