I received the letters of R Shalom Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt with permission to publish them. They are not the sharpest copies but ocr doesn't work. There apparently are a number of different versions. Will publish the variations as I receive them.
I just received a set of letters from a different source today with full unconditional permission to publish them - so I will be publishing them without the disclaimer required from the first person. The first person also said he could not send the letters from Rav Greenblatt while the second person could.
It is clear from these letters that R Shalom Kaminetsky was shopping for a heter of mekach ta'os as requested by Tamar Epstein. It is also clear that Rav Greenblatt accepted without question what he was told were the facts of the case and he agreed to give a heter of mekach ta'os. There were no conditions - despite what Rav Greenblatt wrote last week in the letter I published (It is the last letter in this posting).
This letter of R Shalom Kaminetsky also makes an anonymous claim that Aharon was not only mentally ill but had threatened a girl that he had been engaged to before Tamar. Anyone who knows Aharon will realize the claim is a lie. He is not violent nor has he been violent. In all the years this divorce has been in beis din and courts and the public media - there has never been a claim that he is violent. They should have added that he steals candy from babies and throws old ladies down the steps for entertainment. The level that the Kaminetsky's and Tamar's allies stooped is really sickening.
Letters of Rav Shalom Kaminetsky claiming Aharon is incurablely severely mentally ill and asking for a heter of mekach ta'os
Letters of Rav Nota Greenblatt accepting as fact what Rav Shalom Kaminetsky said and giving a heter for Tamar to remarry without a Get
Transcript of Rav Greenblatt's letter above
כ"ו תמוז תשע"ג
לכבוד הרב הגאון מגדולי
מרביצי תורה מוהר"ר שלום קמנצקי שליט"א
ע"ד העגונה מרת
תמר אסתר שתחי' שיושבת כן כה' שנים אחר שהרופאים החליטו שאין תרופה למחלת רוח של בעלה
ומיד התחילה לעזבו ולעבור לבית אמה והבעל מסרב לתת לה גט עד עתה וכבוד אבי כת"ר
הגאון שליט"א רוצה לדעת חות דעתי אם אפשר להתירה לינשא בלא גט משום דבודאי לא היתה מרוצה להתקדש לו אילו ידעה מזה.
הננני מסכים מצטרף
להצטרף לעוד רבנים בעלי הוראה שיתירה. הרי רוב בעלי הוראה שבדורות האחרונים, שנשאו
את אחריות ההוראה על שכמם, נזקקו לסברא של מקח טעות בכגון זה, וכמו שכת' כת"ר
מכמה ספרי שו"ת כי קידושין כמו בכל קנינים בעינן דעת מקנה. האחד מגאוני ההוראה
והוא מרן הגרי"א הנקין זצ"ל לא נזקק לביטול קידושין בשום מקרה וז"ל
בספרו (פירושי איבר"א ס"א אות מ"ז) שהכל נכנסין לספק ונו' אפילו היה
מבורר המום והצד השני לא ידע ממנו, וכתב עוד (וכן בעוד מקומות) צא ובדוק בש"ס
רמב"ם וטוש"ע ולא תמצא בשום מקום למעשה ביטול קדושין משום מומין אפילו להצטרף
לספק אחר יעו"ש, והנה חוץ מזה שלא מצינו אין ראי' שאין הדין כן, נ"ל שיש
טעם לזה והוא דבזמנם כמעט לא היתה מציאות שכזו דהיינו למצוא מום אחר הנשואין שלא היה
נראה מקודם שיוכל לבטל את הקידושין (אשר לאין לו גבורת אנשים ... הרבה פעמים מתרפא
אחר זמן ואופן שלא שייך להתרפאות לא שכיח' ושלא כבזמננו וענינינו מחלות רוח שהרופאים
מרפאים לכמה ויודעים למיני מחלות שאין להן תרופה כזו של הבעל - הנידון. חרי לא שייך
שתדור עם נחש שמצער לה הרבה ובודאי לא חיתה נישאת לכזה.
והנה בחיי הגר"מ
זצ"ל אירע כאן בעירי שאחד נשא אשה ושנה שנתים אח"כ חלתה האשה במחלת לב אנושה
והבעל ברח ממנה, שהרופאים אמרו שהמחלה הזו היתה לה כבר כמה שנים אעפ"י שהיתה נראית
בריאה ולא תוכל לחיות רק בניתוח מסוכן מאד מאד. בעזה"ש אחר הניתוח הוטב לה וחיתה
כמה שנים. ומרן זצ"ל אמר לי שיש לדון משום מקח טעות דאין אדם שיתחתן למסוכנת שכזו,
(אבל היו לו עוד צירופי היתר) ומקרה זה כגון בדידן לא שייך שיקרה בימים הקדמונים.
ה' יהיה בעזרה, שלא
תשב בדד ושיהיה לח נחת רוח מבתה שתחי'.
והנני בזה דו"ש
וכ"ת
נטע צבי גרינבלט
Letter from Rav Nota Greenblatt claiming the heter was only theoretical and conditional
See post with translation and discussion of this letter
Interesting line on first page:
ReplyDeleteומאז כבר נפסק על בעלה שחייב לתת לה גט פיטורין
Which authorized בית דין paskened that?
S kam, u career us finished, become a taxi driver
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how there are "variations"?? If it is a legitimate and real letter there should be no variations, but only one real copy. Please clarify.
ReplyDeleteit says they spoke to the doctor. the doctor could lose his license for speaking to strangers about a patient.
ReplyDeletewhen there is money there is a way. Torah means nothing to these people.
The three of them are embarrassments to the Moetzes - to Torah and to the human race.
No supporting documentation (medical reports) attached?
ReplyDeleteit is not complicated The letter was changed over time - it was sent to various poskim with the request to agree to a psak of mekach ta'os based on the information in the letter.
ReplyDeleteI thought the Baltimore beis din specifically did not pasken that the husband had a chiyuv to give a Get.
ReplyDeleteSure, and you expect me to blieve it. He was previously engaged, broke his engagement, and she didn't know about it, "OR he hit her". Huh? All these big cheese, Shoshvinim that were with it and the tremendous support for such a Nodiv veAskan had no knowledge about the broken engagement, made no inquiries as to why it was broken, neither her father that was a medic, and then having the gall to say "OR" he hit her, Kulay hay, VEEULAY??? Furthermore, why in spite of him having a broken engaement and still moving on with it, what baggage did she have to wave such, especially when she is one that pursues for something better? And such a MUM GODOL, no one noticed it? Then trying to brush on lo sovir velo kibel klum, and "STARTED TO LEAVE". Doesn't he know that a start without a finnish, is full consent to continue and live on together.
ReplyDeleteWow, does this stink not only in Denmark, but in the whole wide world. Lies, and more lies, and nothing but a lies. BTW, after we hear a response to this Letter, there is a he said she said, I NEVER said coming up - in the air, where he will have no place to hide.
Shebchol haleilos onu ochlin potatoes and Lukshen, halaylo haze, KULOI Shtussim mit LUKSHEN. Please forgive my French, the S..t is bigger than the BULL. Soon you will see him shoveling it up!
I'm reading this on a handheld device, but is the date on the letter over a year old?
ReplyDeleteWell it seems from this "teshuvah" that they are claiming that there were two psychologists involved and that one of them did meet with Aharon Friedman. Don't know if this changes anything.
ReplyDeleteEven the gas in his tank is not for real.
ReplyDeleteMy recollection from one of the older posts was the psychiatrist that meet him did so during the time the husband and wife were living together. He did not say the husband was mentally ill. Rather later the second psychiatrist that did not meet him made his "diagnosis" based on the report of the first psychiatrist.
ReplyDeleteThis is in the works for over two years.
ReplyDeletewhat does R' Kraus have to say about this? Is it acceptable by the IBD?
ReplyDeleteinteresting - a PHD marriage counselor is now considered a Rofai
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't say that a Beis Din paskened. We know that R' Shmuel paskened. Also, I believe there was a Wolmark led "beis din" that "paskened"
ReplyDeleteRabbi Kaminetsky writes in his request for a Heter that there is a Psak that Aharon has to give a Get. Everyone knows that there never was such a Psak. So everything in his letter is based on lies.
ReplyDeletethis is discussed in Rav Feldman's letter
ReplyDeleteAlso the title of this post should say shalom not Shlomo
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why Aharon Friedman doesn't sue the pants off Sholom Kaminetsky. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me that all the conditions necessary in order to successfully litigate a defamation of character tort have been met in this case, namely (1) a clearly defamatory statement ( a declaration of the the plaintiff is and was insane "in every sense of the word"), (2) made by the defendant (Sholom Kaminetsky in the first above contained letter) (3) to a third party orally or in writing, (the recipient of said letter) (4) injury suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the communication ( i can't even begin to describe the extent of the injuries done to the plaintiff).
ReplyDeleteIn general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege, none of which are applicable in this case. (1) Truth? How can a statement that an aide to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for a significant period of time is and was at the time "insane in every sense of the word" be true? (2) Consent? Really? Aharon Friedman consented to the communication regarding his mental status? (3) Accident? ( I didn't really mean to declare to the world that Friedman was completely bonkers; it just sorta slipped out unintentionally. Oops, sorry, my bad.) I don't think that defense will fly. (4) Privilege? It doesn't extend to Rabbis making untrue statements about others based on what? the claims of their clients?
In short, i think Friedman has an open and shut case against Kaminetsky and also, perhaps to a lesser extent, a complaint against Rav Greenblatt (poor fellow, he meant well) and against Tamar Epstein.
I'm certain there are excellent attorneys who would be chomping at the bit for a piece of this action, if not for immediate lucre, then for the great publicity this case would engender.
Only a beis din is capable of issuing a ruling that a husband is halachicly required to give a divorce.
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard Wolmark's Kangaroo "beis din" being at all involved in this case.
"doesn't sue the pants off Sholom Kaminetsky" But there are eye witnesses that the Emperor has no clothes.
ReplyDeletehmmm.......... This thing hit the FAN.
ReplyDeleteHas the identity of the Psychologist who issued the report regarding AF been disclosed? This information could be of great importance.
ReplyDeleteA taxi driver cmon he bodybuilds Sholom prides himself about his physique he can now become a professional bodybuilder.
ReplyDeleteNot when I'm on the sames street.
ReplyDeleteI think that the view expressed in the letter is based on a Psak that was given be GEDOLIM so no beis-din is required..
ReplyDeleteBecause Sharon, per Halacha, on principle does not utilized arkoyos secular court.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia will now be left completely under Rav Yehuda Svei's reign?
ReplyDeleteWhen I spoke to Aharon, this wasn't his focus.
ReplyDeleteThe ethics violations are perhaps the place to start. many are spelled out in:
Kalmbach, K. C., & Lyons, P. M.
(2006). Ethical issues in conducting forensic evaluations. Applied
Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 261-290.
Nope. Nobody wants to tell Aharon. It's easy to see why he/she would be afraid.
ReplyDeleteInstead of Tamar's father hiring Mendel epstein to do a job on Friedman, some should do a Job on Sholom.
ReplyDeletethere is a gemara somewhere about hitkatnut hadorot. I can't remember whether we are still obliged to follow them? Can anyone enlighten me?
ReplyDeleteSorry to cheper you but the title here is misleading there's no heter from r greenblatt published here.
ReplyDeleteMy מחאה, for whatever it’s worth:
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we’re allowed to be חושד R’ Sholom that the הרים ידו accusation is a bald lie. Even if he is a בינוני, we’re מחויב to be דן לכף זכות by things that are עומד בספק.
… There’s also no need to say he lied - the probable truth is bad enough.
It’s a mixture of selective memory + no recourse to set the record straight + not even noticing certain widely practiced cultural traits that are very wrong + exaggerating other widely practiced cultural traits that are only a little wrong.
Remember – he doesn’t say that Aharon hit anyone. He did not.
He doesn’t give any context to the הרמת יד. The therapists couldn’t care about context (although all the top guys complain A LOT about it and say they need to). It’s מנהג הפסיכלאגן. Maybe they hold "מנהג עוקר הלכה" ...
From what I know about Aharon, I can attest that he is really ערליך – the type where truth counts. This פסוק might be a nice fit –
ירמי' ט-כב כה אמר ה', אל-יתהלל חכם בחכמתו,ואל-יתהלל הגיבור, בגבורתו; אל-יתהלל עשיר, בעושרו. כג כי אם-בזאת יתהלל המתהלל, השכל וידוע אותי--כי אני ה', עושה חסד משפט וצדקה בארץ: כי-באלה חפצתי, נאום-ה'.
The problem is that in business, politics, and many of the higher echelons of society where the “shakers and movers” spend time, these פסוקים is the reality:
ירמי' ט-ב וידרכו את-לשונם קשתם שקר, ולא לאמונה גברו בארץ: כי מרעה אל-רעה יצאו אותי לא-ידעו, נאום-ה'. ג איש מריעהו הישמרו, ועל-כל-אח אל-תבטחו: כי כל-אח עקוב יעקוב,
וכל-ריע רכיל יהלוך. ד ואיש בריעהו יהתלו, ואמת לא ידברו; לימדו לשונם דבר-שקר, העווה נלאו. ה שבתך, בתוך מרמה; במרמה מיאנו דעת-אותי, נאום-ה'. ... ז חץ שחוט לשונם, מרמה דיבר; בפיו, שלום את-ריעהו ידבר, ובקרבו, ישים אורבו.
Some people have a strong affinity to אמת, צדקה ומשפט (the former traits). This matches השקפת חז"ל, and as I mentioned in my long comment, also matches some cutting-edge psychology (לפענ"ד of the better kind). Most “regular” people don’t have strong visceral feelings – but they LIKE אמת. Many “shakers and movers” dismiss it, or even despise it.
Some people have a severe “allergic reaction” to very egregious examples of שקר (the latter traits). Most “regular” people are bothered a bit with שקר, but they move on with life easily. Many “shakers and movers” see it as anywhere from a necessary evil to something to brag about.
People like Aharon get very upset about truth… and still he held himself back…
The פלא is that Rav Yaakov Zatzal was also known to care a lot about truth …. I can only be דן לכף זכות his grandson that עינו הטעתו… The problem is
hopefully not more than that of שבת נג the age old issue of על הזקנים שלא מיחו בשרים. והמבין יבין.
The board of directors would do well by elevating rav sveis position
ReplyDeletestill haven't received it yet
ReplyDelete... and his "feeling" is enough to be מתיר אשת איש.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure a written teshuva exists?
ReplyDeleteLet's try to sum up what the situation currently is. It seems that the comments here all focus on to what extent the medical/psychological diagnoses are accurate, to what extent may we believe them, and by extension, to what extent, if any, does the husband suffer from any psychological/psychiatric malady/disorder.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seems that all here would agree that lu yetzuyar a husband would indeed suffer from some verifiable, serious, personality disorder, then there are halachic grounds to dissolve a marriage based on kiddushei taus.
So the entire controversy basically boils down to whether the information available to us is sufficient to dissolve the marriage.
My question then is that those claiming the heter is false, or an avlah, or a nevalah or whatever other choice words they choose, is fitting. The case boils down to simply trying to establish the facts. The Kaminetskys believe that their best efforts have determined that there is a disorder. They are the ones who have been involved to the greatest extent. Doesn't the husband have every opportunity to see his own expert and get a clean bill of health?
So in the absence of that, and with no way to obtain any more info than what is already out there, it is a simple case of shikul hadaas. There is no toeh bedvar mishna operating here. The Kaminetsky's have amply cited their sources (including the gemara of ein adam dar im nachash, which I mentioned in an earlier thread, baruch shkivanti).
One may disagree whether the experts they have used have made the correct diagnosis, but they have now cited two professionals, including one who saw both parties together, and is quoted as advising her to leave as soon as possible. Poskim constantly rely on outside experts. If that is standard practice, then everything was done kedas ukedin. Again, I dont know either, and Aharaon may be the finest guy around. I was very impressed by Mr. Ploni's analysis of the situation, that perhaps the therapists may have been negligent or were not qualified to evaluate an especially gifted individual. But be that as it may, ein lo ledayan ella mah sh'einav ro'os, and the two Rabbis Kaminetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt did their best based on the knowledge that was available to them.
Yes, I wonder how the husband could hold such a prestigious job if he had a major disorder, but that is a kashya on the therapists not the matirim. Also, I note that the halachic bar is nachash, not necessarily shoteh. Again, he may be a lev tov and a tzaddik sh'ein kamohu, but clearly his wife and two therapists were not able to be yored lsof daato, and were frightened of him. Perhaps another therapist could have salvaged the situation by making her understand and appreciate him better, as was noted by someone in a very insightful and brilliant comment regarding this case. But unfortunately that never happened. And one can only operate based on what info is available at the time.
And the psychologist from the time they were living together didn't catch the mental illness? (bitmiha)
ReplyDeleteBesides, (s)he is bound by confidentiality.
The lawsuit is there, against the psychologist(s). And goldfein (and epstein & co).
Kaminetzkis and greenblatt are protected by a religious privelege (though they may be subject to a third party suit by the psychologists and TE for publicizing priveleged information.
I repeat: who was the letter sent to, that they declined to sign. Yet, they (perhaps inadvertently) gave constructive criticism how to 'improve' the letter.
ReplyDeleteHave to see how the letter changed over time.
That true fact never stopped the epstein side.
ReplyDeleteThey might have to close shop.
ReplyDeleteBut didn't the president of Iraq also become a taxi driver and didn' last for long?
ReplyDeleteSvei himself just gave a Talmud a heter to go to court for divorce
ReplyDeleteYou know that YU would be delighted to hire Rabbi Shalom as a professor of Talmud/Rosh Yeshiva. He would even get a bigger paycheck and not have to be involved in fundraising. What a mach - just like Tamar and A!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thank you for your kind words regarding my analysis of the situation.
ReplyDelete"it seems that all here would agree that lu yetzuyar a husband would
indeed suffer from some verifiable, serious, personality disorder, then
there are halachic grounds to dissolve a marriage based on kiddushei
taus"
Not so. In my long (perhaps rambling) comment, I note that cutting-edge research doesn't agree to the "untreatability" of Personality disorders. Please see what i wrote about Schizophrenia and OCD. By now, this is no big news to those who actually stay up-to-date with the literature. Just google "positive neuroplasticity and "epigenetics. This also conforms with what the רמב"ם and the דרשות הר"ן write.
"The Kaminetskys believe that their best efforts have determined that there is a disorder."
Barry, are you joking? Do you know how many ethical violations where transgressed in the PROCESS of getting those diagnoses - based on the ethical guidelines of both APA's - psychological and psychiatric? You call that best efforts?
"The Kaminetsky's have amply cited their sources (including the gemara of ein adam dar im nachash"
If my reasoning in that long comment is correct, Aharon is the excat opposite of a "nachash". He has a strong affinity to virtue ethics - which according to those experts who care about morals is a tremendous asset for wellbeing (they call it "eudaimonia" or "flourishing). Tamar is a victim of lousy - but widespread - therapy.
"they have now cited two professionals,"
...who never followed protocol in giving their diagnosis. Besides what I just mentioned, they clearly never did a multiaxial workup, and ignored the all-important axis iv - social and environmental issues. Additionally, they're obviously ignorant of SENG's Misdiagnosis Initiative of the Gifted population. Just check out http://sengifted.org/programs/seng-misdiagnosis-initiative.
"ein lo ledayan ella mah sh'einav ro'os".
Not quite. Dayanom have the responsibility of checking sources. It's all over the place in Choshen Mishpot. If something doesn't sound right they are NOT permitted to pasken, even when there are witnesses. See סימן ט"ו, דין מרומה. The defenfent (in this case Aharon) has a right to know מהיכן דנתני - what are your sources, and he or his טוען have a right to question those sources - just like in secular court. The only reason this doesn't happen in most בתי דין is because the parties waived these rights through their קבלת קנין. Aharon never waived his rights.
the crux of the problem may be that neither Aharon nor Tamar where ever given the chance they deserved. AND BOTH RABBINICAL ADVISERS AND THERAPISTS ARE TO BLAME. Experts in a field cannot claim ignorance in the field they practice.
Finally, allow me to quote בבא מציעא ל"ג:
כדדריש רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי מאי דכתיב {ישעיה נח-א} הגד לעמי פשעם ולבית יעקב חטאתם הגד לעמי פשעם אלו תלמידי חכמים ששגגות נעשות להם כזדונות ולבית יעקב חטאתם אלו עמי הארץ שזדונות נעשות להם כשגגות והיינו דתנן ר' יהודה אומר הוי זהיר בתלמוד ששגגת תלמוד עולה זדון
And Rashi:
לעמי פשעם. עמי דהיינו ת''ח את חטאתם אני קורא פשע שהיה להם לתת לב בטעמי משנתם שיבררו להם על העיקר ולא יורו הלכה מתוך משנה שאינה עיקר: ולבית יעקב. שאר העם: חטאתם. אפילו פשע שלהם אני קורא חטאת: הוי זהיר בתלמוד. בגמרא שהוא תירוץ [טעמי] המשניות או אם תשמע דבר משנה מרבך הזהר לשאול טעמיו ומי שנאה: שגגת תלמוד. אם שגית בהוראה בשגגת תלמודך שלא ידעת טעם המשנה ונתת בה טעם אחר ומתוך כך דמית לה דין או הוראה שבא לידך ולמדת הימנה שלא כדת שאין הטעם כמו שהיית סבור שאילו ידעת טעם המשנה לא דמית לה מעשה הבא לידך: עולה זדון. ענוש אתה עליה כמזיד שזדון הוא בידך שלא שאלת טעם מרבך: אלו ת''ח. ששימשו חכמים הרבה ללמדם טעמי משנתם זה בזו וזה בזו שאין הכל בקיאין בשוין:
To this date, all Aharon gets is stonewalling - none of the decision makers will even talk to him. That's best efforts?
This will show a solidarity to the heter nevolo and have RHS complicit. The al yevakshu tora mipiv will trail him along wherever he goes.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your assessment.
ReplyDeleteShalom K told Rav Nota that a rofeh mumche, an expert doctor, declared Aharon to be meshuga bemelo muvan hamila, crazy in the full sense of the word. That's clearly a lie. Can you imagine a doctor/psychologist that would declare a person "crazy in the fullest sense"? What's even the name of such a condition?
Clearly Shalom lied to R Nota.
R Eidensohn-
ReplyDeleteGiven the documents in this thread, I think you need a new poll for the top right corner of the page...
Info available at press thme:
ReplyDelete1. AF was not invited to present his arguments.
2. The baltimore bet din, which has sole jurisdiction, opposes this decision.
3. This is an extraordinary step, which requires agreement of several major poskim, not on$ regional posek from another region.
4. Clear evidence of $ub$tantial conflict of interest.
5. Contradicts several previous positions.
6. Follows much improper previous behavior (abusive public campaign, physical assaults, denied then confirmed) further questions reliability of abusing side.
Part 2 of reply:
ReplyDeleteSo I would much prefer to separate out the abstract concepts from the individual case at hand, and then we can debate whether those concepts were applied properly to our case.
It seems Reb Moshe does allow a ruling of kiddushei taus by a severe personality disorder. Not clear how severe, or who is reliable to make the determination. If husband not willing to cooperate (and I don't blame him for not wanting to be dragged through the mud) then how does one obtain a diagnosis?
Your claim that every disorder is potentially curable is extremely fascinating and idealistic, but sadly, at this stage of our medical knowledge, I don't think it holds true. And even if true, if it will take ten years of hard work, can a woman be forced to endure this, or can she say I didn't sign up for this?
So again, I did not like that the wife took child out of state. I did not like the tone of the letter claiming husband was completely meshuga, and find it hard to believe that he could function at such a high-profile job if that were the case. I don't know why wife would not return to Baltimore beis din, but I also have no reason not to trust the Kaminetskys that they did a proper drisha vachakira and used all information available to them.
I mean both epsteins.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! Not so fast! I strongly contend with your premise in the second paragraph beginning with "It seems Rav Moshe......."
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe's psak was a "chiddush peleh" in his time, and he conceded in the tshevah that poskim before him disagreed with his position. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe Feinstein was a giant in his time, and we have no one today with shoulders as broad as his both in halacha and in yiras shomayim.
Yet his psak is a chiddush and "ayn loch bo eleh chiddusho". Although we ought not question his horoah, at the same time we cannot use it as a basis on which to build similar rulings, because it is not in accordance with normative traditional psak.
Look, the Bais Shammai were giants in Torah and they ruled that a woman who receives less than a dinar as kiddushin is absolutely not an aishes ish. She is free to marry whomever she wishes. But that is not the Halacha. The Halacha is as the Bais Hillel rule; kiddushin is valid even if the woman accepted merely a perutah. If such a woman were to consort woith another man and bear children her progeny are mamzeirim. Finished . End of Story.
But why? Weren't the Bais Shammai more erudite than the Bais Hillel? Inhu Charifuh, the Talmud declares. Nonetheless, the Halacha is like the Bais Hillel, because, Inhu Addifu, they represented the Rabbinical mainstream.
Hagoan Harav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L "kvoido yehay munach". The Halacha is not as the Tannah Rebbe Meir, "shelo umdi all soif daato", because his contemporaries could not follow his reasoning. Is that a reason not to establish a halacha, because we can't understand him? Apparently this is what the Talmud tells us.
The Nodah Beyudah contends very sharply with the Rashbah in Chelek Aleph - Even Ezer Siman 72, and he rules against him. Was the Nodah Beyudah as great as the Rashbah, a Rishon? Mesorah has it that all Rishonim were greater than the Poskim. Nonetheless, the halacha is like the Nodah Beyudah, because he presents particularly potent arguments to refute the Rashbah.
Can we compare ourselves to Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT"L, Of course not, no more than the Nodah Beyehudah could compare himself to the Rashbah. But if thousands of years of Jewish tradition has established that after Nesuin we do not retroactively annul marriages, barring extremely rare cases (and the exceptions reinforce the rule) , than we should never, ever apply the concept of "kidushay taus".
Unless we are as great as Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt"L
Which we definitely are not.
"It seems Reb Moshe does allow a ruling of kiddushei taus by a severe
ReplyDeletepersonality disorder. Not clear how severe, or who is reliable to make
the determination"
R' Moshe is pretty clear about how severe the disorder has to be to constitute אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה.
See what R' Moshe himself writes in אהע"ז ח"א ס"פ
כשהוא שוטה שעליו נאמר אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה משום שאין שייך ליזהר ואין שייך לפייסו כיון שעושה שלא בדעת.
IOW, he's talking about people that are irrational and cannot be reasoned with - the exact opposite of someone like Aharon. The comparison RSK made is laughable.
"Your claim that every disorder is potentially curable is extremely fascinating and idealistic"
Never claimed "every" and never will. I was specific about PPD and OCD. The definition of paranoia and compulsive behaviors are very subjective (as I've mentioned in an earlier post). Someone with a "dis"order is not a raving lunatic.
There's a basic error here - widespread but basic. The DSM diagnosis are NOT all the same. Some diagnosis are very close to normal and some are very far from normal. Nobody ever claimed that Aharon runs around like a lunatic.
Here's what Allen Frances himself writes (caps are mine):
Alas, I have read dozens of definitions of mental disorder (and helped to write one) and I can’t say that any have the slightest value whatever. Historically, conditions have become mental disorders by accretion (definition: a thing formed or added by gradual growth or increase) and practical necessity, not because they met some independent set of operationalized definitional criteria. Indeed, the concept of mental disorder is so amorphous (definition: without a clearly defined shape or form), protean (definition: tending
or able to change frequently or easily), and heterogeneous (definition: diverse in character or content) that it inherently defies definition. This is a hole
at the center of psychiatric classification.
And the specific mental disorders certainly constitute a
hodge podge. Some describe short term states, others lifelong personality. Some reflect inner misery, others bad behavior. SOME REPRESENT PROBLEMS RARELY OR NEVER SEEN IN NORMALS, OTHERS ARE JUST SLIGHT ACCENTUATIONS OF THE EVERYDAY. … Some seem more biological, others more psychological or social. If there is a common theme it is distress and disability, but these are very imprecise and nonspecific markers on which to hang a definition.
... and the house of cards (comes) [came] falling done.
ReplyDeleteMy מחאה, against your מחאה, for whatever it’s worth:
ReplyDeleteYou write "I don’t think we’re allowed to be חושד R’ Sholom that the הרים ידו accusation is a bald lie. Even if he is a בינוני, we’re מחויב to be דן
לכף זכות by things that are עומד בספק."
Is that right? Must we give any credence to someone who is "huchzik Shakron'? Are we מחויב to be דן לכף זכות someone was "moitzi shem Ra" more than three times, repeatedly stating that Aharon Friedman was insane "in every sense of the word"?
I'm sorry, but to my understanding the only הרמת יד here was by the one who was הרים יד be'Toiras Moshe.
Part 1 of my reply seems to have gotten lost maybe because of low battery. Too tired to retype, but points were (may have forgotten some):
ReplyDelete1) Agree that people must work on themselves and can change. My rebbe muvhak once said that even if a gene would be correlated with stealing, would not patur anybody, because would still have bechira to overcome. Nevertheless, marriage is different. Not clear that a woman would want to go thru many years of suffering while her husband worked on himself. Found it also hard to believe that Mr. Ploni would allow his own daughter to marry someone with schizophrenia, as could be very dangerous. Clear to me that would be grounds to dissolve any marriage, if it was hidden from potential wife.
2) The mekoros Mr. Ploni cites about needing to fully understand the taamim of a mishna, are halachic considerations. Certainly the Kaminetskys understand. The issue here was the medical diagnosis. how do we establish the facts, and how sick does a husband need to be.
3) Why didn't the husband here get his own expert to counter the diagnosis of the other side?
Additional points after reading recent responses:
4) I fully agree with the person who claims entire field of psychology is extremely ill-defined and amorphous and that no two cases are alike. Although I have a scientific background, I believe our understanding of biochemistry is in its infancy, and any current medicine can have many potential side-effects, because we dont know how it reacts with all the zillions of other molecules in our body. Much of our current practice and standards of evidence are based on statistics, without any real understanding of chemical mechanisms. In addition, each person's chemistry may differ in important ways. The brain is the most complex part of us, and as maaminim, we must also worry about how the neshama ties in with the physical body. But nevertheless, we still have Reb Moshe telling us that certain cases of shigaon are grounds for kiddushei taus.
5) Regarding commenter who said that Reb Moshe is Ein lcha bo ella chidusho, that doesn't seem right. A posek has a right to be medameh milsa lmilsa. The key is would a stam isha (rov nashim?) agree to marry such a person knowing the diagnosis in advance. I believe that is the general standard for any case of mekach taus, unless someone can prove otherwise.
6) Agree that the methodology followed in this case has many questions associated with it, but don't agree that theoretically the underlying principle is incorrect here. The case is certainly a candidate for kiddushei taus. Whether it is or not in actuality is a very difficult and delicate decision. There is no clear-cut right or wrong. This who claim it is a false heter, or a mistake or violation of halacha are not being accurate. Three talmidei chachamim (Kaminetskys and Rav Nota) believe it meets the criteria, others don't.
7) Again, I am bothered why the child custody issue could not be worked out in Baltimore beis din, and a regular get given. Very sad. Obviously, the father cannot give up his chashuveh job in Washington, and the mother wants to be with her family is Philadelphia, as she had nobody else in Washington. Child can't travel back and forth while in school between these cities. Travel very taxing on parents, too. Very very sad case. Even if you wanted to do a regular get, how do you solve this custody issue? I wonder if even Shlomo Hamelech could make shalom here.
So since his wife married someone else with an invalid heter, Mr. Feldman is now required to give a get, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteOne essential point that seems to have gone unnoticed is that R' Greenblatt writes that he is wiling to join with additional morei hora'a to issue a hetter, clearly indicating that he would not be willing to do it on his own. So, Rabbi Eidensohn or anyone else, are there reliable reports of other poskim joining in, or did he in fact agree to fly solo since nobody else could be found?
ReplyDeleteno. If you have a source that says otherwise please produce it
ReplyDeleteJust want to add some points to the other side, as I am trying to be intellectually honest. No negias either way, not a pro-feminist, or anti-feminist kannai. Just a stam yid.
ReplyDelete1) Reb Moshe's language that if a husband acts without daas, that is bgeder ein adam dar im nachash bkefifah achas, may imply that a person is totally divorced from reality, i.e., schizophrenia or something similar. Not someone with an "annoying personality". However, if there is any issue of violence in whatever diagnosis he has, probably rov women, or even all women would never marry such a person.
2) Just thinking aloud, that if it takes 100 rabbonim to be matir Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom, it should certainly take 100 to be matir an eishes ish l'shuk without a get. Perhaps going forward, that should be required. Although we have 3 matirim here, perhaps we should require more. That would at least show a strong consensus among poskim.
3) Now that bdieved the deed was done, and she is remarried, how do we deal with any children? Do we apply the klal of lo nimneu bais shammai ubeis hillel milehashil kleihen zu l'zu? Since we have some poskim who are matir, shouldn't that automatically make the vlad kosher?
1) you are extending Rav Moshe into new territory which Rabbi Riskin points out in his Tradition article. Therefore he states that it is critical to get the agreement of contemporary poskim on this.
ReplyDeleteIn addition - contrary to your assumption people remain married to people who are violent. Usually because of the shame of divorce or because the violence is followed by tenderness and promises not to do it again. Furthermore one professor I had who was a social worker stated that in certain cultures women who are not abused get depressed because it is a sign that there husbands are not interested in them. Bottom line - violence is not an automatic basis for divorce
3) You don't seem to understand that this heter is not a heter according to anyone. The facts that were used are simply not true. It shows an ignorance of modern psychology.
Please show me a defense of the procedure - either by psychologists or rabbis.
Only the feminists [who assert that divorce on demand is everyone woman's right] accept this heter as real - it has no basis in halacha or psychology
I think at this point, she is ossur la'baal and loses all rights (probably including custody and visitation of their child). Is there any reason for him to withhold a Get?
ReplyDeleteI have heard reports that there were others - especially a certain rabbi in Chicago. They have not been confirmed.
ReplyDeleteHowever the fact that he was mesader kiddushin means he held the heter was valid
6) The methodology was wrong and the conclusions were wrong. This represents a major change from Rav Moshe and has been pointed out this new extension needs approval by major contemporary rabbis. Thus we have a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the husband which is clearly not true. And even if it were true no one except followers of Rackman accept this generalizationn of Rav Moshe as normative halacha. So in this case it clearly is mistaken - It is not a disagreement of poskim - it is a gross error - haven't seen anyone defending these three except for you. Which rabbi has desribed the situation as a legitimate disagreement of opinion? All you have is embarrassed silence
ReplyDeleteCan anyone actually read the first letter?
ReplyDeleteIf so, a transcription/retyping would be appreciated.
I am working on it - there are only so many hours in the day
ReplyDeleteThat is in reference to SHEKVAR HOIRO HAZOKEN, pointing to R' S...l K. At this point R' Sh..m K, is denying that his father ever paskened, just that he agreed to it all the taanos drafted up. Since he was pointed out that Av ubnoi cannot be Don together along with trying to get him out of this mess, he therefore changed his tune. Note the passive כבר נפסק על בעלה To bad that the Smicha bishtei yadayim bepishut yadayim veraglayim is out there. It is at a point of no return, and the whole esek bish kvar poshat es raglov lechol noishov.
ReplyDelete"Must we give any credence to someone who is "huchzik Shakron'"
ReplyDeleteAs a survivor of the weird world of עסקנות, where backstabbing and blackmailing are "normal", but not smiling to the cameras afterwards is considered "sick", i can tell you this:
Your and my definition of what מוציא שם רע is than many in business or Mosdos-building do.
We might rightfully see the backstabbing and blackmailing as הוצאת שם רע, while the titans of biz and community will only see the not smiling to the cameras afterwards as הוצאת שם רע, since it which give credence to the gossip going around that abc and xyz aren't getting along.
What would they say about the the backstabbing and blackmailing, you ask? It's so ingrained that they don't even notice they did it.
RSK surely believes what he wrote - he is SURE that Aharon is crazy. Principled people don't necessarily do well in building business connections necessary for multi-million dollar deals, or for "buttering up" potential donors for that new building.
Business partners and / or potential donors get nervous when issues of ethics and morals come up. They're fine with the concepts, but not the practical application.They know about their skeletons and they don't see any purpose in getting involved with people that make them uncomfortable.
Exceptionally bright people like Aharon with morals arouse a visceral negative attitude.
So, just as the חזון איש says that a person remains a תינוק שנשבה because of his upbringing and culture, since these remain ingrained, so to does RSK remain a בינוני, since his culture played a large role of his faulty evaluation of Aharon.
Does he go Scott-free because his culture "forced this on him? Nope. The unwillingness to hear opposing viewpoints is לפענ"ד his halachic undoing, and as the ethical guidelines of forensic evals prove, secular law recognizes this.
just added a transcript - would appreciate notification of any errors.
ReplyDeleteThanks, much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI could only make out a few words here and there from the original.
Couple of ches's instead of hay's, lisvo instead lesevara. Minor stuff.
ReplyDeleteBut kind of confusing that Rav Nota brings a story of a husband who ran off due to a wife's physical disability (heart condition) and seems Reb Moshe would be matir her on basis that husband would not have agreed to marry her. Sort of the opposite of our case, but shows that mekach taus runs both ways.
Also is not mechalek between physical disability and personality disorders.
Do not understand Rav Nota's argument that the type of disorders we have today were not around at time of earlier generations and hence that explains absence of discussion of mekach taus in earlier literature. Perhaps someone can explain.
I agree with Barry that to allow a woman to remarry without a GET is so riski that many people should sign off on such a thing not ONE RABBI. Secondly we are forgetting a very important point! even if we would agree that Aharon has a serious blemish, There still would be no reason to resort to the leniency that Tamar received, BECAUSE AHARON AGREED TO GIVE A GET! When a man agrees to give a GET but is asking for better visitation conditions, it is an aveira of thge worst order to seek out a way to avoid a GET! Not only is it an aveiro but it entices other women in the future to abandon any negotiations with the thought of "I wil just get an anullment if he doesnt acquiesce to my desires.
ReplyDeleteThe way I understood it is, that certain illnesses (like that heart disease of the woman) were fatal in days of old, and people didn't recover from it, therefore the whole discussion of mekach to'us in these cases isn't available in early halachic literature. But nevertheless, although the person recovered, it is still a mekach to'us.
ReplyDeleteThe same would apply to the mental issues mentioned in RSK heter, which are OCPD and PPD, which today can be managed with psychotherapy and medicine, but still are considered mekach to'us, and the reason poskim didn't discuss it is because in the olden days a person with these disorders was either considered a total meshugenner and mekach to'us applied, or he was considered normal
And...the Moetzes "Gedolei Torah" is silent as a church mouse.
ReplyDeleteI now understand why the Kaminetzkys are against vaccinations. They have full immunity without it.
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn, I am not claiming this is a machlokes haposkim. I am claiming that this is a grey area, which no two people will draw the line in same place. Most of us here would accept Reb Moshe's wording that if he was a shoteh about which it says ein adam dar im nachash (as Mr. Ploni quoted his words), then one could dissolve the marriage. If he had a flaw that he left socks on floor one day, that would not be grounds. But if he had certain other serious personality flaws, then there could also be a point at which no woman would live with him. What exactly is the cutoff point? It is not shayach to call that a machlokes haposkim, as no two cases are the same. It is a judgment call--a shikul hadaas--that is lfi reos einei hadayan. The Kaminetskys thought he was over the line based on a certain therapist. That is a valid viewpoint. Others might say, only more extreme behavior would warrant dissolution. That is also valid.
ReplyDeleteBut I will point out that Reb Moshe's saying that if he acted without daas then that is what the gemara terms ein adam dar im nachash, is not the way gemara uses term. Gemara was talking about a guy who refused to support his family. Had nothing to do with daas. May be a total genius, but simply a nasty person.
You can't write up a simple halacha in this situation. if the blood spot is on this part of the egg, then kosher; on that part of the egg, then treif. Human behavior is very complicated. Can't be described in a simple phrase or two.
Suppose a bachur never showered for a year, except before a date. Then girl marries him, and he stops showering again for a year. Refuses get. How do you pasken? What if it's every 3 and a half months. Then how do you pasken? You see, no line can be drawn.
Yes, perhaps the methodologies used here were flawed, but in essence few here are arguing with the abstract concept of mekach taus that such a thing does exist in extreme personality cases.
Such condition is called, Four Quadrant CrispyDitis! It is a machlo lo aleinu velo aleichem asher lo kosuv baTorah, vein lo kol trufah lemachlo ad bias goel, lo bealma hodein velo bealma deoso velo bealma deshikro velo bedi kol assar veassar, voze bichlall kol choili umadvei mitzrayim es asher lo samti. Truly a machlo umtsuko Asher bodi heim milibam, mariin bishin veartilay bechol minei sheimos hanirdofim, like Guliver B'Erets hagamadim asher lo haya velo nivro meoilom!
ReplyDeleteJust a few more questions, and then I let you go.
Why are all the rabbis involved sodi beyoter? Why can't they just come out of the woodwork and take responsibility to what they said, did, along with a Meheichan dantani laundry list. I am sure that the whole Moetset miyeminom umismoilom veal smoilom shehem yeminom will give them full support, especially if we apply the shtika kehoidoe thingy, umideshoskei lei rabanan kulay hay shma mina denichei lehu. First they ping, and then they pong, they pong and then they ping vechoizer vecholilo. A letter full of lies and then some more lies, some claiming that R' Dovid hinhen beroishoi while he befeirush said, I would have never done such. Yes, true, this whole fiasco is INSANE bimloi muvan hamileh. Why rofeh mumche beilum shem? Why the Assara harugei malchus, hmmm.... excuse me ...alleged assara makos baseser of R' AF under clouds and the story tellers beilum shem? Why all the players of Bnei Adam, yoishvei choshech yoshvim baseser? Where are all the clowns and the jugglers of matir Assurim? Where is Reb ORA, where is Reb veSIMCHA um..uh hum... I mean Reb SMICHA? Doesn't this talk volumes? The answer my friend is, Hakol shkarim hakol shkarim, it is like Dust in the wind, beteilin umvotolin keafra dearah lemafrea bigzeiras hefker BD or BD hefker depokrei tfei.
ze kol hatorah al regel achas, veidach zil ugmor.
LOL!! GREAT POINT!!
ReplyDeleteIt starts with (ANTIVAX) pseudoscience, and before you know it we are at pseudo-HALACHA!!!
The classic mekach taos was when the husband discovered on the night
ReplyDeleteafter the wedding that his wife is not a virgin. We then declare the
marriage was null and void and they are not married, a Get is not needed
and he owes her nothing, So clearly we know it could go both ways.
Also note that it is much easier to declare a mekach taos on the husband's behalf (such as the case on the non-virgin) than to do the same on the wife's behalf. Because the husband can divorce her at will for any reason, per Torah Law, anyways. And he can always give her a Get to be extra cautious after the mekach taos is declared. But a wife claiming a mekach taos can't generate a Get if the husband disputes it.
And as this blog commentary rages on, TE is still living with her "husband" and no one has done anything about that. When is RNG going to tell the world that she is not halachikly married to Fleischer but still to Friedman. When is someone that she will listen to (RNG or the Kams) going to state publicly that any child she bares will be a mamzer? Until such time, nothing practical has changed.
ReplyDeleteEarlier you wrote as if someone on behalf of RNG was feeding you documents so he could clear his name. Fine, I'll pretend that he was duped and I'll ignore the fact that he completely failed to do his diligence and check the facts before issuing a monumental psak. But at the end - RNG officiated over her ceremony, If he wants to clear his name, if he feels as if he was taken advantage of, if he now feels that the psak heter was inapplicable to TE as the facts don't match his psak - how come he hasn't immediately come out to try and rectify the situation. Either he recognizes the sin he allowed or he is trying to tell you one thing but believes another. Until we see action and a retraction from RNG - I will believe that he still is in favor of the marriage.
Where does anyone say a man cannot annul a marriage based on mekach taos? If the woman received a kesuba for a besula today, and the night of the wedding he realizes she is not a besula, would he not be entitled to declare a mekach taos nowadays?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day even if all facts presented are true (which are not) RNG is on totally new halachik ground claiming the personality disorders aka מידות רעות are in the class to create מקת טעות it is nowere else in the פוסקים
ReplyDeleteA poster on another blog raised a very valid point, if one would visit the agunah international/ rackman website you would see that rackmans methods are identical with the same sources as this case making Sam Kaminetsky the new rackman
ReplyDeleteBarry I appreciate your intellectual skills and your concern with grey areas - but that is not what this all about.
ReplyDeleteThis is about whether a revolution just happened in halacha and that ending marriages is a function of receiving a Get or annulments. In essence there are now insistent cries that the Orthodox world is leaving the Dark Ages of gittin and Agunos and has adopted the Catholic Church's approach of anullment.
Unless Rav Nota and Rav Shmuel publicly retract this heter - the fine points of halacha and psychology will be irrelevant. The conclusion drawn is that GEDOLIM have decided that anyone woman can get out of any marriage by claiming psychological incompatibility and that she would never have married him if he knew he snored or ate his peas with a knife. The business of psychology will be to certify mekach ta'os that rabbis will rubber stamp.
In short the dream of Rabbi Rackman will have been actualized and R Nota and R' Shmuel will be aclaimed as heroes for liberating women from the cruel laws of the Torah. R Shalom will be praised for his skill in manipulating two gedolim to go against halacha in order to establish a paradigm shift - that every left wing rabbi and feminist would give their right arm for.
True, but he was told that the case here is of a guy who is a total meshuga and choleh ruach.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any great setirah between R' Nota Greenblatt's two letters. The first letter does not evince personal knowledge of Freidman, Epstein or the state of their marriage.
ReplyDeleteActually, was thinking the same thing, but from the other perspective. Rackman stated that his idea was revolutionary, but would become the norm in 100 years time. If he was alive today, would be saying that now the Posek Hador of the Aguda is using his methodology!
ReplyDeleteI have very good information that R' Shmuel Fuerst was involved.
ReplyDeleteJohn Halmark – That’s not entirely correct. It’s worth
ReplyDeletereading through the following psak, which many of the senior dayanim in EY, including both R. Shlomo Fisher, Rav Yitzchak Yosef and Dayan Sherman (the dayan who fought for Rav Elyashiv’s position on geirus) signed off on:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1138
The husband's condition was summarised as follows:
. הבעל חלה במחלת הנפש עוד לפני הנישואין, והאשה לא ידעה.
ב. המחלה הזו היא בבחינת מום גדול מאד. אין אפשרות לנהל חיים נורמליים עם אדם החולה במחלה. והבעיה החמורה ביותר היא ההתקפות הפסיכוטיות המלוות את המחלה.
כשאדם נתון בהתקפה זו הוא מאבד את הקשר למציאות ואינו שולט על מעשיו, ואז הוא בלתי צפוי לחלוטין, הוא מסוגל לפגוע בעצמו ועלול גם לפגוע באשתו ובילדיו.
The war personally against Sam kam is unwinnable he is to entrenched and well connected to say the least, however there may be a chance against sholom, it would be wise to direct the effort toward him
ReplyDeleteDear Rabbi Eidensohn, thank you for your menshclach response. I understand that as a public figure, you are very concerned with the political ramifications of this case. You are also concerned that it makes the Torah look bad. But you can look at it the opposite way. Chazal were misaken a kesuva shelo tehei kala b'einav lhotzia. They enacted to protect women who were apparently subject to husbands walking out on a whim. Then in the time of Rabbeinu Gershom, other problems arose, and he made two more takanas, against polygamy and against a divorce b'al korcha (against her will).
ReplyDeleteSo why does it bother you in principle that in our generation, where certain people have run away, like one did recently to Uruguay for 25 years, and another guy changed his name and moved to some small community in USA, both of which were in news recently, that we should make some new takanas to correct new problems.
This is not an insult to Torah, but shows the greatness of Torah, that it promotes tzedek and proper behavior, and deals with new situations that may arise.
Yes, this new system can be abused by women taking it too far to the other side, and walking out for trivial reasons. So I wrote earlier that we should require 100 Rabbonim to annul any marriage, who examine all documents and thoroughly investigate situation.
Perhaps this case was not the best application of mekach taus, and unfortunately may now be used as a precedent, but for the future there is no doubt more cases will come up, and there needs to be a system to provide checks and balances. And this case was relying on the earlier precedent set by Reb Moshe. So once the cat is out of the bag, we need to deal with it, and improve system going forward. Do you personally believe that mekach taus does not ever exist? What is your alternative? Just undoing this psak does not help us know what to do with many other cases that will undoubtedly arise, each somewhat different from the other. There needs to be a system. And we can't let women who are truly in abusive marriages suffer. We can't simply wish this whole episode away. We cannot turn back the clock.
Letter of 15 Kislev from RNG says וחות דעתי הברורה היא שהאשה הנ"ל מותרת להנשא לכל גבר דיתיצביין. Why are all the גאונים ותלמידי חכמים on this thread still claiming that "the heter was only theoretical and conditional"?
ReplyDeleteעמש"כ הגרמ"פ באהע"ז ח"א סע"ט ענף ה' וגם חוזר ע"ז בסוף התשובה.
ReplyDeleteהמדובר אודות שיטת ר"ת אליבא הנק"י שסובר שאיילונית צריכה גט מדרבנן מטעם גזירה ולא סמכינן על מקח טעות, וז"ל:
לא שייך לגזור אלא במומין שבאשה אבל במומין שבאיש כאלו שמקפידות בוודיא ... שאין בידה להתגרש ומפסדת טובא שתשאר עגונה אם לא ירצה לגרשה ואף בזמן שיד ישראל תקיפה שכופין אותו להוציא יש הרבה פעמים שלא תועיל הכפי' שלא יאמר רוצה אני או שלא יכולו לכופו שיברח וכודמה וכל שכן בזמה"ז .... שלא גזרו להצריכה גט. עכ"ל
ובאמת לא הבנתי לפי"ז מש"כ הרב גרינבאלט מעובדה שאמר שדן הגרמ"פ על קידושי טעות בציור שהי' לאשה מחלת לב.
Dear Mr. Ploni, again I am amazed at your deep reasoning and understanding of human nature, and vast knowledge of the literature in your field. Mi keamcha yisroel.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, my concern is that true, everybody needs to work on themselves, and especially in marriage to make it work; tikun hamidos is a lifelong challenge.
But what happens when one partner refuses to do so. For example, if a husband leaves his socks on floor one time, that is hardly grounds to dissolve a marriage. But what happens if his wife tells him the first time, and he ignores and continues to do so. And what happens if he is sadistic, and not only doesn't care to try and remember, but goes ahead and deliberately does so to be metzaer his wife. Yes, this is a very rare person who is so vicious, but it could happen. And one who tries to upset another on purpose will probably not improve with therapy as he has no motivation to do so, but is motivated to do the opposite.
I am not saying this was true in our case, but as before in my post to Rabbi Eidensohn, there must be a way to weed out good people who can benefit from therapy from those who either can't see or refuse to see their own flaws, or deliberately act out of spite. These people in my layman's understanding will never change. I believe in some cases that it is too painful for a woman to continue living with such a person, and the likelihood of him improving is nil. Do you not agree that in some cases a mekach taus is called for? So how do we set up a system to sort the cases that are fixable from those that are not?
Reading this stuff really makes me sick. I know other cases where innocent husbands are being mistreated by rabbis who are too quick to break up families ,and automatically side with the wife. This blog does a great job fighting for the truth, and i can only hope that many more of these rabbis will get caught sooner than later!
ReplyDeleteNathanofgaza, you’re good: “A poster on another blog
ReplyDeleteraised a very valid point, if one would visit the agunah international/ rackman
website you would see that rackmans methods are identical with the same sources
as this case making Sam Kaminetsky the new rackman”
Wow, I see Susan updated her website and now calls it “Agunah
International Inc. The Rabbi Emanuel Rackman Agunah International Beit Din
L’Inyenei Agunot.”
The NYS Court of Appeals tells me the next court
decisions will be the week of 12/14/2015.
Susan wrote 11/4/2015 to the court: “In all these motions and letters,
Mr. Aranoff has insisted that he divorced me in 1993 and was married to
Yemima. I opposed this false claim and
pointed out countless times that Mr. Aranoff’s bogus, unrecognized 1993 Israeli
divorce was invalid, but Mr. Aranoff kept up the lies about the Israeli
divorce.”
Under certain circumstances a heter can be given per halacha.
ReplyDeleteThe examples you cite, Barry, are certainly not grounds for mekach taos. Not even debatable. It is debatable if it would be grounds for a beis din to rule he is mandated to give a divorce.
ReplyDeleteRegular people in Europe didn't pose smiles for the American-invented camera so much in the early years of photography. And run of the mill Europeans snapping a picture were more likely to snap a random moment rather than a smiling moment.
ReplyDeleteTrue, case of Reb Nota was a mum in the isha, but she was the tovaas for the get, and he ran away. She was the aguna. Reb Moshe was using a kneich to help her, that the marriage wasn't chal because the husband would not have agreed had he known.
ReplyDeleteIn Reb Moshe's case above, it was the man who was tovea because she was an ailonis. He could just give a get, so no need to invoke mekach taus.
Stop talking about Susan, she's not the subject
ReplyDeleteYou're 100% right. What I wrote is simply a טעות. I missed the words where R' Nota says that the husband ran away as I didn't read carefully & thought that since the woman had the מחלת לב the husband probably wanted out.
ReplyDeleteA silly mistake.
Dear j.
ReplyDeletePlease note that I did qualify my remarks including the words, "we do not retroactively annul marriages, barring extremely rare cases (and the exceptions reinforce the rule) ,"
The case you cite might qualify as an exception that reinforces the rule. The husband was suicidal from the get go and indeed an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt to take his life resulted in his entering a vegetative state where a "get" is impossible with absolute certainty. There is absolutely no question that he was totally insane. Even so, the case is still complicated and it requires further study to judge appropriateness of the ruling.
Be that as it may, the case you cited could indeed be, as I write above, an extremely rare exception, because there is absolutely no other remedy. The facts,- no not the facts,-the simple ALLEGATIONS made in the Epstein case even if they were to have a kernel of truth to them does not have the remotest resemblance to the case in Israel that you cite.
Please excuse my delay in responding. The issues you raise require a serious response, and I didn't yet have the time to give it the serious consideration it deserves.
ReplyDeleteSo if i understand you correctly, you are not exonerating RSK, you are merely "explaining" how someone can believe a obvious falsehood to be absolute truth. I need to reflect some more about this.
ReplyDeleteFor if self deception can be so powerful, what am I missing? Where is my own "blind spot", and what can I do to improve my own vision?
If this discussion can lead me to attempt to make my own Chesbon Hanefesh, it was worth the trip and I thank you for it.
R' "John":
ReplyDeleteThat, my friend is EXACTLY the point - being דן לכף זכות is simply the logical extension of midas האמת. Judging others EXACTLY how we would want them to judge us.
When we make a true chesban hanefesh it becomes obvious that "self deception can be so powerful"..
"what am I missing"
A good place to start is at the most authoritative of sources that deals with this specific issue: חובות הלבבות - שער חשבון הנפש. Pays to also see פרק ב ופרק ד to see what great importance he ascribes to this exercise, which the C"H sees as a CONSTANT endeavor 7 not something to just do occasionally.
while פרק ג' mentions THIRTY common things we're ALL missing, the picture only becomes clear when we see it in the context of how the Rishonim saw things.
You see, for most of us, seeing that we're missing so much can be extremely depressing. After all, if we fail so miserably and so often, where should our self-esteem come from?
This goes back to the discussion I'm in middle of with Barry. I still owe him an answer about his smelly socks question. The parts that I've managed to articulate בס"ד have to do with attitude towards pain and source of self-esteem/happiness from a Jewish perspective vs. a secular one.
You have a misunderstanding. Bais Shamai and Bais Hillel got along, but in the rare instance that one side disagreed with the other's psak, they would not marry.
ReplyDeletenot if she is over 12.5 years.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest omission and misunderstanding of Halacha found here is that any claim of Mekach Taos, even when factually valid, must be made immediately upon discovery of the defect and must be able to prove with Edus Gamur that the defect was preexisting. This is a test that is virtually impossible for a couple who were (more or less satisfactorily) married for a few years and had children.
ReplyDeletealthough this is old hat, it is worth revisiting -
ReplyDeleteIf R' Greenblatt wanted to make a psak, he would need to hear both sides of the story - which he didn't. He is just relying on hearsay from Shalom K. Then he conducts the wedding based on this ?
I am not qualified in halacha, to say Yadin yadin - and RNG certainly is - but it is a bit strange he did this remotely.
שלום חבר נפגעתי ושבור לב כשקרה בעיה גדולה מאוד ביני לבין בעלי לפני שבעה חודשים בנישואיי. כל כך נורא שהוא לקח את התיק לבית המשפט לגירושין. הוא אמר שהוא לעולם לא רוצה להישאר איתי שוב ושהוא כבר לא אוהב אותי. אז הוא ארז מהבית וגרם לי ולילדיי לעבור כאבים עזים. ניסיתי בכל האמצעים האפשריים להחזיר אותו, אחרי הרבה תחנונים, אך ללא הועיל. והוא אישר שקיבל החלטה ולא רצה לראות אותי שוב. אז ערב אחד, בדרכי חזרה מהעבודה, פגשתי את חברתי הוותיקה שחיפשה את בעלי. אז הסברתי לו הכל, אז הוא אמר לי שהדרך היחידה שבה אוכל להחזיר את בעלי היא לבקר אצל זורק כישוף, כי הוא באמת עשה את זה גם. אז אף פעם לא האמנתי בקסם, אבל לא הייתה לי ברירה אלא למלא אחר עצתו. לאחר מכן הוא נתן לי את כתובת האימייל של זורק הכישוף שהוא ביקר. DR apata. למחרת בבוקר שלחתי מייל לכתובת שהוא נתן לי, ומטיל הכישוף הבטיח לי שאחזיר את בעלי ליומיים הקרובים. איזו אמירה מדהימה!! אף פעם לא האמנתי, אז הוא דיבר איתי ואמר לי כל מה שאני צריך לעשות. ואז אני עושה אותם בלי עלייה, אז ביומיים הבאים, באופן מפתיע, בעלי שלא התקשר אליי ב-7 החודשים האחרונים התקשר אליי להודיע לי שהוא חוזר. כל כך מדהים !! אז הוא חזר באותו היום, עם הרבה אהבה ושמחה, והתנצל על טעותו ועל הכאב שהוא גרם לי ולילדיי. ואז מאותו יום הקשר בינינו היה חזק יותר מבעבר, בעזרתו של זורק קסמים נהדר. אז, אני אמליץ לך אם יש לך בעיות כלשהן, צור קשר עם dr apata בדוא"ל: drapata4@gmail.com או צור איתו קשר ב-whatsapp ו-viber עם המספר הזה: (+66 81 302 8552).......
ReplyDeleteנפרדתי מבעלי לפני שלוש שנים. לא הייתה תקשורת בינינו. יעצו לי ממשפחות וחברים לשחרר ולשכוח מהנישואים ולהמשיך בחיי. לא רציתי להתחתן עם מישהו אחר כי עמוק בפנים אני עדיין אוהב את בעלי. סבלתי כל כך מכאבים ובלבול שקראתי המלצה באינטרנט על איך ד"ר אפטה איחד מחדש נישואים שבורים בעזרת כוחותיו הרוחניים. המשכתי לקרוא כל כך הרבה המלצות על איך הוא עזר לשים קץ לגירושים ולשקם את אהוביהם לשעבר של אנשים ואמונתי התחדשה. אני יוצר קשר עם ד"ר אפטה מיד כעבור כמה דקות הוא ענה לי ונתן לי הנחיות מה לעשות, לאחר שעמדתי בדרישה הנדרשת יומיים לאחר הטקס, הכישוף שינה את חיי סביב בעלי כי מינון לא מדבר אלי. יומיים הוא התקשר אלי באמצע הלילה בוכה והתנצל שזו עבודת השדים, אז אני עדיין נדהם מהנס הזה אז אני סולח לו. עכשיו הנישואים שלי מאוזנים. טקס ד"ר אפטה עבד מצוין והנישואים שלי חזקים יותר מבעבר, ושום דבר לא יכול להפריד בינינו שוב. ביקרתי בכל כך הרבה אתרים שחיפשתי עזרה, זה היה חסר סיכוי עד שהתחברתי לד"ר אפטה, הגבר האמיתי שעזר לי לשחזר את הנישואים השבורים שלי אם יש לך בעיה דומה בנישואיך, אתה רוצה שבעלך או אשתך יאהבו אותך שוב. , יש לך מישהו שאתה אוהב ואתה רוצה שהוא יאהב אותך בתמורה, יש לך אתגר בחייך, תבנית הלחש של ד"ר אפטה היא הפתרון והתשובה לבעיה שלך, וואטסאפ / ויבר עם מספר הטלפון שלו: (+22958359273), צור איתו קשר עוד היום על ידי שליחת דוא"ל אל drapata4@gmail.com. אל תיתן לאף אחד לקחת את בן/בת הזוג שלך ממך.
ReplyDelete