Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rav Avigdor Miller on the Divorce Epidemic
Class #646, Mind of Control, 1:23:45
When the great dread day [death] comes, when finally Hashem says you are free, you are absolved, does the neshama feel relief, does the neshama celebrate that it’s all over? Oh no. It’s the yom hamara, the great and bitter day. Because our happiness in life is the duty of being in control. Ta’avah ni’hiya, when a desire is broken, is repressed, te’erav le-nefesh, [Mishlei 13:10] how sweet it is for the soul.
Disappointments when you accept that in good will, that’s a great success for you. Success doesn’t mean anything. Anybody can rejoice with success. When a person who keeps his mind calm even in disappointment, that’s the person who is gaining shelmaius. And that’s why HaKodesh Baruch Hu created us.
Life is full of disappointments. It’s full of joys. If there are joys and successes we have to celebrate by thanking Hashem. Certainly we should [also] be grateful and express our gratitude for all the difficulties of life.
Here’s a woman who had seven children with her husband. Then she put her eyes on a strange man. And she fell in love with a strange man. This mishugenah woman decides that she’s unhappy with her husband. Now later she gets over this infatuation with this strange man. He goes away and moves out of the neighborhood. Now she’s disillusioned with her husband. A woman with seven children. She lived like a Jewish woman until now.
But she has deep down in her heart gentile attitudes, attitudes maybe there’s such a thing as romance yet in life. That’s a gentile attitude. And she feels unhappy. And the husband is a hum drum husband, an ordinary decent Jewish husband. Maybe a handsome man too. But still you’re accustomed to him already. He’s too accustomed to be romantic anymore. And so she starts becoming dissatisfied. You know what she’s doing? She’s ruining her neshama.
Of course she’s not going to commit adultery. She’s going to force him to give her a get. She’s going to break away from him and she’ll look for somebody else to marry. She’ll be disappointed. No question. The second time will be worse than the first time. No question.
But the breaking away, that’s a corruption of the soul. Your perfection is to take what Hashem gave you (…. ) Cling to Hashem all the days of your life. V’dovak b’ishto. Control yourself. Squelch the imaginary romances that you think are waiting for you in life. It’s all false. Make up your mind that what you have is what’s good for you and people who live that way into their old age. No romance. Just live dutifully, live loyally, loyal to Hashem Who gave this to you. And don’t be a nirgon, don’t complain.
How long is life after all? The great day will come when you will finally be relieved then you’ll say, ah now I look back and see how fortunate I was, I was loyal to my husband all these years. I didn’t complain. I bore my burden dutifully as a bas Yisroel what HaKodesh Baruch Hu wanted me to do.
pp. 38-39
Rav Avigdor Miller on the Divorce Epidemic
Class #646, Mind of Control, 1:23:45
[1:27:36] Unfortunately today there’s a rash of divorces and in most cases it’s Jewish women. Even the frum Jewish women are demanding divorces from their husbands, all over, everywhere. It’s an epidemic and a tragedy of tragedies. They are ruining their lives, but most of all they are ruining their neshamas.
People are not willing to make peace with their circumstances. Say I’m going to live the best I can with the circumstances that Hashem gave me. These are the people who are going to succeed and they are achieving what’s called shlaimus of parishas haratzon. They are conquering their passions. They are ruling with their minds over their emotions. And that is the greatest perfection.
See if you can do it with yiras shemayim, with fear of Hashem, very good. Even if not, any which way you succeed in living dutifully and accepting what Hashem gave you, you are successful and you live your life with a grand purpose.
Rav Avigdor Miller zt’l said that 99% of divorces in the Orthodox community were preventable and should not have happened. He also often said a difficult marriage is better to maintain than getting divorced, which is usually more difficult than a difficult marriage and often results in a second marriage (if the person even has the mazal to be able to get remarried) that is no better and frequently worse than the first marriage. He said all this no later than the 1980s. His thoughts on this are available to hear from himself on his Torah Tapes and read in his numerous seforim. By now I would venture it is closer to 99.9%.
“Der Rov” (The Rov) is the longtime title the Brisker Rov has been known as. In the yeshiva velt when you simply refer to The Rov most folks will assume you’re referring to the Brisker Rov. Since RJBS was a nephew of the Brisker Rov some of his students later began referring to him as The Rav.
He referred to himself as Rabbi JB Soloveitchik, his students referred to him as that during his lifetime and his colleagues and rabbinical equals called him that when speaking to him (without the title and last name obviously, just his initials which was his preferred nickname) and when referring to him.
He also self-identified in his writings as Rabbi JB Soloveitchik.
Rav Eliashev stated that publicly in his daily shiur in his beis medrash, the audio of which is available online. (Google: Rav Yosef Elyashev kenesset minus)
The Knesset is an organ of the state government that is not Jewish. Rav Elyashiv stated that the Knesset is a bais minus, a place of heresy, and thus all the halachos regarding places of apikorsus applies there as well. The only reason the gedolim permit frum MKs is to reduce the harm to the Bnei Torah tzibbur. But even that, they acknowledge, is a b’dieved that is only done due to lack of alternative.
The State of Israel is not a Jewish country.
The Jewish anti-Semites playing the part of animal lovers have been fighting Jewish practices for many years now.
akuperma for White House Press Secretary. Ben Levi for Supreme Court Justice. HaLeiVi for US Attorney General.
Lilmod for First Lady.
Popa for Secretary of State and Mod-42 for Secretary of Treasury.
Feivel for President and DaasYochid for Vice President.
Charlie’s to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Achdus.
It’s Eliyahu Hanavi.
“Please forgive me.”
lilmod, it is virtually always better to work to avoid divorce, especially with children, then to simply give it. Even if one spouse wants it while the other wishes to continue the marriage. In the vast majority of cases divorce is avoidable and unnecessary. And in the majority of cases divorce is worse than remaining in a not-great marriage. Many many divorced people deeply regret having sought to get divorced.
Indeed Jewish Law discourages divorce and Jewish Law gives the spouse desiring to continue the marriage the right to do so, in most cases, even if it is against the wishes of the other spouse. Very frequently Jewish Law rules that a request for a divorce is denied. In fact that is the default. A divorce in Torah Judaism requires cause to be proven. There is no divorce-on-demand in Halacha. Even the non-Jewish world, lhavdil, until very recently denied divorce petitions unless cause was satisfactory proven in the eyes of the law. New York became the last state to introduce no-fault divorce only in 2010. This idea that a spouse is entitled to a divorce simply because she wants it (or for reasons other than halacha considers valid cause for divorce) is a purely modern goyish concept that has no basis in Torah Judaism.
Elul is almost over!!
Is Syag gonna be upset with me for being braggadocious?
Lenny, these halachos are intricate and complicated. There aren’t many websites specializing in these halachas in English. (One site I referenced that does deal with it wasn’t posted by the mods.) Hence I referenced Shulchan Aruch. But Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn in Monsey can answer all of your questions. He also has a “Shalom Bayis Beth Din” that you can lookup. His goal is restoring a couple’s shalom bayis.
Also note that, despite its unfortunate prevalence, it is forbidden for a Jew to bring a divorce dispute to a non-Jewish/civil court (as it’s forbidden in any dispute, for that matter.) If a civil case is filed contrary to halacha, a beis din could potentially freeze the issuance of a Get until the offending party withdraws the civil case and undoes any gains obtained there.
lilmod, now we’re at least asking the right shailos. 🙂
Everyone, see. All the naysayers are proven wrong. The OP is proof that my teachings in the CR are very much influential and having an impact on people in real life!
89.416%
The term aguna does not apply to a wife who wants and requested a Get but her husband has no halachic obligation to give it to her and had chosen not to. Similarly such husbands are not doing anything wrong. You are confusing them with a husband who DOES have an obligation to give a Get, as halachicly ruled upon by beis din after a gittin case was heard, and nevertheless illegitimately refused to issue it to her despite his halachic obligation to do so.
Also note that Rabbeinu Gershom granted Ashkenazic wives the right to decline accepting a divorce that her husband wants to give her and choosing to remain married to him despite his wishing to divorce her. And barring specific circumstances that gives him the halachic right to overrule her objections, she is fully legitimately entitled to choose to decline accepting the divorce and insisting on remaining married to him.
A civil divorce has no halachic significance or relevance. A civil divorce does not create a halachic obligation to divorce when there otherwise was no halachic obligation to divorce. And a civil divorce cannot be used to circumvent halacha to obtain a Get when there is no halachic obligation to grant a Get. Unilaterally moving out of the marital home or forcing one’s spouse to unwillingly leave the marital home, also, does not create an obligation to divorce where there otherwise was no halachic obligation to do so.
lilmod, as I just mentioned to Lenny, this point is only relevant if one spouse is insisting on shalom bayis whereas the other spouse is insisting on divorce. If both spouses agree to divorce then they can divorce for any or no reason, however silly the reason may be. I don’t know how many divorce cases where one spouse wanted to divorce while the other didn’t and contested the request in beis din, that you are very familiar with the beis din proceedings of, but I’d guess it isn’t very many.
Also note that the Halacha has significant differences when it is the husband contesting the divorce request of the wife versus when it is the wife contesting the divorce request of the husband. The wife’s right to contest a divorce request is only granted to her by a rabbinic decree of Rabbeinu Gershom, and even that is only applicable to Ashkenazim, as min HaTorah a husband is permitted to divorce his wife at will for any reason. OTOH, min HaTorah a husband doesn’t have to divorce his wife unless he wants to. The Torah says that clearly and that is the Halacha.
And beis din’s hands are tied to halacha. If halacha doesn’t require a divorce be granted then beis din cannot order that a divorce be given.
Lenny, if both spouses are agreeable to getting divorced, there is no shaila and any beis din will grant the Get (often after first discouraging it in an attempt to save the marriage.) The only time it becomes a shaila (or, rather, a beis din trial) is if one spouse wishes to continue the marriage (asking for “shalom bayis”) whereas the other spouse is insistent on getting divorced. In such a case the default halacha is that the beis din cannot grant the divorce unless the spouse petitioning for it provides proof in beis din that he/she was wronged by their spouse in a manner that halacha specifically recognizes them as becoming entitled to a divorce.
The circumstances that halacha recognizes as entitling a spouse to a divorce are very limited and very specific. And alleging them is insufficient in itself to allow beis din to order a divorce be granted, even if the party sounds believable. To take an extreme example, the Shulchan Aruch states that if a wife comes to beis din asking for a Get and says her husband physically hits her, the Mechaber rules that the Halacha is that beis din must give him warning that if he doesn’t stop hitting her they will require he divorce her. And if he continues being violent beis din can and will require he divorce her. But that is assuming she either proves he is violent (i.e. witnesses) or he admits it. But the Shulchan Aruch specifically says that if he denies her allegation of violence, beis din cannot accept it at face value to mandate a divorce. The Shulchan Aruch rules that beis din must place an agent of beis din in the marital home to witness the violence before halacha will permit beis din to mandate a divorce.
lilmod, I don’t see what you (and possibly “nisht”, if your understanding of his comment is correct) are seeing in the totality of Lenny’s posts. There’s nothing he said indicating he is controlling.
Also, Shulchan Aruch gives numerous cases where when one spouse requests a divorce and the other spouses wishes to continue the marriage, beis din al pi halacha will deny the request for a divorce. In fact, that is the default. Halachicly, where one spouse wishes to continue the marriage the other spouse cannot mandate a divorce absent proof that their spouse committed a wrong that halacha specifically recognizes as giving cause for a divorce. Absent that, beis din is halachicly mandated to deny the divorce petition.
Lenny, I’m not sure I understand how the rabbi thought the charges are true if you said he was scratching his head because your wife couldn’t name a single incident in 25 years.
Nishtdayngesheft, wanting to remain married isn’t an example of controlling someone. Shulchan Aruch recognizes many cases where Halacha denies a spouse’s request to divorce.
Lenny, the Halacha in Shulchan Aruch, regarding gittin cases, is that any charges a wife alleges in order to procure a Get mandate, she needs to prove with evidence in beis din.
Btw, what do you mean they are super friendly?
Lenny:
Hisachdus Harabonim on Division St. in Brooklyn.
Also important to note is not only the fact that the Shevuos are quoted l’maaseh in Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim and have been used throughout the ages, but also that there has been nobody who disagreed with them or their binding nature (until the Zionists came and, as they have done with Jewish history (see Israel’s Declaration of Independence for example) and Halachah (see the Zionist apologetics cranked out regularly by religious Zionists) tried to replace well established facts with fantsy).
Important to note in this context is that even the rabbonim who the religious zionists consider their forerunners (c”v), recognized the binding nature of the oaths.
When R. Zvi Hersh Kalisher defended his movement to make settlements in EY, he insisted that he would never think of doing so if it means antagonizing the ruling powers of the land, as that would constitute a violation of the Shevuos. He said that others hwo have tried an “aliyah” idea earlier, who came illegally using force were nichshal and bordered on violating the shevuos – but he is not like them (writings, p.204).
Also R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos defends the colonist movement by saying that they would never violate the oaths by taking the land form the turks by “sword and bow” nor do they have any plans of creating a government there. (Shivas Tzion 1:p.35)
The binding nature of the Oaths is universally accepted by Torah Jewry throughout history. Zionists are either in denial, in “gilui panim batorah shelo kehalachah”, or indoctrinated – theres all of the above in their community.
Actually, the forerunners of Zionism were not the rabbonim who advocated the “first aliyah” to EY in the 1800’s (and even they, for the record, who had no intention of violating the shevuos, were a minority and oppsoed by the majority and greater Gedolei HaDor); Zionism started way before them – over 1,000 years ago. See: Daniel al-Qumisi
The idea that settling in Eretz Yisroel will bring the Geula first came from the Karaim. They were kanayim about it, too. Said Daniel Al-Qumisi, Karai “godol” and first Zionist on record:
“The scoundrels among the people of Israel who say to one another: ‘We need not go up to Jerusalem until we are ingathered bu He Who has thrust us out.’ These are the words of fools who provoked G-d’s anger.”
That was the first real Zionist. These 20th century ones are merely repeating what the Karaim said then. And just as the Karaim then lashed out at the Rabbonim for being against their “Zionism,” so too do today’s Zionists follow that path as well.
Here is a list of authorities that hold even with permission from the nations of the world we still have to keep the oaths:
Here’s a partial list of authorities ruling we must abide by the three oaths:
Softwords, see ???”? ???? ???? ???? ??? and ???? ???.
Meno, this is for you.
grandmother8, this is for you.
The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours. The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths. The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us with torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them. The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early. The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years. And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath.
The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says. And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel). The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is not included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing. R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.
I already explained we can determine who if a greater authority among contemporary decisors. See my earliest comment.
My comment that we can determine who is a bigger authority stands. Your response to the comment didn’t rebut it.
And what’s even more striking is that this new Daas Torah edict, mandated by the RCA upon all its members, is on a non-halachic required issue!
Hey, guys, look at the bright side about this new RCA resolution. The MO are finally recognizing Daas Torah is real (even if they got wrong who Daas Torah is.) Until now they kept yelling that there’s no Daas Torah and every local yodle rabbi has the right to issue his own rulings, even in defiance of the recognized Torah leaders of the generation.
Today the RCA has officially declared that one must follow their edict, at risk of becoming chutz lamachne.
MO congregations never have shiurim on business ethics? Agudah also has symposiums on keeping the kitchen kosher. Does that indicate to you there is a widespread problem within their communities of treif kitchens? Do you find it shameful that it is even necessary to discuss keeping a kosher kitchen?
Avi, there are very strong halachic objections to the BDA prenup, specifically, that can result in a future get me’usa. Search the previous threads in the CR where they were discussed in detail.
benignuman, yes, I could answer those three questions. We can compare “levels” – in fact, we need to in order to judge who is an authority in the first place! If you can’t comapre levels then how are you to know that someone is a godol? The fact that he is “accepted” as a godol only means that many people have judged his “level” to be that of a godol. But if you cannot compare levels, then these people have no right to accept him as a godol in the first place. And the same common sense that tells you so-and-so stands out among his peers making him an authority, tells you that certain so-and-so’s stand out even more. Or less.
Part of knowing who to follow is to know who is greater. Godol mimenu b’chochma ubaminyan is an assessment that it legitimately made. And as Rav Shach writes – if you dont know who to follow, follow whoever is greater – and, he adds, you can of course tell who is greater. If you yourself dont know, then thats fine – not everyone can know the answer to all questions they encounter – but why in the world would you say nobody else can know? And it’s an error in logic, too, because they themselves compared “levels” of other people! i.e.: “Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita is the leading Sefardi posek of our times.” And how would they know this if you cannot compare him to other sefardi poskim?
And how can one know whether “any of us are on the madreiga of assessing the ‘levels’ of other people” unless you assessed the levels of all those other people who said arent “on the “madgreigah” to do that? If i were to ask you who is greater – Rav Ovadiah or Rabi Avika — would you say you cannot compare people? Rav Ovadiah or the Rambam? Avraham Avinu? So clearly, we can compare “levels”, its just that to some, certain comparisons are “obvious” and others are not. Well, to other people, perhaps who are more knowledgable and skilled in assessing these kinds of values, other comparisons are also obvious.