| | Feature
260 Years After the "Get from Cleves": A Controversial Get
by Y. Holland
Part III
For Part II of this series click here.
The first part of this article described the circumstances and background of a get given in the small town of Cleves. The chosson behaved strangely right before and immediately after the wedding, even disappearing during the sheva brochos. He said that he had to flee for his life to England. The Rav of Cleves, HaRav Yisroel Lipschitz, agreed to arrange a get for him, but the beis din of Frankfurt later decided that it was invalid. The latter sent a letter to the rav of Cleves who had arranged the get, asserting that it was posul in view of the chosson's unusual behavior. Rav Lipschitz replied that he still maintained that the get was valid. Eventually, virtually every important rav alive issued an opinion in the matter.
The response from Frankfurt was delayed. They preferred, for whatever reason, to conceal the content of the deliberations, testimonies, and other proceedings. Many residents of Bonn who had been present at the time the get was arranged, or who had accompanied the chosson and his party to Cleves, were summoned to testify before the beis din, Rav Shimon Copenhagen among them. The investigation continued for three weeks, and at its conclusion, the judges ruled that there still remained a doubt as to the woman's status. The validity of the get was in question.
The major question: Was Yitzchok Neiberg, the erstwhile chosson, a shoteh and hence incapable of giving a get?
In Frankfurt and Mannheim, the majority opinion was yes. Many facts were brought as proof of this: The young man's strange behavior, his divorce so short a time after a wedding that had entailed much preparation and even financial debt, the fact that he concealed everything from his father, and his giving up a large sum of money for the good of the woman.
In Bonn and Cleves, they refuted these proofs in detail, explaining the reasoning behind each of the actions. They remarked that the chosson's behavior in Mannheim certainly didn't invalidate the get, because—even though his behavior was strange—he had done nothing that would put him in the category of a shoteh. Both sides had halachic proofs to support their contentions.
The Nodeh BiYehuda
The Frankfurt Beis Din Becomes an Issue
As things developed, the great rabbonim of the time, including the Shaagas Aryeh and the Noda BiYehuda were unhappy with the stand of the Frankfurt beis din that did not recognize the opinion of any other rav in the world but insisted that they alone should determine the halochoh.
The Noda BiYehuda in particular explained his opposition with great clarity. He raised a number of points in his lengthy letter. "Since the day that the Earth was founded, the chachmei hador have not been treated with such contempt as in our generation, by the judges of the holy congregation in Frankfurt-am-Main... They have decreed that none of the chachmei hador should say a word. As if they were all students, and speaking out would constitute a case of rendering a law in the presence of one's teacher." (moreh halochoh bifnei Rabbo)
One of the complaints of the Frankfurt beis din was that the majority of those who paskened that the get was valid didn't consult with them first: Since others were on the "outside," they didn't have an accurate picture of what had occurred, as did the Frankfurt beis din, which was deeply involved in the matter.
The Noda BiYehuda's Response
The Noda BiYehuda responded to this claim: "If so, tell me who permitted them to rule that the get was invalid and to write to the holy congregation in Bonn, before clarifying the words of the distinguished and great luminary, the av beis din and reish mesivtah of Cleves, who arranged the get? Who is more involved in the matter than he?"
The Noda BiYehuda concluded that "this decree disparages all of the chachmei Yisroel.
Map Showing Cities
"Gedolei Yisroel Erred" — History Repeats Itself
"Today, the chachomim of Frankfurt-am-Main, who are incisive, behave thus. Tomorrow, a beis din of lesser stature will invalidate a get and say, 'We are aware of our reasoning, and don't need to reveal it.' The day after that, the scenario will be repeated by a beis din of even lower stature, who don't discern between good and evil.
"If this occurs, the daughters of Israel will become hefker. The ban that Rabbeinu Tam and his followers instituted on those who besmirch the validity of a get will then be of no use. Because this ban applies across the board without exception, (lo plug) I will not be silent even to the chachomim of the Frankfurt congregation."
The Noda BiYehuda points out a number of drawbacks in the judicial process of the Frankfurt beis din. As a result, he states, anyone contesting their psak would not fall under the category of "if one chochom forbids something, his colleague may not permit it." (chochom she'ossar, ein chaveiro rashai lehatir)
The problems stated by the Noda BiYehuda were as follows: 1. The two sides did not accept the Frankfurt beis din as arbiters. 2. The residents of Bonn were not obligated to listen to the Frankfurt beis din, since they are not subordinate to them. 3. Testimony of witnesses was accepted in the absence of the baal din. (the woman) 4. The witnesses from Bonn contradicted each other, and didn't even have permission (from the woman) to speak in her behalf.
Obviously, all the testimony and protocol was worthless, especially since one of the judges was a relative of the divorcee. Although this familial relationship didn't invalidate the relative from acting as judge, it was still considered unbefitting for him to do so. The Noda BiYehuda doesn't specify who he is speaking about, but his intention is clear. Rav Nosson Maoz' brother-in-law was the mechuton of Eliezer Neiberg, the father of the divorcer.
The conclusion of the Noda BiYehuda is: "There is no basis to their claim that their psak falls under the category of a horoas zoken. Their psak is nothing more than an opinion, and henceforth, all chachmei Yisroel are permitted to write what seems appropriate to them."
These deliberations took place in 5527 (1767). At the beginning of 5528, the venerable gaon Rav Yehoshua Heschel Lvov, av beis din of Swiebach and Ansbach, added his name to those who permitted the woman to remarry. He relied on the words of those who had preceded him: the Binyan Ariel, the Noda BiYehuda, and the Shaagas Aryeh. In his letter, he touches upon an additional point. In the letter of the dayanei Frankfurt, it sounds like they are comparing themselves to the beis din hagadol, which wasn't required to explain its rulings.
The Noda BiYehuda already wrote that "even were it so, it's despicable for a person to make such a statement about himself." Nevertheless, the gaon from Ansbach discusses this matter at length in his letter, and declares that even the beis din hagadol didn't possess such complete and unquestioned authority as the Frankfurt beis din claimed for itself. And even if one wishes to say regarding the Frankfurt beis din that "Yiftach bedoro kiShmuel bedoro," certainly they are not superior to the beis din hagadol that existed in the time of the bayis.
At the beginning of the winter, a new declaration was published in Frankfurt which claimed that the gedolei Yisroel were misled by Rav Shimon Copenhagen.
Once again, the three rabbonim who opined that the woman was permitted to remarry were compelled to take pen in hand and protest the matter. In addition, ten of the chachomim from Brody, Poland wrote a letter in which they identified with the Rav of Cleves.
Ohr Yisrael
In Frankfurt, they were enraged. On Sunday, the third day of Adar, 5528, they burned the letter in the courtyard of the shul, in the presence of a large crowd who had come to daven minchah.
Another half a year passed. The day after Yom Kippur, 5529, Rav Avraham Abish departed to his eternal resting place. He had been a central figure to whom all the batei din of the city had ascribed their views. After his death, they didn't have the power to oppose all the chachmei Yisroel, and the dispute died out.
Although, according to the records, the controversy ends here, some add an additional paragraph to the story. They claim that men of action made peace between the couple and they again lived together. They made another marriage ceremony. In order to satisfy those who claimed the divorce was valid and those who claimed it wasn't, the couple stood under the chuppah, and Yitzchok Neiberg said to Leah Gunzhausen, "harei at ode mekudeshes lee."
Is this story true? Many have meditated on this, and have concluded that it's highly unlikely, for two reasons. First, as we have previously mentioned, Yitzchok Neiberg returned to Mannheim in Adar, 5527. In 5528, Rav Shimon Copenhagen's sefer, Ohr Hayashar, was published. In 5530, the sefer Ohr Yisroel, by the Rav of Cleves, was published. Neither sefer makes any reference to the story. Had it been true, it should have at least been mentioned in these seforim.
Second, had the incident taken place, they would have been confronted with a dilemma regarding the brochos that are said under the chuppah. Had they said the brochos, they would have been guilty of a bracha levatalah, according to the rabbanei Frankfurt. Had they refrained from saying the brochos, the woman would have been forbidden to her husband according to the opinion of the rest of the gedolim, since the halochoh states that a kallah belo bracha is forbidden to her husband, just like a niddah. Thus, the credibility of the story remains questionable. (Some reports include the information that they did not make the brochos.)
Lesheim Shomayim
Although the episode ended long ago, its echoes reverberate to this day, in halachic works on Even Haezer. The case has been immortalized by two seforim that were published in its wake. In Ohr Hayashar, Rav Shimon Copenhagen tells the story from beginning to end, and the sixty simonim of the sefer deal with the sixty letters that were exchanged between gedolei Yisroel in this controversy.
The second sefer, Ohr Yisroel, is a book of responsa by Rav Yisroel Lipschitz. The first thirty-seven responsa in the book describe the episode at length, and letters in support of the author's position are brought. The introduction is also devoted almost entirely to this topic. There, the author complains about all the injustices that were done to him;how he was falsely accused and his name besmirched.
He concludes: "Let it be known that wherever I speak out bitterly against my enemies, who wounded me mortally, my intent is only with regard to the dayanim who presided at the time, and not their honored rav, the gaon and chossid, zt'l, (HaRav Avraham Abish.) Although they latched on to him and called upon him to join them, I know in truth that he was totally blameless, (oness) and I forgive him completely."
He signs: "These are the words of the young one among thousands in Israel, son of ...HaRav HaGaon Morenu Eliezer Lipschitz, zt'l, author of Heishiv Rabbi Eliezer and Seeach Sadeh, who dwells in Cleves, under the rule of our lord the great, mighty, and merciful King Friedrich the Second, King of Prussia, may his majesty and kingdom reign supreme forever, amen."
Disputes among gedolei Yisroel throughout the generations were not uncommon. However, the episode of the get from Cleves was unique, in that almost all the gedolei hador, — with the prominent exception of the Vilna Gaon — became involved.
Proof of this fact is that after the death of Rav Avraham Abish, it was decided in Frankfurt that only those who had not become involved in the controversy would be offered the position of rav of Frankfurt. They consequently discovered that the only gedolim who hadn't taken part in the dispute were Rav Shmelke Nikolsburg, brother of the Baal Hahaflaah, and Rav Meir BeRabi from Pressburg.
This quarrel didn't filter down to the level of masses, who often spread libelous documents in such cases. In this respect it differed from the machlokes that had occurred ten years previously, which revolved around the question of whether or not Rav Yonoson Eybeshitz had written the amulets. Torah giants alone were involved in the debate over the get from Cleves. This controversy resulted in greater clarification of the issues and ultimately enabled them to determine conclusively many halachos that pertain to geirushei shoteh, which occupy an important place among these laws. It can be said with some satisfaction that this dispute was solely lesheim shomayim.
|
