<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1255"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>RZS writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:4.8pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>> Si'if 1. [...]and if he pimps prostitutes if there are witnesses,<br>> or he acknowledges there are those who say that we force him.<br><br>While that would seem to be the logical translation of "ro'eh zonos",<br>if you look closer I think you will find that it actually means one who<br>*frequents* prostitutes, i.e. a customer, not an employer.<br>[...]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>I actually originally wrote that, and then thought somebody would insist that as the roeh is with an ayin, not an aleph, that was not what was meant. My best guess is that there are alternative girsos.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>> From the Rosh: - 43:6<br>><br>> ??? ????? ????? ??, ???? ?????? ??????.<br>><br>> and all the work in this claim, multiplies mamzerim in Israel<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:4.8pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>You've mistranslated this line. He says that anyone who forces a get over<br>such a claim is increasing mamzerim in Israel. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Not sure how this is a mistranslation, since the meaning is the same, although my translation is clumsier. In any event I agree that the Rosh is concerned that there is a risk of increasing mamzerim in Israel if gets are forced..<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:4.8pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>> In other words, at least some<br>>gittin that were forced according to the Rambam are passul bediavad, and the<br>>children are mamzerim. The only question is which ones. When he says that<br>>bediavad what's done is done, he means that although we can be sure that among<br>>all the cases there *are* pasul ones, in any specific case we can't assume<br>>this is one of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>No. Were that to be the case, then he would have to invalidate any get based on the Rambam, in case it was one of the ones that is invalid - since any such get would involve a safek of producing mamzerim- and safek d'orisa l'chumra. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>And he does not even say - well if they forced a get according to the Rambam and then a woman married on this basis, lo tezeh, or if you find a child that was the product of a second marriage based on this get, you deem that child not a mamzer (which is the real bideved)- but rather "that which is done is done" - ie you can then, l'chatchila, allow the woman to marry based on this get. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The only conclusion therefore, it seems to me, is that while he does not want any Rav under his authority forcing, because they should keep far away from any chashash of producing mamzerim, he acknowledges that there are others of stature (ie the Rambam) who hold differently, and he is not prepared to invalidate that which the Rambam has authorised (maybe like not declaring treif any chicken a Rav of stature has declared kosher) - He even appears to be allowing re-marriage, which is in itself a form of l'chatchila. Nor does he even invoke the principle of safek in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:4.8pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> From what you've written here and in the past, I think you're missing the<br>fundamental point in the "ma'us alai" debate, which is that (at least AIUI)<br>everyone agrees that a genuine claim of "ma'us alai" is grounds for kefiyas<br>get, and that everyone also agrees that a *false* claim is *not* grounds.<br>The only problem is how we know which claims are false and which are true.<br>The only difference (AIUI) between the Rambam and RT is that the Rambam<br>assumes any woman who makes such a claim is telling the truth, while RT and<br>the Rosh worry that she's lying, in which case the get will be pasul<br>*even according to the Rambam*.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>I think you are wrong on three counts here. Firstly the Rosh appears to state very clearly that ma'us alei is not a grounds for forcing a divorce - after all, she can live as a living widow, since she doesn't need pru u'rvu. Ie the key point seems to be that there is no counter pressure that would lead one to force, because there is no necessity for her to have relations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> And secondly I believe you are wrong about the Rambam. The language of the Rambam is (from Hilchos Ishus perek 14 halacha 8): <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal dir=RTL style='text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed'><span lang=HE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>האשה שמנעה בעלה ד מתשמיש המטה היא הנקראת מורדת, ושואלין אותה מפני מה מרדה, אם אמרה מאסתיהו ואיני יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי ה כופין אותו להוציא לשעתו לפי שאינה כשבויה שתבעל לשנוי לה, ותצא בלא כתובה כלל </span><span dir=LTR></span><span dir=LTR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><span dir=LTR></span>...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>A woman who refuses her husband relations she is called a moredet [rebellious]. And they ask her why are you rebelling, and if she says that he is repulsive and I am not able to have relations with him willingly, they force him to send her out immediately because she is not like a captive that she is forced to have relations and she goes out without her ketuba ...</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The alternative that the Rambam moots is not that she is lying and really she wants out of the marriage for other reasons but that she is doing it to get back at him within the context of a power struggle within the marriage. So in halacha 9 he discusses: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal dir=RTL style='text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed'><span lang=HE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>ואם מרדה מתחת בעלה כדי לצערו ואמרה הריני מצערת אותו בכך מפני שעשה לי כך וכך או מפני שקללני או מפני שעשה עמי מריבה וכיוצא בדברים אלו</span><span dir=LTR style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>If she rebelled while under her husband in order to cause him pain, and she says behold I am causing pain to him in this because he did this and this to me, or because he cursed me or because he quarrel with me or similar things ..<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Ie if she is using a refusal to have relations as a weapon within the marriage there is one set of rules (which also ultimately end in divorce, but only after 12 months of her not being supported) and if she refusing to have relations because she feels a prisoner in the marriage, the rule is to force him immediately. Those are the two choices that the Rambam sees. If she feels sufficiently imprisoned in the relationship that she is not prepared to have relations, for whatever reason, she needs to be released, and if she is playing games within the relationship, that needs to be stopped, by other methods that keeps the marriage on foot if possible, but by divorce if not. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>And the third place where I believe you are wrong is in your underlying psychological assumption about women, which I think neither the Rosh, nor Rabbanu Tam, and certainly not the Rambam buy into:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><br>>In other words, "ma'us alai" is not synonymous with "I want out of this<br>>marriage". It is a specific claim about the woman's subjective but<br>i>nvoluntary feelings, that may or may not be true. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>But those feelings can be generated very easily by being made to feel a prisoner. I agree that somebody can easily want out of a marriage for many other reasons, but once the other person refuses, and makes the original party feel trapped, and highly negative feelings towards that person are generated, the inevitable result is sexual repulsion. The idea that one can intensely dislike or come to intensely dislike someone (and see them as their prison guard from whom they desperately need to escape) and yet still be able to bear to sleep with them is not in my view a realistic picture of female psychology (I am not sure how often it is of male psychology either, although I have heard it suggested that men are more able to separate the emotional from the sexual). And note that the very act of coming to court and stating maus alai means that she is telling him, basically to his face and in front of witnesses, that he is sexually repulsive. That in itself is a pretty humiliating statement. It is not the sort of thing that allows for normal relations afterwards. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>> And wanting to marry<br>>someone else is just one reason why a woman might lie about it. So even<br>>according to the Rambam one can't simply use this as a weapon in every case,<br>>and if there are malicious lawyers and "rabbis" who teach women to say<br>>"ma'us alai" as if it were a magical incantation then it should be obvious<br>>that the Rambam would agree that one can't rely on it any more.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Again only if you assume that it is likely that a woman:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>(a) still *really* likes and fancies her husband despite the fact that she has asked for a get and he is refusing and she has been so infuriated that she has escalated that refusal to "malicious lawyers and rabbis"; or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>(b) sexually desires somebody she loathes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>I don’t believe either of these are true. And I don't see any sign that the poskim suggest that either of these are true. That is, they are not worried about her lying. Those who are concerned are worried about the *reason* she has got herself into this position - ie where the fact that the grass looked greener to her on the other side of the fence is what caused her despise and dislike what she had got, which might otherwise have been perfectly adequate, and now subjectively does not feel so - that this looking elsewhere should not be rewarded by letting her go off to the supposedly greener pastures (at least when the husband doesn't want to let her go). In some cases there may also be an underlying belief that if she is told often enough she can’t have what she desires, maybe she will learn or relearn to settle, and to accept what is on offer. This appears to be the case with people who loathe certain foods. It seems to be accepted that they will end up prepared to eat such a food in situations of genuine starvation, and may then decide that actually this food is not so unbearable after all. So why should it not be the case for a marriage? But that doesn’t mean that anybody is suggesting she is not telling the truth when she says that she finds her husband repulsive, in the same way as others may say, prior to being put in a situation of starvation, that they find [insert the food you hate worst here] repulsive. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><br>>A third possibility is that he's not concerned to prevent deliberate<br>>sin. If she wants to commit adultery, "hal'iteihu larasha veyamos",<br>>let her do as she wishes, and she will suffer for it. Any mamzerim<br>>that result are her fault, not ours. Whereas if we give her an invalid<br>>get, then the mamzerim that result will be our fault.<br><br>Well according to you it is still deliberate sin, since the only reason it is problematic is because she is lying to the beis din, and hence she is still the one causing the mamzerim. If she didn't lie to the court then there wouldn't be a problem according to you. If you hold that maus alai is a grounds for forcing if true, then the court is doing what it is supposed to do based on what it is told, in the same way the court is doing what it is supposed to do when it accepts witnesses who are actually false (but undetectable by it, despite whatever suspicions it may have) and metes out punishments based on that. So I don't think this solution helps you. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>But also clearly "if she wants to commit adultery" - isn't what is happening here. If she just wanted to commit adultery, she would never go anywhere near a court to try and get a get - she would just go ahead and commit adultery with her lover. The fact that she is appealing to a court demonstrates that she does not in fact want to commit adultery. But so long as you accept that ta'avos in this area are exceptionally strong, then the likelihood of somebody stumbling when tempted in the kind of environments we live in is going to be very high. Haliteihu larasha veyamos thus becomes an argument against the concept of lifnei iver. After all, it is the nazir's problem that he touched the wine (and indeed, he didn't have to take his vow of nazirus in the first place) so why is there any problem for me getting a cup to him - even if it was on the other side of the river where he couldn't reach it? Why don't we say haliteihu larasha veyamos? But the halacha doesn't hold that way. Even though he got into this pickle himself by taking a vow of nezirus, and I am just assisting him in sinning, with him doing the primary sin, we still say that if he would otherwise never have been able to touch this wine without my help, and so my actions mean that I have created an environment of easy temptation, then halachically I am regarded as having responsibilities. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Chana<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>