Protest against heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry
without a Get
This is in regards to the recently publicized psak of one of
the gedolim (an American rosh yeshiva) together with an American posek. The
psak freed a woman from marriage without a Get despite the fact that she had
lived with her first husband for an extended period of time and she had born a
daughter from him. But now a therapist claims that the husband suffers from
mental illness that had existed prior to their marriage. Therefore these two
rabbis paskened that they had determined that the marriage was a mistake
(mekach ta'os) and that therefore the woman was free to marry immediately
without needing a Get. And in fact they [the posek] officiated at a wedding for
her without her receiving a Get.
And I saw the teshuva that "freed" her. I hate to
say this but the teshuva is total nonsense. Taking the approach of this teshuva
it is possible to destroy the whole framework of halachic marriage. For
example, if a spouse is found to have cancer – something which begins to
develop a long time before it is discovered by the doctors – it would be
possible according to the logic of this teshuva to declare that the marriage is
a mistake (mekach ta'os) and thus never existed. Similarly there are thousands
of other cases of problems that develop prior to marriage but are only
discovered after marriage.
In fact in many cases of divorce, the wife brings a
therapist's opinion to beis din, that the husband suffers from mental illness
that was a pre-existing condition. Therefore according to the view of these two
rabbis there would be no need for a Get (G-d forbid!) in those cases! Such an
approach is destructive to Judaism and uproots the basic laws governing Jewish marriage.
And this that they claim that they are merely basing themselves on the views of
Rav Moshe Feinstein – that is total nonsense. The present case is not
comparable to Rav Moshe's cases. But this is not the place to go into the
details.
When a certain Religious Zionistic rabbi declared the he had
found a heter for a person who had the
status of a mamzer to marry, the Minchas Yitzchok (Dayan Weiss) gathered the
people together and they sat on the ground and tore their clothing as a sign of
mourning. It is explained in Kiddushin (13a) that when a married woman is
declared to be free of her married status against the halacha, G-d becomes very
angry and brings about punishment which is greater than that of the Generation
of the Flood. To the degree that even the fish in the sea are destroyed.
It is important, therefore that it be publicized that the
heter of these rabbis for her to remarry is totally worthless and has no basis.
Consequently she is still married to the first husband in every respect and
therefore any children born from her relation to the second husband are clearly
mamzerim. I have no peace of mind because I have not heard protests against
this false heter - which is against G-d's honor and His Torah.
I heard from the Brisker Rav that when there is a serious
problem that it be dealt with by issuing a categorical prohibition without
giving detailed explanations. That is because if a reason for the objections
are given, then it is possible for someone to argue and say they are wrong.
Therefore also in this case, I am not coming forth except to encourage he who
protests the heter and sanctifies G-d's name. His reward is exceedingly great.
Thank you for the translation.
ReplyDeleteShould "With all due respect" be substituted for "I hate to say this." The hebrew words are במחילת כבוד תורתו.
Thank you! This is an excellent translation.
ReplyDeleteNote that as far as Eretz Yisroel is concerned, Rav Shternbuch is not accepted as THEIR Posek by the Aguda crowd in the USA, nor in Israel for that matter by the Aguda-Shas-Degel HaTorah people because Rav Shternbuch is the RAAVAD of the anti-Agudist Eidah HaChareidis's BADATZ that is affiliated with SATMAR in the USA.
The Aguda people in the USA, especially powerful Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah members such as Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky will only sit up and pay attention and do something to change their positions in this case if the accepted RASHKEBEHAG Rav Aron Leib Shteinman together with Rav Chaim Kaminetsky who is a known Posek would write or co-sign what Rav Shternbuch has written and says in the above important letter and so far they have not, only silence emanates from them at this point in time, and in that case we say "shtika kehodaah" and that they therefore are in agreement with Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky's position and R Nota Greenblatt and his Bais Din's ruling stand for now.
If anyone feels the above analysis is "wrong" kindly tell us why. Thank you.
R' Moshe Shternbuch's opinions seem to be very important to you. Just wondering, does he know that you have a blog that you are very active on and what does he think of that?
ReplyDeleteyes he does - this topic has come up a number of times in the past. Search through the archives with the keyword Sternbuch. You might want to read my post regarding Belz and Tropper
ReplyDeleteRaP, be real. The Agudah, Eidah and Degel cross-respect each other's gedolim and poskim despite the relatively minor, yes relatively minor, disagreements they have on a limited number of halachic issues.
ReplyDeleteThey are each the correct idiom for their respective languages.
ReplyDeleteThe letter says that he attacks the two rabbis who made the HETER, Rabbi Greenblatt the posek and Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky the Rosh Yeshiva. We see from this that Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky is involved with permitting Tamar to remarry, even though he signed a letter that he no longer backed her remarriage. The tone of the letter is a rebuke to them that they are completely removed from the proper way of paskening difficult marital questions. If so, it is important to look into other things they have done, such as the marriages performed by Rabbi Greenblatt and the calls to torture husbands to force a GET by Rabbi Kaminetsky.
ReplyDeleteTo RaP and David
ReplyDeleteA Rosh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak told me the following story. An askan met with the RY and beseeched the RY to take him to Rav Shteinman. The askun sought RS’s help in fighting a chillul hashem in the English speaking velt in EY. The RY answered no and shared his reasoning with the askan. The RY explained that the Gedolei Yisroel, constantly besieged with problems, have very limited ammunition to fight with. Thus, they must choose their battles and bullets with utmost precision. The RY related to me that the askun understood and offered the following analogy. During the Korean War the Chinese soldiers regularly went into combat under the influence of stimulating drugs. Thus, the US soldiers would shoot the enemy from a safe distance, wound him, but the enemy would charge in. This would repeat until the Chinese soldier was rushing the American, whose weapon was now empty. The result would be hand to hand combat. If the US soldier had waited for the Chinese to close in and then use his bullets, American lives would have been saved.
IMHO, Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Shteinman are aware and are
horrified about this breach in our Holy Torah. BS”D, a Field Marshall, albeit from another camp, Rav Sternbuch took out his cannon and cleared the way. Let the Officers and foot soldiers fight, they’re doing just fine.
The translation is not entirely accurate.
ReplyDelete1) במחכ"ת does not mean "I hate to say this".
2) The word הבל without any qualifiers should probably be translated as "nonsense" not "total nonsense".
3) When discussing R' Moshe Feinstein in the Hebrew, all it says is לא דמי כלל ואכמ"ל. The translation adds in an entire clause: "that is total nonsense".
4) 'חרדים לדבר ה does not mean "people".
5) When discussing the status of the psak in the Hebrew, it says שאין לפסקם שום יסוד. The translation adds that the psak "is totally worthless".
6) The Hebrew says שאין שומעיו מחאה על כבוד ה' ותורתו while the translation adds "against this false heter".
Perhaps the additions/changes were made to facilitate the reading for an English speaker and render it more explanatory. But #3 and #4 are complete inventions of the translator. Also, while the change in #6 does not have much practical import, it actually reverses the meaning of the Hebrew. In Hebrew it means that he has no menucha because we haven't heard any protest in defense of the honor of Hashem and the Torah. In English it says that the lack of protest is against the honor of Hashem and the Torah. The subject of the breach of kavod has been changed from the heter to the lack of protest.
Alex you are techically correct but my translation is more accurate
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Y. D. 4:38:5): … There is no prohibition to translate even Mishna and Halacha. However, the most important thing is that the translator must be fully aware of his responsibility and that even a small error can cause a major problem for those studying the translation… Surely, those who translate from Hebrew to another language have to be concerned about error and therefore it is best to refrain from translation…. In conclusion, I would advise not to be involved in studying from translated works and it is best to learn in the original language and this will to lead greater success.
Kiddushin (49a): A literal translation is [often] a lie while a free translation risks heresy
Tosfos (Kiddushin 49a): … Rabbeinu Chananel explains that a person who translates literally e.g., “They saw the G d of Israel”(Shemos 24:10) - is stating a lie because it is impossible to see G d… On the other hand one who translates this verse as, “They saw an angel of G d” is stating heresy because they are attributing the praise of G d to a mere angel. However, the correct way of translating this verse is, “They saw the glory of the G d of Israel.”
In what way are your "non-literal" renderings more accurate than his suggestions?
ReplyDeleteI can see why changes #1 #4 and #6 might be a more convenient way to express the author's intent in English (although, I wonder if change #4 removes the implication that the issuer of the heter was not part of those who "tremble at the word of Lord"). And perhaps one could argue in #2 that the word הבל itself means "total nonsense" (although then we would have to wonder what הבל with a qualifying adjective would mean). But I don't see how the changes in #3 and #5 added any accuracy, explanation, or convenience. All they did was add in more condemnations that Rabbi Shternbuch did not actually say. They thus make it appear as if Rabbi Shternbuch was more condemnatory than he actually was. (Note, I am not attempting to deny that Rabbi Shternbuch was condemning. However, I see no need to add in extra condemnations that he did not actually issue.)
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world do you think these sources show? The first source says that one must be extremely careful when translating, and that preferably one should not translate at all.
ReplyDeleteThe second source shows only that at times pesukim cannot be translated literally.
How does this explain why you weren't careful in your translation? True, its not that important here, but Rav Shternbuch's letter can stand on its own without your (biased) embellishments.
You might have notice that Rav Sternbuch is making a comparison to Rav Goren - doesn't that mean anything to you
ReplyDeleteI also happen to know what Rav Sternbuch has been saying about this matter and my translation reflects that
Moshe you are the one who is biased and therefore can't understand what I say so I am not repeating myself
ReplyDeletePossibly, but don't call it a translation. Change the headline to 'translation with my extra condemnations based on what I know what Rav Sternbuch is saying".
ReplyDeleteIf you consider yourself an honest person.
Wow What a nasty comment!Try to contain your hostility to me or go elsewhere
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, no less nasty than how you sometimes reply to others on your blog. Including myself
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I am not going to provide examples, you can go back and look yourself.
I noticed that he is referencing R' Goren. In fact, I pointed out that in that specific regard I think you LESSENED the impact by translating 'חרדים אל דבר ה as "people". But I still don't understand the rest of your point. Are you saying that since you happen to know that R' Shternbuch is super upset about this (which may even be alluded to by his reference to R' Goren) you are taking the liberty of adding more inflammatory words in order to convey what you feel is his level of upsetness? If yes, then I have two questions:
ReplyDelete1) R' Shternbuch did not use those additional words. If his level of upsetness was commensurate to the harshness of those words, why did he himself not use them?
2) At what point do you draw the line? For instance, would you be willing to add in a phrase like "The Rosh Yeshiva and the Posek are heretics, in the same category as those of Open Orthodoxy"? I assume you would not, probably because you feel that Rabbi Shternbuch does not actually believe that. But that means that you are essentially leaving everything to your own discretion, the result of which is a protest from Rabbi Eidenson built off of Rabbi Shternbuch, rather than a protest from Rabbi Shternbuch. (Obviously, I am somewhat exaggerating for the sake of illustrating my point, but my basic point still stands.)
May I raise the question of Dayan Sherman? Not in relation to R Goren, but in terms of the lack of protest to his mass manufacture of mamzeirim!
ReplyDeleteunfortunately, dear Rav Eidensohn, when you publicly fight for such a controversial issue, there will be attacks against you from supporters and sympathizers of the opposite corner.
ReplyDeleteTry to put on some more teflon, so it doesn't stick to you!
Dayan Sherman's psak didn't cause any mamzeirim. A child born between a non-Jewish and Jewish parent isn't a mamzer.
ReplyDeleteEddie - if someone verbally attacks as you are walking down the street because of a position you took - then you need to ignore it since you can't do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteBut if the same person came into your home and is verbally abusive - I would assume you are like most people and tell the person to leave.
that depends who you ask
ReplyDeleteall i ask is that you apply the logic used in the post about Gedolim erring to this case, and see the illogic at hand.
This surprising article in American yated proves my point!
http://www.yated.com/israel-39-s-conversion-crisis.0-643-7-.html
It actually validates Rav Goren's psak. If that is the case, then there is a big problem for Hareidi Gedolim and the arbitrariness of their decision making. (could also be argued the same for the Tzionim).
I mean don't take it personally! be strong.
ReplyDeleteRav Shlomo Goren was a one off case. There has been nobody like him in the modern or Hareidi world. Iluim have been. Polymaths have been. But those who also become warriors both on the battlefield and in halacha, do not come so often. He also had the habit of alienating his close colleagues, which was his Achilles heel.
ReplyDeleteEddie in what sense was he a warrior on the battlefield. He was a chaplain.
ReplyDeletefrom Wikipedia
Immediately after the Israeli War of Independence, he engaged, often at great personal risk, in the collecting of the bodies and giving proper burial to soldiers whose remains had been left in the field
No one anywhere says any of the alleged conversions that Dayan Rav Sherman shlit"a ruled were halachicly invalid causes any issue of mamzeirus. No one. There is no reason and no halachic way that this involves any issues of mamzeirus.
ReplyDeleteThe article you linked to simply points out that the conversions by R. Druckman were invalid. It does not agree with you or validate R. Goren. The conversion in question by R. Goren were a different set of facts and circumstances than those of R. Druckman. The convert by R. Goren was a valid conversion of someone who was religiously observant from the day he converted and was religiously observant many years later. The mass conversions of R. Druckman, on the other hand, were of Russians who did not keep a single Shabbos or mitzvos even the day of and the day after their so-called conversion.
What are you responding to?
ReplyDeleteI don't see anywhere in the letter where it ascribes general incompetence to either Rabbi Greenblatt or Rabbi Kaminetzky. The letter is objecting to a specific halachic (or anti-halachic) method.
ReplyDeleteIf your attitude toward translation is that the translator has a right to insert clauses into the text not present in the original due to his knowledge that the author would agree with them, I am going to take my English copy of Da'as Torah and toss it, as it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
ReplyDeleteA Reminder of what Rav Shternbuch is up against in the USA
ReplyDeleteJust did a search on YouTube to see if I could locate what some of the protagonists look like and are up, and this one from "ORA" made in 2012 is pretty dramatic, featuring large crowds of mostly Frum people supporting Tamar Epstein and what of the the young lady in question at the center of this fracas looks like, as she whips up the crowds and comes across as some sort of "Joan of Arc". That is why it it is safe to say that the Kaminetskys have a lot of grassroots support among many Frum people in the USA, and why Rav Shternbuch faces such a tough uphill battle to go against this current. It's obviously a very emotional issue for all sides, and in these kind of volatile scenarios it is important not to fan the flames and to find ways to defuse such hot-button situations:
4 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IKUbqEwUAY
and here's another less than 1 minute clip of demonstrations, also going back three years ago as this controversy started to peculate among the masses, so this is not insignificant, as people are riled up, and no wonder it puts the Kaminetsky's moves in some sort of American social context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbwpy3SE2uM
moves
You're correct. Or "with apologies to these rabbis"
ReplyDeleteAnd now we see the result of the inserted clauses. Rabbi Eidenson's brother, in his most recent blogpost, engages in an entire pilpul to prove from R' Shternbuch's pronouncement that Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetzky are not gedolim, despite R' Shternbuch's own statement of אחד מגדולי ראשי הישיבות באמריקה עם אחד מהפוסקים. His evidence is predominantly based on the made up clauses, namely, "total nonsense", "totally worthless", and "false heter".
ReplyDeletehttp://torahhalacha.blogspot.com/2015/11/mamzer-makers-rabbis-greenblatt-and.html
sorry for the late reply:
ReplyDelete"At his insistence, he served as a combat soldier, and acted as a sharpshooter in the Jerusalem theater."
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-1994-israeli-army-s-first-chief-rabbi-dies-1.5414486
this is also mentioned in Rav Rakkefet's shiur on him, as well as one of the biographies I have about him.