To all great Torah scholars and poskim,
A very serious matter occurred a number of weeks ago that threatens to undermine the sanctity of Jewish marriage. Since the details are known to me and I feel a strong responsibility to Heaven to do all which is in my power to correct the matter - I am turning to you with this letter to present the details before you in order that I might receive your views on the issue.
The subject is the case of Tamar Epstein - the wife of Aharon Friedman. For many years he has not agreed to give her a Get because of a dispute between them concerning custody of their daughter. A few weeks ago, one of the most authoritative and distinguished rabbis in America [Rav Nota Greenblatt] permitted her to marry another man - and even performed the ceremony himself - without her receiving a Get from her husband.
I asked this great rabbi what was his justification? He responded that the basis of his ruling, that she could marry another man, was an expert psychiatrist's report that had been given him. The psychiatrist had concluded that the husband (Aharon Friedman) suffered from the personality disorders of Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) from the beginning of their marriage. Furthermore the psychiatrist claimed that these personality disorders were incurable. On the basis of this information, the distinguished rabbi concluded that the marriage was retroactively annulled based on the halachic principle of mekach ta'os (mistaken acquisition).
I have a number of objections to his conclusion which I will now present one at a time.
First concerning the claim that the husband had these personality disorders from the time of marriage
1) I have determined that this woman had gone before the Beis Din of Baltimore a number of years ago to obtain a Get from he husband. This beis din carefully questioned her as to why she wanted to get divorced. At no time did she claim that the reason for her request was because her husband suffered from personality disorders. In fact the opposite is true. She only claimed before the beis din (according to the testimony of two of the members of the beis din - the third is no longer alive) that she wanted to divorce him because he was not socially adept.
In addition during the proceedings concerning custody of their daughter, she agreed that their daughter could be given to her husband for specific periods of time. This clearly implies that she did not view her husband as not normal. In addition according to the official report of the secular court regarding custody which was produced afterwards - she never claimed that he was not normal.
All of this demonstrates that he in fact did not have mental health issues. And even if you want to claim that he did have personality disorders - she clearly felt that she could live with them [as she made no mention of them in the proceedings to either the beis din or the secular court]
2) Secondly one of the members of the Baltimore Beis Din told me that Tamar told the beis din that at the beginning of the marriage she was taking birth control pills - but that after 8 months she decided that she wanted a child and she stopped taking the pills and she consequently she gave birth. This clearly shows that even if there were personality disorders that she was able to live with them. Concerning this claim that she obviously had decided she could live with his problems Rabbi Greenblatt answered: "It is true that she thought she could live with the personality disorders but that was only because she thought there was medicine that could cure him. That is why she did not immediately try to get out of the marriage. However the moment that the therapist told her that there was no cure for his condition (even after many years of treatment) this established retroactively that the marriage had been a mistake."
However the truth is that there was another expert therapist who had treated Tamar and had notified her in December of 2007 that there was no cure for these personality disorders. But it wasn't until March 2008 - 4 months later - that she decided to finally leave her husband (this is mentioned on page 6-7 of the report of the expert psychiatrist). This clearly demonstrates that she was willing to live with these disorders even after she had been notified that her husband was sick with a condition that had no cure. However the psychiatrist attempted to prove that this did not mean that she was willing to live with these disorders. He wrote, "My impression is that the best explanation of why she did not leave her husband immediately on finding on that there was no cure for his condition was because of her lack of self-confidence, pressures and inability to make up her mind." It is clear that "his impression" is insufficient to provide a justification for her to remarry without a Get in the face of the evidence before us that she did in fact feel that she could live with this condition.
Furthermore in my humble opinion, even if the reality is that at the moment that she was informed that the personality disorders were incurable she had finally decided to leave him (something which appears to me as highly questionable) we need to deal carefully with the claim of Rabbi Greenblatt that retroactively she did not accept his condition.
Even though concerning purchases there is a concept of mekach ta'os (mistaken acquisition), but the acceptance of the purchase - can't be uprooted based on a claim of mekach ta'os. Consequently when the purchaser is notified about the defect in his purchase and he agrees to it and decides to live with it - then he can no longer claim afterwards that he didn't know that he would not be able to live with the defect.
If this principle is not true then a person could always claim that he can not live with a product because he says he can now not tolerate its defect. This is clear from the Mishna in Kesubos (77a). [If a woman marries a man with an unpleasant medical condition or an occupation which makes him smell and she states that she can live with it. But later she says that despite her belief that she could live with it - she in truth can't - the beis din forces him to divorce her.
However nowhere does it mention that the marriage should be annulled retroactively because she had mistakenly thought she could live with the condition. She is only free of the marriage from the time she receives the Get. ]
Concerning the credibility of the psychiatrist's report
1) I saw the report that Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for his psak This expert therapist acknowledged that he never met with the husband but only with the wife. His report (according to what he writes) was based on the testimony of the first therapist who treated the wife (and perhaps also the husband but this is not clear) in the past. The psychiatrist made his determinations based on incidents that the wife reported about the husband such as his anger, his stinginess, his fears, his worries etc. and said that these proved that the husband had the disorders mentioned before and that they were incurable.
Aside from the question of the credibility of therapist based on the limited information he had available - he clearly received money in order to report his views. And he was well aware that the wife's purpose in meeting with him was in order for rabbis to retroactively annul the marriage. (This was told to me by the man who obtained the report from the psychiatrist). And it is obvious from the report as we mentioned before.
2) It is possible that Tamar received instruction from another psychologist as to how to present her husband and his actions that the psychiatrist reported - in order to succeed in having the marriage annulled.
3) Many of the incidents that the psychiatrist used to prove that the husband Aharon wasn't normal and was incurable happened after they were married. How did he know that the mental illness - if in fact it exists - didn't develop only after they were married? Because if it did develop after they were married there is no basis for annulling the marriage.
The psak itself is questionable
1) The psychiatrist who wrote the report is not an observant Jew. His credibility is entirely based on his concern that he would be damaged professionally if it was discovered he was lying. Is this presumption sufficient in the face of the fact that we mentioned before that he was consulted with the avowed purposed of freeing Tamar from marriage and to remove her status as a married woman?
2) Wouldn't it have been appropriate for Rabbi Greenblatt to request the views of other psychologists who actually met with the husband in order establish whether he suffered from these personality disorders? Isn't it very possible that another psychologist would not reach the same conclusion as the first therapist -as is well known that this is a frequent occurrence in the deliberations of beis din as well as those in secular courts?
Because of all these considerations, in my humble opinion, the heter of Rabbi Greenblatt mentioned before can not be relied upon at all. Consequently Tamar retains the status of being a definitely married woman. Therefore she is prohibited in marriage to all men until these matters are dealt with in beis din according to the halacha. And in the mean time she needs to leave her second "husband" and if she becomes pregnant from him the children are viewed as mamzerim - unless the beis din says otherwise - according to the halacha applied the facts. If there is anyone who disagrees with me - he needs to brings his claims before beis din in order that they be carefully considered.
I now request that you join me in my protest against the heter - if you think what I said is correct. While I feel it is important to protest this heter to stop adultery, but doing it by myself without the support of a group of talmudic scholars my protest will not be accepted and effective. My urgent concern is that this heter will open the floodgates for the ignorant in our country to decide to annul marriages in a similar problematic manner to this one. That will result in the destruction (G-d forbid!) of the holiness of the Jewish people. As you know, up until now there have been various attempts of certain rabbis who are basically ignorant of Jewish law and who have not served an apprenticeship with expert rabbis. However they have been stopped by the protest of the rabbinic leadership of our communities. However this heter is different. Since it has been issued by Rabbi Greenblatt - who is recognized as important and expert Torah scholars in these matters - the opposition to improper heterim will fall apart if there is no protest.
In addition to the danger posed because the heter has been produced by Rabbi Greenblatt, in the eyes of the public Rabbi Greenblatt is viewed as being supported in producing the heter by one of the senior rosh yeshivos (Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky) of the present generation as well as his son ( Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky) who is also a distinguished Torah scholar. Despite the fact that the Kaminetskys deny this, there is no question that many will rely on these rumors to permit the nullification of the status of being a married woman by means of this heter. That is because they think gedolim have clearly supported this heter.
I close with a blessing that G-d stop these breaches and dwell in our midst and that we should not be shamed or transgress.
Aharon Feldman
p.s. If you agree with what I have written, I request that you inform me at the address listed at the top of the letter.
Furthermore in my humble opinion, even if the reality is that at the moment that she was informed that the personality disorders were incurable she had finally decided to leave him (something which appears to me as highly questionable) we need to deal carefully with the claim of Rabbi Greenblatt that retroactively she did not accept his condition.
Even though concerning purchases there is a concept of mekach ta'os (mistaken acquisition), but the acceptance of the purchase - can't be uprooted based on a claim of mekach ta'os. Consequently when the purchaser is notified about the defect in his purchase and he agrees to it and decides to live with it - then he can no longer claim afterwards that he didn't know that he would not be able to live with the defect.
If this principle is not true then a person could always claim that he can not live with a product because he says he can now not tolerate its defect. This is clear from the Mishna in Kesubos (77a). [If a woman marries a man with an unpleasant medical condition or an occupation which makes him smell and she states that she can live with it. But later she says that despite her belief that she could live with it - she in truth can't - the beis din forces him to divorce her.
However nowhere does it mention that the marriage should be annulled retroactively because she had mistakenly thought she could live with the condition. She is only free of the marriage from the time she receives the Get. ]
Concerning the credibility of the psychiatrist's report
1) I saw the report that Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for his psak This expert therapist acknowledged that he never met with the husband but only with the wife. His report (according to what he writes) was based on the testimony of the first therapist who treated the wife (and perhaps also the husband but this is not clear) in the past. The psychiatrist made his determinations based on incidents that the wife reported about the husband such as his anger, his stinginess, his fears, his worries etc. and said that these proved that the husband had the disorders mentioned before and that they were incurable.
Aside from the question of the credibility of therapist based on the limited information he had available - he clearly received money in order to report his views. And he was well aware that the wife's purpose in meeting with him was in order for rabbis to retroactively annul the marriage. (This was told to me by the man who obtained the report from the psychiatrist). And it is obvious from the report as we mentioned before.
2) It is possible that Tamar received instruction from another psychologist as to how to present her husband and his actions that the psychiatrist reported - in order to succeed in having the marriage annulled.
3) Many of the incidents that the psychiatrist used to prove that the husband Aharon wasn't normal and was incurable happened after they were married. How did he know that the mental illness - if in fact it exists - didn't develop only after they were married? Because if it did develop after they were married there is no basis for annulling the marriage.
The psak itself is questionable
1) The psychiatrist who wrote the report is not an observant Jew. His credibility is entirely based on his concern that he would be damaged professionally if it was discovered he was lying. Is this presumption sufficient in the face of the fact that we mentioned before that he was consulted with the avowed purposed of freeing Tamar from marriage and to remove her status as a married woman?
2) Wouldn't it have been appropriate for Rabbi Greenblatt to request the views of other psychologists who actually met with the husband in order establish whether he suffered from these personality disorders? Isn't it very possible that another psychologist would not reach the same conclusion as the first therapist -as is well known that this is a frequent occurrence in the deliberations of beis din as well as those in secular courts?
Because of all these considerations, in my humble opinion, the heter of Rabbi Greenblatt mentioned before can not be relied upon at all. Consequently Tamar retains the status of being a definitely married woman. Therefore she is prohibited in marriage to all men until these matters are dealt with in beis din according to the halacha. And in the mean time she needs to leave her second "husband" and if she becomes pregnant from him the children are viewed as mamzerim - unless the beis din says otherwise - according to the halacha applied the facts. If there is anyone who disagrees with me - he needs to brings his claims before beis din in order that they be carefully considered.
I now request that you join me in my protest against the heter - if you think what I said is correct. While I feel it is important to protest this heter to stop adultery, but doing it by myself without the support of a group of talmudic scholars my protest will not be accepted and effective. My urgent concern is that this heter will open the floodgates for the ignorant in our country to decide to annul marriages in a similar problematic manner to this one. That will result in the destruction (G-d forbid!) of the holiness of the Jewish people. As you know, up until now there have been various attempts of certain rabbis who are basically ignorant of Jewish law and who have not served an apprenticeship with expert rabbis. However they have been stopped by the protest of the rabbinic leadership of our communities. However this heter is different. Since it has been issued by Rabbi Greenblatt - who is recognized as important and expert Torah scholars in these matters - the opposition to improper heterim will fall apart if there is no protest.
In addition to the danger posed because the heter has been produced by Rabbi Greenblatt, in the eyes of the public Rabbi Greenblatt is viewed as being supported in producing the heter by one of the senior rosh yeshivos (Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky) of the present generation as well as his son ( Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky) who is also a distinguished Torah scholar. Despite the fact that the Kaminetskys deny this, there is no question that many will rely on these rumors to permit the nullification of the status of being a married woman by means of this heter. That is because they think gedolim have clearly supported this heter.
I close with a blessing that G-d stop these breaches and dwell in our midst and that we should not be shamed or transgress.
Aharon Feldman
p.s. If you agree with what I have written, I request that you inform me at the address listed at the top of the letter.
We have now all seen the letters from Gdolim, but NO reaction what so ever from "Nathan of Gaza". How come?
ReplyDeleteAgain, Rabbi Feldman's comparison to the case of raiach ra is not accurate. In that case, the women knew exactly what the defect was ahead of time. She only had doubts whether she could withstand it. In our case, she was not aware of the alleged defect until after she was married, and it would take time to find out its existence, how serious it is, and whether curable.
ReplyDeleteI would ask Rabbi Feldman additionally, whether he believes there are any personality disorders that might invalidate a marriage retroactively. Suppose a husband had a lifelong habit of doing somersaults in shul every shabbos morning, which began before his marriage but she was unaware. What if he was a drug user or alcoholic? If he will annul a marriage in those cases, then it is only a matter of degree. Why not trust the poskim who have ruled that this marriage falls into the same category based on the information they have about the husband? Is this whole fight about splitting hairs? On the other hand, if he rejects the entire concept of mekach taus by personality disorders, then much of his letter is superfluous, and he should just state that. It would also seem to be a very harsh position, and also go against Reb Moshe, who did allow for this in certain cases.
Barry - Rabbi Feldman clearly states that he does not believe that the husband has any personality disorder. The husband & wife were before the Baltimore Bais Din and the secular courts and at no time was there any discussion questioning the mental state of the husband. Don't you think during the nasty court battles at some point the wife should have mentioned the her husband has PPD & OCPD? This "diagnosis" was made by a "expert" who never meet the husband and is nothing but trash.
ReplyDeleteAs Yisroel S writes below, it seems Rabbi Feldman does NOT think these diagnosis are correct.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, rumor has it that the name of the psychologist is Goldfein. For those of you who don't know, this is the same name as the person whose bank account, $60K was transferred through directly to the infamous Medndel Epstein. If this is correct, I think it puts this whole issue of psychological disorder to rest - a bunch of fabricated lies, just like everything else Tamar has done. Rabbi Feldman, please publicize the supposed "psychological evaluation"
How could a doctor testify about a patient he had never examined based on someone else's description? Would any psychiatric or psychological testimony be allowed in a court of law on such a basis? I think not. How could a poser give weight to such statements? Famously, during the 1964 Presidential race, a number of psychiatrists signed an advertisement stating that Barry Goldwater, whom they had never met, was unfit to be President. That travesty led to the adoption of the Goldwater Rule, stating that commenting on a patient one has never examined is an ethical violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule
ReplyDeleteSo how can a posek, or a bais din, rely on an expert who is in violation of the precepts of his profession?
The wife of Tamar's lawyer, Rick Goldfein, is a psychologist by the name of Bracha Goldfein. I have no idea if she was involved in this.
ReplyDeleteCALL AGUDAS ISRAEL OF AMERICA. Anyone who has not done so yet, call Agudah, (212) 797-9000 and express your outrage that one of their keynote speakers has committed the greatest sin of all times - allowing a married woman to get married !!
ReplyDeleteDear Yisroel, then we agree that the entire machlokes here is whether he has a disorder. There was no need to cite any gemaras, or for a long teshuva by Rav Landesman. It is simply an issue of being mevarer the metzius. Now, whatever the facts are, and as I wrote elsewhere, I have no reason to believe that he does have anything wrong, as he has a chezkas kashrus by me, but there is an issue of malbin pnei chaveiro. If the poskim who looked into the issue felt there was a problem, obviously they can't publicize it. It is also not possible to ask a person to go to a doctor for the sake of somebody else. Why should he demean himself and waste his time and money. It's not going to happen. In addition, the same gemara says a few pages before that there is a chazaka that ein adam mifayes bmumin. I think we should give the benefit of doubt to the poskim who issued the heter, and also give the husband the benefit of the doubt that he is fine. We will never know the absolute truth here. (Something like quantum mechanics?)
ReplyDelete"his anger, his stinginess, his fears, his worries etc"
ReplyDeleteIf that is all it takes to be mevatel a marriage - most of us are in trouble. These are common things and should not be the basis of an annulment. Even if they could be defined as a "metal illness" no way, these every day issues are the types of serious mental illness that Reb Moshe or the Noda Be'Yehuda had in mind.
By Eishesh Ish, to declare an eishes ish free to remarry without a Get, you most certainly need the absolute truth to even consider such a possibility. Without the absolute truth you cannot declare an eishes ish free to remarry without a Get.
ReplyDeleteDear Yisroel, then we agree that the entire machlokes here is whether he has a disorder.
ReplyDeleteThis is laughable. Since neither you nor Yisroel is qualified as a poseik, what you two "agree" is irrelevant.
Has Ora helped Tamar or made things worse for her?
ReplyDeleteHad there not been so much publicity, a) she may have been able to lower her expectations and negotiate a Get with less benefits.
b) Had there been less publicity, we would not have heard of her either. So even if she got a dodgy "heter", it may have gone unnoticed, and the mamzerim offspring may have gotten away with it. So the question remains, is ORA helping or harming women?
Avigdor, I cross-posted your perceptive comment on the http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/11/is-aaron-being-punished-for-trying-to.html#disqus_thread thread.
ReplyDelete1) Never met.
ReplyDelete2) Even if he had met, evidence shows many other plausible alternative hypotheses.
3) Can't use information gathered by marriage counselor for forensic determinations.
... and who knows how many other good reasons...
I have a few hasagos on this translation as well, again, some more significant than others:
ReplyDelete1) "I asked this great rabbi why he had done this."
This implies that Rabbi Feldman confronted Rabbi Greenblatt for doing something wrong. Whereas the words שאלתי לטעם הדבר mean that he asked him what his reason was - implying that it could be possible for Rabbi Greenblatt to provide a good reason.
2) "She only claimed before the beis din (according to the testimony of two of the members of the beis din - the third is no longer alive) that she wanted to divorce him solely because he was not socially adept."
Rabbi Feldman does not say that she claimed that she wanted to divorce him SOLELY for this reason. He says that this was the only reason she mentioned.
3) "It is highly likely that Tamar received instruction from another psychologist as to how to present her husband and his actions that the psychiatrist reported - in order to succeed in having the marriage annulled."
And
"Isn't it highly likely that another psychologist would not reach the same conclusion as the first therapist -as is well known that this is a frequent occurrence in the deliberations of beis din as well as those in secular courts?"
The word יתכן does not mean likely; it means "possiblilty". As such, the translation should say that "it is POSSIBLE that Tamar received instruction..." and "isn't it VERY POSSIBLE that another psychologist..."
The first one in particular is a significant change.
4) "Is this concern sufficient in the face of the fact that we mentioned before that he was consulted with the avowed purposed of freeing Tamar from marriage and to remove her status as a married woman?"
I think this is a misunderstanding of the argument (or perhaps not constructed/punctuated well). Rabbi Feldman's argument is that the person's entire נאמנות is based on a chazaka, and is going against a different chazaka (חזקת אשת איש), so who says the first chazaka should override the second chazaka. To strengthen this argument he notes that the first chazaka is also weakened by the fact that the guy was hired specifically to produce this outcome.
Even if the entire world agreed he has a disorder, the "disorder" alleged in this case doesn't permit the marriage to have been retroactively revoked based on mekach taos.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is exactly the point, the problem "of diagnostic inflation" is well documented.
ReplyDeleteGedolim spoke about לא מרע לאומנתי' in the context of believing the אומן when he attests to facts. They didn't ever rely on him (from what I've learned) on determining WHAT CONSTITUTES "serious" illness.
Asking ten people is worthless, because they're basically being asked about a person that has already been stigmatized and dehumanized based on the label, which in of itself means nothing. Goffman, Corrigan and others discuss this at length & the UK is tilting towards abandoning labels for this precise reason.
Here's an experiment: Ask ten women if they would marry someone suffering from "Carbunculus cutis". Sounds scary, no? How many would do it?
Actually, it's just the latin term for "pimple on skin"....
This is a common ploy in professional circles & the Gemara קידושין עד: mentions it בנוגע רב יהודה בר יחזקאל ור' נחמן.
I also don't understand Rabbi Feldman's (Rabbi Miller's) comparison to Kesubos. Rabbi Feldman is arguing that even if there was a "mistaken purchase", once the mistake is revealed the purchaser cannot say that he thought he could handle it. But here it was never revealed. She accepted the mekach taus of a curable illness; she never accepted, nor knew about, an incurable illness.
ReplyDeleteEven if everyone agreed the husband in fact had the health issues he is alleged to have, and he had it from before the marriage whereas the wife only found out about it after the marriage since it was previously undiagnosed, these alleged health disorders, even if true, are insufficient to retroactively nullify a marriage based on mekach taos.
ReplyDeleteIn your post, you managed to call her by the last names of Epstein, Goldstein, and Goldfein. Please be more careful, or else people will walk away very confused.
ReplyDeleteKishkeyum, there are only two possibilities, either a mental/personality disorder is considered a mum, or not. If the machmir poskim held not, then why bother discussing the nature of his disorder, and the way it was determined. It would be irrelevant. Therefore you see that they did consider the possibility, as did Reb Moshe, that one could claim mekach taus, were the existence of the disorder clear.So it boils down to the question of whether he did or did not have a disorder.
ReplyDeleteYour post is simply the yeshivishe game of ignoring the substance of what people say, and focusing on their name. But the Rambam says in Kiddush Hachodesh 17:24 the opposite. We focus on the substance and ignore who said it.
1) We are not privy to the exact nature, and very possibly the matirim do not want to release personal medical info, so they used vague words.
ReplyDelete2) If you look at what constitutes a mum for a woman you will find: a deep voice, being anatomically unbalanced, among other things. And if you look at grounds for issuing a divorce (not an annulment), you will find: burning his food, or even finding someone else more attractive.
You are listing things the husband can use to discontune the marriage, not things the wife can use to discontinue the marriage. They are halachicly distinct and very different. Halachicly the wife can't discontinue the marriage for the reasons the husband has that halachic right. And you cannot confuse the two.
ReplyDeleteI made one typo. I wrote, “Attorney/Rabbi Goldstein is a Board
ReplyDeleteMember of the Politz Hebrew Academy and is listed as “Rabbi Ephraim L. Goldfein, Esq.” I mistakenly typed Goldstein instead of Goldfein.
To clarify, some claim that Rabbi/Attorney Ephraim (Rick) Goldfein was Tamar Epstein's lawyer and that his wife, Dr. Bracha (Bea) Goldfein, could be the therapist in question. Again, I have no direct knowledge.
"I have no knowledge if Rabbi Goldfein or Dr. Goldfein are
ReplyDeleteinvolved in any aspect of the Epstein-Friedman matter."
rabbi goldfein, esq is the attorney who wired $60,000 to rabbi mendel Epstein at his client's agent's (ORA's) request. per his testimony in Trenton federal court, where he was given immunity from prosecution in order to testify to the above.
yes, he was mrs Epstein's matrimonial attorney.
Kishkeyum, there are only two possibilities, either a mental/personality disorder is considered a mum, or not.
ReplyDeleteUh huh, that's why there are complex fifty plus page teshuvos on such cases (a link to one of which I posted in a earlier thread) -- b/c it's a very simple matter of two possiblilities.
This illustrates what I said: You're not a poseik, you clearly have no concept of the complexities. That's why I find your unequivocal statements on the subject laughable. I.e. b/c of the lack of substance, not b/c of your name.
Mention was made here that an attorney, Rick Goldfein, represented
ReplyDeleteTamar
Epstein, and that his wife, “is a psychiatrist by the name of Bracha
Goldfein” I have no knowledge if Rabbi Goldfein or Dr. Goldfein are
involved in any aspect of the Epstein-Friedman matter.
Why in the world are you posting people's personal information if you have no idea whether or not they are involved? That's really irresponsible.
Was the $60,000 from Tamar lawyer Goldfein to Mendel Epstein for the purpose of assaulting the husband Aharan - which occurred when he brought their child back to Tamar's home?
ReplyDeleteI meant to imply that I have no direct knowledge of the Goldfeins involvement. It is public knowledge that Attorney Goldfein represented Tamar and testified in Federal Court regarding his involvement in the Mendel Epstein case on behalf of Tamar. If Dr. Goldfein is indeed the therapist that RNG relied upon for his heter, the Rav should immediately be made aware. IMHO, she would not be considered a neutral party.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I was responding to Ben P. who seemed to find it difficult to believe that the traits he listed could be so bothersome to a woman so as to want to dissolve a marriage. There are similarly seemingly trivial characteristics that the gemara lists as reasons a man might want to dissolve a marriage. that's all.
ReplyDeleteKishkeyum, Feel free to repost the link here. Nevertheless, you have not refuted simple logic. Either 1) No mental/personality disorder qualifies as a mum (or grounds for mekach taus), or 2) some mental/personality disorders do qualify (Reb Moshe). If you accept choice 2, then it is a matter of degree. This is exactly what I wrote earlier.
ReplyDeleteSince we have no way of knowing the exact nature of this husband's alleged disorder, why not give benefit of doubt to the poskim who were matir in that they felt it was severe enough. Glad to look at your teshuva, but highly doubt it can change anything I wrote.
Derisive remarks or name calling, or exclamations about the length of a teshuva do not qualify as substance, but are fluff. You need to address the argument I have made, and you have not done so.
You have also not addressed my thought experiment about a husband with a lifelong habit of doing somersaults in shul shabbos morning, and whose wife is terribly embarrassed, but he refuses to give a get. Can this marriage be anulled? Again, this question has only two answers: Yes or No. What do you say? (One word only.)
Even if giving her the benefit of the doubt (velo mipiha onu chayim) :
ReplyDeleteIt was revealed when she started taking birth control, and accepted the alleged disorder when she decided to have a child after all. If the alleged disorder was that crucial, how come she never asked the mumche whether there is a cure for it? Can she back it up that she thought so? Besides, dvorim shebelev einan dvorim. From the Mishnah in Kesubos, even if when all fine and dandy, she still needs a Get, and there is no annulment for such. Chad vecholok
Just one question, can we see her file in order to prove her point, and see what else has been going on in her consultations? Very convenient to talk on behalf of husband without his presence, and hiding what transpired with her mumche. Open up the cards, and let's find out the truth.
Your point was raised a number of times and indeed it is one of the main points in discussion. However, there is evidence that she still did not leave her husband, even at that stage. She does have an explanation to it but according to Rabbi Feldman, there is no basis to believe it, however there is a basis to say that she accepted that condition.
ReplyDeleteThat is all if you believe this whole case, some say that it is just a 'made up' story and this (would be) divorce is just like all others. This view in too mentioned in the letter of Rabbi Feldman.
Not only they harm women in the struggle for a GET, they also harm society in general.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Tamar, I think that her problem is that she is not willing to compromise as it is advised in these situations, so Ora would not make much difference.
Min HaTorah a man can end a marriage for trivial reasons whereas a woman cannot.
ReplyDeleteDear David, I am saying that we should assume that Rav Shmuel and Rav Sholom Kaminetsky and Rav Nota Greenblatt do have the the standard of evidence to annul. We in the general public do not have access, and hence should trust them.
ReplyDeleteThe only complicating factor would be if it boils down to his word against her word. Meaning she claims he has a tendency to do XYZ, and he claims not, and nobody has ever seen him do it, except her. In that case, even if she obtained a medical report based on her description, it may not carry any more weight than her original word. But, also consider, what would be the din according to Reb Moshe if she claims she saw him involved in mishkav zachor, and he denies?
Just like Yaakov avinu was ready ledoron, l'tfilah ulemilchama, they had plan A, and in case that failed they had in place plan B, if all else failed then advance to plan C.
ReplyDeleteThey first tried a Get but she was asked for fair visitation rights, it didn't fly.
At this point Mr. F. was still normal. They next tried to beat him up with ORA's
blessings in order to force out a Get even if it is considered a Get Meussa,
with the hope of sparing to offer custodial rights, Aharon F. was still yet
considered normal. Eishes ish and mamzerus was of no object to none of the
askonim parties involved. Subsequently, those beaters together with the enablers have been caught and brought to justice, causing a big chilul hashem. Finally, when kolu kol hakitsin and all else failed, they have been dan din beinom lebein atsmom shelo befonov, declared him all of a sudden not normal with a newly discovered alleged disorder, veshuv kvar ein nizkokin lo, declared a mekach shtiss or tous veyoser mishtiss, thereby, Tamar E. became allegedly free. This is the same as condemning a helpless poor ham sandwich in absentia, an offer it cannot refuse, fait accompli style. Isn't it transparent how they were fixated upon a breakup without allowing visitation rights by hook or by crook? A Get piturin was available and offered, without getting into complications of eishes ish and mamzeirus of the future offsprings. But no, ani emloch, we will have it OUR way whether you like it or not, with or without the Torah's/SA consent. We rule, and not the Torah, the Torah will have to conform whether he likes it or not.
A classical example of megaleh ponim baTorah shelo kehalacha.
Shoimu Shamayim!
Where have we gotten to? Ad dyuta hatachtoino! We have so called Gedolim that should have not gotten into this mess to begin with. Shochad is considered to be even when it was given on account before getting into the mix. Vihyisem nekiyim applies even when it only seems of impropriety, al achas kama vekama when one was a shoshvin and a recipient of many financial benefits, but that yet was of no deterrent. When they were advised to recuse, they promised not to mingle anymore, but have not kept their promise. They gave their support and consent to force an illegal Get and beatings of nefesh achas miyisroel, and yet in front of the eyes of a helpless child, far kinder R'L'. Hayitochen? How could you be such a heartless, feckless Rosho, velomo sakeh re'acho. Have you no clue of what
tsaar you are gorem to reb Aharon F. nero yair. First robbing him of his wife,
then robbing away his only daughter, then yoired lechayov, and Gevaldt - we
Klall yisroel we DO feel his pain. When you hit him, is as if you hit us. You
send bnei bliyaal ubnei avlo to demonstrate to the already downtrodden husbands with your torat ha-Feminism R' lesheizvei, it is much rather you - that Klall Yisrael should demonstrate, in front of your Yeshiva U, bemisharosecho, uvtanirecho, uvchol asher teilech, then we see how much you gonna' like it. At the end of the day, we klall yisrael suffer the consequences of setting Daynei Yisrael she'einom mehugonim. If that wasn't enough, you transgress dina demalchusse dina, kidnapping charges, extortion, chilul hashem, et al. Why? Just because you can! And for what, for the Egel hazohov, yes, all for the Almighty money. If you don't believe me, ask TF's Attorney, k'Shishim ribo elef zahav $hekel kessef oiver lasoicher. On this upcoming gathering, who would want to sit next to you or in your dalet amos. Have you no decency? Have you no shame? You
need to ask mechila from R' Aharon and all others you be'avled kavel am ve'eido. I would have spoken with much more bderech kovod, but regretfully, ....ein cholkin.... This hefkerus must be fixed, before this whole Eido hakdosho with Torah hakdosho goes under chas vesholom. Veloh yihye adas yisroel ketson bli roeh. We are Moiche bechol toikef! Ono, chizru bachem, umiyad!
I'm sorry, I simply do not take your either/or statement (or your other toros) at all seriously. They shout to me of nothing but ignorance, which is why I see no point in addressing them.
ReplyDeleteHere's the link. Reading the teshuva might give you some idea of the kind of work that needs to be done before such a heter can even be contemplated, and of the seriousness with which it must be approached.
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1138
Dear Dr. Barry:
ReplyDeleteRav Aharon Feldman, Rav Moshe Shternbuch, Rav Shlomo Miller, Rav E B Wachtfogel, Rav Moshe Green and Rav Yechiel Tauber do have all the pertinent facts and standards of evidence of the case and determined there is absolutely no halachic basis to annul or revoke her chezkas eishes ish.
And, especially, in a he-said/she-said case, where as you put it it boils down to his word against hers, you cannot change the chazka or declare a married woman to retroactively be no longer an eishes ish. A beis din is obligated under halacha, as described in the S"A, to have proof; mere claims are insufficient. Rav Moshe would certainly follow the S"A that if she claims (i.e. he was involved in mishkav zochor) and he denies it, and there is no corroborating proof otherwise, that the beis din cannot accept the claim on its own without proof.
In fact the S"A specifically says if a wife claims her husband beats her physically and the beis din warns him to stop and the wife comes back to B"D and claims he continues to beat her and the husband denies that and says he no longer beats her, the S"A says the beis din cannot accept her word to order a divorce and rather must station an agent of beis din in the marital home to bear witness whether or not he is beating her. And the halacha is, says the Mechaber, that if the agent of B"D does not observe him being violent to her in the home, the beis din cannot accept her claim and cannot order him to divorce her.
No, halacha does not permit a beis din to order a husband to give a divorce because his wife is embarrassed with his shul somersaults.
ReplyDeleteI am not discussing the overall case. I am discussing the specific point that Rabbi Feldman raised from Kesubos. He brought up this point to say that even if we grant that she left the moment she found out it was incurable, the kiddushin is not annulled. My question, which your response does not address, is that Rabbi Feldman's argument that once she was סברה וקיבלה she can no longer say that she thought she could handle it is only relevant if her objection now is to the same mum that she accepted, which does not appear to be the case, as the mum she accepted was not incurable while the mum she left him for was incurable. Now, of course it is possible to construct some kind of argument that since at the end of the day it was the same disease, it has a din of being the same mum and it's as if she accepted the incurable disease as well. But such an argument is by no means certain, and at the very least Rabbi Feldman should have mentioned it if it is what he was relying on.
ReplyDeleteMy question is on Rabbi Feldman's application of Kesubos to this case. He made this application in order to prove that EVEN if she left him immediately upon finding out that the disease was incurable, the kiddushin is still not nullified. Hence, my question cannot be answered by asserting that she did not leave him at that time. Such an assertion may be relevant to the overall heter, but it is not relevant to Rabbi Feldman's point which grants that she did leave.
ReplyDeleteYou are not expressing yourself well. What two MUMIM are you talking about that at the end of the day is the same?
ReplyDeleteHere is the point of rabbi Feldman, even if she had left immediately of which she didn't, and even if she claims that I HAVE THOUGHT I could live with it as she presently wants to claim, but discovered now that she cannot live with it, and even if we grant her that we believe her, SHE STILL NEEDS A GET, and we do not NULLIFY! That is the punch line. Hope it helps.
"But later she says that despite her belief that she could live with it - she in truth can't - the beis din forces him to divorce her."
Oh wow!! Unbelievable. Truth is way stranger than fiction.
ReplyDeleteOne problem - Rav Aaron Feldman wrote that the shrink is not shomer Shabbos. My understanding was that Mr. Goldfein the lawyer is shomer Shabbos.
I also wonder what the connection of this Mr. Goldfein is with the Goldfeins who used to live in Memphes (goldfein is not a common name...). Was it Goldfein who recruted Rabbi Greenblatt?
Unfortunately, there have been other cases where woman have "remarried" without a get or without a valid get. But since those cases were not on public radar, they don't face the same public backlash that Tamar faces.
ReplyDeleteSince, apparently, I am not explaining myself, I will try again.
ReplyDeleteIf a woman finds out after she is married that her husband had a mum then there could be a מקח טעות. If after finding out about the mum she says that she can live with it then the marriage is not annulled. If she then comes later and says that she misjudged her ability to live with it and now she wants the marriage annulled on the basis of מקח טעות, we don't annul it because she accepted it. Once she accepts the mum it is irrelevant whether she knew about it before she got married. This is what we see from Kesubos.
Now what would happen if a woman discovered (after being married) that her husband had a mum and she accepted it but then she later discovered another mum which she is not willing to accept. Would we say that since she accepted the first mum there is no מקח טעות on the second mum? That wouldn't really make sense. Just because a woman is willing to accept one thing doesn't mean that she is willing to accept anything, which includes things that are much worse than what she accepted.
In our case, what she accepted was a curable disorder. She did not accept an incurable disorder. So while she can't say that she wouldn't have married him had she known about the curable disorder - since she clearly accepted a curable disorder as bearable - why would she not be able to say that she wouldn't have married him had she known about the INCURABLE disorder? Rabbi Feldman responds that she can't claim that she wouldn't have married him, because she clearly accepted it. My point is that she did not accept it; she accepted something else, namely, a CURABLE disorder.
Now, I mentioned a possible argument which would assert that lema'aseh she accepted the thing that he had, albeit under misinformation, so it is technically the same mum that she accepted, that she is now objecting against. However, such an argument is far from pashut. Imagine that he had a serious mental disorder but she was told that it is just a side effect of a medicine he only had to take one time. She will obviously accept it as bearable. But then she finds out that it is in fact a serious mental disorder. Would you say that since lema'aseh it is the same thing (she was just misinformed about it), she cannot make a מקח טעות claim since she already accepted it? Even if such an argument is correct (which can be debated), at the very least it should have been fleshed out in Rabbi Feldman's letter, as opposed to making it seem that our case is exactly analogous to that in Kesubos.
Rabbi Feldman listed numerous reasons why Tamar's marriage can not be annulled, and each of the reasons independently from each other preclude annuling the marriage. Even if one of the reasons he gave doesn't work (and I am not addressing whether your argument knocks one reason out), the other reasons still prevent annulment on mekach taos.
ReplyDeleteHonesty, specifically which other cases are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteThat's fine. I specifically stated that I am not discussing the overall psak. I am discussing one specific argument that I don't understand, which happened to have been a pretty peripheral argument. But that doesn't make it any less of a Torah discussion, or any less of a quest for truth; it is simply one which may not result in any practical ramifications for this particular case.
ReplyDeleteYou have explained yourself crystal clear. You first must understand a few givens. The blemish must be acknowledged unanimously that it is such AND considered such. She remained in the house when she found out, is a "fact". It is worth more than a thousand words, let alone "thought". She now tries to reneg(e) with a thought that is not even words. How can she prove that it was so, therefore, why should we believe her. There are other things to her detriment, she said she can do better and not because she cannot take his disorder, so why should we believe her she is telling the truth? Those that the Mishna in Ksubos enumerates, are those that we all know that it is a hardship and burdensome without her having to tell us, therefore it IS believable that she originally thought she can take it but later found out she cannot. She claims that she thought it is curable with medication, how do we know that it's true, can she prove it, there is nothing to show as her proof. What was the time lapse from thinking it can be treated medically to finding out that it cannot. Should she claim that it was simultaneous, then where does the "thought" of medically curable come in? In her Diary she has a two column list that the closest analogy is a dandelion. He loves me, he loves me not, he.... It seems that she made things up along the way and firefighting when getting to the bridge, as coaxed by the evildoers. Having all that, even those in the Mishnah all need a Get, why should she fare here any better. This was my best shot, over n out.
ReplyDeleteYou are making good points, but your points only relate to the overall issue of whether she should be able to remarry. Rabbi Feldman, though, brought in Kesubos to make a very specific point. His point was that even if we grant that there would be a good טענה of מקח טעות here, she still cannot remarry because סברה וקיבלה ruins the מקח טעות claim. My point is that you can't use סברה וקיבלה to ruin the מקח טעות claim because the סברה וקיבלה was on a different מקח טעות. You are giving a whole litany of reasons why we wouldn't accept her מקח טעות claim to begin with, which may be correct, but it is not what either myself or Rabbi Feldman were addressing.
ReplyDeleteKishkeyum, I quickly read thru the link. One immediate kashya that came to mind, which is not directly addressed, except peripherally later in the tshuva, is the following. The writer mentions that because the gemara didn't mention the case (in considering hayu vs. noldu) that the man had preexisting mumin, but the lady did not know at all, it is logical that the gemara took it for granted that it would be a mekach taus in that case and no get would be needed. However, he is mefalpel that perhaps there is no mekach taus by a woman because of tav lmeitav tan du. A woman would accept any husband. If that were so, then why would there be an inyan to force a husband to give a get by mumin gedolim, say by the case of noldu, where they developed after marriage? We should say that she is happy with anything. Vayzt doch ois that she doesn't accept everything. (And possibly, as teshuva mentions, only from people without mumin would she accept anybody.) It seems that you can't have it both ways. If you hold a woman would not accept certain mumin in the case of noldu, and kofin lhotzi, then in the case of hayu, and she didn't know, it should be an automatic mekach taus.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is pretty clear that as I said earlier, the teshuva needed to discuss whether there exists the concept of mekach taus for a woman, and secondly, if we accept that there is, then how big a mum must it be. After reading it, it seems that most poskim do accept the possibility of mekach taus, and that the shayla becomes what is considered extreme enough. The mishna doesn't mention personality or mental issues. it does mention things like skin conditions and objectionable odor. Clearly it is up to the shikul hadaas of poskim to determine what the bar is by mental issues. (Note the teshuva is continued elsewhere in a different link, and I did not see it yet.)
In general, if you see no point in addressing my arguments, then why waste energy insulting? I certainly do not change my views when no proofs are brought, but only insults are thrown. If someone has a proof against me, I am always glad to reconsider.
Dear David, it is not clear that you are correct about the somersaults, at all. A person so unstable and unpredictable might clearly not be marriage material that no woman would accept. Note that I used a case of acting out in public where it is not a he said/she said case.
ReplyDeleteDear David, I agree that a he said/she said case is more complex. I don't know whether there is independent evidence in Tamar's case or if it is entirely based on her word. I think that point would be helpful to know.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the list of Rabbis you mentioned, I don't know how all of them, especially those not directly involved, would have all the personal private info. Second, since the mishna does not mention mental or personality issues, it is probably hard to establish a standard as to exactly what is a mum gadol that would be grounds for an annullment. I believe it will ultimately be a shikul hadaas of each posek. (Yes, I am disturbed that a clear-cut halacha as get and mamzer could ultimately boil down to a nebulous standard.) I need to think over more, and also look at the second section of Kishkeyum's teshuva.
I am just wondering aloud whether perhaps women today can be considered more makpid, even if at time of gemara one uses the most general meaning of isha bchol dehu nich lah. We know there is the shitas Raaviyah by heseibah on Pesach that nowadays all women are considered chashuvos, and do recline. Something must have changed.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to attempting to change the status of chezkas eishes ish, you can only do so today if it is acceptable l'chol hadeios. Otherwise the result will be mamzeirim according to some shittos.
ReplyDelete"I believe it will ultimately be a shikul hadaas of each posek. (Yes, I am disturbed that a clear-cut halacha as get and mamzer could ultimately boil down to a nebulous standard.)"
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to attempting to change the status of chezkas eishes ish, you can only do so today if it is acceptable l'chol hadeios. Otherwise the result will be mamzeirim according to some shittos.
Let's try once more.
ReplyDeleteThe Mishnah teaches us, once she is AWARE of a problem and she accepts it, she can never claim Mekach taus any more as a principle. The principle is called sovra vekiblo of which negates Mekach Taus leolam. However, if she claims that she thought she can handle it but discovered afterwards that she is not capable of handling it, at best she can ask and justified for a Get, period, it can NOT be anulled. In our case at hand, once she discovered an alleged problem and flinched, she can never claim a meakch taus anymore. The taina of sviro hoyisi sheani yochol lekabla or that there is a remedy for such ailment/disorder does not fly anymore as far as mekach taus is concerned. Firstly, who knows if it is true, and even if she can provide proof of being so, at best she needs a GET just like in the Mishnah. The reason she needs no proof in the Mishnah of sviro hoyisi is, because anon sahadei the it is very difficult to live with those issues enumerated. vek'l
I think I saw that discussed on the Otzar HaChochma board, a question of whether טב למיתב טנדו is an absolute or whether subject to change.
ReplyDeleteSome insults. I was explaining why I don't waste time addressing your points, not insulting you. When I insult you, you'll know it.
ReplyDeleteI will try again as well. It might be simpler if I ask you if you agree that if a woman accepts one mum, it does not mean that she accepts every mum. If you disagree, I would like to understand your basis for disagreeing. If you agree, we can move on to the next level which is where a woman is told that her husband has one mum when in reality he has a different (and worse) mum. Do we say סברה וקיבלה or do we say that the actual mum is not what she accepted. Note that this is different from saying that she can't handle what she had said she could handle. Here she is saying that she never said she could handle this.
ReplyDeleteIf you agree to this distinction as well then we can move on to the somewhat murkier situation in our case. Now, I don't know exactly what she was told originally about her husband's condition. But if she was told that he has XYZ which is curable and she accepted it, but now she finds out that XYZ is not curable and says she can't accept it and claims מקח טעות, how is this conceptually different from a case where she was told that he has XYZ but then finds out that he really has ABC (either it was a misdiagnosis or she was lied to). Either way, she never accepted his true condition. If you want a more lomdushly formulated argument, we can say that the סברה וקיבלה itself was a מקח טעות.
Now, I can certainly allow room for the argument that since למעשה she accepted XYZ and what he has is XYZ, she did actually accept this mum. But it is certainly not a home-run-argument and one should therefore expect that this argument be spelled out in the letter, rather than a simple assertion that this case is completely analogous to kesubos.
Again, it might also depend on exactly what she was told the first time, which is something that I do not know the details of and is not clarified in the letter.
If all the above paragraphs did not adequately convey my point, here is an oversimplified version:
Perhaps there is a difference between the acceptance of a mum which was based on the woman's incorrect perception of her ability to deal with it (the case in kesubos) and the acceptance of a mum which was based on misinformation (or lack of information) about the mum itself.
Once ABC has been established, there is never a claim of Mekach taus. HER
ReplyDeleteperception of the condition changes nothing, it is BUYER BEWARE and it is her
own responsibility to pursue the matter to find out. Therefore, ABC does NOT
equal XYZ as a born again different animal , no matter how you slice it. And
that is exactly the Mishnah in Ksubot, Sviro hoyisi is her concept, still and
all it is NOT declared a Mekach taus, once she acknowledged the MUM. Her only
relief is through a Get Only. Had she walked out immediately, only then can you
declare a Mekach taus. This was a GRAVE mistake declaring her FREE, to'o bidvar Mishne mefureshes and must be rectified.
I also don't understand Rabbi Feldman's (Rabbi Miller's) comparison to Kesubos.
ReplyDeleteOK, good for you. Do you even know what the Mishna in Kesubos rules? Why haven't you quoted the MIshna you claim to seek to understand.
It is very clear from the Mishna that when a person did not understand the true extent of an issue, they cannot later claim "mekach taus." If a true-and-tried Beis Din, who has proper jurisdiction over both parties, rules that her claims of not having understood how bad the problem was is true - then the authorized Beis Din may force him to divorce her. However, it is clear that we don't dare claim that there never was a marriage.
Thank you for your sincere desire to understand the Mishna. How many Talmidei Chachomim have you approached with your "question?" Ahh. You see, this is why Rav Shterboch refused to even dignify this "bitul" by refuting its points - other than calling it "hevel." You will always have guys seeking to "answer" the refutations and seek to somehow legitimize the heterim. If distorting the Torah has become permissible for this issue, then it will never end.
Any more questions?
"The psak halacha is that we can only do an annulment in the cases directly cited by Chazal."
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. There are no cases of annulment cited by Chazal. It is not in the mishna. As before, the mishna was either talking about mumin that developed post-marriage, or mumin that he was forthright and told her that he has, but she agreed to go ahead with, anyway (savra vkiblah). There is no discussion that the mishna applies to pre-existing mumin she never knew about before marriage.
And the cases Reb Moshe annulled are also not mentioned. Does the mishna mention ein lo gevuras anashim? Does it mention osek bmishkav zachor? We see it is a shikul hadaas of a posek.
I am also reminded of the gemara that says about a husband who is too controlling, ein adam dar im nachash bekefifa. Here is a clear-cut mention that gemara recognized that certain personalities one can't live with, not merely physical problems. (Again, I don't mean to say anything bad about the particular husband under discussion, as I don't know the specifics at all. We are just talking about the abstract halacha.)
I think we are making progress in clarifying the issue. So let me give an example just to make sure. If a woman saw a man in a Purim Play and then married him and then found out that he has a serious mental disorder, which she had been told before the marriage was him simply acting for the play, she cannot have a claim of מקח טעות, because it is "buyer beware". If this is not what you are saying then please clarify. If it is what you are saying (and in fact what Rabbi Feldman meant) then I would suggest that the letter could have ben written more clearly on this point. It is not, as he made it seem, that Rabbi Greenblatt does not believe in the concept of סברה וקיבלה; rather it is that Rabbi Greenblatt does not believe in the same extent of "buyer beware". The discussion in Kesubos is not about "buyer beware" but about the woman's self-understanding.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure why you are getting so defensive and insinuating that I am attempting to distort the Torah. I asked a simple question, in a respectful manner.
ReplyDeleteIt is very clear from the Mishna that when a person did not understand the true extent of an issue, they cannot later claim "mekach taus."
My whole point is to distinguish between not understanding an issue and not understanding one's reaction to an issue. סבורה הייתי שאני יכולה לקבל ועכשיו איני יכולה לקבל is the latter, while I am alleging that Rabbi Greenblatt is using the former. (I didn't even say that Rabbi Greenblatt would be correct in doing so; I just said that Rabbi Feldman should spell out that this is the issue under discussion). I will give a simple mashal to show the difference. Imagine someone asks you to take care of his baby for a week. He warns you that the baby will wake you up in the middle of the night every night, but you say that you can handle being woken up in the middle of the night, and you gladly agree to take the baby. Now, halfway through the week you give up. The guy objects since you agreed to do it despite knowing that the baby will wake you up. You respond that you thought you could handle being woken up but now you see that you can't handle it.
Now let's change the story a bit. What if you were never told that the baby will wake you up (or perhaps you were even specifically told that the baby will not wake you up). Now when you come to give up, the guy objects since you agreed to watch the baby. You respond that you did not know that the baby would wake you up every night. You never agreed to watch a baby that would wake you up every night.
Do you see the difference between the two cases? As I pointed out to Ehud, above, in one case you were misinformed as to the facts of the situation while in the other case you misjudged your coping abilities. While the mishnah specifically discusses the latter, it does not discuss the former. This does not mean that the halacha is automatically different; it just means that Rabbi Feldman's argument should be elaborated upon and spelled out more clearly.
I'm not quite sure why you are getting so defensive
ReplyDeletePlease stick to the facts and offer your psychoanalysis at the end.
My whole point is to distinguish between not understanding an issue and not understanding one's reaction to an issue.
There is no such a differentiation. A duck by any other name is still a duck. Not understanding how terrible and impossible certain smells are is precisely the same as not understanding how impossible certain supposed mental diseases are.
Your example is simply wrong. Caring for a baby requires getting up during the night - whether specified or not. There is no more to say.
Do you have a halachic right to back out and quit? Yes, as a person has a halachic right to quit a job whenever they feel like it. (Lifnim m'shuras hadin and other halachos do not change the base of the halacha). However, G-d did not give a woman a halachic right to quit her marriage - even if it is difficult. (In certain rare circumstances, the husband - due to his behavior, must divorce his wife. The wife does not have a right to quit.)
Quit the analogies - which you will admit that you do not have a "perfect" one.
Not understanding how terrible and impossible certain smells are is precisely the same as not understanding how impossible certain supposed mental diseases are.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is what I was saying. What I said was that in one case the facts are known and it is simply an overestimation of coping abilities, while in the other case the facts are not known. That is why I made an analogy using the baby situation - it was not a halachic analogy, but a device utilized to clearly demonstrate the difference in metzius between the two cases.
Rabbi Feldman's argument was that since the Mishnah says that we force him to divorce her, obviously we cannot annul the marriage. However, what I am saying is that there was no מקח טעות in that situation, so of course we cannot annul the marriage. A person's thoughts about what they want or what they need or what they are capable of handling do not create a מקח טעות, as they have nothing to do with the transaction. Rabbi Greenblatt's argument, to my understanding (which admittedly may be incorrect as he has not disseminated any statements for me to look at) is that in this case there was a מקח טעות since she was misinformed as to the the nature of her "purchase". Whether one agrees with him or not, I don't think that saying that there is an explicit Mishnah that says that סברה וקיבלה undermines the claim of מקח טעות directly addresses the issue. As I said to Ehud above, Rabbi Feldman perhaps could/should have made an argument about the buyer's responsibility to beware.
Thank you for your sincere desire to understand the Mishna. How many Talmidei Chachomim have you approached with your "question?" Ahh. You see, this is why Rav Shterboch refused to even dignify this "bitul" by refuting its points - other than calling it "hevel." You will always have guys seeking to "answer" the refutations and seek to somehow legitimize the heterim. If distorting the Torah has become permissible for this issue, then it will never end.
1) Is there a rule that I have to first discuss something with talmidei chachomim before discussing it with the general populace?
2) One could simply replace "Rav Shterboch" with "Rav Greenblatt" and make the same argument. Insulting others' arguments without addressing them does not seem to be a good way to garner respect for your position unless your audience is people who automatically accept your position. The same people who will seek to "answer the refutations and legitimize the heterim" will also attack a reasonless statement. The halachic system is undermined when discourse is refused, as anyone can simply say that they cannot divulge the reasoning lest the people mock it.
I don't think this is what I was saying. What I said was that in one case the facts are known and it is simply an overestimation of coping abilities, while in the other case the facts are not known. That is why I made an analogy using the baby situation - it was not a halachic analogy, but a device utilized to clearly demonstrate the difference in metzius between the two cases.
ReplyDeleteYour differentiation is simply wrong and non-existent. In both cases they knew of the prob;lem, but they were unaware of the depth of the problem. It is always relevant to one's coping abilities - as otherwise, there would be no room for a chiuv get. If she was able to cope, just that she is a spoiled brat who "needs" an excellent smelling husband, then there would not be a chiuv for a get.
The baby analogy adds nothing to the very real facts of the Tamar Epstein saga. The baby analogy only serves to demonstrate that you need to stretch so far to come up with a question on Rav Aaron Feldman, yet come up so short, that the sadness of the adultery Tamar is committing is overwhelming.
Is there a rule that I have to first discuss something with talmidei chachomim before discussing it with the general populace?
No. But it does show sincerity, or lack thereof. What is so difficult to understand. By just turning this into some mindless chatter, you are completely mocking the seriousness of this terrible adultery.
One could simply replace "Rav Shterboch" with "Rav Greenblatt" and make the same argument.
No, you cannot.
1) Rabbi Greenblatt does not even feel confident to put his "heter" out for public scrutiny. (If he is afraid of a lawsuit, that is all the more telling.)
2) There is not a single person of note who has publicly supported Rabbi Greenblatt. On the other hand, Rav Shternbuch is joined by
* Rav Feldman,
* the Baltimore Beis Din (the mutually authorized Beis Din in this case),
* Rav Shlomo Miller,
* Rav E. B. Wachtfogal,
* Rav Moshe Green and many others.
You are exhibit A as to why Rav Shternbuch's method is necessary.
Your differentiation is simply wrong and non-existent. In both cases they knew of the prob;lem, but they were unaware of the depth of the problem.
ReplyDeleteIn one case the woman is unaware of the depth of the problem while in the other case she is aware of the depth of the problem but is not aware of her reaction to the problem.
It is always relevant to one's coping abilities - as otherwise, there would be no room for a chiuv get. If she was able to cope, just that she is a spoiled brat who "needs" an excellent smelling husband, then there would not be a chiuv for a get.
The fact that the woman's coping ability is relevant to a chiyuv get does not mean that it is relevant to a מקח טעות. Rabbi Feldman's argument is that if a claim of מקח טעות was possible, the Mishnah would not have said that we force a get; it would have simply said that the marriage is annulled. In order for Rabbi Greenblatt to answer this proof, he has to explain that in the Mishnah there was no grounds for מקח טעות. I believe his reasoning would be that there was no "mistaken purchase". All that there was was the woman's misassessment of her coping abilities. There was no misinformation in the product she purchased. While perhaps she could claim that she would not have married him had she known that she would not be able to cope, it would be analogous to the case in Kiddushin 49b:
ההוא גברא דזבין לנכסיה אדעתא למיסק לארץ ישראל ובעידנא דזבין לא אמר ולא מידי אמר רבא הוי דברים שבלב ודברים שבלב אינם דברים
No. But it does show sincerity, or lack thereof.
How does it show that? Besides, you are making quite a few assumptions over here. After all, maybe I don't have immediate access to talmidei chachamim. Or maybe I consider the commenters here to be talmidei chachamim.
What is so difficult to understand.
About what?
By just turning this into some mindless chatter, you are completely mocking the seriousness of this terrible adultery.
I'm sorry that you view a משא ומתן בדברי תורה as mindless chatter.
No, you cannot.
1) Rabbi Greenblatt does not even feel confident to put his "heter" out for public scrutiny. (If he is afraid of a lawsuit, that is all the more telling.)
That is precisely the comparison to Rabbi Shternbuch. Rabbi Shternbuch said that if we explain the reason people will reject it. I could just as easily refer to that as not feeling confident to put his psak out for public scrutiny. I am not actually accusing him of such; I am just pointing out that any argument that can be equally made by the other side is not a very convincing argument.
2) There is not a single person of note who has publicly supported Rabbi Greenblatt. On the other hand, Rav Shternbuch is joined by
* Rav Feldman,
* the Baltimore Beis Din (the mutually authorized Beis Din in this case),
* Rav Shlomo Miller,
* Rav E. B. Wachtfogal,
* Rav Moshe Green and many others.
This does not relate to the validity of the type of argument invoked by Rabbi Shternbuch. Here's the proof: If 10 recognized gedolim/poskim would support Rabbi Greenblatt do you think Rabbi David Eidenson would stop protesting? He would not because his entire argument is that Rabbi Greenblatt went against explicit halacha, and even gedolim have to follow halacha, (and if they don't then they are not gedolim). So all it means is that in this particular case, other gedolim sided with Rabbi Shternbuch as opposed to Rabbi Greenblatt. I would venture to suggest that the others on the side of Rabbi Shternbuch did not join his side because of his statement of "אוסרים בלי נימוק"; rather, they joined his side because of all the reasons (halachic and metzius) why the heter is invalid.
You are exhibit A as to why Rav Shternbuch's method is necessary.
Are you saying that Rabbi Shternbuch's method is to demand allegiance without questioning the authority, and that this is necessary? Once again I can hear Rabbi Greenblatt saying the same thing.
Rav Feldman (not me) says that Greenblatt is posek hador in America.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe says that to free agunot, poskim (not me) should innovate, and bend the halacha if necessary, to free them.
When I suggested that rabbi rackman was doing this, the answer was that he wasn't a gadol. Same with Krauss. Greenblatt - according to this letter, is.
Rav Shachter said he wasn't a gadol. Noone thinks Krauss is a gadol. Greenblatt has made some elementary mistakes.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe nowhere says the innovations must be accepted but simply encouraged finding solutions!
Rav Moshe was not automatically accepted either!
Rav shachter was referring to NG? Or Rachman?
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe said don't stick to letter of the law.
So the requirement for the wife to leave immediately can be stretched - by NG
This is what the author above says:
ReplyDelete"A few weeks ago, one of the most authoritative and distinguished rabbis in America [Rav Nota Greenblatt] permitted her to marry another man - and even performed the ceremony himself - without her receiving a Get from her husband."
SO the above authority is recognizing NG as one of the leading poskei hador for America - he is the mara d'atra.
Rav Moshe said that Jerusalem was destroyed because they adhered to strict Torah law - which is what you are doing, a fine autopsy of the psak, when in fact Rav Moshe gives some leeway for innovation and flexibility.
The reason I brough the Rackman and Krauss was that your argumebnt was they were not big in Halacha (to do what Rav Moshe said, i.e. innovate).
But NG is big, the mouth that forbade it (RAF) is the mouth that permits it ( RAF recognising him as a Gadol Hador).
both
ReplyDeleteNG did stretch the halacha and is one of the reasons his psak was rejected
NG was regarded as a major posek but like anyone else he can err.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you holding the most extreme form of Daas Torah? Gedolim are infallible
So your chiddush is that not only is the innovation of lesser rabbi sometimes rejected but even psak of big rabbis?!
Wow total genius!
A) just because I have pet peeves doesn't mean I have no other interests.
ReplyDeleteB) rav Moshe encourages people to innovate. That's what ng did. If you tell me to drink as much coke as I like, because I need to hydrate myself, and I leave half the bottle for others, you can't turn around and call me a thief.
C) if rav kaminetsky rejected the heter, why are you destroying his reputation?
OK - I was assuming RAF considers him a posek hador. I had not heard of NG before this story broke out.
ReplyDeleteJust because Rav Moshe encouraged innovation for aguna - which is not a chidush, he never claimed that these innovations must be automatically accepted as you seem to mistakenly continue to think
ReplyDeleteI am not destroying his reputation. He did it himself!
Despite his rejecting the heter - he was the reason the heter was given in the first place.
He still considers it valid to rely on it so he won't tell Tamar to leave her second "husband"
In other words, you accept Rav Moshe's teshuva, except when anybody acts upon it, in which case it is invalid.
ReplyDelete"Despite his rejecting the heter - he was the reason the heter was given in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHe still considers it valid to rely on it"
How is it valid if he rejected it? Was that a distancing , to protect himself, or he had real concerns? How strong was his rejection?
Perhaps he considers it not adultery bedieved, but only lchatchila?
Nope!
ReplyDeleteHe said he would rely on Rav Dovid Feinstein as to whether heter was valid.
Nonsense!
ReplyDeletePersonal status is dependent on acceptance of heter - something which should be obvious to everyone
there is very little universal acceptance today - eg for covnersions. Rav Moshe's heterim were accepted in his time, but les so afterwards
ReplyDeletenope!
ReplyDeleteI suggest that everyone read this entire comment thread, top to bottom, and determine for yourselves whether this is the way Bnei Torah should be addressing one another.
ReplyDelete