Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Comparing the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter to the Rackman Beis Din's use of Kiddushei Ta'us

Below is an article regarding the Rackman Beis Din which took the principle of kiddushei' taus and applied it to all sorts of things saying "If she only had known about X she would never have married him" and thus declared the marriage a mistake. The important thing to note is that the Rackman beis din made no attempt to lie about the facts. Its major problem was in declaring a wide range of situations to justify invalidating the marriage. The Rackman beis din stretched the concept of kiddushei ta'us until became a sad joke. As Rav Bleich noted that according to the Rackman Beis Din the  mere fact that the husband refused to give a Get proved that he was cruel and since she would have never married such a cruel person - the marriage is invalid.

In contrast the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter is based on a false psychiatric report which not only wrongly claims that Aharon has 2 incurable personality orders but that these personality disorders are severe enough to create a mekach ta'us.  They have succeeded in keeping the halacha of kiddushei ta'us intact but instead corrupted the factual basis to enable any woman to invalidate her marriage with a psychologist's report. Even if the therapist never talked to the husband and even if he wrote the report based entirely on the nasty things an estranged wife mights say about her husband without hearing the other side at all- and even if he simply made up the report out of his own imagination - the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter says the marriage is invalid. It isn't based on a comical interpreation of halacha but on nasty lies.

Which is the greater corruption - to twist the halacha to make it cover a wide range of inappropriate conditions or to the falsely claim the existence of severe mental health problems?

25 comments :

  1. The question asked was, "Which is the greater corruption - to twist the Halacha to make it cover a wide range of inappropriate conditions or to falsely claim the existence of severe mental health problems?" There is a third possibility, the theoretical psychiatric diagnoses themselves are fake, not through corruption nor malicious intent, but because of the bad ideology of psychiatry in general. In addition to this the diagnoses were incompetently applied.

    ReplyDelete
  2. R' Rackman sought to do a great "chesed" for trapped women. He writes in his book that no Rabbi of experience will be spared the pain of having to say "i can't help you" to an agunah. He tried to find ways to be creative in halacha to do this. He did not have family connections with any of the people he tried to free.

    the question is, would RSK have done the same for someone they did not know closely, ie to risk the wrath of his colleagues to try freeing an agunah? Because,this is what Rackman did.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see Gerald's "Susan" is quoted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rackman's "chesed" = ervah in torah, has nothing to do with this case. It was clear from the begininng that the k's were involved because of previous connections, that makes it one more level worse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In addition to the corruption, there is also am ha'aratses. Even when all had been true, she must depart immediately and she didn't, there's no such thing as al TNAY, and that's where yotso srochoi. At best, it whould have called for a Get.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Comparing the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter to the Rackman
    Beis Din's use of Kiddushei Ta'us”

    Common to both the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and the
    Rackman Beis Din's use of Kiddushei Ta'us is that both make Torah and Halacha
    assume responsibility for Tamar’s unhappiness.
    Plainly, Tamar is unhappy. Both
    approaches offer solutions for Tamar’s unhappiness from Torah and halacha.

    Tamar, blessed with good looks, health, husband, beautiful
    healthy baby---is sick mentally, to be unhappy and to seek a divorce from her
    husband who doesn’t want to divorce her as the solution for herself. Torah and
    Halacha have no responsibility for Tamar’s unhappiness. Torah and Halacha have no solution to make
    her happy.

    I quote:

    “For our sons are like saplings, well-tended in their youth;
    our daughters are like cornerstones trimmed to give shape to a palace. Our
    storehouses are full, supplying produce of all kinds; our flocks number
    thousands, even myriads, in our fields; our cattle [אלופינו
    our leaders] are well cared for. There is no breaching and no sortie, and no
    wailing in our streets. Happy the people who have it so; happy the people whose
    God is the Lord” (Psalms 144: 12-15).

    We have an obligation to be happy, to serve God in
    happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read the entire 3 pages. I quote:

    “It is particularly in this decade that it has become
    apparent that physical coercion is both unacceptable and illegal. In Israel, coercion is limited to non-violent
    means and is therefore, limited in its effectiveness. So vindictive are some recalcitrant husbands
    that they have elected to remain incarcerated in Israeli prisons rather than
    free their wives. In the United States,
    violent self-help by rabbinical courts is unlawful and punishable. Several American rabbis are under investigation
    by government prosecutors because of suspected links to violence against
    recalcitrant husbands.”

    You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands
    with the guilty to act as a malicious witness: (Exodus 23:1).



    שמות כ"ג א'

    לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙
    עִם רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס.

    מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי כ"ג א'

    לא תשא שמע שוא שלא
    ידברו סניגורין לפניהן. מנין לדיין שלא ישמע טענת אחד מבעלי דינין עד שלא יבוא חבירו
    ת"ל לא תשא שמע שוא. ומנין שלא יטעון אדם טענת שקר ת"ל לא תשא שמע
    שוא לא תשיא שמע שוא. ומנין שלא יטעים אדם דבריו לדיין תחלה ת"ל לא תשא שמע שוא
    לא תשיא שמע שוא. ומנין אזהרה למספר לשון הרע ולמקבל לשון הרע ת"ל לא תשא לא תשיא.
    ומנין לעד אחד שיודע בחבירו שהוא רשע אל יעיד עמו ת"ל אל תשת ידך עם רשע אל תצטרף
    עמו לעדות.

    Shevu’oth 30b:

    “Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that a judge should not
    appoint an advocate for his words? [Should not endeavor to bolster up his
    decision (though realizing he has made a mistake) by an advocate, i.e., by
    trying to think of further arguments to support it, because he is ashamed to
    change his view. Because it is said: “Keep far from a false charge; do not
    bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit
    the wrongdoer”(Exodus 23:7). And how do we know that a judge should not allow
    an uncultured disciple to sit before him?[ When trying a case, in order to
    discuss the arguments with him, for he may suggest wrong views to him.] Because
    it is said: “Keep far from a false charge.” And how do we know that a judge who
    knows his colleague to be a robber, or a witness who knows his colleague to be
    a robber, should not join with him? [To judge, or to give evidence.] Because it
    is said: “Keep far from a false charge.” And how do we know that a judge who
    knows that a plea is false [Having concluded from the evidence of the witnesses
    that they are not speaking the truth.] should not say, Since the witnesses give
    evidence, I will decide it, [In accordance with their evidence.] and the chain
    [of guilt] will hang round the neck of the witnesses?[ The guilt will be on
    their heads.] Because it is said: “Keep far from a false charge.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. They are equally bad, both are matir eishes ish lashuk, one with outright stupidity, the other with outright lies. The only difference is that rackman's is anyone, anytime, anywhere and is mafkir kedushas Yisrael wholesale and making a mockery of Marriage, it is much preferred that such a woman not engage in marriage to begin with.


    Rackman's pilpul with had she known X then she would have never married him. When a woman comes to Beis Din asking for a Divorce, she must present a reason, no such thing as just for the asking, indeed, asking out of nowhere breaking a marriage, heartbreaking her own children, is cruel in and of itself. If and when she claims he is cruel, she must prove it, and she can't, because he never was/is. You must have a chiyuv Get before ordering to do so, and if he refuses to give just for the asking, she has no claims of being cruel. More so, when doing all this in absentia is like condemning a ham sandwich that wouldn't know what hit him, this was the essence of Epstein Goons, & Goons et al LLC. His refusal is along the lines of Halacha, hence no cruelty, no Chiyuv Get, no nothing.


    RNG's X Ring Piccadilly Circus Heter is not only based on lies and Taus Sofer of am ha'aratses, but even after he acknowledges of being lies, he is unwilling to tell the couple to depart, because he shifts the blame on the messenger. That is unbecoming and irresponsible of a Posek.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is an article about Rabbi Rackman called "From co-operation to conflict", by Lawrence Kaplan, which describes how in his early days at YU, he was Rav Soloveitchik's right hand man, and actually put Soloveitchik on the map in America. As Rackman became more radical, and published his ideas on halacha, the Rav grew more distant from him, and found new backers.

    I think Rackman did everything l'shem shamayim, regardless of whether there is halachic validity to his innovations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If he really did, he would have had siyata dishmaya, uposhim yikoshlu bam.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How many times in the TaNaCh do we read the importance of truth and to stay far, far away from falsehood?

    ReplyDelete
  12. you mean only poshim fail, and tzaddikim always succeed?

    as an aside, the Satmar Rav was trying to explain how the Medinat Yisrael was successful in its activities , eg winning wars, liberating Yerushalayim, kibbutz galuyot etc. He coudlnt so he said it is the domain of S-m-l, that "demon".

    ReplyDelete
  13. At least they try hard, and truly leshem shomayim.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please cite an exact source, directly in the original. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have a letter from Rabbi Rackman, but I am not sure of its authenticity, however, I will paste a copy here, so that the readers can decide:










    "Rabbi Emanuel Rackman Ztl

    Gan Eden , Modern Orthodox Level





    Many years ago, my court for Agunot was innovative and incurred the wrath of both my Hareidi brethren, and even many of my own MO friends. Yet, we freed many trapped women, through purely halachic means, and so
    far, I have not been punished for it in Olam Haba. Myself and Rabbi Morgenstern suffered many attacks, and in R Morgenstern’s case, even physical ones. My response then was the same as it is now. If the rabbis who attack us used their energy instead to find new ways of
    helping chained women, it would be more beneficial, and a Tikkun Olam.



    I predicted then that my methods, though controversial,
    would one day be adopted by mainstream orthodoxy. And I am pleased to learn that this has come true. We have a special Shomoyim edition
    of the Jewish Week, so we read up on what goes on down on earth. My methods have been adopted by the Agudah, by their leading posek, just as Rabbi Feinstein originated these leniencies 2 generations earlier. Of course Rabbi Kamenetzky has also faced opposition from his extremist colleagues.


    It is only the few who will move heaven and earth to solve
    the agunah problem, and it is my prayer that more effort be put into this, rather
    than continued division and causeless hatred."

    ReplyDelete
  16. there are different areas where peopel are tdaddikim, and also poshim. I refer to the Rambam's defintion of a Tsadik, since I donot follow the Tanya's definition.
    So the argument is that you call X a poshea, becasue he "sinned" in area x, and I call Y a poshea becasue he sinned in area y. No names, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No need for outside definitions. The Posuk in and of itself defines who is a Tsadik and who is a Rosho . Tsadikim yelchu *Bam* uposhim yikoshlu *Bam*, in reference to their PSOKIM of TORAH. That is, sofo mochiach al tchiloso. ved"al

    ReplyDelete
  18. "My methods have been adopted by the Agudah, by their leading posek, just as Rabbi Feinstein originated these leniencies 2 generations earlier."

    IIRC R Dovid and Reuven F issued a public declaration at the time denouncing any attempt by rabbis morgenstern and rackman to attribute their heter or its basis to R Moshe F

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not only the Agudah. Even the Rav, zt"l, condemned his efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The road to Hell is paved with intentions that were l'shem shamayim.

    ReplyDelete
  21. See Vajoel moshe 10

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is that in the talmud or new testament?
    ever heard of aveira lishma?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Rav said that the chazakah of tov lemeitav was an ontological truth, and cannot be changed. But this is questionable, and certainly other chazakos of chazal change, eg the one that there are no Jewish fegeles.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.