The Deadly Question?
I have been following and commenting on the various conversations going on around Agunot over at the Daattorah blog. While admittedly the comment thread looks more like Jerry Springer than it does Torah discussion some interesting back and forth has happened.
Really the discussion does not center on Agunot so much as it centers on an Agunah, Tamar Epstein and her husband Aharon Friedman, as well as the actions of ORA and Rav Schacther of YU. There have been a lot of “facts” flying as well as “apikorus” “kofer” and the like. However, one thing that no one on the Aharon Friedman side will touch is a rather simple question. Why do they support him?
Let me explain. One is not permitted to go to secular court against a fellow Jew without permission from a Beit Din. Not only did Aharon Friedman go to court over custody of their daughter without permission from a Beit Din, but once a Beit Din ordered him to dismiss the case, he refused. See this is a big problem. The majority of the Aharon Friedman, anti-ORA anti-Rav Schachter folks on that blog, have been making a big issue about the evils of women going to secular court without a valid heter from a B”D. But as soon as you ask them if they then equally condemn Aharon Friedman, they balk, and generally don’t answer. Furthermore the Sh”A C”M 26:1,
1 It is forbidden to bring a case before non Jewish dayanim and their courts(meaning, a permanent seat for their ministers to hear cases) even if they rule by dinei Yisrael, even if they agreed to bring the case before them, this is forbidden. All who come to judge before them, are considered to be Reshaim it’s as if they blaspheme against Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him. Rama: the Beis Din may put into nidui or cherem one who brings a case before a non-Jewish court until he withdraws the case (Maharik, shoresh 187). And any one who supports a Jew who is bringing a case to a non-Jewish court was also put into cherem (Rivash (Siman 102). And even if he does not bring the case to be tried before the non-Jewish court but rather to use the non-Jewish court to force his Baal din to come to him for the case in Beis Din by means of their issuing a court order for this, it is appropriate to stretch him out on the pole (i.e., give him lashes) (Mordechai, Bava Kama, perek hagozel kama).
In other words, supporting said person is also a big no no.
This leaves me with one conclusion about their arguments in general. That beneath it all they are not seeking Torah, and its views. Rather they are trying to impose their misogynistic views upon Torah. I personally have a hard time seeing how one could think and act in a hypocritical and misogynistic manner in one are(so clearly defined) in Torah and not do so in others.