While I have been very involved in reporting the Tamar Epstein case - the understanding of some of the critical issues concerning the heter of kiddushei ta'us have been based largely on conjecture. This morning I received a letter from a well known posek who directly confirmed what I suspected. While the posek doesn't want to reveal his identity, I know him and accept fully the truth of what he says. I am also getting solid information from insiders - which I am in the process of checking out - which provides further confirmation and names names.
As far as I have established - the Kaminetskys did not actually pasken - they are not poskim - but they are the sole source of information that poskim including Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for their psak. The poskim rubber stamped what the Kaminetskys proposed. The poskim did not independently investigate the matter. In short the Kaminetskys went poskim hopping - to find someone who agreed with them. They provided not only the information but the description of the exact heter - kiddushei ta'us - they wanted. They did not ask for the independent view of the posek or for the posek to conduct an independent investigation. If the posek rejected their proposal, they went elsewhere until they found what they were looking for.
As far as I have established - the Kaminetskys did not actually pasken - they are not poskim - but they are the sole source of information that poskim including Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for their psak. The poskim rubber stamped what the Kaminetskys proposed. The poskim did not independently investigate the matter. In short the Kaminetskys went poskim hopping - to find someone who agreed with them. They provided not only the information but the description of the exact heter - kiddushei ta'us - they wanted. They did not ask for the independent view of the posek or for the posek to conduct an independent investigation. If the posek rejected their proposal, they went elsewhere until they found what they were looking for.
It is clear that many rabbis are disgusted by the distortion of halacha in allowing Tamar to remarry without a Get - but are afraid of severe consequences for their futures if they openly condemn what the Kaminetskys have done.
This is the letter exactly as the posek sent me - with full permission to publish it.
In the summer of 2013, I was approached by a renowned rabbi and shown copy of a "Heter Nisu'in" for Tamar Epstein. If my memory serves me right, it was written by a student in a Kollel in Philly, and approved by a Rabbi Kamenetsky.
The reason I was given the "Heter" was so I can review it, and if I approve it - then I should sign on it.I read the Teshuvah/Heter (was surprisingly short), and the whole basis of the Heter was based on some "eidus" by a professional (maybe a therapist?), and "eidus" of certain individuals (not named in the Teshuva), that the husband was "not normal", and it was therefore a "Mekach To'us." The examples cited of his behavior were pretty bad on a Shalom Bayis scale (if true), but nothing remotely strong to constitute a "Mekach To'us" even according to the most Meikel opinions.Although I am a big Meikel by nature, after I reviewed the Teshuva/Heter I said that there is no way I can approve such a lackluster Teshuva/Heter, until I speak to the doctor, psychologist, etc. to ascertain if there is any valid reason to consider such a Heter, but the reasons in the Teshuva/Heter are not valid.After I reviewed it and voiced my opinion, I gave it back to the rabbi and I didn't keep a copy for myself, so I can't tell you with 100% certainty what the "eidus" was, especially two years later, but what's written above is my recollection.
http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2036/No.%204/Hafka'at%20Kiddushin.pdf
ReplyDeleteWas the 'shalom bayit' issue(s), if true, of a physical issue (which she denied and was never presented in civil court; in fact, he was awarded unsupervised visitation, which negates such a claim) or in the nature of 'spilling his soup' (which actually became an issue in civil court in another contentious divorce a decade ago)?
ReplyDeleteRabbi Riskin concludes his article with a condition that has not been fulfilled.:
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that in difficult times like today, when many women
are forced to live as agunot chained to their husbands, and recalcitrant
husbands are taking advantage of their wives as well as abusing the
halaka to hold up their wives for ransom and/or prevent them from
marrying, there are certainly grounds to make use of the option of
hafkaJat kiddushin even without a get) but with an explicit enactment;
ths would release those women from their chais and from an almost
certain life of sin. This is especially so when the problem of agunot
causes such great human suffering and degradation of halaka.
But ths can only be done by a large gathering of the rabbis of Israel who must
decide on the matter, so that many authorities share the burden of the
decision, and the Torah not become like two Torahs. Much thought is
needed in order to carefuy define the circumstances in which hafka)a
would be implemented, as well as to formulate the stipulation that
would have to be added at the time of betrothal. My suggestion would
be that the Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem adopt an enactment stipulating
that if a religious court orders a husband to divorce his wife, and he
refuses to do so even after sanctions have been imposed upon him, then
a special court should be established with the authority to cancel his
marriage and free his wife to remarry.
There is little need to worry that alowing for the dissolution of a
marriage without a get would lead to a devaluation of the sanctity of the
institution of marriage. The proposed enactment would only apply iii
the most extreme cases of a recalcitrant husband. Moreover, it is liely
that the actual implementation of hafka)at kiddushin wi be rare. The
mere threat of hafkaJat kiddushin-and with it the release of the
woman from her marital chains-would deprive the husband of the
strangling hold that he has over his wife, and should suffice to convince
him to free her from the marriage with a valdget.42
And it will also retroactively categorize her previous intimacy as ** be'ilas znus ** inasmuch as it is now being declared to have been without kiddushin. Should this not be emphasized both to her and in all objections to her 'freedom'? Where is her personal dignity? Is she even aware of this? Is this even mentioned in the article?
ReplyDeleteIf she's willing to be accused of being an 'ei$het i$h', $he's not worried about 'beilat znut'.
ReplyDeleteRabbi riskin's concept dependent on a particular bet din (in his case, the rabbinate in yerushalayim) introduces politics into the whole argument.
Besides, the rabbinate in yerushalayim is not interested in his idea.
And who knows if they'll invalidate a marriage for their own reasons. Say, a father in law doesn't like his son in law, and gets her marriage undone, against his daughter's wishes.
What is pathetic out there is that the rabbis "view" an Aguna crisis today. This too is a fabricated lie as we witness many cases today that the women aided by ORA and other evil rabbis encourage the women to be recalcitrant in reaching a "negotiated" end to their marriage as every GET should be, hence creating "A SELF IMPOSED AGUNA STATUS". Most of us dont see how this game is being played out. Yes there are cases of cruel men who just want to hurt their wives for no other reason, but if you look at some of the cases listed by DT such as Friedman/Epstein, Kin/Kin, Weiss/Stein etc...one will see that the woman carries GREAT BLAME to her self inflicted Aguna status. If you are going to hire ORA, or other evildoers to coerce, shame and publicize your divorce as well as cause financial losses in the civil courts which is against halacha, then you will pay the consequences later. There is a growing movement amongst the men to resist these tactics employed by the women and "RETAKE" the divorce process to the original "Halacha driven" process. If we dont stand up to the truth and allow women to go to civil courts, and allow rabbis and ORA to violate traditional halacha divorce standards, and empower the FEMINIST FORCES OF AMERICA which is antethical to Torah values, then we will see a next wave of Torah desecration such as permitting a married woman to remarry without a GET. This all stems from the insesnsitivity of rabbis to other torah violations.
ReplyDeleteThe situation went from bad to worse this hetter didn't come from fringe rabbis on the left of modern orthodoxy , it can from the אם הישיבות in America בית אולפנא רבתי דפילדפיא
ReplyDeleteAnd acted upon by the rov of South who is תלמידם של גדולי י שראל from previous generations , its game over time to go back to the desert
Herzl hefter said he dosent want to stay in the desert, I do and I will, the Torah has been destroyed In the usausa, and its time to leave it behind
I will be moving to Israel this winter iyh, and leave behind my creature comforts
I will set aside the day tamar got married as the day that נשתכחה התורה באמריקא day for all eternity
I wouldn't take the Jesus Rabbi seriously on any halachic matter.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds just like the kids act in Cheider. A pushes B into C. A claims
ReplyDeleteI didn't even touch C. B claims A pushed me. Or the story with the Shomer
haPardes Chiger, piggybacking on the blind man enabling both to steal. This is a
typical Modus Operandi to avoid responsibility for your own actions. That is the
reason this unamed Posek first made sure to find out the given reason of mekach
taut from the horses mouth whether it has any merit before stating his opinion.
Indeed, after properly doing his homework, he refused to sign, and rightfully
so. This is the essence of harotze leshaker yarchik eduso, so as to forge ahead
with no questions asked. Haven't we learned yet a lesson of the tamir vene'elam
non-existent Argentinian recalcitrant husband that almost got beaten to death if
not for the undercover to stop those Hooligans while potentially and
virtually still alive. And what happened to mipihem velo mipi ksovom? Do you for
one minute believe that Tamar and the whole wide world missed out on R' AF being
not Normal? And for so many years? Had this symptom been true to the full
meaning of the word, than the Talmud had no remedy for a Shoite to order a Get,
indeed she remains an Aguna until he becomes well. Even if you should claim that
the husband is not an expert on Sholom Bayis issues therefore not normal, that
is exactly why you go to an Expert, and a neutral one for that, not one that has
been ordered for a fixed outcome. Same goes for fetching a few witnesses to
confirm his abnormality, isn't an abnormal person known widely in public of
being such? Then why do you need to fetch witnesses and hush hush not to
disclose of who is who? Even if the Husband couldn't solve his Sholom
Bayis problems on his own, what happened to 'ein chovush matir es atsmo mibeis
hoassurim'? And what about 'ein odom roeh et nigei atsmo'? Was Tamar able to
solve her Sholom Bayis problems on her own? If you should inquire three random
psychologists, would they all conclude that R' AF is not normal? This
whole story seems to be fixed from the beginning, like a house stacked from a
deck of cards, only to collapse on itself without even a sneeze. Since this
unnamed Posek found R' AF to be normal, his refusal in his Psak of meakch taut,
as being invalid "(... but the reasons
in the Teshuva/Heter are not valid"), how can you go shtible hopping and
shopping for a different result, if it was declared mekudash mekudash, harei ze
mekudeshes and remains an eishes ish, end of story.
As it's going on, it is even getting
better!
...The poskim did
not independently investigate the matter. In short the Kaminetskys went poskim
hopping - to find someone who agreed with them...
..." The poskim
rubber stamped what the Kaminetskys "proposed"....
And how does "proposed" tally with "Ukvar HOIREH
hazoken"?! First, you DON'T investigate whether the story at hand has merit, you
then go on to beshanoisoi es taamo claiming "kvar Horeh hazoken"! Hayitochen???
Im ken lama ze anoichi? How is she FREE, FREE??? Indeed, aveiro gorerres
aveiro.
Veal kol ele ani bochiyo, hoemes ne'ederes, ukanei sofrim tisrach. Ahoy!, Im bearozim noflo shalheves, ma
yomru ezoivi kir.
What a sad state of affairs.
the reason i posted it was to show that in certain circumstances rabonim can and have allowed women to remarry or go back to their husbands even though it is probable that technically they shouldn't be allowed to. A mamzer is not some intrinsic part of a child based on what actually happened to the mother but a status given based on whether the rabonim (would) officially consider her to have sinned. You can say that the terumas hadeshen and the rema were wrong about the cancelling of the marriages basically just so the women could 'remarry' their husbands, but as far as they were concerned, the rabonim were allowed to be lenient and if they said future children weren't mamzerim, they weren't.
ReplyDeletedavid - you needed to bring proof that the present situation is one that rabbis have been allowed the leeway to declare a married woman doesn't need a Get to remarry.
ReplyDeleteYou also need to show that such is the accepted practice today. Without these two factors the article is irrelevant to our discussion.
I don't know anything about the present situation and I don't see why it is relevant. The point is, whether you agree or disagree, rabonim can and have made very lenient decisions regarding annulling marriages just so that women can continue with their lives. If I would read up on it perhaps I too would think the rabonim involved in this case shouldn't have done it but now it is done, there is no reason to pursue the matter. The relevant beis din under an accepted rabbi has declared the matter closed. There is no longer a halachic issue of eishes ish or mamzerim. You can't actually be declaring any future children mamzerim because the ruling is based on an extreme leniency that is not generally used today. There is 'al mi lismoch' and that is it. I cannot understand why you are so committed to ruining this woman. Are you trying to hurt her for personal reasons?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to have halachic kulas in your life that is fine but don't try to force other people not to.
@David I have talked to a number of genuine poskim and they all say the marriage is not valid because a Get was not obtained. No dissent. No one says it is legitimate because a big rabbi married her or gave her a heter.
ReplyDeleteIf many poskim consider this psak a mistake it really doesn't matter who gave the heter. If many poskim think it is valid it really doesn't matter what my view is.
If a significant number of people in the community she lives in think it adultery than it doesn't matter that someone gave her a heter.
That is clear from what Rabbi Riskin said and I don't know any one disagrees.
The issue at this point getting the information out about the fact that she remarried without a Get and there are clearly poskim who hold that the marriage is not valid.
It is up to the rabbis and the people to decide what her status is as they did with the Rackman Beis din and the Krauss beis din.
Why aren't you complaining about Rav Herschel Schacter for publicly condemning the IBD - after all they are rabbis and have some basis in halacha? Why not condemn those who rejected the Rackman beis din or Rav Goren's psak?
I'm not here to condemn anyone. I just don't understand why you are fighting so hard against what is a private psak. Your standards might be higher but leave her to her business. Your rabbis(who have not been in contact with her and possibly don't know inside information) say it is not correct, hers disagree. If someone wants to marry her children they can choose to rely on her poskim or just not marry into the family. What exactly are you intending to accomplish? Do you want a posse of your rabbis to have a meeting with hers and go over the laws of divorce with them? Then her rabbis will suddenly realise they missed something, rip out theirs beards and all of them will ride off and tear her away from her new husband? What is your end game?
ReplyDeleteDavid - you live in a bubble. Tamar Epstein and her rabbis not only violated the halacha but they needed to destroy her husband to allow her to remarry with out a Get. This is no private matter. For years she has conducted a very public campaign to get her freedom.
ReplyDeleteRead Rabbi Riskin's conclusion along with Mark Oppenheimer. Everyone but you understand that this action is not a private action but is a direct challenge the accepted halacha. Apply your logic - why should anyone care if their people converting who have no interested in keeping the mitzvos. Who care if you can find a rabbi who will pronounce a marriage invalid without any justification. Etc etc etc.
Psak doesn't mean finding a rabbi to psaken the way you want without regard to the facts or the halachic process.
Bottom line - you simple do not understand how halacha works
it can from the אם הישיבות in America בית אולפנא רבתי דפילדפיא
ReplyDeleteHuh? Rabbi Keminetzky has failed to publicly take responsibility for this. Very, very different than Open Orthodoxy.
And acted upon by the rov of South who is תלמידם של גדולי י שראל from previous generations
He is a student of Rabbi JB Soloveichik from Boston - as are the leading OO rabbis.
Nice try at sarcasm.
Didn't you claim that the Tartikov Beis Din supposedly "annulled" her marriage?
ReplyDeletehttps://disqus.com/by/disqus_p5OOgSvjPo/
Please, don't confuse us. Who signed? Just produce the "heter." OK? Thank you.
It is obvious you are taking this personally for some reason. It is not relevant whether tamar dragged her husband's name through the mud or not. As far as the beis din is concerned any and every get is a private matter.
ReplyDeleteJust because something is accepted halacha doesn't mean that if you follow a minority view you are violating halacha. It should not be done without good reason but you have no right to say it is forbidden.
We seem to have very different views of how halacha works. You seem to think that halacha depends on what is currently accepted. I think that 'accepted' is a relative term and halacha can change as long as there is a tradition to back it up.
As an example, i would assume you would think it ossur for women to wear tzitzis whereas i would think it unfortunate but technically ok.
I think we have exhausted this subject.
David you are twisting a Torah obligation to help fellow Jews (don't stand idly by) as violating the privacy of others. of making something person - i.e, unethical.
ReplyDeleteTamar Epstein is involved in corrupting Judaism and halacha as well as trying to destroy Aharon Friedman's life - without justificaion. Rather bizarre that you consider complying with halachic obligation as something shameful.
I get the same comments when dealing with exposing rabbinical support for child abusers -"Why are you making this personal" What busienss is of yours to question these big rabbis" etc etc.
Unfortunately our disagreement goes way beyond our understanding of halacha works. You are simply denying that you have an obligation to help your fellow Jews as well as stopping a massive chilul haShem and distortion of halacha.
I do agree with you that there is no further use of continuing this discussion
david, What beis din are you talking about? No beis din in the world freed Tamar, or gave her a Get. Zero.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't going to continue this but you linked it to child abuse so I will make a last comment. Child abuse is anything but private and of course you should do all you can to stop it. You are protecting the public.
ReplyDeleteHere, you are not protecting the public but are hounding a woman (even if she is a terrible person). How you can twist stopping her from marrying as 'helping fellow jews' is beyond me. What you are doing doesn't even help her 'ex' unless you actually consider allowing a man to use his wife's agunah status as blackmail something positive.
david, This woman is hounding her husband, not vice versa. He is the victim in this case, not her.
ReplyDeleteWho said Tamar is entitled to a Get? Halacha doesn't permit a wife to get divorced simply because she wants a divorce. And no beis din ever ruled that her husband must give her a Get.
Exposing potential mamzeirus most certainly is "protecting the public."
ReplyDeleteDavid, If you really are concerned about child abuse, then why aren't you concerned about preventing the ultimate child abuse - creating mamzerim?!
ReplyDelete