[update - added English translation]
A person who has known Rav Sternbuch for many years told me that he has never seen Rav Sternbuch as outraged about an issue as he is about this "heter".
In Rav Sternbuch's letter he refers to a teshuva which was written to justify the "heter". He said that while he can mention it because he was given the teshuva - but it can not be publicized without permission of the author.
Rav Sternbuch's letter was distributed by an organization Taam V'Daas that added the following explanation.
A person who has known Rav Sternbuch for many years told me that he has never seen Rav Sternbuch as outraged about an issue as he is about this "heter".
In Rav Sternbuch's letter he refers to a teshuva which was written to justify the "heter". He said that while he can mention it because he was given the teshuva - but it can not be publicized without permission of the author.
Rav Sternbuch's letter was distributed by an organization Taam V'Daas that added the following explanation.
מרן פוסק הדור הגר"מ שטרנבוך במכתב חריף כנגד היתר הלכה מפוקפק להתיר אשת איש בלא גט רח"ל – "היא אשת איש לכל דבר והוולד ממזר"
סערה בעולם היהודי: רב באמריקה הנפיק היתר מחודש לאשה נשואה שבעלה סרבן גט, להשתחרר מכבלי העגינות בלא גט בטענת 'מקח טעות' וזאת על אף שהאשה קיימה חיים רגילים עם הבעל תקופה ארוכה כאשר במהלך חייהם המשותפים גם נולדה להם בת * מרן פוסק הדור הגר"מ שטרנבוך במכתבו "אין לי מנוחה שאין שומעים מחאה על כבוד ה' ותורתו: * "לדעת רבנים אלו נאמר כן ח"ו אף בהרבה גיטין שהאשה מביאה חוות דעת מרופאים שסובל וסבל ממחלת נפש, וזהו הירוס הדת וקלקול דיני אישות בישראל" * את דבריו החריפים חתם הגר"מ בפסק הלכה לפיו "היא אשת איש לכל דבר והוולד ממזר" *
סערה בעולם היהודי: רב באמריקה הנפיק היתר מחודש לאשה נשואה שבעלה סרבן גט, להשתחרר מכבלי העגינות בלא גט, הנימוק להיתר הוא מדין 'מקח טעות', וזאת על אף שהאשה קיימה חיים רגילים עם הבעל תקופה ארוכה אשר במהלך חייהם המשותפים גם נולדה להם בת.
ה'היתר' המחודש ניתן לאשה כמובן באורח נדיר מתוך התחשבות במצב האשה העגונה הכבולה בכבלי עגינות זה חמש שנים, ובעלה מסרב לתת לה גט.
פרטי המקרה הגיעו לאוזני מרן פוסק הדור הגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א, שמיהר לפרסם את מחאתו החריפה כנגד ההיתר המחודש להפקיע קידושין לאחר חיים משותפים כמה שנים בלא גט, ואף התבטא במכתב החריף "אין לי מנוחה שאין שומעים מחאה על כבוד ה' ותורתו".
את האיגרת פותח מרן הגר"מ בפרטי המציאות - "בדבר מה שנתפרסם כאן פסק של אחד מגדולי ראשי הישיבות באמריקה עם אחד מהפוסקים שם שהתיר רח"ל בלא גט אשה שכבר חיה יחד עם בעלה תקופה, וכבר יש לה ילד ממנו, ועכשיו לדעת הרופא הוא סובל ממחלת נפש שהייתה בו כבר קודם, והם פסקו שנתברר שזהו מקח טעות ויכולה להינשא מיד, וסידרו לה חופה וקידושין בלא גט".
במהלך המכתב נמנע מרן הרב שטרנבוך להתייחס לצדדי ההלכה בעניין, מתוך נימוק מעניין - "שמעתי מפי מרן הגאון דבריסק זצ"ל שכשיש תקלה אוסרים בלי נימוק, שאם מפרש טעם דוחין אותה, וגם כאן לא באתי אלא לחזק מי שמוחה ומקדש שם שמים ששכרו רב מאוד".
את עיקר מכתבו הקדיש מרן הגר"מ לסכנת הפרצה העלולה לצאת מכך, וכפי שכתב – "בדרך זו יכולים לקלקל כל דיני אישות בישראל, ולדוגמא חולה סרטן רח"ל שתמיד המחלה מקוננת בגופו הרבה לפני שמתברר, נאמר שהוא מקח טעות, וכן כמוהו באלפי מקרים, ובהרבה גיטין האשה מביאה חוות דעת מרופאים שסובל וסבל ממחלת נפש, ולדעת רבנים אלו נאמר שלא צריכה גט ח"ו, וזהו הירוס הדת וקלקול דיני אישות בישראל.
בסיום דבריו הוסיף הגר"מ כי מעיקר הדין היה ראוי לקרוע קריעה על סילוף דין תורה -
"ובשעתו כשרב אחד מהלאומיים התיר ממזר דרש בעל ה"מנחת יצחק" הגרי"י וייס זצ"ל שהתאספו יחד החרדים לדבר ה' וישבו על הארץ וכולם קרעו קריעה כדין.
ובגמ' בקידושין י"ג ע"א מבואר שכשמתירים אשת איש שלא כדין הקב"ה בכעס ומעניש יותר מדור המבול עד כדי שאפילו דגים שבים נכרתים".
את דבריו חתם מרן הגר"מ בקריאה כי "חייבים בית ישראל לפרסם שאין לפסקם שום יסוד, והיא אשת איש לכל דבר והוולד ממזר".
יצויין, כי בימים אלו כבר חתמו כמה רבנים באמריקה מכתב מחאה וקול קורא כנגד ההיתר המחודש, דבר שעומד להתפרסם בימים הקרובים.
[my unauthorized translation]
Rav Moshe Sternbuch
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.
Thsi sounds as if the marriage may be OK and he is taking issue with those that arranged the Heter. I would assume that he condemns Epstein for 'getting married' and those that arranged the Heter that led to it.
ReplyDeleteIs Rav Shternbuch shlit"a the heavy hitter we were told to expect or are there are big name gedolim who will sign a similar statement as well, that we can expect in the very near future?
ReplyDeletetypo: strongly
ReplyDeleteThis letter represents a huge progress but sadly it was not issued by the Bedatz as they have done in other questionable Gittin.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! The big guns are coming out.
ReplyDeleteyes
ReplyDeleteyou have seriously misread the letter
ReplyDeleteInteresting to note that he said that he has read the heter - how did he get a copy and will it be made public.
ReplyDeleteAlso, more importantly, will any (more) heavy hitters in the USA come out with such a letter? A member of the moetzes told me personally that many proclamations come out of Israel, but we here in the USA have the right to rely on our own American gedolim. So far, at least publicly, it is RSK and RNG on one side and Rabbit Miller on the other.
It says there that he read the pesak of the hetter. Does that mean that it is circulating? If yes, can it be posted here?
ReplyDeleteOne thing I do not get: he writes that he saw the teshuva. Where is this alleged Teshuva? We have been under the impression that there is no Teshuva available. Please clarify.
ReplyDeleteThe line from the brisker Rav at the end can be EXACTLY used to justify the matirim. What is r sternbuch trying to use that for? R eidensohn any ideas?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the teshuva he references? Is there an actual teshuva lihatir going around? I hope he's not referring to that nonsense posted in the comments here.
ReplyDeleteYes to the first or to the second question? Do you know that other gedolim will also soon be signing a statement condemning what transpired with Tamar?
ReplyDeleteYou posted your comment prior to the letter being attached to this post.
ReplyDeleteI was refering to the title of the posting.
ReplyDeleteThe letter clearly rejects the Get to the extend of making future children MAMZERIM.
Rav Sternbuch states that he has seen the teshuva being mattir Mrs. Epstein. Can it be made available?
ReplyDeleteI published the comments of another posek who found the teshuva unconvincing.The teshuva was apparently sent to a number of poskim in the hope that it would convince them to agree to the heter. It has not been made available to the general public
ReplyDeleteRabbi Greenblat and the Kaminetskys have not made available a teshuva for publication. As I noted there was a letter sent to a number of poskim in the hope that they would agree to the heter - apparently it was not accepted.
ReplyDeleteThere are more American rabbis and poskim who will be coming out with letters protesting the heter
ReplyDeleteboth. Yes other gedolim will be publishing their objections
ReplyDeleteSo the teshuva R' Shternbuch mentions is not the one written by Rabbi Greenblatt?
ReplyDeleteוכבר יש לה ילד ממנו
ReplyDeleteis this talking about the case of Tamar Epstein? she just got married weeks ago
This was the explanation given by the distributors of Rav Sternbuch's letter. Will add this to the main post.
ReplyDeleteבמהלך המכתב נמנע מרן הרב שטרנבוך להתייחס לצדדי ההלכה בעניין, מתוך נימוק מעניין - "שמעתי מפי מרן הגאון דבריסק זצ"ל שכשיש תקלה אוסרים בלי נימוק, שאם מפרש טעם דוחין אותה, וגם כאן לא באתי אלא לחזק מי שמוחה ומקדש שם שמים ששכרו רב מאוד".
no he is explaining the fact that they lived together for an extended time and had a child shows that he was not impossible to live with and thus there is no mekach taos
ReplyDeleteit is
ReplyDeletePlease explain why it can be used by the matirim. He said it to avoid kulos and not chumros.
ReplyDeleteThe need to be transparent in the case that a strange heter is given to a wealthy woman with important connections is obvious
I am totally confused. If the one he read is the one written by R' Greenblatt, what do you mean when you say that it is not available?
ReplyDeleteDo you mean that R' Shternbuch saw a copy of that suggested teshuva that had been sent around, but the actual, final, pesak written by R' Greenblatt is not available?
The RAVA'D Harh"G R'M' Shternbuch, The Rosh Hayeshiva and Rosh BD BEDAT"Z, of the Beis Din Hagodol shebiyerushalayim, asher yesodoso beharrei kodesh has spoken. Carrying two titles, Rosh Yeshiva and Posek a heavy gunner of which outweighs any supporters of this fraudulent alleged heter nisuin. We can hear the thunders from The Guns of Navarone from the epicenter of the Earth rumbling. A tsunami of Biblical proportions is heading towards the beach along with whales and millions of fish swimming on their backs. All others will now follow in hot pursuit to be mekadesh shem shamayim berabim. Umi roeh elu yotsin velo yetse. Timing is everything! It is just in time before the convention to have it on the main Agenda. The slippage of higher Torah Judaism is of higher priority than the Kofrim of Torah Misinai, ve'ein onu achroim leramoim. We have a fire raging out of control in our own backyard, of Gilui Arayos, Shfichat damim, and Ovdei avoda zoro... Raboisay... VECHAYECHO KODMIN! Ubemakom sheyesh chilul Hashem ein cholkin kovod larav! If we do not stop this puroniyos now, the whole Golah is threatened with it's kiyum of yiddishkeit veyaaleh beLahavah kimduras eish chas veshalom milhazkir. After the Kivshan haEsh, we are the last bastion of Yahadus ne'eman laHashem veToroso haKdosha. We beg of you, chazkenu na ach hapa'am. Do not let us down.
ReplyDeleteThese days with much improved communications it makes sense that Rabbonim fron E Isroel will intervene in an American matter, especially when few would dare to oppose RSK in public. After all, we all share the same Torah
ReplyDeleteAs has been stated elsewhere by RaP, this is not going to be big. In this letter, Rav Shternbuch makes reference to the Minchas Yitzchok, in a previous controversy. without naming names, it seems he is referring to the Langer case.
ReplyDeleteThat was a successful policy in the hareidi world, as it created unity and a new object of hate. This cannot be repeated since all the variables are different.
In 1972, Rav Elyashiv retired/resigned from the Tzioni Rabbanut (that the Brisker Rov had said is avodah zarah). Whilst still receiving a pension from the Rabbanut, he became more of a Hareidi posek, so this was a gain for the Hareidi world.
Today things are radically different. RSK is already a RY of a Hareidi Yeshiva. The Moetzes of the Aguda does not bow to the Eda in Jerusalem. So there is little political momentum to create a Langer 2.0 spectacular. And this is not the first time an American posek has had to face the wrath of Israeli gedolim. Rav Belsky apparently got into a spot of bother when he sent a teshuva to Rav Elyashiv. But R Belsky is still inside the hareidi orthodox camp, and his Yeshiva is not mocked or boycotted, and his name is still mentioned with respect.
The same will be the case with RSK. Note well, that I am in no way supporting any heter for eishes ish. I just thing this is not going to be a momentous event in defining Hareidi orthodoxy, and the Yated or other papers will not carry 35 year anniversaries of this even the way they did for the langer case.
So Rabbi Greenblatt and the Philadelphia Roshei yeshiva allowed a married woman to marry without a get and to become an adulteress, thereafter to have children that are bastards according to Halacha. They will only be able to marry another bastard or possibly a shifcha.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how that helps. What if someone wrote שמעתי מפי מרן הגאון ד____ זצ"ל שכשיש תקלה מתירים בלי נימוק, שאם מפרש טעם דוחין אותה, וגם כאן לא באתי אלא לחזק מי שמתיר ומקדש שם שמים ששכרו רב מאוד. I'm not saying it's a bad reason but why include it?
ReplyDeleteHow many American Rabonim rejected the offered the heter Nisuin letter to sign? And who might they have been?
ReplyDeleteStupid , since there's a kid therefore no mekach taut
ReplyDeleteAnd who is the rosh yeshiva who he is reffering to
ReplyDeleteRav Shmuel Kaminetsky is the rosh Yeshiva and Rabbi Greenblatt is the posek
ReplyDeleteMeiri (Pesachim 66a): However even though a person is knowledgeable and can reply to every challenge, it is best not to rely entirely on logical proofs but rather on commonsense or tradition. That is because everything which is based simply on logical proofs provides an opening to refutation… Thus, the Yerushalmi says that even though Hillel spent the entire day providing logical derivations of the Halacha, his views were only accepted and he was appointed leader when he said that the Halacha was a tradition that he had learned from his teachers Shemaya and Avtalyon…
ReplyDeletenot sure what your question is. Rabbi Greenblatt sent around a teshuva to varous rabbis - which included Rav Sternbuch. Rav Sternbuch said that that teshuva is not to be published without the permission of Rabbi Greenblatt - and as far as I know that permission has not been given
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be done is as follows
ReplyDeleteGet 100 ppl to go the convention, and make a tumul like never before
Only time will tell. Yamim yagidu! Ve'ein lonu esek betidot.
ReplyDeleteHe means that the prospect of such heter is less likely. He does write at the end of the letter that he does not explain his position.
ReplyDeleteעיינתי בכל המקורות, ולא נזכר בשום מקום שאם יש לזוג ילד, דלא נדון ביה מקח טעות, אולי שמע זאת הרב שטרנבוך מאיזהו מספר סיפורי מעשויות, הרי ספריו מלאים משטויות אלו, וכמעט אינו דן בהמקורות
ReplyDeleteI think that it was Rav Moshe Sternbuch who did not allow a shifcha to a MAMZER born in South Africa. In any case, the inteference of people outside the Baltimore Beis-Din is proven a disaster especially for T.E.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone rejected signing it, they are free to sign a counter-letter (or public announcement) stating their support of the heter.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting Meiri. More interesting, actual, than the current controversy in Memphis. A few questions:
ReplyDelete1) What is logical proof vs. commonsense when used in the Loshon HaKodesh? (trying to make a distinction).
2) What is the point of using logical proofs if you already have a definite tradition?
3) Didn't Maimonides hold the opposite to be true, ie that the debates of the Tannaim were based on logical proofs (again using English translation)?
Rabbi Shain,
ReplyDeleteWhat if the Daas Torah people in the Philly Yeshiva permit their students to marry the mamzerim?
Why be cynical? It is like a day light robbery. If everyone will keep quite then it will happen again and the public will get the message that it is OK.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is an uncompromising protest and then leave Epstein and Fleisher alone.
Yehuda, so far u have not one rav in the USA who has come out against the hetter
ReplyDeleteJust be careful, ORA might just release the leashes of their Prodwilers, and the mEpsteins, the karate chopsticks, the baggers and the whole Klapper-gezeig.
ReplyDeleteIt is a possibility that the NJ court case was Nidche for Dec. so that the A.... convention participants should not be inconvenienced sitting along with other "potential" sitters. Recommended Topics are: Get meusse, Hafkaat kidushin as if hatores nedorim, Mamzerim factories, Eishes ish lashuk, and the beating the daylights of the virtually invisible, before or after savings time.
Related topic: Question-
If an eishes ish refuses a Get, although there is Chadra'G for Get baal korcho, but you use ORA's machers and beat the Daylight savings time along with the Devil out of her ad sheyomar rotsaat ani, is that circumventing the Chadra'G without resorting to Heter Meah rabonim viable? If not, why not?
כידוע "מרן" הקיצוני הידוע שטרנבוך שנחשב למשוגע גם בין הקיצונים מבסס פסקיו בספרו תשובות והנהגות על סמך סיפורי מעשיות ששמע מזה או אחר, לכן עד שיברר הלכה זו מתוך המקורות יהא מכתבו זה כיתר כתביו שאינם שוים הנייר והדיו
ReplyDeleteעד שמועצת גה"ת לא יצא נגד פסקו של גרינבלאט אין לך שום דבר
If she's smart she should refrain from having children. Many people will regard them as mamzeirim regardless of the outcome.
ReplyDeleteAnd why then did they reject it in round one? Secondly, isn't that the classic poseach al shnei haseifim? BTW, outside of the immediate matirin eishes ish ORA inclusive, anyone came yet in support of the heter?
ReplyDeleteThe eishet ish cannot accept a get, cause then she has to leave the current 'husband', also and never ever be with either. Unless, she decides to divorce the second one.
ReplyDeleteTheir students have parents, who will run the other way as fast as their legs will carry them.
ReplyDeleteCalm down!
ReplyDeleteSo far it is only one letter from Rav Shternbuch and not from the entire BADATZ. It is serious but not fatal to RSK. It would only become potentially dangerous to RSK if a letter is issued signed by the entire BADATZ of the Eidah HaChareidis, as happened in the Tropper case, it started to bring him down. But note, that Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky is NOT Leib Tropper either, one was a pawn the other is a king (RSK). A letter from Rav Shternbuch is what they call a "shot across the bow" and is not fatal, while a full letter from the BADATZ signed by all the Dayanim would be very serious, but it would still not be enough to sink RSK's case or ship of state in this instance.
For the Aguda crowd in America to be impressed they would need someone of the stature of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, backed up by Rav Shteinman and the Israeli Moetzes of Degel HaTorah to really sink RSK's case. And so far that has not been happening, so RSK is safe for now.
And as it stands, with the latest "Kol Koreh" against the OO signed by eleven Moetzes members it means that in reality Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky is backed up by a Minyan of fellow Moetzes Gedolim who are accepting to sign with him on something so that IMPLIES they are not repudiating his other problem, of supporting the "heter nisuin" either. Shtika ke'hodaa. If the American Moetzes comes out in a majority against RSK then, like Julius Caeser his goose would be cooked, but that does not look like it's on the horizon, unless RDE knows something the rest of us do not.
So stay tuned to this soap opera.
Since when is Rav Shternbuch "the posek hador"? Has he filled Rav Alyashiv's shoes in this regard and is he as accepted as Rav Elyashiv was to make such an exaggerated and it this point unjustifiable claim.
ReplyDeleteYes, Rav Shternbuch is a great Posek, maybe even a Gadol, but to claim that he is the "Posek Hador" is far fetched and premature ta this time. even among the Eidah HaChareidis communities he is not universally accepted as they regard him is being too much of a MEIKEL, while among the general Aguda crowd in America and Israel he is regarded as too much of a MACHMIR.
One cannot bring any proofs from his short stay in South Africa because that community never accepted him as their Posek either, they have their own Bais Din with its Dayanim, and its head is Rav Moshe Kurtstag, a Chevroner who knows Rav Shternbuch and the he rejected Rav Shternbuch's Derech in general.
So while Rav Shternbuch is VERY strong voice, and his Seforim are learned, but as as a Posek he is not even universally accepted by everyone affiliated with the Eidah HaChareidis. In fact it is wonder that he getting involved in this case at all, Maybe he has fond memories of his success against Tropper, but Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky is on his own home turf in the USA and so far has the full support of his fellow Moetzes members, or at least not one of them has spoken up against him, and that would be something to sit up and take notice of.
everyone following this story knows that this blog has basically been speaking with the authority of Rav Shternbuch, so that making public what everyone knows only confirms the obvious but does not add new to the over-all arguments.
Stay tuned!
Most of what you wrote is simply nonsense!
ReplyDeleteMaybe she didnt use birth control on the chasuna night, before this blew up with publicity and opposition.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if this second marriage being declared invalid due to eishes ish was Tamar's supporters gamelan all along. Now halacha requires both of her two husbands to give her a Get. And that's what she wants from her first husband.
ReplyDeleteHighly unlikely. And don't forget, although invalid, but kidushin is tofes veteitze mize umize. Her plan was to do the second time around better. She could have received a Get just for letting him have his visiting rights, of which she refused. At this point she is even worse off, being cruel to both child and his father, topping it with living in sin of eishes ish, with potentially having mamzerim children should she have any. Furthermore, just because she has a chiyuv Get, doesn't diminish his visiting rights. He can drop off a Get in BD with his rightful and justified conditions, of which most likely AF has already done so. TE is in a constant state of 'beamod veyaguresh', while AF just needs to stay away and can go for a heter meah Rabonim. And finally, R' K' would not have performed such a trick and treat for a trade in.
ReplyDeleteAharon has no halachic obligation to give her a Get in a hurry. תצא מזה ומזה just means that they are both forbidden to continue living with her.
ReplyDeleteAharon can just move ahead and get a היתר מאה רבנים. If Tamar wants a Get, she'll have to negotiate in good faith about visitation.
Shmuel bedoro keYiftach bedoro. Apparently R' Shternbuch was chosen as the
ReplyDeleteYoshev beRosh of BD haGadol shebiYerushalayim. Are you trying to contest him and
telling him what is justified? Eizehu chochom, hamakir es mekomo, and as you
pointed out not only is R' K limited to the USA, but also limited as a Rosh
Yeshiva only and not a Posek of any kind, nor is he a Boki betiv GvK. Harav
Shternbuch is not only a Ki miTsion teitse Torah, but also Udvar Hashem
miYerusholoyim, a heavy Bomber and Top Gunner, Yodov RAV loi Umishpotov im
yisrael, hand picked through the nekiyey hadaas shebiYerushalayim to be R'AVAD,
umtsudoso prusso al kol haMdinos Veiyey haYam. In addition, ledidach, we have a
dire issue at hand of megaleh ponim baTorah shelo kehalacha al echad min
shloishes hachamuros shebeTorah beresh gli uberosh kol chutsot, ha'acheichem
yetsu lamilchomo veatem teshvu po bechibuk yadayim veozlat yad? Hayitachen?
Therefore, Ubemakom she'ein ish hishtadel lihyos ish. Vead ki yisasfu kol
hoadorim shel kol bnei haGolah, he is berosh of Bemakom sheyesh chilul Hashem
ein cholkin kovod larav, ubaal korchoch ya'ane amen, verak az yishkot kol
haaretz, amen veamen.
R'D. Eidensohn has delivered as promised and the rest is snowballing in. He
obviously knows far more than we do, just don't forget Rome was not built in one
day. In any which case, we do not fry bossor vedogim in the same pot, vechol
hakodum koidem as Dr. Appleboum A'H' H'Y'D set up a world order of precedence in
the Emergency Rooms of Kol haolam kulo! Please take note, vekein hadovor
hahi!
Lechol asher Yiras H' nogea el libo:
The Matter is urgent! The Time is now! Please do not sweep this under the rug, nor put it on the back burner and you can't act like the Bas HaYa'ano.
Aharon has no halachic obligation to give her a Get in a hurry. תצא מזה ומזה just means that they are both forbidden to continue living with her.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure about that. It seems if a woman married two men simultaneously, both are halachicly required to expeditiously give her a Gett.
Actually, kind of have a practical question in all of this. I think I read that she was living in Memphis. Did she go back to Court and seek permission to relocate? How is AF able to see his child pursuant to the current order of custody and visitation with her living half a country away?
ReplyDeleteThis forum is full of Am Haratzim. I don't know the details of the Epstein/Friedman case. But even if Friedman has a taana of withholding a Gett,He can't go for a Heter Meah Rabbonim, without having to be Mshalesh a Gett in B"D which is valid and effective for Epstein to pickup any time she wants. It is a two way street in how we enforce the Cherem Rabbenu Gershom. Usuaully a HMR is when the woman refuses to take a Gett without valid cause, or the woman is insane or disappears. In all cases a Gett is prepared for her and held by a Shaliach. There is no case where a husband is free to marry but the woman cannot potentially be free. Even in a case of Zikui Hagett, we also make a shaliach holacha and the woman can pick up her Gett any time.
ReplyDeleteJust asked a posek about this issue and he replied
ReplyDeleteEven though she is assur to her first husband it's not clear that he has to give her a get. She just can't get married to anyone else without a get from him which was the case before she got married.
If Tamar believed that she was never married to Aharon because that is what her Posek told her, then surely she is אונס not רצון and should still be permitted to Aharon! Could you please provide me with a source which says otherwise?
ReplyDeleteSee mishna Yevamos 87b. There it says clearly that a woman who was told her husband died, married, and it turned out not true, cannot go back.
ReplyDeleteיבמות פז:
/מתני'/. האשה שהלך בעלה למדינת הים, ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעליך וניסת, ואח"כ בא בעלה - תצא מזה ומזה, וצריכה גט מזה ומזה; ואין לה כתובה, ולא פירות, ולא מזונות, ולא בלאות - לא על זה ולא על זה, ואם נטלה מזה ומזה - תחזיר; והולד ממזר מזה ומזה;
רמב"ם גירושין י:ה
וכן הדין באשה שבאו לה עדים שמת בעלה ונשאת ואחר כך בא בעלה בין שהיה בעלה פקח בין שהיה חרש בין שנשאת לפקח בין שנשאת לחרש שאין קדושיו קדושין גמורים תצא משניהם וצריכה גט משניהם ונאסרה על שניהם עולמית.
שולחן ערוך אבן העזר יז:נו
האשה שהלך בעלה למדינה אחרת ובאו ואמרו לה: מת בעליך, ונשאת ואח"כ בא בעלה, לא שנא נשאת על פי עד אחד או על פי שני עדים, ( אפילו לא נבעלה) (הרא"ש והריב"ש והריטב"א ונ"י סימן תק"ח), תצא מזה ומזה. וצריכה גט משניהם, ואין לה כתובה משניהם,
Have to separate the "political" from the halachic. The teshuva of R' Shternbuch is correct, and as Rav Kook once said regarding R' Sonnenfeld, if he wasn't taking his position than "I" [R' Kook] would. There has to be a legitimate voice to take strong opposition to the hefkeirus in eshet ish, which is a highly dangerous situation.
ReplyDeleteSee the Rema there (Seif 58):
ReplyDeleteאבל אנוסה להנשא או שהורו לה בית דין בטעות ונשאת על פיהם הוי כאנוסה ומותרת לבעלה
הראשון
It seems to me that RNG has the status of a Beis Din, and so Tamar should be allowed to go back!
I must differ - I think that most of what RaP wrote is perfectly true.
ReplyDeleteperhaps she is waiting for that Gett, and afterwards we will no longer hear about her fictional new husband.
ReplyDeleteRag Shternbuch paskens that a heter meah rabbonim can be given to the husband if he deposits the Get with a beis din that will hold the Get until the wife undoes the damage she caused her husband, I.e. custody, monetary, etc.
ReplyDeleteSee how fine the rulings of the Tanaim. How we have fallen in the generations!
ReplyDeleteYevamouth 87a
Mishnah.
A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and on being told [refers
to evidence given by a single witness], your husband is dead, married, must, if
her husband subsequently returned, leave the one as well as the other, and she
also requires [If she desires to marry again] a letter of divorce from the one
as well as from the other. She has no [claim to her] kethubah, usufruct,
maintenance or worn clothes either against the first husband or against the
second. If she has taken anything from the one or from the other, she must
return it. The child begotten by the one husband or by the other is a bastard [Pentateuchally
if begotten by the second husband; Rabbinically if by the first who resumed
living with her]. Neither of them [If a priest] may defile himself for her [If
she died]. Neither of them has a claim to whatever she may find [A woman's find
belongs to her lawful husband or make with her hands [To which a lawful husband
is entitled in return for her maintenance]. Neither has the right of
invalidating her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes
disqualified from marrying a priest. If the daughter of a Levite, from the
eating of tithe. If the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither
the heirs of the one husband nor the heirs of the other are entitled to inherit
her kethubah, and if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother
of the other must submit to halizah, but may not contract the levirate
marriage. R. Jose said: her kethubah remains a charge upon the estate of her
first husband. R. Eleazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she
may find, or make with her hands, and also has the right of invalidating her
vows. R. Simeon said: Her cohabitation or halizah with the brother of the first
husband exempts her rival, and a child begotten by him [Her first husband,
after his return] is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization [Of
the Beth din; i.e., if she married on the strength of the evidence of two
witnesses who testified to her husband's death, in which case no authorization
by a court is required] she may return to him [Her first husband, after his
return]. If [When only one witness testified to the death of her husband] she
married with the authorization of the beth din [And her first husband
subsequently returned], she must leave [Her second husband], but is exempt from
an offering [Since she has acted on a ruling of the Beth din]. If she married,
however, without the authorization of the beth din, she must leave [Her second
husband] and is also liable to an offering. The authority of the beth din is
thus more effective in that it exempts her from the offering. If the beth din
ruled [Lit., ‘they taught her’ or ‘directed her’] that she may be married again
and she went and disgraced herself [By immoral conduct] she [If her first
husband subsequently returns] must bring an offering, because the beth din
permitted her only to marry [to contract a lawful marriage, not a forbidden one].
Highly doubt it.
ReplyDeleteIf she knew that she was untruthful to her hired irreligious "expert" psychiatrist, then she is very far from "anusah." Additionally, if she knew quite well that everyone else rejected her "heter", than I highly doubt it could be called "anusah."
ReplyDeleteChaim you raise a very interesting point. I looked up various texts related to this and it really isn't clear how widely accepted the Rema's view. Some actually say that she can be married to either the firstand second husband and others reject his view.
ReplyDeleteAt least as important is whether there was a beis din involved -= Rabbi Greenblatt issued his psak for a heter - as a posek and not as a beis din. He also deliberately heard only one side of the story - insisting that he had to accept the hearsay that was presented him by Rabbi Kaminetsky. That is not a beis din and it is not being a responsible posek either. It is simply being a rubber stamp for someone who clearly doesn't understand either the pscyhology involved or the halacha.
So the issue is if Tamar Epstein - a Stern College graduate - is such a strong believer in Daas Torah she could not conceive that the rabbis could make a mistake. That clearly requires a highly competent beis din - that is neutral - to decide.
This is a totally irrelevant discussion; I don't think she has any interest in getting back together with him.
ReplyDeleteThis greater point may be relevant as to whether it irrelevant whether she's an oness or not, or whether that even halachicly matters.
ReplyDeleteAny טענות you have against RNG's Psak are irrelevant to the question of whether a woman who is not a Posek - Stern College graduate or not - was justified in going to him and following what he told her in the first place. And we definitely cannot prohibit a woman to her husband כנגד a Rema, esp. when the נושאי כלים on the page do not raise any controversy about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully with your first point. As for the second point, I think that there is much room for debate.
ReplyDeleteThe Rema says by a beis din, not by a single posek.
ReplyDeleteTrue but irrelevant - the Sevara applies however many Poskim were involved.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that it is relevant. A beis din has authority to direct her that she may remarry. A single individual has no authority to declare her marriage to be invalid.
ReplyDeleteThat is simply not true. Competent poskim have the full right to decide questions of דבר שבערוה by themselves, and have done so throughout history. Please provide a source for this new Halacha you have invented!
ReplyDeleteAn individual posek has the halachic authority to declare a marriage to be invalid?
ReplyDeleteThe Rashbo in 1188 says that the wife is ONUSE only if she felt utterly compelled to obey the Beth Din. In ancient Israel, a city had an offcial Beth Din that was accepted by the community. "It is a command to obey the sages" meaning not whatever sage you select when rabbis argue but a Beth Din that is known to be the voice of the Torah with authority.
ReplyDeleteIn Tamar's case, a prominent dayan told me that he warned her and her mother that great rabbis disagreed with what she was told that she could remarry without a GET. If so, she knew there were different opinions and that some held that she was forbidden to remarry without a GET and that her children would be born out of marriage to a man forbidden to marry her.
Surely she knew that for years she had sought a GET because nobody marries without a GET. She is thus not ONES to think that everyone permits her to remarry without a GET.
Of course he does - why not? Remember that the Posek is not "annulling" a marriage, but rather revealing that (in his opinion) there never was a marriage to begin with. Somebody who follows that Posek's opinion in other things can follow him in this matter as well, and assume the woman to be a פנויה and not an אשת איש.
ReplyDeleteAnd she "thought" he could be cured with medication? Did she ask or see whether he is taking the medication, or was he well without the medication.? Let her produce all her reports, and we tell her what she knew. What does she have to hide. Why was this saga thrown behind the clouds, why has it come out in drips and dribbles, why aren't those responsible available? Who was the beis din? And how many have refused to sign, and who were they? How can you stuff down the throat of a chaver BD a cat in the sack without disclosing the details of the mumche, Huh? She is walking and lying between the rain drops, but she is all wet. Anyone with a sechel hayoshor can see through this whole bag of tricks, smoke and mirrors. Let's see the correspondence of all those chavrei BD that have been involved in this fiasco. And she didn't know from "ADAM", my foot! I have heard of the Fifth SA, but never heard of a Sixth tomur veneelam sod hashem lireiov kind.
ReplyDeleteAnd the last question, had you been asked for an opinion as Shida deDaynei, would you have believed this concoction, and would you be matir eishes lashuk to manufature mamzerim?
Er. what?
ReplyDeleteHuh? How would you know that she is not Maarim beormo claiming she thought, that's what.
ReplyDeleteObviously, everything I wrote was on the assumption that Tamar was being truthful.
ReplyDeleteJust read her two column diary and see how truthful she is. If he was c'v' mentally ill, why would she even consider to continue, and why is that not mentioned anywhere, and now she claims it everywhere. So much fir the truth.
ReplyDelete