The Qualifications of a Mesader Gittin & Kiddushin - Rav Yonah Reiss

The topic today is the importance of proficiency in order to be a mess. Get and this is said alongside the you have to be proficient when it comes to being apparently a mess kushian as well. So we have to figure out the application of this statement in terms of what many are currently training to eventually be if you learn Hila's gin as part of Kain that someday you might be a Dian to have to be Msen and important uh and it's important to know exactly what the qualifications are. So this um den that you need to be is found in a couple of places in it starts off with the principle that you need to know that are and the specific that's mentioned is that if a person is speaking to his wife or somebody whom he wants to be his wife about either divorcing his current wife or getting married to the woman he wants to marry and then he gives either a get to his wife or gives a tabbas for the sake of kushian to his prospective wife and they accept it. So says this is a perfectly valid get. This is a perfect perfectly valid in contrast to says otherwise. And says the isabi. So it is specifically in that context in which says toashi. So this statement of makes that you should not be involved in if you don't know the does that mean even this would count even if a person went through all of Hilo's gon and didn't necessarily come across this specific or missed it would he still be disqualified from being involved with giten and kidushian. So am so answered of Ashi he said that in aami yes this is in fact true that even this would be something that needs to be known now says that when we say one shouldn't be involved he uses an interesting term which is relevant both in the realm of kushian he says leos indicating that there's some sort of misaon involved with being involved with git and kidushen. Maybe like a dian can't be a kurb. So you shouldn't be a karov even if you're a mad kushian just like a dian who does a ma has to be during the daytime. So maybe you shouldn't do it at night. There's an orua along those lines not to do it get night. And uh we are generally at least in the realm of uh that we don't do at night although there were who were comfortable doing it even at night because they were too busy during the daytime. We're not getting into uh that particular sug if it's going to be because you have to say which is like aimos which has to be that's only done during the daytime but uh rashi indicates that there is some type of role of dionus that is involved in the uh in the administration of giten and kidushen. Which is a good basis for us that even though would seem to be in the realm of Mishbah that we see from here that Evan Ezra also qualifies in terms of in terms of and what are we concerned about says Rashi that we're worried about that if you don't know the rules properly you may come to make a mistake and say that something is permissible that a woman is is a Gusa when in fact she's still an asia is etc. Or you might have a woman who's a surah for other reasons. You might come to be material or who knows what various things that you might do. But more most seriously, an iss like an iseracious is you might come to permit and that's going to be especially in the context of an issukone. Now Rashi says that the criterion is whether even a picky law of this sort of is enough it happens commonly enough that if a person didn't know it then they might make a mistake in so so Rashi says that was the question is is this considered to be that a person's going to give a get or kushen or tabas to a woman and is not going to spell it out and presumably then the answer in the gor is that in In fact, it is. Has anybody here ever seen anything like that? Typically when you're it's not just an it's the the saysly it's not just they're smoozing with each other at to the and then the SAYS TO HEY WHY WAIT let's get married right now. Some say the badin counts as like you know and he's suing anyway so I may as well give you the ring. He drops it into her hands you know. Uh, so I don't think we've ever seen that happen. Yes. >> Swipe it. literally >> that might be more like I think you know when they say instead of a lot of people say as well >> the don't hear the words >> so from his perspective he wasn't just but from the from the perspective of the >> it does happen the don't hear things so perfectly sometimes they don't even see things so perfectly Well, we don't say loud. So I saw with a geta I was involved in a din tora once with rabbi landisman and rabbi ru >> and uh we were adjudicating the case in in my difficult husband uh who uh was uh a uh a gruff and rougher personality and the wife was a little bit of a flighty personality. He was a perfect but somehow they decided to get divorced anyway. And uh the on the spot I remember it was a a full all all-star crew. We had regel as the towane for the husband. Uh and it was very labored and we finally reached the determination of how to allocate all the finances everything like that. And I was asked to write it up in nice legal ease language and I wrote the whole thing up in longhand. I remember on the spot before we had everybody had computers and laptops. I wrote the whole thing up in longhand and uh it was signed by everyone and then we decided we're going to do the get on the spot. There was a mus at the beginning whether to do the get up front or at the end but we had an agreement that was signed. The husband was not happy about what the bez decided. He didn't get as much money as he as he thought he was entitled to. But the wife's father was the most meticulous man I have seen in history in terms of keeping track of every single expense and invoice of exactly what went into the marriage and who paid for what and how. It was unbelievable the records that this guy had. So it was really almost irrefutable. Um but the husband was really annoyed and fed up and he was one of these personalities. He was a flight risk really worried about an Auna situation. The get was written up. I remember that Rabbi Alto came in and he drove into Munie. Well, he was he lived in Muny. So he drove into the uh Rabbi um into Rabbi Rabbi Lannisman's office where we were holding it and what >> Rabbi Rabbi Elia and I think it was and it may have been Yankee but I don't know why it would have been him given that it was in my so that detail I don't remember 100% but anyway uh the get was completed and we were telling the husband what to do and continuing to ask the question he was getting really fed up and he needed to go. He said, "I have a flight to catch, whatever." And finally, we're discussing everything and we're at the moment in which he's supposed to give over the getter to his wife. And he takes the get and he just flings it into her hand and he runs out the door. They're looking at each other. Said, "Oh, that's it. The din of So even we wrote the finished right there." >> Wow. [laughter] You got to know got to know what to do. Uh so is it? Well, it happened. Maybe it only has to happen once every 28 years or so, but my said this happened. Uh now to writes uh that if you have a a person who is knowledgeable with respect to uh to to to Hilos, Giten and Enkiducian. Uh so you you have to notify that person that it's a person needs to know this because otherwise you can really mess somebody up. In that case if we wouldn't know the and we would say oh we have to worry for the we need an actual amir maybe we would never have gotten the husband back and you make a woman into an auna. But it could also work in the opposite situation if you're convinced that it's not an a good get and then somebody else gives a kushian she's keep and you say ah she doesn't need anything it's garnish it's doesn't it's it's meaningless because she's still married to the other fellow then you're also going to be on both directions so it's always going to be every single is going to be a is going to be a double-edged sword and that's what Lo says basically that it's a double-edged sword. He also brings another which is not the one that's accepted but it's kind of an interesting thing like good advice that you should give to anybody who's in good advice to anybody in that if you have a serious relationship that you might have a situation in which you have a couple that's going out seriously if they spend too time too much if if they speak too intensely about actually you know getting married about the myution and in the context of speaking about oh we're going to get married this way that way I'm going to give you a ring you know and uh oh and by the way here and then he drops a ring into our hands so then you could have a serious sha so that's also something to be mindful about but primarily we're speaking about those who are training in this area as the as Rashi says who are going to be a dian so thinking what does mean in this context. You know when we speak about for example how nowadays have authority to adjudicate various matters that require a real like for example being where is it that we're nowadays and he says oh that's okay that we're doing the they were in bubble of those who are in heresy we say to points out nowadays nowadays you don't even How do we do it? So he says to says that's before asked even days of you didn't necessarily have so he says that was also relying on that we require a required um with respect to matters of matters of um so even when it comes uh to things of that variety. We have a general principle. When is it that we say so says so is this even if so is cases where you're going to beget is that going to be so it could be it's more than we realize but it's also possible as some of the posts say that because of some of the vishonim say this because of the significance ificance the significance of seeing to it that we have proper gin that we have proper protocols to be able to administer gin even in cases of that will be necessary despite the fact that there may be few and far between the importance of the union makes it into so so too you can argue that that's what means and that's what the question was do we say that is a question of mitsus is it really and that's what was asking raashi if this isn't So Dian H doesn't have to know this but she was answering no it's not a question of it's a question of that because of the fact that it could come up once in 28 years this ma that I'm describing is probably from 28 years ago even once in 28 years because of the importance of the union that's also considered to be in the context of git so that's number one that I wanted to that I wanted to suggest now from the toos that not The one that I have printed is the other to the talks about this person who's so it sounds and even from the rashi who speaks about a dian for so it sounds like this is something which is a specific appointment that is required where do we find such a thing that I need a specific appointment of somebody who's going to be gan so that's on the base that speaks speaks about a bar. Somebody who came to wanted to be a to bring a get from location A to location B. The husband authorizes the get to location A has to bring the K to location B ser. So also the kamei. So he came in front of was what? According to the g says he was the hamuna. He was the person who was specifically appointed to be in charge of gin. Uh I mean it's a funny story because you figure this is the one place the gamarra speaks about you know a personality who's appointed to be in charge of gitan you wouldn't want to ruin it with like a story where he actually didn't know the ha but that's the story the story is that he told this you have to stand over every single o you got to watch every letter that's written and I think said to him what are you talking about you're being we required such a thing. One of the rules of hik is not to be moas and only has to be there during the writing of the first line takes a sim to remember to make sure that this is the correct get when he comes back afterwards. You don't have to stand there. Anybody who's going to do it as a he's going to be if the doesn't have anything else to do and he just wants to stand to sit around because he enjoys watching the sofa right together. That's 100% permissible. But to do it al so that you're not supposed to. Anyway, we see from the story that he was mimuna agiti uh and uh this is uh this idea that you should have is somebody who specifically qualified is mentioned the seduette. You look at the after simal the seder again is written it's the very first sip in the seder again it's the very last sip in the seduette to have people who are specifically trained for this purpose but it's more than that it has to be somebody who's ncabel when we want to have an recognized mess get somebody who's there aren't so many aren't so many throughout all of North America who are recognized as misadrian it's a process by which those who are the existing respected misadri gitan evaluate whether they want to vouch for somebody in particular and if they do they write a letter to the major rabbitic bodies all over the world particularly in eritis the rautin say we hereby are vouching for the following individual. The idea that you have is what happens sometimes in various communities that a person just suddenly puts on a letterhead that they are above misin and they start doing it on their own. they find the Sophia to work with them very very problematic and in fact is considered to be a severe offense because you saw what Rashi wrote that it's could end up creating problems of Mamz and Clayo there were some rabbis who figured out a great solution instead of being we'll just be mat all the women without a get doesn't say anywhere right that we have to you know be trained in order to do that we're not going to be Msada get we'll just be madet so obvious viously that's much much more problematic in terms of it being without a specific appointment. There's one by that he talks about who people were complaining about. They were complaining he had he hados and they saw he wasn't doing the tilas before sudas complaining. So, so Sam Soa said in terms of Ashkafos, everybody possibles everybody else if they don't like you know their particular um orientation. Uh so I don't know that that's not being done out of malice or how meaningful that is and who knows the affair the the matters of somebody's heart right you know only who knows you know the shadow so that I'm not going to him maybe he forgot maybe you know it's and we we we can't pos without I don't we we have to look into that a little bit But then the third thing that was the whopper looks so what was the third thing third thing he said oh this isome he's being gin in a city where there's not a shame where the have not specifically established that you can write giten in this city they haven't established a particular name for the city he just on his own presumptuously walked into the city and started to be messen without getting any kind of rishus he says this is the biggest possible Abah not only is this a terrible Aba says that so however he says that you have to take this down person down from his position of authority look at source in the materials the third thing that you're complaining about this person where the rabbis of the city said we're not ready to do in this city he says this is you don't need for this so he says says that that it's not enough. Um that he has to be stripped of his position, but he said that's not enough. Not enough to strip him of his position in this community. This is such a cardinal offense for this. We're going to strip a person of all of his rabbitic authority that he's no longer going to be considered rabbi. We're gonna revoke his something like this says I didn't give this. I don't care who gave this. This fellow must be revoked for something like this because this is the type of offense that can lead to a great to being and to being which is basically the later on talks about that somebody who is is going to be involved in mikidian without the proper training. So he is considered to be worse than the dora. Why is he worse than the dora? The mar says the dora so they were guilty of arayas but they were all So it wasn't going to lead to mamas but once you have yin involved it's going to lead to mamas. So therefore that's going to be that's going to be much uh much much worse. Uh now the uh uh now Rashi um says go going back to the uh the suga uh on dafy gimmel. Uh so he so he talks about that you we need to have hold on do I have that in the materials? I'm not sure if I have that in the materials. I'll just say it on the outside that the importance of being is also the au is that you're going to have to give harra. Uh so there's a question as to whether we're going to distinguish between a person being a functionary and a person who is going to be giving be giving right this is the rashi I'm sorry on theum the base with respect to so he says in order to give to give so this is a question particularly in the realm of kushian gon it's very difficult to think about doing a get without there being some harra. I've never been involved in a get where there wasn't some sort of a shila involved about how to write this shame or that shame or said the circumstances of the get and so forth. But one of the questions that the post can deal with is we understand the enormity of gin but why do we lump together kushian kushian we know that any recently minted musmah from the yeshiva goes out there in a community and they're immediately asked to be messed and it's a very nervous experience and all that but you don't have to be a rashad necessarily to be to be messed so we'll get to that in a um we'll get to that in a moment. moment and that I think also opens up uh some portals into some of the things that we're worried about when it comes to Giten and the intersection between Giten and Kushin. So the maharshal on the sugi points out kind of the obvious that we see that he didn't necessarily get it right in terms of his so says to look at the third line he says again he says you have to be careful who you appoint you're going to just appoint who didn't go to and doesn't know maybe he's aim but he's just going to be across the board. He says he says that if you're going to just appoint somebody for the sake of appointing somebody but he's not really qualified. So then that's going to be a just appoint anybody who is the and you make him into the messada without the requisite training. So then he says that whether he knows or he doesn't know. So says the Marshall, if that's the way it's going to be done, I would put an end to this practice, says the Marshall of just appointing whoever happens to be the rabbi of the community to be Messiah Giten. And therefore, he says if you're going to do it, you better do it correct because correctly, if you don't do it correctly and you just appoint anybody, so then you're going to get into trouble. I think I mentioned the story once. Morai did a little video on it about how of Weiss of Yseph Weiss told me that when in his younger days he used to be Messiah Giten he would review Mameish all of the Hilos Genon in order to ensure that he's going to do it correctly uh that you have to ens you have to have a tremendous Pikus and you have to have a serious the way the same way that the are constant constantly over excuse me several times a year and I think that the official protocol is every 30 days to go through the similar ideally with if you're so look at the in 10 source on page two from the of the the gi of having a god ram at least four times a year to go over right? Every single subject that he has, he has to do he has to consult with all of the other unless he says that there's nobody else to consult with like me here in Algeria where unfortunately he says I have absolutely nobody whatsoever to consult with. But therefore he says as a result I have to follow the rules that if it is a suffic only if it's a borrowish myel but otherwise if it's a suffic I have to be makmed but that's not the way that you really want to be able to to operate. So you should always have a full-fledged crew of misadin who are knowledgeable at the Chicago rabbitical council. We always make sure to have multiple misad ideally at every single get because we we we have at least two misad at every single get. Most bati did I don't think have the luxury of doing that but with very rare exception we have myself and rabbi raco training massad in every single at every single get or the process of training somebody else to be a mass as well. Um but there are occasions when I have been called in where there was a concern that somebody was being misin who didn't have the requisite appointment called me more than once about concern he had about regarding somebody who was a tremendous Tom but he wasn't specifically vetted to be Msada Gitan he was vetted for other roles but not to be a Msada Gitan he saw that this individual made up a letterhead and started being Msada Gitan on his own and he called me to complain even though the person happened to be a big time. He said this was not an individual who was specifically approved to be to be a ms get um they took this very very seriously. I had a situation where in a certain community there was a rub who was previously in Msada Giten and then the the son who had seen his father do it just started doing it on his own but the robot of the community called me up and they said is this the protocol or do we have to go through some sort of a process and I said you bet you have to go through some sort of a process it's not something that you could just do you could just do automatically I had another another situation I'm dealing with right now dealing right now there were bad players here, but there's a community that doesn't have a vabotum. Uh it's a growing community and God willing they'll put together a vot because they recognize that nature abhor is a vacuum and there was some out of town that saw there's a vacuum. They don't have a vad. There's no nobody there running the show. They need to do giten. A lot of communities right now if there's no official va and there's no official basin. So they send around there's a recognized messada get who travels like agreement I used to travel from place to place now travels from place to place and does get them that's perfectly fine but one of the bat did a very fine bezdon I'm not insulting anybody a very fine bezdon wrote a letter saying we train somebody in ourdon we think he's a good fellow he's never been a messagon for us necessarily but he trained in ourdon we're hereby appointing him as a mess of githan for this city he's going to go to this and stop being misog said okay fine so we're happy to work with him we meet Ganon every once in a while and he's he's writing Gon the other abutum say we don't know this well we don't he doesn't I'm sure he's a very fine person whatever but he didn't he doesn't have a reputation beforehand for being a messen why should we rely upon this and they're calling me to figure out what to do uh I'll have to speak to Rabbi Willig about this so uh This is a a running issue. uh there's a by contrast there's a certain rub in California who decided he wanted to be a misaru gitan that he's been learning the suggest and it's important to him and so forth and he was constantly doing shimos going around all the bate din so he can sit there and people could get a sense of who he is and so forth and writing his notes and consulting with respect to questions and would never dare to raise up his finger to take a quill and to start you know writing a get and being mad of the on his own um without finally getting the the bra of the bat he's been been consulting with and he wrote a nice little safer on some of the Inyani Giten that he'd been studying and he and he wrote to myself he wrote to Rabbi Zubberman others who have been working with him about whether we would endorse him and we said look we have to have a consensus of different rabbin but we can certainly say you're Yor Shamayim and so forth and every now and then he's he's he was so careful in terms of not overstepping his bound pounds of doing anything without permission that now the rebbitical council of California calls upon him sometimes to help when they have to do a kissu or something like that that he's earning trust over time he's doing it the right way there's a right way of doing it and then there's a more problematic way of doing it >> I think he's a sopher too I'm not >> I'm being very careful not to mention any names over here of anything I say >> yeah right but but but these are but these are real life these these are real life issues. These are real real life issues. Now the um this the as I mentioned before uh the the sugimo brings this very interestingly in connection with the petiv raasi raiasi passed away the tamidam said there are certain teachings that we have to go over with each other to make sure that they're not forgotten and this was one of the teaching one of the teachings was how important it is of writes with this idea that we were mentioning with respect to Dora. So here the asks the question which comes first chicken or the egg. So he says as we know comes before. So why does it say gives three answers? First answer is well you can ask the same kash about the order of the metos right the order of which comes first since gin comes first that's why the the suga mentions gin first second answer is like the ra says that that the since comes first in the p so that's why we have giten before we have before we have kidushin and maybe the idea is that giten shouldn't be depressing it should be forwardlooking that we give a gets so person go on to a new marriage. we know all of the um uh the the the maka on the subject. But then he gives a third answer which is the most germanine for our purposes which is he says look when it comes to kushian. So that is not so hard for people to know on their own. Right? If we've just be talking about kushian in a in a in a vacuum uh he says to take a woman who's a pineuya and to make her into an nasious ish. So she be mutteris to her husband that's a dal to take her to go from a pua to nasious is what do you do? She drops a ring. You drop a he drops a ring into our hands and you have some you drink some wine. Not so hard, right? So he says that the for that reason that's why anybody who knows anything they have a wet behind the ears right after we let them be the and the says the same thing. That's why he says the emphasis is on as we mentioned the word horos. So he says it's not much of a that you have to do when it comes to to not everybody agrees. Not everybody agrees but anyway that's that that's what they say as opposed to gon where you have many many is going to permit an ishma much harder to make an ish into a punya than to make a puya into anious ish. Uh so he says, "So when is it that we're worried about expertise in the area of of kushian?" When it's kushian that follows following a get. Oh, for that you need expertise. A person was divorced and you need to determine whether the get that they received was a proper get. This is not for the uninitiated. This requires very very careful very careful knowledge uh and you can end up making terrible mistakes in both directions. If you think that a get was good and you're going to act upon it or you think that a get wasn't good and then the husband dies and there's a question as to whether she can go back to her pre um to her previous um whether she's an almano or a gusa um in this particular case as to whether she's going to be mutteras looen because she's only an alman and she's not a and she's not a gusha or whether I'm going to be allow the person if she remarries afterwards to be to that he can he can be with her again whether it's a situation a mox gusho or not so you're going to have all kinds of consequences in both directions whether you think that a get is good or whether you think that a get is is not good you'll say she was misan with somebody else so moxy gusho is not going to so happen because she'll be a sur because she's a misan let's say she became the kudeshious to somebody else in the interim and then she received a get and you think that the get was not good and then the husband died. So then in this particular case um if you say the kushian if you say you say the kushian was not good um and and all that she had was a kuchen. So then I have a real then I have a real shila as to I think um there am I allowed to say about the shila that's being dealt with right now as to whether a certain get was a valid get because it was potentially a get musa rabbi will okay there's a certain sometimes the shila comes up whether a get is valid because it was a get musa and then the the husband dies afterwards and there's a question whether this woman is allowed to marry a co because she's really an ammona as opposed to as a gusher. So that's where we're talking about over here. We're talking about if there is a kushian that follows a get. So that requires a tremendous amount of expertise and that's where we have this this question. Now the the piska quotes from the that takes a different position from the taz a different position from the marasha where the says that no even with respect to performing a kaducion of a puya you have a shyos where you need to know that you're not allowed to perform a wedding for certain people likeneas not everybody knows laas not everybody knows the denim of mubcis mubberis and mika that she's not allowed to get married of mubberis mika has to wait 24 months etc. uh so he says that even when it comes to the initial marriage you require some more more expertise but we all know we all know that when it comes to kudushian we're we're less we're less meticulous and therefore in the maharasha's point is very well taken that you need particular expertise if you're examining a kudushian that follows a that follows a get uh now there is in fact a practice that we have that there are certain rabbanim whose gitan are not respected. Number one, there are rabanim who had a reput have a reputation that they do kafir on a regular basis. We've had that in the in the bezdon uh we had that in the bezdon of America. I remember that whenever we would get a pure from a particular ro that there was a we didn't automatically assume that the get was no good but we had to do a very careful to see to it that he didn't do physical coercion of the husband because unfortunately this rub had a reputation he had a reputation let's just let's just put it that way so our sofair would very often write with him so we were able to go to our sofa and say did you write he wouldn't write again that he thought was going to be a puzzle of get we said did you write this get and did you know the circumstances were such that there were no there was no esoy but many but if you don't know you're not an insider then you might just come to accept every single get even when it might be you know there's a there's a there's I won't say but shil that that there's a suffic with respect to every single get that the certain certain Rabbon did. >> You don't know such a person suffering again. >> What? >> You don't just tell us such a person suffering again after case by case. >> We don't have the ability to stop certain people from writing Giten. We don't have the ability unfortunately. We had one case of an elderly RV who was initially vetted for writing Giten and then as he got older he started taking certain liberties with respect to how he wrote Gitton. He started getting less careful in terms of it and then we really had to discourage people from continuing to use this rubble. He couldn't tell the r to stop. He wouldn't listen to us at that point in time. And he was already he already had a name that was accepted. So, you know, one of the more uncomfortable positions that we're in is that sometimes the Rabanutarashit will turn to us and say, "Could you help us update our list in terms of who we have in our list whom we respect, who maybe we shouldn't respect anymore." And it's a very uncomfortable situation to be in. But we have to be honest about those misogyny that we don't recognize. those misad where we have to do a case by case um uh now Mosha Feinstein writes that if you know that the Rab was an orthodox rabbi and you don't otherwise have a reason to suspect that a reason to assume that this person did get improperly like he doesn't have a reputation necessarily for being gi for doing a coerced gon physical coercion and things of of that sort. So Mosha writes this is page four source Zion. He says in the case that came before him and this was a specific case where there was a question whether it was a G usa because I think that the wife had taken some money from the um the had gone to court and the court had had insisted had ruled that the husband was required to pay a certain amount of misonos towards the wife and only in order to get out of that obligation because he wasn't fulfilling it and they were putting him in jail. Put him in jail. He didn't pay that the that he was willing to give a get and quoted from the various that if it's onus it's not a get but maybe if it was that then it's a problem but before he gets into that whole discussion in the end he says they probably weren't more than what we would have been and therefore it doesn't count as he found a way out of that but he said that with the starting point though is that we do not assume uh that the that there's a problem with if you look at so he says if I have a who had certainly a reputation that he was known as the respectable messen you don't start start off with be with challenging his gin If you were standing at the time of the and you were not you did not claim you do not find the problem then you're not allowed to find the problem afterwards and in this case he said that there's because the person who was asking the question was asking the question based on when he really he says the person who informed the show about the problem was somebody who was present at the get and therefore that person violated the however that there's a lublin that was written around the time of the get in which he says that and of course the very his position in general is very contentious in that case but but he says certain things that you know very mistav you weren't present to get you had no way knowing about it at the time, you only find that afterwards, when you find that afterwards, it's clearly a problem. So then if there something is clearly a problem, then obviously it needs to be flagged and it needs to be corrected. But but Mosha points out that unless you know that you certainly don't start off looking for problems with respect to somebody who's a respected Msad Gitten, you start off with the assumption they did things properly. I've heard uh from certain respected misadrian that even if they are doing a get and they come up with sheamos that are different from the way that the previous messada did the sheamos if the previous messada was somebody who is wellresected and was somebody with a good reputation. Uh so then you know assuming that it's in the ballpark uh he just works with the assumption that the sheamus must have changed over time. That's all. So the sheamus must have changed over time and he doesn't doesn't look for problems. Of course you have to have to know when to apply that and when not to apply that. So if you look in source so writes what about the following case where it was written in the okay of the this is a woman who is wants to get married is a question of zeris her mother was previously married and it says in the of her second marriage it says so he says that if we're if we're dealing with the person who performed the second wedding was a ro who knew how to do we're talking about talking about right as says so he says he wouldn't have if he didn't see it there was but he says that what if however we're dealing with somebody who is a or reverend a lot weddings that took place in the Bronx like in the early part of the 20th century were done by reverends and maybe he wouldn't know that the woman just told him that she was a gush and he wouldn't ask for any uh information. Uh so then he says then you have to do um and you have to find the the RAV who was the original Mitsen that's kind of hard if you're going back 70 years right but if you have the ability to go back so you go back um he says but but only if the only way that we knew that she had a first wedding altogether is because she told us then we say that's a difficult spirit to rely upon because it's relatively calivar nowadays if somebody was previously married. Very often you can, you know, find wedding records and so forth. It goes back a long time. So maybe maybe not. But Ramosa asked Chuous about that as well. Let's assume that you knew the person was married. So he says, but let me tell you a general principle. And here is where you have a a seeming discrepancy between what Mosha says and what says Mosha says whenever it's not clear that the rabb had the requisite shayim but he had a name of an orthodox rabbi let's say he wasn't recognized as a as a cracker jackack msado git and he was never specifically appointed in that position like some of the things we've been talking about. But he says to make a woman in a for this I wouldn't do it. Um because after all he is an orthodox rabbi called as long as I don't know I didn't I don't know that the circumstances with the s of or anything like that. He says the worst thing might be that there somebody didn't do something right on a durabundant level. So therefore we can rely upon the fact that we have the coonies. We have the general the booklets that are out there in terms of how to do a a a get properly. So we assume that following the script is okay. I don't understand. I mean you also have to work with the assumption that he has somebody who's a competent sofair because that's often like the key uh to ensuring a a good get. But that's what Ramosha Feinstein writes. On the other hand, the pisk chuga if you look in source your test on page five. So when the sedette at the very beginning says we should only have a bucky deal with gin says he says the problem is when people have given out all of these scripts and all these booklets that give you a question and answer script for the so then the Torah has gone out the window. Some people just use the booklet without knowing what they're doing. He says, "Woe upon the ears that hear such a thing." Even though the who put this together clearly they did this that we wouldn't necessarily work with the assumption that everything really was fine just because we had the booklets out there. It's one of the reasons the basin of America is very makbid not to distribute its get script. The get script is a very sacrosan um carefully guarded document. It doesn't leave the environments of the bezdon. Even though you'll say, "Oh, but everyone can pick up a kabnaki." Good. If you know how to read a kabnaki properly, so you're already in pretty good shape. But if you're looking at the English script of the bez of America, uh so you don't necessarily have to be such an expert just to go through the script. And therefore we want to prevent the pitfall. People are not so knowledgeable just deciding oh I could be missing gitan on my own and they'll find some un um suspecting individual who's learning safer to come and to write a get for them and uh you might end up with very very serious trouble along those lines. It's very interesting he also as a children which he talks about somebody who was make when it came to gayas make when it came to gayas. Can we rely upon him when it comes to gon? So he quotes the just because he's a big when it comes to doesn't mean that he's going to say okay one thing you make somebody Jewish okay so not you're not creating per se it's a it's a mess but uh not on the same level not in the same order of magnitude as doing a get improperly and also he writes that unfortunately we don't have as good a tradition when it comes to the strict standards of of because often it's not as just how careful you need to be when it comes to unfortunately we still you know suffer from that problem uh to a great degree but when it comes to Giten. He says if this Rob also does Gon the fact that his Gayas is shotty is not a reason to suspect again get in his case the raktaka was a little bit of a reasa because the father of the of the woman um from whom the first get the she received the first get uh and now she's married to um to somebody else. So he remembered that the way in which this rob did it was he came to the hospital and he asked this man who was sick if he wants to give a get to his wife and he said yes and then the rob had him had two witnesses sign on a piece of paper and he doesn't and he the piece of paper was not a get so he thought that somehow he was counting just this just a blank piece of paper as a get and mosher probably the father you know forgot over the um he forgot over the years and uh exactly what happened and it was probably a kiss to new form. It was probably a pre-printed kiss to its new form and then afterwards the get was written and then this father forgot over the years and now there was a child that was born from the second marriage and he says that uh we don't have to worry that this Rob since he was an orthodox rabbi the fact that he was Michael when it come to gay is not a reason to suspect that he didn't do the get the get properly and Ramosha throws it and we're not even talking about allowing her to remarry in this basis we're talking about the status of the child the suffic mobs But Mosha always said, "Hey, sufficer is haloner. It's not oser anyway." But Mosha says that very often he doesn't mean sufficer is mut because the gammor says sufficer is but has a line one of his when she says that whenever you know whenever whenever you have a majority argument that it should be okay. So then we're not mak it's 50/50 once it's already 7030. So there's no uh there's no ha of suffices that's a running theme in raosha's in raosha's chubus. Now what if you have conservative gith get what if you have a conservative g so that already is a totally different ball of wax uh and that's much much more difficult to ever rely upon there used to be back in the day there were a couple of rabbis in the world of the Jewish theological seminary you could sometimes be relied upon rvesik apparently said I didn't hear this directly others in the room can correct me or clarify apparently said that a get was that was done Boaz cone was considered to be okay. Why is Boa's cone considered to be okay? Because he was one of the their official misadim and he always had orthodox people orthodox orthodox adim who would oversee the process. I think rebell would write for him. Rebell himself was qualified to be a mess again. rebellious was involved in the process, he would see to it that it was written properly that the were that the were so therefore you could rely upon that. I remember when I started working in the bezdon world, we would sometimes get gin from a certain rabbi in Queens who's the who came was a European rabbi actually but he was in the conservative movement. He ran the bezdon the conservative bezdon in Queens. His name was Solomon Faber I believe and rebellia would tell us if the get was written during a tufa when he was writing the githan for Solomon favor if it was he said I can vouch for the get if it wasn't so you know obviously you couldn't uh you couldn't vouch for it then it would simply be a question to what degree could you rely upon them the problems with the conservative gin are multiffold one problem is that when we look at the sheamus the sheamus are often terrible um sometimes there are other mistakes akes in the writing of the gette itself that we see but the biggest problems are the following two problems number one that the are often the areab so the so so you don't have a so then all bets are off then for sure you don't have a good get the other thing is at one point in time they have a they had a website uh I think the joint bezen you know the conservative movement whatever they had a website about how they do their gizen and they threw amongst other things. Oh, and one of the things that we rely upon in order to bring about a get is get that we will do a get the husband didn't even authorize the get. We'll just decide it was in his best interest for get to be written. So, you never know with any of their it could be forget you leave the get. It could be magnificent in terms of the shamos and everything else, but it could be that it was a get zal. Um, so therefore, it's a non-get. It doesn't even get off. It doesn't even get off the ground. Uh, I think I saw this on the website for a while. Then I looked at one point it wasn't there anymore. Uh, maybe somebody told them it was a good idea to take that part out. But ready, the cat was out of the bag. Cat was out of the bag. So therefore, uh, that's a serious issue. Now, what if, however, uh, you're able to determine that no, there was a proper authorization from the from the rabbi. So uh rabbi uh there was a certain rabbi in New Jersey who did a lot of giten for the conservative movement and some of his gin there would be a certain aid on the get I heard this from I think that he had a relative who he knew to be a sham shabis and if he signed on the get so he knew he would only sign on the get for the other aid was also shabas so if it wasn't an a get and he they were that means they also would have been the ads And that way you know that the same people were and if everything else in the G was fine is only disqualified if he's mamein and this person who apparently was not uh he was personally shab he's not mish a heretic who was the messiah in the in the sair so maybe there's room um room to be met now this of course hearkens to the of right that if I have get it's going to be unless it's a unless it's why is that so the Garra says it goes like the opinion of that we only because they're not so if I have one and one aid is one kasher aid who sign since they have to one has to see the other so the kasher aid wouldn't have signed on okay assuming he signed second we were there together I mean he wouldn't have signed on the get unless he ensured that the other get was also. So he wanted to potentially make that argument. So it's interesting that's where this is actually brought wouldn't necessarily know where to look for it. Right? So he says that okay if you have geta where you have so it's going to be that because the is going to ensure that the ki is going to be however we've automatically disqualified all the so therefore we only we can't apply this principle to the koutim but we can apply this principle to the sidukim nowadays the sidukim would be like the old timekim And as we had one and one so then it's going to be okay comes along the and he quotes he says no the nowadays who are basically it's another term for the nowadays he says no there's no such thing as a who is a koi so my question is where do the a conservative aid nowadays fit in. Let's say you determine that he is a sham shabist. Do you say just by virtue of the fact that he's nonorthodox affiliates nonorthodox he's in the category of either siduki why is it that the kim or eventually possible not because of a declaration that they were really gay um gay arayos maybe gay sedic either they were bowing down to a statue a deiona that's what the garra says or mayor wanted to posel him for that reason but then the garra says no they weren't posled at that point in time they were only posled when it was determined that there was nobody left that there was showra and rashi has a very interesting comment there he says because they didn't distance themselves from them because they were used to interacting with them only later on the days of they weren't anymore so they separated from them so I'm thinking that in terms of the conservative world at one point in time there really was like more of an interaction. There wasn't necessarily such an abyss, a distance between the traditional conservative, the monotheics. They would talk to each other. There were they big fights and they were you read some of the literature in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, some of the takunist, the conservative wanted to make and how they were lambasted in the orthodox world. We wouldn't lambast nowadays because [clears throat] that we wouldn't be gummies them all together. We're not interacting with them all together. It's not like a question of oh, we think this is a bad idea. There was no havina that it would be a good idea that we've reached a point in which kan shora you look in the k world it used to be in traditional conservative world there was a big vast population that you would bring over the ysy shabatones and so forth it's a much vastly diminishing and shrinking world right now in terms of the interactions and therefore it could very well be that nowadays uh we we've reached the same stage with respect character to the non-orthodox community. But here it's possible maybe maybe we would differentiate between those who are serving in the rabbitic post in that pos in that community where clearly that they have strayed tremendously from any kind of observance or acceptance of Torah Shayim and the like or you have a lay person who happens to be shabas and sh mitzvos. I don't know. It's hard for me to to understand how you would be a a shtor and in in that community. Maybe if you're dealing with a 95 year old from the olden days, something like that, you would have to, you know, scrutinize it very very carefully. I remember at one point in time we had a meeting with the head this I think I think he may still be around with the head of the the conservative bezdon, this mayor of Benowitz. He came in to the Bezon of America. We wanted to make a deal. There's a This is to show this is a conversation that made sense you could still have 26 27 years ago. the idea of having such a meeting now I don't even think it would enter enter anybody's consciousness but this is going back going back 25 years so you could still have such a conversation so we had a conversation and we wanted to make a deal anytime somebody in the conservative movement comes into one of the their conservative they didn't and they want to do a get if they determine there was an orthodox marriage that they will send them to our best if they determine it was an orthodox marriage to send them to our best and we almost had a deal on table almost had a deal on table Phil, they turned to us and they said, "Okay, but we want reciprocity. >> If somebody comes to you and you determine they had a conservative wedding, then you'll have to send them to us." So, we said, "No deal. Uh, the whole purpose of this exercise is to ensure that there'd be more kosher git, not less kosh. We're not going to have kosher git at the expense of of producing non kosher gitan." So, the whole deal was off the table, but we did it. But but but the fact that we had such a discussion, it says something about just the different stages of interaction. I think at this point in time, you wouldn't even have that degree of interaction. >> I don't want to take off tangent, but was that is that position because a shaker or >> it's very likely in any particular conservative wedding that you may have had kosher. You don't you don't know. Every conservative wedding, a reform wedding. Okay. Maybe there's more of a presumption more of a presumption that it's 100% bumabuto. We don't automatically pos every single conservative wedding. We don't do that. Um I remember uh once I had a conversation with a leading a leading leading postc I won't say the name a leading postc and I said what do we do with cases where we determine that it's a conservative get and it's complete and it doesn't have this cautious because rebella didn't write it wasn't done for boas con like but it was only a conservative wedding in the first place so how much do we do we need to do so he said this post said kabolo kapoto said kabolo kapoto but we never took the position on kabolo kapoto kabolo yes it may have been kabolo definitely not pto there's no pto here okay because the this the very strong kazak is the ganish the kushian as we said the t said it's much easier to effectuate kosher kushian kdushian happened to have two kosher kushian may have been good even even according to the kdushian may have been good forget revankin Of course we we be we'll be we want to of course be likein but sometimes even according to you need again. >> What year is this conversation you just mentioned ago? >> What >> how long was the conversation? >> How long was that conversation? >> How long ago did that conversation take place? Probably about 15 years ago. Probably about 15 years ago. Okay. Uh now it's interesting how Moshe actually developed over time because the first this is an undated tube. I'd like to say the year it was written. I don't know the year. It was written to David Hollander who uh was a longtime rabbi in the rebbitical council of America world in Brooklyn in Brooklyn >> before that was in the evening Jewish center >> I don't remember the names of his he was in Brooklyn uh so this is a chuva to him mo so he writes here about a rabbi who's a conservative rabbi he learned in the conservative seminary and he was the mess for a there was a kashair there was one kosher aid and he was the other aid on the get is the get kasha or not if a mohe goes through hoops to find the way to be mosha to get he says that since there were two kasha mira the ads wouldn't have known that this guy just because he was a conservative rabbi was a puzzle in fact he was shabas but maybe not 100% because uh it seems that he was misab came to carrying with he wasn't wasn't so perfect with respect to other aspects of shabas he was better so said I don't I I can't say for sure that he's kosher but on the other hand you know we didn't mabus maybe according to the rama someurus you don't have to be mabedus he goes back and forth but he says that the biggest soul that he has is the fact that he took this position of being a rabbi for the conservative movement so he says but maybe that you can argue that it does not necessarily take away from his cautious maybe he only did it um for purposes of making a maybe he only did it for purposes of making a he says that maybe for personal purposes that's why he learned there and he took a position from them but he still maintained but he says but since there Orthodox people just do it for because they pay more money. Therefore, you can't assume that he's a you can't assume he's a kof in which case you have to be in which case he wasn't necessarily pleadus and even though he was involved with minus conservative movement that's not an is that's only that he was didn't stay far away from it is not an isos. So therefore that also wouldn't necessaril automatically possibly even though we know about that and then he says you can be mock with the ads I one of the three ads because the two ads in the sofa he says could also count but he says that um what but but doesn't apply he says doesn't apply according to the riff because the didn't know that he was ple so what about he says oh well the indicates that is only as opposed to the case. So it's written of the because who did it of the would be there's one day in this is the says it's so he says that I think there's more of an argument that he wasn't it was just panosa and therefore I can't say that he's a co-fair etc etc and he says and you know who agreed with meenin of henin agreed with me on this so it's obviously written early on if he's still consulting with rahenin it's got to be you know no later than the 1960s if he's quoting if he's quoting rahenin so um 1970 or so at the at the latest but in all of the subsequent shuos of Moshe Bava pointed to the fact that they are um not only pussle for the fact that they affiliate with the conservative movement but the argument they're doing it for panosa makes it worse because it makes them a even would agree that they're a they would do this for money so they could lie for money too and therefore he says there's no bigger pierce the fact that they serve in this position and for sure they would be puzzle so he writes that in so it's very interesting thing that over time what Moshe soued and I'd like to suggest. So my is what's the reason? The reason is exactly this. The reason is that there were that as we said from the Gar in the Gar in right that there were there were no Torah ain't lace shor at a certain point in time there was shorter. So therefore they were arguably still within the fold. You would find individuals who were shabas. They could be within the fold. But then in a certain point in time it became like the where there were no shor anymore where it was no we were no longer like Rashi says in that sug in already that completely outside of the parish. So I would submit that was an that is an explanation for this turnaround that we find within remotious chubos that it wasn't that he necessarily just a change of heart. It's a change of mitsus in terms of what they represented a change of mits. They were completely you know outside of the pole. Now the um the last um the last piece that I'd like to uh I'd like to talk about uh in this uh in this context is and this is probably the most um the most difficult uh I I would just uh finish by saying Schwarz's policy was he would always look for grounds to position because he didn't have adim like in a conservative wedding but would never take into account even as a sniff in my experience would never take into account even as a sniff the possibility of the cautious of a conservative get even it was never even a sniff it was no kabo kakapoto that was not a sniff the only thing you would take into account is that he treated the get as a gordish and it's just a question of the kushian that's how I was trained that's how I was trained you focused on the kdushian to see if there were or not but in terms of the get there's nothing nothing to rely upon externally when you don't even know whether they're doing you know a getal Uh, and they could be doing that. So, how how could you how could you trust them with respect to anything? I hate to say it. I hate to say it. I had one case, one case where we had a conservative rabbi who um had a congregant and the congregant said, "I'll only do the get if my rabbi will officiate. Only do the get if my rabbi will officiate." Um, so the rabbi happened to be a showabis, but we wouldn't, you know, have him officiate obviously. Uh so we uh we contacted the rabbi. We told him the situation. We said, "Can we do the get with you?" He said, "This fellow wanted to go to the to the rabbi to to the sh and the sanctuary. Rabbi study, whatever. We go to your study and do the get and you will read the script. We'll have you read the script." Rabbi said, "Sure, very happy to do it." Whatever. So he read the script and so forth. And we had a mess, a proper messag proper messag who led the entire it wasn't me a proper mat who led the entire led the entire ceremony. And then it came time for the the adim to be to be appointed. Uh and when it came time for the minoy of the adim so the messiah get this was the only time during the entire procedure in which I saw the rabbi get annoyed but it doesn't matter. So he turned that. So he said um that to the husband you're going to appoint these okay to the exclusion of everyone else in the room. >> Don't normally say we don't normally say that but again that's what he said. The rabbi knew exactly why it was being said but uh so that's the only time but but mamesh set foot into the conservative synagogue and and we took care of it because make sure there was a make sure there was a propagate. Yeah. Um the hardest case nowadays is when we talk about is to determine what to do. The woman was married as we mentioned there's no get but she got a she got a and now she gets remarried and now she comes to us and she says okay time for me to get a get from my new husband because uh it's not unusual to have recidivists when it comes to gin. Second marriage didn't work out either. She got a heter from some illegitimate bezdon to go and she had an orthodox marriage. Got a heter from an illegitimate mezdan. Get married a second time. She got married a second time. Whole thing was illegitimate. Does she require a get? Does she require a get alto together from the second husband? Does she require a get? So that's that's that's question number one. Does she require a get? So so when this became this started happening it started happening in the aftermath of the rakmanding. You may recall unfortunately after the Rakim Bezdon there's also the emergence of the IBD uh the international bezdon um which unfortunately does pretty much the same thing uh and then women get married and now it's time for them to get divorced so they need to get they not even get right you got to know they have a gift in you got to know right so the um so I asked this question both when it first came up I mean Yeah. And they both answered exactly the same thing. They said at the end of Zionzer that you need to get. It's true. It is the end of Z that you need to get in such a you need to get in such a in such a case. Um but not necessarily. Um is it a does everybody agree with the rash? So we have to we have to figure out there are three different scenarios that are discussed in the post game. You look at the understanding. One scenario is a woman receives a from a legitimate best receives a from a legitimate best that she's allowed to get remarried and then she gets married on that basis. So we say anusa that she's considered to be like an anusa right um and um and therefore she is mutterish so the this is this is the rash um this is a rash who says that in this particular case if it would be a legitimate a legitimate so says the rash then she's you know what that means that means we're not requiring get from the second husband because otherwise she wouldn't be mutisha. So Asha says if she would have received a legitimate from a from a bezdon. So then she would have to so then she is an anusa and she does not need to get from a second husband. She can even go back to first husband if she wants to. She probably doesn't want to in most of our cases right but if she but if if it was a legitimate heter um I mean a legitimate bezdon excuse me not legitimate heter legitimate bezdon they made a mistake. legitimate bezel made a mistake. Legitimate Bez made a mistake. So then it says the rash was legitimate bezel made a mistake. So then she can go back to the first husband and obviously by inference she doesn't require again >> what authority >> right because of the we we say in this particular case that because of the fact that she's anusa she can go back to now what's the what's the proof text of the rashba? Proof text of the rash is the case of Mika, the daughter of SH that you know and therefore the kaducian of Mik to David he said was not a good kaducian and therefore he gave her over to Palipin. How could she go back to dovet afterwards? So the answer is that because of the fact that she was relying upon her father was a who was the you know chief of chief schol he made a mistake so therefore she was allowed to go back to mal that's what the um that's what the rash says everybody understands that she didn't do anything wrong and she was relying upon a legitimate legitimate I but uh there's um people might say that she got to get from doin And then she went back to me afterwards and he's being right maybe there that she got a gap from then got another from they'll say she's gasso that's a whole in when we're when we're worried about that when do we say this principle of that woman got married by mistake said that her husband died. So he says but then at the end of the says that if she was only she can go back. Why is that? So we say it could be that it has to be coupled with the fact that she did something wrong. So we're going to impose a going to impose a kas. So makus riff and rush whether you need both things that there's a possibility people will say she received a gift from the first one and then the second one then went back to the first one plus that she did something wrong or just that she did something wrong. So the the riff has the gears of the the points this out. He has the gears of Ella at the end that Ella. So it all depends upon the kas. So even if it would be a case of a yubama who thought that her um husband was dead and she married her brother-in-law where nobody's going to think that oh well she must have gotten a get from her husband and then she married the brother-in-law and now she's going back to her husband you know when he turns out to be alive because you can't do that. Um, so according to the according to the riff where it's all about a kas, so if she wasn't careful, so we're still going to impose a if I don't have the word Ella, which apparently the rush didn't have the word Ella. So the said it doesn't apply in this case because you also need the possibility that people are going to say like the gears of the rift and the like the gears of of the rush. So if we understand like that we understand that there has to be some sort of aas involved. So we understand why the rashba was so malle over here. Now not everybody was so keen about this koola of the rashba uh the uh the uh the the uh the taz the taz says uh that uh that's not what was um what's going on over here because in the case of Mikall we know what the gamarra says. The Gamarra says that she was never nibble. She was never nibble to py altogether. He says um so therefore nothing got nothing got off the ground that w with with respect to with respect to Mik um and he says that if you're going to say that Bezdon is considered to be an onus and and therefore in that there's nothing to um uh so he so he says that's the reason why we're going to be we're going to be make because it'll be like the case of Niskatcha case of Niscatcha where there was no a so in that case we're going to be make so he says and well that which we say that bezdon is an onus and not a shog so he says I don't think so I think it's not quite an onus because if it would be an onus so why do we have a parquamonus so bezdon is obviously a shog so shog is worse there's a certain amount of negligence with respect to bezen just like in the case where two say that your husband died and she gets married so you say havuk she should have checked that more she should have checked that more in this case as well so not Everybody agrees with this uh koola of the um of the rashba. Okay. But that but that's the rash koola again in the case where you had a ruling from a legitimate basin. Case number two. Case number two is the case where she didn't get a ruling from a she just made a mistake on her own. Made a mistake on her own. We say no. Then for sure we're going to impose upon you. then for sure we're going to impose the and she's going to for sure require a get from the from the second husband. So most of the post can say uh that no debut has a chuva about this that if I have a situation where the woman did not receive a harra from a very reputable bezdon, she just received a harra from somebody who was out on the street, right? Some person out on the street or some bezdon that did not have a good reputation like what I've been discussing. uh so then it falls into the category of tab so in such a case get would be required so that's basically what they were alluding to they said that according to the rash because the rash is only make in case number one in case they're not in not in case number two furthermore the basios brings another ruling of the rashba where in case number three was case number three case number three is not where the woman simply was um made a mistake she made a mistake in judgment that wasn't based on legitimate bzment she knew what she was doing she was amazing Rasha talks about Ro comes along and she says I'm a punya but she knows that she's Natcha she was nachot she just didn't tell anybody so in that case says the rasha that she needs a get both from the first husband and from the second husband and he says but you know who disagrees with me what we would affectionately refer to as the tid behold in the case of me there's nothing to worry about nobody's going to think that oh this the first one gave her a get and the second one gave her a get because they know very well that she was a meida that she was like a misanist like an adulterous woman they don't require that the adulterer give her a get nobody ever heard of such a thing adulter is going to give her a get so she goes to a marriage ceremony with the adulterer who cares she went to a marriage ceremony with the adulterer it's just clear clear-cut adultery that she's a maze and therefore she does not require a she does not require a gift so therefore the rash holds that in case number one where she received a mistaken at from a legitimate B and she doesn't require a get from the second husband she can even go back to the first husband if she made a mistake on her own so then she does require a get and if she was to me she requires a get so in our cases of the bezdon it's not a recognized legitimate bezdon that gives a to a woman to remarry she according to the she falls either in case in category number two uh that she made a mistake right because it wasn't a legitimate best or she's a messa she's mida she should have known better that she that it's not a legitimate bezel. She's well aware that the whole world doesn't recognize this particular bez and she went to the bez anyway. It's a question of her awareness. If she was not so aware, so then she's in category number two. If she was aware, she's in category number three. But either way, in either category, according to the rash, she's going to require she's going to require again. Now it happens that the Schlommo asks the question and says that you know what if she was amazed. So then he says that for sure I don't think that she should um that if she's if she was amazed he agrees with the tamid asha if she was amazed that she thinks that it would not be necessary for her to have a to have again in the case of meida um because of the fact that nobody's going to make a mistake to think that uh first of all she's not going back we're not talking about going back to the first husband nobody's going to think that she was legitimately married to the second husband because of the fact that she was clearly a she Um and just like we say in this is in um simal it starts offish and it doesn't say anything about requiring get me. So he says, we see from here that if a woman is just brazen enough to be an assh that starts living with another man as a husband and wife that he brings a couple of riots that are not particularly good because they only deal with cases where she had a kaducian as opposed to any soon afterwards. But he says that the idea is basically the same. uh and um therefore uh whenever you don't have a case where she was net we're not going to be worried about bad appearances it's only when she was net people will think that there was a get from the her first husband and from the second husband worried she'll go back to the first husband etc. So the um so the question is uh what do we do in the uh situation uh where we want to get a get from the second husband but he's not forthcoming he won't give a get is there any room to potentially be make in a situation where we have a saposkim as to whether she really requires a get or not. So we had a case about eight years ago. We had a case about eight years ago is the following scenario. Crazy scenario case is like this woman's married to first husband and he refuses to give her a gift. She gets a head from a rabbi who was had a reputation not from either of these batid a rabbi from the orthodox community from the more mainstream Orthodox community per se but unfortunately who had a reputation for being trigger-happy uh when it came to giving to women who just had a soft spot for giving to women let's leave it at that and the gave based on the fact that she doesn't need a get because the husband did not have any interest in her interest. He just showed he'd come home, read the newspaper, watch a game. I don't know. He just like didn't show any interest in her. Not only did he not show any interest in her, but he was psychologically sad a lot and so forth and he wasn't providing her with a good perna. He wasn't getting a good job and so forth. He said, "Ah, kush toast." So obviously that's a joke. You wouldn't consider these to be grounds for for Pikidos. Um the uh the fact that he he wasn't interested in her, but they had a child together. How not interested in her could he be? So this isn't a case where he didn't have ruin. So she wasn't so happy with her marital life like lots of other people. You go for therapy. It's not not he was he wasn't happy golucky all the time. How many happy golucky people do we have all the time? Um so that's not not ground to. So before she got married to husband number two, there was a lot of pressure when people found out about this heter from the rabbi, they turned to the rabbi and said that uh your reputation is in trouble. Your reputation is in trouble if this woman gets married based upon your why are you to revoke the and he wrote some sort of a letter to her an email. I don't know what um saying that oh you can't really rely upon my head and there's some different accounts as to whether he kind of whispered to her I have to say this to satisfy the rabbis but of course you can rely upon my head. So then she received she she got married to husband number two with a rabbi who was a um a friend a rabbi number one. So you kind of you know a little bit you know questionable and she goes off with married marital life and of course marriage number two turns out to be an even bigger disaster than marriage number one and she desperately wants to get out of marriage number two and the husband in marriage number two um says no way no how I'm not giving her a gift. Um, but it turns out another piece of information, uh, two other pieces of information. Number one, in the meantime, husband number one died. Husband number one died. So, we don't have to worry about her ever needing to receive again anymore from husband number one because he's dead. Husband number two is still alive. Um, ah, you have a question. even if their marriage wasn't valid to begin with because she relied upon an illegitimate heter. Maybe now that husband number one is dead. So husband number two is going to realize oh now I have a chance for a legitimate marriage. So he was bald a shame kushian at that point in time maybe. So nobody was worried about that. Okay. So we leave out that consideration. Nobody was worried. Everyone assumes that he was uh had in mind the original kudush. He was relying upon himself. Okay. Uh but then the other thing that turned up and this is what really was the final um nail in the coffin of the marriage is that it turns out that she had been abusing her daughter. Abusing her daughter. He had actually raped sexually molested her daughter. And as soon as the mother found out about it, not only did she walk out of the marriage, but she and her daughter together, reported him to the criminal authorities, then he molested her prior to the marriage. So the shila came to shashaw whenasha go to chuva to the on this particular uh case this is going back eight years ago at the time there was a request not to publicize I assume eight years later so the the cha goes like this um that you have the question mark that maybe in a maze case that clearly he says she wasn't wasn't relying upon a mus. This wasn't a musm. This wasn't a shm. This was this is nothing. He said reos are not interested in their wives. Says tens of thousands of marriages the wives complain that the husbands don't pay enough attention to them. So we're going to you know nullify you know 90% of marriages. Says come on out of your mind. uh basically uh and he says that with respect to whether the second marriage was good. said clearly it doesn't fall into the head of the Basha that there was a legitimate head from there was a sorry illegitimate from a legitimate pest doesn't fall into that that that category um in terms of so it's either in category number two which the Rashba you know clearly holds it again would be required right but he says that she made a mistake in relying upon the original Pac that wasn't good but he says it wasn't a mistake because Lisa she knew this was that this was trouble and she even got a letter from the original rabbi saying don't rely upon this. Oh okay maybe she heard from him not well she he said she's basically a maze and others who say mazid is totally totally different story even the kazunish says that if you kazunish says also the case you don't have to worry that people are going to assume that there was a proper get and so forth assume that you need that criterion as well it's not just a question of class because otherwise every She says shisins would require a a get from the adulterer. So therefore you have that to rely I wouldn't rely upon that alone because that's a between the arashba even says and this is also of the nodes um the mosha roen says the um the same thing as well that if I had a situation where there the woman had moved to a a different town altogether and people don't know that she's where she was previously married to somebody else and it didn't end with a get even if she's a maze. So in that particular case, we're going to be more machmir to um to require to require a get because uh you know of of appearances. Uh that's a that's that's a big question as to whether we say you know in general that we have to nasa bakot said in general we have to be be worried uh that um you know maybe there there really you know was something uh and therefore in that case maybe a get really would be required but here everybody knew the circumstances so he said I wouldn't rely upon these considerations alone but bear in mind we're only dealing with the get so once we're only dealing with the get me and he says that the second marriage was so clearly problematic. way. We're going to be machmir to require a get with respect to the second marriage when the ha for the first marriage number one was so clearly a faulty and number two when the second marriage has one of those very very rare cases one of those very very rare cases where it looks like you have a very legitimate kaduc because what woman in her right mind would ever want to get married to a man if she knew that he had molested did her daughter prior to the wedding. No women would do that. Says nobody has, you know, such little self-respect that if they knew there was molestation of their daughter, they would still want to marry this man. Um so therefore if you throw that together into the equation that I wouldn't be mate otherwise but given that it's only a um a a get requirement mean and there's strong rounds to say that even if the second the first I otherwise would have required yet or even if I was only dealing with a second marriage in a vacuum and it wasn't a question of the for the the fact that she was still married to the first husband uh I would still not um uh it would still not be a valid marriage for that reason. So therefore he said I'm prepared to be make but only if I could find some other major post who is also prepared to be make and one other major post who agreed to be in this case was anybody. Okay. So therefore we had the uh the second uh uh voice of approval and um in that particular case they were make but as a general rule as a general rule um we do have to worry we have a lot of these cases a lot of these cases where somebody shows up to the best and a woman shows up and she wants to get a gift from her second husband and turns out she never got a gift from the first husband and you have the cases where they were the both how could an orthodox rabbi married her the second time around. The answer is it wasn't an orthodox rabbi. It was some other rabbi where you say she was a meida, she was a tasa but she still requires a get from the second husband. But of course she requires a get from the first husband as well. Um sometimes the first wedding was orthodox. Sometimes it was conservative as well. Some a question as to whether each mar whether the the first marriage was legitimate whether shim whether whether not shim. So Shahid Dea, okay Shared Dea has a very very interesting that he bases upon a gimm in I think B yeah that says that in order for a get to be minimally valid. This is the regarding an isa who only receives a get that says she's only so that is a minimally um acceptable get for purposes of being counts as explain but um it's not otherwise a get otherwise a get why because in order to be a It has to be m her to somebody. It's to be m to somebody in order for it to be a get to be anything to be to be a real get. It's to be m to somebody. So says the sha that you're not being m her to if the second husband is going to give her a get. So you're not being m her to um to anybody because the first marriage was still in effect. Um and therefore she is not being mutterist to anybody more than she would have been mutterist to beforehand only if the first husband gives her a so then arguably before I unravel the second yet she's at least becoming mutterist now for the first time to the second husband um but there's nothing new that's being she's being mutterist to you start off with a second husband so there's an actual order that you should do the gin so when you are doing these get in the you should always do the get from the first marriage before you do to get from the second marriage. Now it was the case I included in the material. of the ticelar of a case where crazy case a man went to bezdon he showed up and he with a woman was not his wife and he had the bezdon do a full get said this is my wife and they did again then came home with a pur came I don't know to home or to the woman's house who he was married to not clear but he comes to her uh to his real wife and he says okay here's your tour and she said wow I didn't have to do anything he said yeah that's the way it works I thought that I'm supposed to be there myself nah nowadays it's not they don't require it anymore uh and She decided, "Okay, I'm going to go with this." Um, and she went and she found another man to marry. The rabbi, orthodox rabbi says, "Show me your tuda scarish." Yeah, here's my tuda scarish, you know, respected, you know, Bezdon Raban, whatever. So, they marry her off and now she has a child. Unfortunately, she's pregnant at the time. She's about to have a child and um that the and and the situation is found out about and the best in Pasin that she has to get a gift from the first husband the second husband the child unfortunately is going to be and there was some well-meaning ro who tried to find various this that the other I don't know what the were but so he wrote says you're it's wonderful you're looking for all these but unfortunately Ely there are none. There are no in this particular case. This was a woman who herself was certainly amazed with the he said for sure in this case where it looks to the outside world that she really did receive a get. So we have to be m to require a get from the second from the second husband as well because she certainly looks like an asshma to require a get from both husbands. And unfortunately the child is to be moms and the woman was not happy about it. Obviously it's a very sad tragic situation. The first husband came around but the first husband came around much later than the second husband because he said hey I went to a get ready. I brought a different woman to the best. Who cares? They didn't stop me. Um and uh the uh and she and the woman said I didn't know any better. So the um said yes you did know better. That's why you asked your husband the question. You think you should have asked and when it was time for you to get married, you should have gone to the Ra Mada and said, you know, I didn't receive this get myself. My husband told me it was okay, but I just want to make sure it's okay. But you didn't say that. So therefore, you you don't have clean hands over here. But uh but in any event, in that case, I noticed if you look at the fact pattern of the case and Sicil the second husband gave him the get first and then the first husband and he wasn't Makm. He wasn't maki. The sed is not not mak. He has a very very uh interesting suggestion that when you write the get from the second uh husband you should write the kasi uh rather than writing incasy because it's not really say the kasi probably it's not our practice it's not our practice when we write again from the second marriage we don't write the kasi we still write incessi and probably part of it is that it's sometimes hard to tell which uh you know which is the really valid marriage is the first marriage or the second could be the second marriage is more valid than the first marriage particularly if you're dealing with with conservative git which is usually the case when you have multiple marriages if the first marriage was indeed orthodox and second one was reform or something like that then takil would come up but we don't um mess around with the sign of the get and u it's um probably not really to per se per se anyway but that's just sort of an interesting sidlight that that I wanted to to point out uh so in terms of um the question really the that the Marsha had raised or this feature of the necessary expertise raised by the Marsha and Kaducin the idea of Kaducian following Giten. So as we've seen that there are really three very important aspects that relate to Hilas Giten that Msado Kadouch has to be aware of and really can't do on his own without proper consultation with those who have been trained in the area of Giten. Number one, if there was a get, whether the get was properly a kosher. Number two, if there was a heter without a get, whether it's a proper heter. In fact, there is no Torah for a get. uh and when to make a determination uh that when a a woman errors and gets involved with a new marriage relationship because of some sort of error or some type of a mistake in stock, when is there a necessity for her to receive a get from the second husband under those circumstances? And we will stop here. Monday.