Guest Post: You asked on your blog why Tamar Epstein doesn't have a get. But that is the wrong question to be asking.
The question which people should be outraged about in the controversy between Tamar Epstein and Aharon Friedman is how Tamar abducted their child to another State. Tamar's abduction of the child and her continued attempts since then to prevent the child from having a relationship with Aharon constitute horrific abuse. That is why Tamar doesn't have a get. Just ask yourself what parent would agree to give or accept a get given such behavior.
Anyone interested in Tamar receiving a get should explain to her the importance of letting their daughter have a father involved in her day-to-day life. And since abducting the child, Tamar has also continuously done what she can to prevent the child from having a relationship with Aharon, including violating agreements with Aharon, abusing Aharon's adherence to halacha, refusing to let the child spend scheduled time with Aharon, threatening their child's paternal relatives and organizing demonstrations against them in front of their child. And Tamar's associates openly boast of trying to prevent their child from spending scheduled time with Aharon.
Aharon has repeatedly tried to resolve their differences in a conciliatory fashion, only for Tamar to continuously use this to her strategic advantage in trying to prevent their child from having a relationship with Aharon. Several people have recently reached out to Aharon to mediate, including Rabbi Menachem Rosenfeld. Aharon has agreed to mediate, but Tamar has refused to do so.
Other important questions raised by this case are Tamar's making a mockery of the beis din system in order to delay adjudication in civil court so that her abduction of the child would be treated as a fait accompli, and the abhorrent tactics used by Ora, including attacking innocent third parties, and creating an enormous chillul hashem by turning what could and should have been a private matter to be resolved quietly into an international news story.
Anyone interested in reading a detailed description of the case can go to:
www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com
She is a marsha'as whom it is ossur to marry. She moved the child out of state. Until the father is awarded custody there can be no get no matter what Ivanka, oh I meant schlachter, slip of the tongue and slip of the $,scream otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf the husband is abusive (emotionally) then its a mitzva and derech erets to move back to your mother, then to stay were you are. If you dont know the whole story then shut your mouth !!!
ReplyDeleteIf you can't respond in a better way than please go elsewhere!
Deletethat is referring to both of your comments
DeleteTamar never claimed there was ANY type of abuse by Aharon so there goes that one!
Deletehttp://aharonfriedmantamarepstein.blogspot.com/2012/02/aharon-friedman-tamar-epstein-just.html
Deletedon't worry i am very used to the emotional abuse of the GetOra biryonim.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is very simple. Is a GET given under coercion of public humiliation and loss of a job is valid? It is not. I can't understand why Orthodox Jews talk about other things and ignore the problem of producing mamzerim. The next generation will have so many modern Orthodox mamzerim that Orthodox people will have to be very careful when marrying children from divorced mothers. Why doesn't this get any play? Even the secular Jewish newspaper in Washington was concerned about the impact on the children and society and was very warm to my comments. See my website www.getamarriage.com various videos and articles about this.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Dovid Eidensohn, Monsey, NY
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn Shlitta, I have viewed your Teshuva in hebrew from your website trying to figure out the emes on the topic. I also listened to Rabbi Shachter Shlitta 54 minute shiur on the Agunah Issue posted on this blog recently. Rabbi Shachter and others clearly hold that the sources you quote have nothing to do with the majority of the Agunah cases today. In the Shiur Rabbi Shachter clearly says Chazal allowed forced gitten in certain cases. In other cases they allowed forcing through words, and in other cases they felt a man isn't chayiv to give a get. (You state the same basic information in the beggining of your teshuva as well.) Rabbi Shachter then quotes the Rama that states even in those cases where chazal wanted a get but didn't necessirly use force, one can passively ostracize. (Basically KufNunDaled:4 Shulchan Aruch and Rama) Then Rabbi Shachter says in most of the cases today, none of this applies because the marriage is dead and the husband is over with the marriage and he is just holding onto the get our of wickedness etc. Rabbi Shachter says the Shulchan Aruch is only talking about cases where the husband wants to stay married and is supporting the wife and living together etc, and the wife for whatever reason wants out. Rabbi Shachter seems to learn based on the above shiur that the Shulchan Aruch and the sources that you quote are talking about the case where there is still a functioning marriage but she wants out. Today in probobly every case where the ORA puts active pressure, there is no functioning marriage anymore and therefore none of the sources that you bring down talk about a case where the marriage is dead and the husband refuses the get at that point. (From my comparing of your teshuva and Rabbi Shechter's shiur, I believe this is where you both disagree.)
DeleteNow granted, the big question is why is the marriage dead and whose fault is that. Rabbi Shachter never discusses this point in the 54 minutes and from the title of the shiur "Helping the Agunah," It seems to me he assumes that if the marriage is dead then its a he said (she ran away) she said ( he abused me whether emotionally or some other way) debate on whose the person at fault, and therefore he still holds the husbands must give the get if the marriage is a dead marriage.
However, from your writings you clearly suspect that many woman are at fault in the dead marriage and if they would have tried to work things out the marriage wouldn't be dead, and therefore you hold in the majority of the cases the women is at fault and no pressure can be put on the husband.
Does this seem to be the debate between you and Rabbi Schachter (putting all politics aside and focusing on halachik sources only)
I do intend to produce a lengthy discussion of this issue where I will deal with RS as it deserves. But for now let me mention the main issue. After ORA has coerced Gittin that I think are invalid and RS thinks are kosher, will Orthodox poskimn accept the children or not? Even if half of the rabbis involved are not convinced of his chidushim who will marry the child?
DeleteWhy is it that none of the poskim in the past thousands of years were clever enough to invent RS's chiddush that anytime the wife runs away from the husband and the marriage is dead that the husband may be coerced. And does that include beating him?
DeleteThe great difference between me and RS is that I am not clever enough to invent new things that wipe out the normative reading of the sources of GET law. Some would consider RS's approach so removed from halacha as it was transmitted through the generations that it calls into question what will he do next? Rav Elyashev told me that the Botei Dinim that invent solutions for chained women that conflict with traditional reading of the poskim that he takes away from such a Beth Din the authority of Beth Din. Thus, the clever ones who basically redesign the halachic process and just blow away hundreds of years of normative understanding have no authority to paskin the laws of Gittin. This itself will guarantee a break in Orthodoxy in the children coming of age in the next generation.
Another point is this: The modern Orthodox are definitely changing the normative reading of halacha to allow forced Gittin and some are actually declaring marriages annulled as mekach toose. This process will get worse not better. A group of Conservative rabbis once left the movement and founded their own neo-Orthodox rabbinical movement. I spoke to them about the problem they are going to make with Orthodox kiddushin and not so Orthodox Gittin. I told them they had no right to make Kiddushim unless they are sure that there will be a kosher GET. Better, I said, not to make Kiddushin and live in pure sin, but do not producd mamzerim. This is what I say to ORA and the modern Orthodox who are "helping" chained ladies. Since the process will just get worse, and since people like me consider the children born as possible mamzerim, it is better not to marry with Kiddushin in the first place. Of course, anyone who lives together without proper kiddushin is a censored. But censored is better than mamzerim. Let the modern Orthodox perform marriages as a partnership and it is not kosher kiddushin, but at least, the children have a fighting chance not to be called mamzerim.
DeleteThank you Rabbi for your responses, I look forward to seeing a teshuva written addressing the chuddishim of Rabbi Shachter in halacha and showing how his oppinion is a tremendous chiddish and not accepted. I would like to see other Rabbonim come out against him as well if his oppinions are not normative. Why does no one else say this but you? If what your saying is true, can you convince leading Rabbonim at least in Monsey expressing this view and stating it publicly? Till that point, people view the issue as a das yachid from Monsey versus the rest of the world because Rabbi Schachters influence carries weight even outside of Modern Orthodoxy. I have found that many people who are quite learned no nothing about this topic, so I commend you in your efforts but I am only suspect in your oppinion as being normative because the majority of poskim (in America) seem to hold of Rabbi Shachter because they never express any concern of any mamzer issue.
DeleteI don't know what happened that caused Tamar to leave him. He beat her or she cheated on him, or something else. There is no reason to hold back a get once either of them has decided they no longer want to be married. It is disgusting and despicable. If he has a good case let him argue his case in court. Get refusal is just something that ruins Judaism.
ReplyDeleteI am not taking either side, but get refusal is using Judaism as a bargaining chip and THAT is the chillul Hashem. I don't think anyone who doesn't know the full story should take a side, which sounds exactly what is being done on this website. I am against Ora taking Tamar's side also in terms of custody or whatever, except Ora is right that no one should refuse to give a get, that is where I agree with them. People who refuse gets to get money or custody are scum, in my opinion.
@E-Man - very simplistic response. the courts have already ruled in a manner which makes it practically impossible for him to have anything to do with his child. the minute he gives a get he will never have anything to do with his child again.
DeleteSo, it's ok for Jews to distort Judaism if they don't like the way courts rule. Interesting theory. Immoral and disgusting, but interesting.
DeleteE-Man - Friedman and Epstein agreed to go to and abide by the rulings of a reputable beis din. Epstein refused to do what the beis din said and walked away. She would have had her get. so she goes beis din shopping, until she ends up by Mr. Ralbag - aka hebrew national, whom will do anything for $$ and boy did Epstein pay him big $$. This does not sound like an agunah to me.
DeleteObserver,
DeleteYou clearly know the whole story and are not biased at all. (sarcasm)
Using a get to impose your will on someone else in secular court is a clear perversion of Jewish law.
This is a huge chillul Hashem. Even according to your logic where she is evil, do two wrongs make a right? No, it makes an enormous chillul Hashem. But, I disagree with your "facts" anyway.
In Jewish law if both parties no longer want to be together they must sever their relationship with a get there is no allowable reason for holding back a get in this case. All holding back a get does is harm orthodox Judaism as a religion. Unless that is what you want. Because to me supporting holding back a get and supporting covering up child molestation are almost on the same level of ruining Judaism.
Also observer, I am pretty sure your"facts" about the case are DEAD wrong. You should probably change your name to Friedman supporter.
DeleteE-Man, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Shulchan Aruch states a longstanding minhag (which Rabbi Shachter mentions in his 54 min shiur) that a Get is not to be given until all issues are settled first (custody, money etc.)
DeleteSo your quote about ""there is no allowable reason for holding back a get" is nonsense. You can find this in the writings of Rav Moshe Feinstein as well. So to make blanket statements and use the term chillul hashem is wrong. Orthodox Judaism does not force the husband to give a get in all situations. You are the one distorting Judiasm by stating things that aren't true. First learn about the topic before making blanket statements about distorting Judaism. However, I agree with you about not talking sides in a case where one hasn't heard both sides of the story...
Yitz, all issues have already been resolved Aharon Friedman simply didn't like the result, what are you talking about? Also, this is a huge chillul Hashem, what he is doing is making Judaism look perverse, thereby making our G-D look perverse, that is a chillul Hashem.
DeleteI'll say it again, using a get to force your will on someone else is a perversion of orthodox Judaism.
Hillel - you are right - according to Rabbi Schachter's reasoning, a get is not yet appropriate in this case, as the custody schedule is temporary. Tamar objects to the schedule because it requires that the child miss school
Deleteon Fridays, consistently arguing that the custody schedule should instead effectively render most of the child's time with Aharon moot because he is Shomer Shabbos. The Court scheduled a hearing for this October to revisit this concern. As long as Epstein can keep going back to court to attempt to restrict Friedmans custody, the issue is not settled. As soon as Eptein agrees to a a long term arrangement which is fair, reasonable, practicle then and only then will a get be given.
E-Man since you clearly state that you are unaware of the FACTS why don't you read carefully what people who are aware of the FACTS are telling you? This matter concerns the relationship between a father and daughter. Imagine this was your daughter and all you were guilty of was wanting to spend more time with her and be in her life. And you knew that all you had to hold onto to not lose your daughter was a get, what would you do? how would you explain that to your daughter when she's older and wondering where her dad is and why he gave up on her.. Also, there have never been any accusations by Tamar about any abuse toward Tamar or the child so there is no issue of that to be considered in this case.
DeleteYitzy Hillel's deceptive comments typify the YU - ORA - Reformadox mentality which peddles Reform, anti-HALACHA, feminist practices as Judaism. The YU - ORA feminist activists continually misquote, falsify, and obfuscate HALACHA to the Jewish public, in an effort to justify supporting Jewish women to obtain anything they demand in divorce settlements, regardless of HALACHA, while forcing PASUL GITTIN from the women's harassed, terrorized, and slandered husbands.
ReplyDeleteBased on the perverse YU - ORA - Reformadox logic, any Jewish wife can simply throw her husband out of the house with a civil court order, which is a gross violation of HALACHA and Jewish ethics itself. Since the marriage is now "dead", the wife is automatically entitled to a GET. This is an utter perversion
of Torah law and justice masquerading as HALACHA.
Mrs. Friedman is clearly a MOREDES who abandoned her husband and absconded with the couple's child to another state. In the YU - ORA feminist "religion", the concept of a MOREDES simply does not exist, and Jewish women are never held accountable for their actions.
In truth, if a Jewish wife flees with the couple's child and then obtains court orders in ARCHAOS, her husband has the right AL PI HALACHA to demand that the wife nullify the court orders, return the child to the father's town, and compensate the father for his damages. Only then may the Bais Din rule on whether or not the wife is entitled to a GET.
Evidently Tamar Epstein refuses to return the child to the father's city, and nullify the court orders. She therefore cannot have the status of an AGUNA. On the contrary, she is M'AGEN herself, and labeling her an "AGUNA" is grotesquely fraudulent. The Jewish community has absolutely no right to persecute Mr. Friedman for requesting his G-d given rights to a halachic divorce settlement.
The YU - ORA Reformadox campaign of terror, harassment and slander against Mr. Friedman should be condemned by all decent Torah observant Jews.
"EmesLeYaakov"
DeleteIf all you can do is engage in name calling and making unsupported statements, what you have written is not worth the effort required to respond.
You make the people on Rabbi Eidonsohn's side look disgraceful with your tone and bashing. Stick to the sources, if the YU people are making up stuff..prove it! You are such a lamdan so write a teshuva disproving Rabbi Shachter
DeleteTwo things in addition to what I said before, Yitzy Hillel. One, Posek HaDor Reb Elyashev shlit'O in his sefer Kobets Teshuvose 181 quotes Marshdam EH 41 that a husband who can be forced to divorce because he is one of the few who is in this category, such as one who marries a woman forbidden to him or other extreme cases, we may not coerce him if he is willing to give a get but wants a condition or fulfillment of a demand that is possible to do. Maharshdam says that one who does otherwise creates mamzerim. Thus, even if we assume that someone deserves coercion to force a GET, if he makes a demand such as wanting to visit his daughter another day of the week, we may not coerce him and if we do the baby born of the second marriage is a problem of mamzerut.
DeleteBut there is another point, equally crucial. To force a GET even when one should be coerced, the GET is only good if we assume that the husband accepts the need to be coerced, because those who coerce him are his respected rabbis, such as when communities had community Beth Dins. But in the Friedman case I have told Aharon that coercion is wrong and he has accepted my opinion, based upon normative halacha and the teaching of Shach Chazon Ish and others. Therefore, even if he is coerced and gives a GET, it is invalid, because his rabbis did not approve of the coercion. That is, a coerced GET must be willing, because no GET can be valid if it is not willing. But Rambam says that it is good because we assume the husband accepts the mitsvah to do the GET as his rabbis have instructed, and he realizes his objection is only from the Yetser Hora. But in this case it is from the pesak of normative poskim and in fact the other side is a fantasy nobody ever heard of and has no place in Orthodox halacha.
e-man you have a very sharp tongue but i wonder how quick you would be to give your wife a get if she picked up and ran away with your twins.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant, as I said before you don't know the facts of the case at all. Tell me this, if a man beats his wife and kids does he deserve a right to even partial custody? What of he just beats his wife? What if he doesn't keep shabbos? What if he doesn't keep kosher? What I'd he cheated on his wife?
DeleteYou are defending someone without knowing the facts of the case which is irresponsible, especially since much greater rebbeim, like rav shechter and rav belsky an rav kominetsky are, apparently, contrary to your view. I would trust their judgement over yours.
E-Man - Epstein and cohorts are the ones clearly making a chillul hashem- and no one else.
Deleteyou are the one who clearly is commenting without knowing the facts.
Abuse? mistreatment? take a look at the court documents which are public. Epstein tried all that with lies and false witnesses until Epsteins diary was presented in court. you and much of the public are being mislead by epsteins cry of 'agunah' and 'victim' - neither of which she is!
we can 'what-if' all day long. i actually am familiar with the facts of the case and no one is claiming any of the things that you stated. do your homework before you open your mouth.
ReplyDeletei am sorry to say but the fact that rabbonim sign on is not very indicative of the reality. unfortunately, anyone with half a brain in their head knows that the rabbonim can be easily convinced to sign on to letters. this is not the time or place but it is the sad truth.
therefore, as i originally said no one, including yourself, would give a get when the wife ran away with the children. those are the facts
I stand by what I said, a get should never be used for any reason as a legal bargaining chip, only scum do that. Also, your facts are wrong so I don't believe you are familiar with the case.
DeleteThe undeniable fact is that Epstein abducted the child. Although,
ReplyDeleteEpstein at first lied to the Court as to whether she had abducted the
child, she later admitted that she had done so. See the following
from page 3 of the July 2009 Order in the case:
“Defendant informed Plaintiff of her desire to separate in March,
2008. She briefly left the marital home with child. Plaintiff was
opposed to the separation and expressed a desire to salvage the
marriage. Defendant returned to the marital home with the child and
requested that Plaintiff move out. He complied with her request and
spent time with child on a daily basis until April 10, 2008, when
Defendant took her and moved to Pennsylvania. Defendant did not
consult Plaintiff regarding the move.”
If you are actually interested in the facts, and not the
unsubstantiated allegations being made by Epstein and her supporters,
see: http://stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com/
The court has ruled that he gets to have his daughter every other weekend starting Thursday at 5. They decided to revise that when she is older so she wouldn't have to miss school on Friday. What is left for this guy to hold back a get? The court already made its decision regarding custody, this is ridiculous. Give the get unless you are trying to extort money or to force her to give him custody.
ReplyDeleteIn America 9 times out of ten the mother is going to get more days with the kid. She shouldn't have to live in Maryland if her family lives in pa. End of the day getting divorced sucks, but it is disgusting and immoral not to grant a woman a get.
The child was not abducted, Aharon has her every other weekend, abducted would mean he has no contact with his daughter so give me a break, there is no reason he is currently holding back a get.
the child was moved to ano ther town with no hetter bais din. the very fact that epstein went to the very people rav elyashiv passeled to be involved in gittin proves how fraudulent her claims are.
ReplyDeletethe fact that tamar epstein is in contempt of halochoh is enough of a reason to withold a get.
I DON'T PUBLISH COMMENTS WITH THE NAME ANONYMOUS!
ReplyDeletePlease. All issues of custody were resolved by the court. Like all good court decisions, some people are unhappy. It always happens that way - it's why all justice systems require an impartial judge and that their rulings be enforceable over the objections of the litigants. Aharon is unhappy with the result. Big deal. If it went the other way, Tamar would be unhappy. The difference is that Tamar doesn't have the ability to withold a get like this. There is never an excuse for get refusal. Abide by the terms of the divorce as stipulated by the courts and get over yourself.
ReplyDeleteThere is a section in this blog about Rabbi Schachter's lecture permitting forcing a husband to divorce his wife with active coercions, even beatings. This is completely wrong as I point out in that section. I thank Yitsy Hillel for asking me to clarify my position in the light of the lecture, and I have done the basic work there. I would appreciate any comments.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Thank you for seeing through the disgusting veils of the ORA in attempting to coerce and embaress a get out of Mr. Friedman. It is horrible what Ms. Epstein has done to him and to the unknowing public. Shame on the people for just going along with whatever she spews out there. An organization like the ORA is an embaressment and does more harm than good. They are the definition of chillul hashem. After reading so many horrible news stories, blogs, comments, etc. it is so refreshing to see someone see through all the games Ms. Epstein has been playing and stand up and voice an opinion for what is right. Yasher Koach!
ReplyDeletehttp://hebrewbooks.org/4393
ReplyDeletefrom Rabbi Menashe Klein
E-man is wondering what caused Tamar Epstien to leave him...
ReplyDeleteBased on the publicly available information, and I do not have any additional information, it is very clear why she left him. She only married him as an unwitting sperm donor. As soon as she recovered from childbirth she had no need for him and left him.
I am shocked at the amount of lashon hara here on what seems to be an orthodox website. This is a great chilul hashem. No wonder we are still waiting for moshiach...
ReplyDeleteAccording to multiple rabbonim consulted on this, anything done to help Aharon Friedman is permissible and would not be lashan harah as he is a nirdof.
ReplyDeleteThe following is Halachic question:
ReplyDeleteWhen one parent takes the child away from another, is this Gonev Nafashot?