[Avodah] forcing a GET

[Daniel Eidensohn]

Your reading of the Shulchan Aruch is problematic. In particular your 
insistence that the Iquar is like the Rambam.

Despite showing a range of sources that say otherwise you simple say 
"The se'if is generally taken to refer to ma'u alai"  - but it isn't. 
E.H. 154 is referring to those cases where the gemora says a person 
should be forced or should give a get. The case of ma'us alei found in 
Kesubos 63b does not mention that the get should be forced, or that he 
is chayiv to divorce or even that she goes out of the marriage. All it 
says is she is not forced to have sexual relations. In fact in the 
teshuva literature there are views that as long as we are not concerned 
that she might go off the derech - she remains in the marriage entirely 
at the discretion of the husband - without any pressure applied to him 
to give a divorce.

Even Rabbi Bechhofer who generally is agreement with your position 
regarding harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam agrees that the halacha is not like 
the Rambam in ma'us alei. So I simply don't understand why you are 
ignoring the multiple references in Otzer Haposkim who disagree with 
your understanding. At this point you keep insisting your position 
without offering a single source that agrees with you.

On 5/13/2012 4:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:52:40PM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> 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?...
> The se'if is generally taken to refer to ma'us alai, and for the simple
> reason that it doesn't say anything to exclude ma'us alai. You tried
> saying this se'if wasn't relevent. It is.
>
> I still don't know how you can see that se'if and conclude we do not hold
> that the iqas hadin is like the Rambam. The only machloqes is whether
> or not to use violence, and according to the Rama, whether or not to
> use nidui. Not other forms of kefiyah.
>
> And the issue isn't whether or not she is a moredes. (Although that
> would forfeit her kesuvah, as you cited.) It's whether or not BD could
> use harchaqos RT in a case where they decide a divorce is necessary,
> and whether or not bedi'eved, the gett would be pasul if they crossed
> the line into kefiyah.
>
> Who is to blame for the initial cause isn't at issue. It's not hilkhos
> oneshim.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>