What a horrible man, we need to go to the rebbe to annul his marriage Who will do it Gavriel Stern takes money, but nota Greenblatts is stupid enuf to do it for free yay
R' Eidensohn, I had respect for your blog until now. I see no acceptable reason why you would post this.
In my opinion, you crossed the line. Please, take it down. It is painful to see and I am sure that you are causing horrible pain to others and I see no Toeles in this. Quote if you must, but this is low.
Hey PQ Where were you when the trashed Aron Froedman? Why didn't you protest when shalom and company ran around with falsified diagnosis of her husband?
PQ, You are so right. It is the sign of a desperate person, who recognizes that he will not be getting his way, to stoop to this kind of sick and exploitative behavior, but watch as he and his supporters will rationalize and justify it as people like him will do.
When you don't show documentation people accuse you of lying. When you show proof, they say "how dare you!".
There may have been reasons to keep it from public view before Tamar had committed adultery. But once sheker was used to distort the Torah bear in mind the words of Navi Zecharia of the remedy, truth: אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ דַּבְּרוּ אֱמֶת אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ אֱמֶת וּמִשְׁפַּט שָׁלוֹם שִׁפְטוּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם
This document is part of the public record - it is no longer a private document. It was submitted to the court as part of the custody trial.
However even if it were a private document it would still be permitted to read since it is crucial for defending against the slander that has been claimed about Aharon Friedman ============================= http://www.torah.org.il/advanced/business-halacha/5757/vol2no17.html Rabbi Tzvi Shpitz, who is an Av Bais Din and Rosh Kollel in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem.
D. There are some situations where it is permitted to examine another's personal letters and documents, and to listen in on private conversations. This is if doing so will help the person who's privacy is being invaded, or others, in a physical or spiritual manner. In such situations, the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom was never instituted, and it is absolutely permitted to do so.
Some examples of this would be if parents or educators have reasonable suspicion that their child or student is involved with peers that are influencing him in a harmful manner, whether physically or spiritually. Similarly, if parents or educators are concerned that a child or student has been involved in wrongdoing, they or an agent of a Bais Din may look at his private letters or listen in on his conversations so that they may deal with the problem effectively (5).
However, if nothing positive could possibly come from this, and the parent or educator is curious to know what the child's opinion of them is, the Cherem would apply and it would be forbidden to do so.
5) The Teshuvos HaRashba (Vol. 1 Siman 557) states that Rabbeinu Gershom did not make his decrees so that people might violate Torah or Rabbinic Halacha because of them. Just the opposite, they were instituted only to insure compliance with our Torah and to insure that Jewish people act in a correct and modest manner. Therefore, if a Bais Din, parents, or educators objectively determine that in a certain situation they can only insure compliance with our Torah by "violating the privacy" of an individual by reading their mail, diary, or listening in on their telephone conversations, there is no doubt that Rabbeinu Gershom would agree that it would be a Mitzva to do so. We actually see this also from the Gemara (Sanhedrin 67a), that states that Bais Din would designate witnesses to eavesdrop on the conversation of a Maisis (a person trying to convince others to transgress the Mitzvos of the Torah) to find out who he is and to punish him
As a mental health professional, I see a basic socialization problem/lack of awareness. Nothing that therapy can't help. For the life of mine, I can't see how anyone in my field would see a chronic and unsolvable problem. (I obviously can't diagnose anything without seeing a client. It's unethical and hard to justify. This would hold true even had the diery been filled with the most damning information.)
My source is the Torah, which dictates not shaming and humiliating people. I know - in this case its not only allowed, but it's your obligation to do so! I wonder why all of the gedolim haven't been out there publicizing this diary ad you have now decided to do if it is so mutar and I'm guessing you'll say even a chiyuv to do. I'm not an "expert" in halacha as you are, and I know that you will ridicule my source, but I also know bad manners disguised as halacha when I see it.
Please read Rabbi Shpitz' analysis. See my recent post dealing with shaming people and tochacha - especially the comment of Rav Elchonon Wasserman.
There is no categorical prohibition of causing humiliation to others - especially in the case of to'eles such as this where Tamar has caused great public shame to Aharon and this is clear evidence that her claims are false.
You realize there is a man out there, who very mental competency is being questioned and nit picked. Oh but that's not embarrassing... Somehow you justify that to be ok
It's easy to twist halacha around to fit in with your goals. I don't need to read your earlier post to see how you interpret halacha to justify your tactics. Again, if what you're doing is so very noble, then why aren't those greater than you doing this same thing?
Shoshana, when the feminist "agunah" activists decry legitimate attempts to disclose the facts about Mr. AF's divorce as "sick and exploitative", it is the height of hypocrisy and double standards .
For years these same feminists have subjected Mr. AF to an extremely vicious campaign of public defamation and denigration in every corner of the secular news media, in addition to subjecting him to harassment, bannings, fake siruvim, and assaults.
Rabbi, I am careful in all my postings to be respectful. I hope that you can do the same. Stridently sating "you are wrong" sounds to me like the words of one is not m'vakesh emes. You can have your opinions, but I hope that you might be willing to see other people's side of things, whether you agree or not. Your erudite reply below shows why it MIGHT be muttar to reveal personal correspondence. It does not, however, explain why you think that posting THIS item helps anyone or your case further and achieves the status of toeles. I do not go for the "forgery" rebuttal from another com-mentor (m'faresh). I have trust in your handling of documents. You have been an honest handler of them. Quoting would be enough to make your point. This is, in my opinion, too much and you have probably caused great anguish to other people. Your case is sound and strong enough. This is sensationalism.
So, the to'eles is to prove Aharon Friedman's mental health condition? From a page in his ex-wife's diary, clearly written in a time of distress and torment from a failing marriage - this is your "crystallizing" evidence? How exactly do you square that with you fierce condemnation of a diagnosis, based on actual conversations with people who know Aharon Friedman personally, as groundless and agenda-driven? What it does crystallize is what this blog has become: a tabloid for the frum world - carefully documenting all the juicy details of a Yid's private life.
shoshana says” It is the sign of a desperate person, who recognizes that he will not be getting his way, to stoop to this kind of sick and exploitative behavior, but watch as he and his supporters will rationalize and justify it as people like him will do.”
Compare to
(internet 2012):
“Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the bullets have been fired."
BTW. the Appellate Division 2nd Department issued me on Friday January 8, 2016 a docket number 2016—281. Yes I made the bracha before my wife Yemima on hearing unusually good news. Wish me luck as I try to recover my house and 55% of pension Susan stole, unrelated to my divorce from Susan.
Tamar Epstein and her family despised the Torah and tore it into shreds to achieve her selfish goal and they took Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky down with them. Granted he may have begun down that path a dozen years at the urging of another liar but the damage Tamar did is as bad as that of Solomon Schechter or Isaac Mayer Wise.
Cherry picking from a general halachic discussion doesn’t a halacha pesuka make. You have decided – with respect to a prohibition, that your Internet source itself explains should be treated with the same severity as a Torah prohibition - that providing private notes in the context of litigation renders such private documents “public”. Your source in section “B” includes legal records – that a person prefers to remain private – in the issur, i.e., that courts treat submissions as part of a record (public or otherwise) or make their own records public doesn’t convert that submission into a public conversation and is not tantamount to throwing that document into the public trash, as in “A” in your source.
Enough said, but needless to say your absolute conclusion – with nary a doubt – that your publicizing this document will help (my emphasis, and your source’s text) spiritually the person (as if you were a Bais Din or her parents, in your source’s examples in “D”) whose privacy is invaded is conclusively inabsolute. I imagine as an ish chochom v’yoshor you have additional raglayim for your legless psak.
Shoshana you are not refuting my sources but simply claiming I am twisting them. Since you admit you don't know halacha - how can you know I am twisting that which you don't know?
I asked a respected posek and he said posting the diary entry was permitted
Bottom line - you insist the Torah must say what you think it should say - but it doesn't!
Regardless if posting this is halakhically justified or not, I agree that the timing of the post is in preparation for whatever letter is to emerge from Sunday's meeting, which the ba'al hablog has already expressed his disappointment with.
That is right. As the Rambam states " v'im lo shvu basaiser, machlimin osun borabim ". Translation: if they haven't repented in private, we humiliate them in public.
The true gedolim spoke out against her more vociferously and bluntly than this exhibit, the "silent gedolim" were silent on the much more serious issues of this episode. They need to be brave, lead and stop remaining silent.
Please stop confusing people with the facts if they have already made up their mind. If you post a document that is too damming and convincing, then it must be prohibited. I need no source, nor do I need to read the actual sources that you have provided. It is all about having my personal feelings supersede everything (i.e. Halacha) and everyone (i.e. AF etc) else.
It's cute how you refer to a nameless "respected posek" as a reliable source, but deny that the Torah is a legitimate source. And why do you refuse to address the question of why greater people than you are not misbehaving in the way that you are if it's so OK to do so.
Secondly, if what was done to this man was wrong, did your mother never teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? In this post I am addressing the seriously wrong and unethical behavior of posting a personal journal in this manner. Isn't it see through to you how it was done by a sore loser, and not because of noble intentions, but because he is acting out as a result of not getting his way in this matter?
I think you are committing the logical fallacy of defining the "true gedolim" based on whether or not that have behaved in this episode to your liking. There are some circles in which the Edah etc. are considered the "true gedolim," but I would venture a guess that if you would have asked the readership of this blog, and certainly the Litvish olam haTorah, about this two months ago, those are not the names that would come to mind.
Because the rabbonim are the dog being wagged by the tail. The Epsteins told the rabbis what they wanted and the rabbis acted accordingly -Pnei Ha'Dor k'Pnei Ha'Kelev
Except for this blog, how do I know 30 poskim said it was wrong. I haven't seen this anywhere but here which makes me wonder what is really the truth. 30?
Great people like Rabbi Feldman, Rav Sternbuch, et al. HAVE spoken up and said the heter is worthless. But you and many others don't seem to hear that. That's why sometimes it must be illustrated for you. I've tried telling people like you about the seruv on a moser for years but nobody noticed.so I put up this illustration which does get noticed (and criticized by people like you)
I'm sure many poskim would readily disagree with the psak you got. How you twisted even what has been said to fit your agenda is despicable and simple common sense clearly differentiates between the scenarios. Only someone so blinded by their own agenda can fail to see the glaring differences. We could start a blog trashing you and calling you and your posek for a distortion of halacha.
And your own Rabbi Shpitz "says" - at least per a translation of something he "said" somewhere else, I assume in Hebrew - that what you did is very not okay.
Of course, the other point being, your respected posek told you what you did was ok - but to ask prior to 'doing' is beneath you and counter to your daas torah blog community guidelines: shoot from the lip, then look for the basket, I mean the posek. Because, after all, you would also call for a press conference and only then figure out what you had to say and bang this blog with (guest posts) comments describing how such an approach is not only not totally nonsensical and under thought out, but also brilliant and strategic- I guess in blogland horses do come before the cart.
Btw, it's kind of dark to resort to kleine kinder spiel talk ('total nonsense', u'deemai) - if you had a posek to back up the repugnance of posting this then say so from the get go. And, if you didn't don't disingenuously (or maybe you really are just an unfortunate toeh bidvar Rabbi Shpitz) resort to an Internet article - that anyone with mediocre critical thinking and analytical skills would understand supports the opposite conclusion.
Tamar never broadcast her husbands diagnosis, you did. Look at your own poll in the top corner, even most of your readers think it is you who is the cess pool of yiddishket. But you are to blind to deal with the reality you created.
Mefaresh already spelled out the main point: "He may not be the most well adjusted socially adept guy, but suffering from a debilitating personality disorder? Absolutely not."
Besides for that, the other takeaway from here is that Tamar's parents didn't get along with AF and vice-versa. My own opinion - this was probably the biggest factor in the marriage falling apart. The first thing on her list that she feels they will never resolve is "in-laws".
For this we annul a kiddushin!!!???
This isn't even reading b/w the lines - it's reading what's plainly written, for all the times this mentions "in-laws", family, in Philly etc.
Never mind me, Yehoshua, there's a time to be analytical like you are being now, then there's a time for common sense, like when the Torah appears to be falling apart, R"L where the Gemara Brochos 19b says that in an instance of Chilul HaShem, that one is not even preoccupied with kovod for the perpetrators, even if they are rabbonim. Again, please forgive me. ..
Speaking about the "silent gedolim"..............truthfully, if they were really gedolim, they wouldn't be silent. Speaking about using sources from the Torah, my source: Gemara Brochos 19b says that in an instance of Chilul HaShem, that one does not careful to even give kovod to a great Rav (if he is the perpetrator,which they may be guilty of, as a plethora of great rabbonim have come out against them), certainly anybody smaller, like TE, we are supposed to come out and protest her Chilul HaShem and not be concerned about personal kovod.
It depends whom you ask.Rav Dovid Eidensohn will most likely disagree, since he himself warned her beforehand. Then you might ask, was she surrounded by advisors or just a very strong support group? Could she have overcome th? Should she have known better? Does she know that she made lies against him? Maybe yes, maybe not, I do contend that perhaps others are more responsible than her....
No need for asking forgiveness. But what you wrote does not detract from the point Shoshana made above. Take your top ten Rabbonim in the American yeshiva world, and none of them have engaged in the types of accusations and tactics found on this blog. You say that is proof that they are not "true" gedolim. Perhaps other have more humility, and are not trying to fashion the gedolim in their own image.
The Epstein family has had a close connection for decades with one of the gedolei hador, who has been advising her. I don't see why anyone in that position would give a hoot about what R' Dovid Eidensohn has to say.
DE, It's a close call whether anonymous bloggers hiding behind monikers or your spam scepter contribute more to the quantity of written toxicity in the blogosphere. You complain about Shoshana, knock her around e.g. challenge my sources/analyze halacha, va'yovo hayom where you need to pick on someone your own size or bigger, and it turns out your source and analysis are a pathetic joke that would be laughed out of any legitimate bais medrash. But out comes your scepter and once again you can feel like the tallest man in the room. One thing for sure (even you would concede that no "evidence" required): in your apartment you are daas torah.
If someone said publicly that you were crazy, and you had a document written by them which indicated you weren't, would you publicize it to clear your reputation?
The more so he should have recused himself. Tchiloso vesofo beISSUR. After the Giants hayoshvim al haMODIN reprimanded them, they are still holding on their own. Atsas Achisofel, look at her now. is this what you call doing better?
I certainly won't pasken from my device. In the meantime, she is an accomplice to them and his a nirdof and also, this does clear him considerably, although Bechhofer wants to say that he forbids the posting and for anyone to read i even though he said he wanted to see it for proof for assertions on behalf of Aharon Friedman. ....
Lololllllllll. ...........just inadvertently pressed some buttons. ...trying to delete this didn't help.......I hope the other stuff I wrote is more appreciated ;-D
Hmm, I guess I would, but this "document" doesn't prove a single thing, as much as you'd like to say it does, and therefore the sole purpose of posting it is to humiliate TE - this is just pretend frumkeit.
This entry help crystallize nothing. It is one entry of who knows how many others, and written by someone who was likely very distraught at the time. when people are in the midst of trauma, they cannot always articulate their every feeling and thought. Your statement of this crystallizing the issues is wishful thinking.
Another thing I was taken by when I first saw this is how often she couches her issues with AF through the prism of other people.
She seems to be very concerned with what others think and feel. Which is not necessarily bad as it shows a sensitivity for other people. But it is also very dangerous because others opinions can very much influence affect your feelings about your spouse. Something that is very unhealthy for shalom bayis.
I think that ties in very well to your observation regarding her parents. If they didn't like him and she is the people pleasing type. That means bad news for the marriage.
Tzvi “A respected posek told Tamar what she did is ok.”
Is that you, Tsvi, my dear son? Tamar is in big trouble. It’s little help to her that a respected posek told Tamar what she did is ok. It’s also little help to Mendel Epstein et al that respected rabbis supported them. Mendel Epstein et al are responsible for their own actions. ORA fooled and mislead them. So what a respected posek told Tamar what she did is ok? Tamar is responsible for her actions. Who coached and advised Tamar in her stupidity? It was ORA who fooled and misled her.
1) Many think that the Chilul HaShem is obvious and 2) that couples even more with an unfortunate fact that rabbonim (especially nowadays,) are afraid to give Mussar. They don't like to confront anybody and the more powerful the person, the more they are afraid to confront. ....think about it, what happened now with this heter was so akin to what the Nosi of Shevet Shimon, Zimri ben Solu, who took a Midianite woman and was mezaneh with her in public. Here, z'nus was sanctioned in public, under a chuppah. Oh, of course you may tell me that 'they hold not, but nonetheless, some facts are undeniable. (Don't forget, Zimri also told Moshe to his face that what he was doing was okay.) The cat is out of the bag that the heter was flimsy on the 1) facts and on 2) the halachic viewpoint EVEN IF THE FACTS WERE TRUE. And although people were rodef* Pinchas that he killed a nosi, HaKodosh Boruch Hu said, "Hineni nosen lo es brisi sholom!
Completely insignificant. You clearly have no understanding of how diagnosis of mental illness works. One isn't diagnosed with OCPD based on a symptom of stinginess, which is NOT one of the criteria used to diagnose OCPD. There are several criteria that inform diagnosis of OCPD, and only 4 of them are necessary for a diagnosis. This journal entry reveals absolutely nothing in regard to whether or not AF has OCPD or any other form of mental illness.Again, posting it is just a low and shameful move.
How about this: If someone said publicly that you were crazy, and you had a document written by them which your friends and supporters thought proved you weren't, would you publicize it to clear your reputation in their eyes?
You clearly have no understanding of how diagnosis of mental illness works.
Really? Please explain these following mechanics about how "mental illness" works.
A. Is it possible for a true diagnoses to be done without having met the person being diagnosed?
B. Is having four of the DSM's "criteria" for OCPD considered a conclusive fact that the person does indeed have OCPD? Please answer in yes or no before you run into any commentary and excuses...
Are you stating that she was married to retard - of whom she did not want to be married to - yet she wrote this diary entry. If so, I must conclude that your comment it is just a low and shameful move.
So I guess you didn't even dp the simple due diligence to check the symptoms. Yeah that tells me more about your inabilities that my lack of knowledge.
Did I say the diagnosis revolves around stinginess. No I did not. But the fact that he isn't is a very important detail, among other details. That lends credence that perhaps other symptoms as well are not present.
All I was trying to point out is that this diary serves toeles to lend credence that the diagnosis was cooked up.
But being that you made up your own halachos to unilaterally pasken thay this is assur, I'm not surprised you would do the same about diagnosis. Lack of integrity.
But feel good. Sit on your mighty high horse while you look down upon us, while we try to clear the name of a man who your ilk have smeared and lambasted. Fight for women's rights. While we fight for כבוד הבריות. For all people's rights, including a mans.
He didn't deny the Torah is a legitimate source. He denied your figurative pointing at a large pile of documents and claiming that it supports you. You clearly never read them, and can't point out in detail why it is an issue. Lacking any intelligent nuance.
What you call "twisting" we call nuanced detail.
I understand, the early chritians and tzedukim were also bothered by the Pharasaic teachings. Felt like they skirting around the law.
Not the best company to keep.
But then again you have already implied that you are able to divine other people's motives without proof. Maybe you have divined the intention of the Torah on this one too. Thu no need for proofs.
shoshana - you keep repeating that you are right and everyone else is wrong because you just know you are right. You haven't presented any sources - accept to say you know the Torah agrees with you.
In short your comments are not adding anything to the discussion. Your uneducated personal opinion is of no interest to the rest of us.
Signs of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder include:
Excessive preoccupation with details, lists, orderliness, rules, procedures, or schedules Perfectionism so stringent that it interferes with task completion Excessive devotion to work so that it interferes with social and personal activities Unwillingness to delegate tasks to others for fear others will not perform up to his or her rigid standards Extreme frugality or miserliness Strict adherence to moral and ethical code, rules and regulations Overwhelming need for order and environmental control Excessive attention to detail Excessive preoccupation with punctuality Hoarding useless, worthless items with no sentimental value
GhSigns of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder include:
Excessive preoccupation with details, lists, orderliness, rules, procedures, or schedules Perfectionism so stringent that it interferes with task completion Excessive devotion to work so that it interferes with social and personal activities Unwillingness to delegate tasks to others for fear others will not perform up to his or her rigid standards Extreme frugality or miserliness Strict adherence to moral and ethical code, rules and regulations Overwhelming need for order and environmental control Excessive attention to detail Excessive preoccupation with punctuality Hoarding useless, worthless items with no sentimental value
Let's ratchet down all the emotions...you've got a bunch of people yelling at you on this thread.
I see where you're coming from...this thing is ugly, and is getting uglier with each passing day. If people can't acknowledge that fact, then there's no point in having the discussion.
However, you strike a nerve with some here because certain organizations, women, and others decided that airing everything out in public is the best way to try and bring these cases to resolution. I think this decision was made initially on behalf of the women...AF is but one example, the Yoel Weiss circus is another. It seems that when the right set of variables are met ($$, PR value, sympathetic 'victim', etc), certain principals would throw a couple's problems into the media court, hoping to force a get that way.
Certain rabbis also bought into the approach. On this very blog, you have R Bechoffer stating that the media circus falls within the HdRT.
Well, I think we now see that both sides can play that game. Some people, and this blog is run by one, are trying to even the field, since every single divorce is unique, and complex, and sometimes very ugly. Women can also play unfair...and some have done it in the ugliest of ways.
We now see that going public is NOT the way to go. We need people to come up with a better solution to resolve these issues. Maybe if everyone on the sidelines shunned BOTH man and woman who engage in ugly, protracted battles, maybe both parties would have significantly more skin in the game to finally come to terms and move on. Maybe if TE was as much if pariah as her husband was made to be, maybe both would have long ago settled.
Although I don't agree with your premise that by definition both parties here behaved in ugly ways, I appreciate your level headed approach to this which is so different than that of DE and his supporters.
While his campaign to malign and destroy TE's life was horrible enough, his stooping to publicize her personal diary entry was so shameful that I was compelled to comment for the first time on this blog.
He wants to discredit me for being "uneducated", stating that no one wants to hear from me. But he refuses to answer the question that I've posed repeatedly - if posting the diary entry was so noble and important, why have greater people than him not thought of it first, and why haven't they taken on this campaign as rigorously as he has?
I am used to zealots like him and his supporters, who portray themselves as the frummest people on Earth, and go about acting in the most unfrum of ways; these are the same kinds of people who spit and throw rocks at others who they deem not as frum as they should be.
According to the DSM V, "extreme frugality or miserliness" as you state is NOT one of the criteria.
Included in the 8 criteria is "Adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes"
With that said, the DSM V also states that 4 criteria of 8 need to be indicated for an OCPD diagnosis and therefore it is irrelevant if this diary entry proves that AF is the most generous person on the planet, and LOVES spending money. If he theoretically has 4 of the other 7 criteria, he is eligible for this diagnosis.
I am not saying whether he has OCPD or not My only point is that this diary entry was publicized under the false pretense that it proves something, when really the only motive in publicizing it was to humiliate TE as part of temper tantrum because DE was not getting his way in this matter.
While you may be right regarding the requisite symptoms needed to come to a diagnosis.
However, Rav Ahron Feldman in his teshuva protesting this heter quotes directly from the doctors report that Rav Shmuel Kamineztky provided as proof for the heter. And in the report is explicitly points out his "stinginess ".
stinginess in this case was used to diagnose.
I and other mental health professionals who have seen this diary, while careful not to conclude concretely;as that would be highly unprofessional, have clearly pointed out that it lends very strong credence to the illegitimacy of the diagnosis.
As has been repeated stated - lashon harah is permitted if there is a clear to'eles and similarly the prohibition of invading privacy doesn't apply in cases like this where there is a clear to'eles of refuting the slander that Tamar has spread about Aharon.
My rebbe in Shor Yoshuv once told me that he heard from Rav Hutner that when Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan entered Slobodka he had problematic hashkofas. The Alter of Slobodka told his room mate to read his personal diary and to report to him what he had written in it so that he would know where he was holding.
That's a lot of he said she said in that story.... I guess I didn't realize one can difuse motzei shaim rah with lashon harah..... Is there a sourse I can confirm that in?
you want to know whether one is allowed to tell the truth and relate the facts in a matter concerning a major violation of Torah?! I would suggest you speak to your husband and/or your Rav for clarification
If David hamelech had not sinned with Batsheva /or her husband, would he have become melech hamoshiach? ( Nathan had earlier prophesied that Israel would no longer be exiled, and that his throne would be everlasting).
What a horrible man, we need to go to the rebbe to annul his marriage
ReplyDeleteWho will do it Gavriel Stern takes money, but nota Greenblatts is stupid enuf to do it for free yay
R' Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteI had respect for your blog until now.
I see no acceptable reason why you would post this.
In my opinion, you crossed the line. Please, take it down. It is painful to see and I am sure that you are causing horrible pain to others and I see no Toeles in this. Quote if you must, but this is low.
Aderaba.
ReplyDeletePeople need to see documents first hand.
Enough claims of forgery.
People need to see what was bothering her בשעת מעשה.
PQ you are wrong - there is great to'eles in posting this.
ReplyDeleteHey PQ Where were you when the trashed Aron Froedman? Why didn't you protest when shalom and company ran around with falsified diagnosis of her husband?
ReplyDeletePQ,
ReplyDeleteYou are so right. It is the sign of a desperate person, who recognizes that he will not be getting his way, to stoop to this kind of sick and exploitative behavior, but watch as he and his supporters will rationalize and justify it as people like him will do.
When you don't show documentation people accuse you of lying. When you show proof, they say "how dare you!".
ReplyDeleteThere may have been reasons to keep it from public view before Tamar had committed adultery. But once sheker was used to distort the Torah bear in mind the words of Navi Zecharia of the remedy, truth: אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ דַּבְּרוּ אֱמֶת אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ אֱמֶת וּמִשְׁפַּט שָׁלוֹם שִׁפְטוּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם
This document is part of the public record - it is no longer a private document. It was submitted to the court as part of the custody trial.
ReplyDeleteHowever even if it were a private document it would still be permitted to read since it is crucial for defending against the slander that has been claimed about Aharon Friedman
=============================
http://www.torah.org.il/advanced/business-halacha/5757/vol2no17.html Rabbi Tzvi Shpitz, who is an Av Bais Din and Rosh Kollel in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem.
D. There are some situations where it is permitted to examine another's personal letters and documents, and to listen in on private conversations. This is if doing so will help the person who's privacy is being invaded, or others, in a physical or spiritual manner. In such situations, the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom was never instituted, and it is absolutely permitted to do so.
Some examples of this would be if parents or educators have reasonable suspicion that their child or student is involved with peers that are influencing him in a harmful manner, whether physically or spiritually. Similarly, if parents or educators are concerned that a child or student has been involved in wrongdoing, they or an agent of a Bais Din may look at his private letters or listen in on his conversations so that they may deal with the problem effectively (5).
However, if nothing positive could possibly come from this, and the parent or educator is curious to know what the child's opinion of them is, the Cherem would apply and it would be forbidden to do so.
5) The Teshuvos HaRashba (Vol. 1 Siman 557) states that Rabbeinu Gershom did not make his decrees so that people might violate Torah or Rabbinic Halacha because of them. Just the opposite, they were instituted only to insure compliance with our Torah and to insure that Jewish people act in a correct and modest manner. Therefore, if a Bais Din, parents, or educators objectively determine that in a certain situation they can only insure compliance with our Torah by "violating the privacy" of an individual by reading their mail, diary, or listening in on their telephone conversations, there is no doubt that Rabbeinu Gershom would agree that it would be a Mitzva to do so. We actually see this also from the Gemara (Sanhedrin 67a), that states that Bais Din would designate witnesses to eavesdrop on the conversation of a Maisis (a person trying to convince others to transgress the Mitzvos of the Torah) to find out who he is and to punish him
Shoshana - you are making up your own halacha
ReplyDeleteAnd you're rationalizing in the name of "halacha",
ReplyDeleteAs a mental health professional, I see a basic socialization problem/lack of awareness. Nothing that therapy can't help. For the life of mine, I can't see how anyone in my field would see a chronic and unsolvable problem.
ReplyDelete(I obviously can't diagnose anything without seeing a client. It's unethical and hard to justify. This would hold true even had the diery been filled with the most damning information.)
Before you jump to accusations. Read the post written in TEs own handwriting. Ask yourself is this description of a clinically mentally ill person?
ReplyDeleteDoes he sound paranoid? Stingy? Violent?
From my estimation. He sounds like a cold rigid person who is not tactful socially
Hardly OCPD and suffering from Paranoia.
Definitely not משוגנע במובן המילה.
please tell me your sources for your "psak"
ReplyDeleteThe need for this to be posted is because it so crystallizes for us what has been perpetrated against AF.
ReplyDeleteHe may not be the most well adjusted socially adept guy, but suffering from a debilitating personality disorder? Absolutely not.
My source is the Torah, which dictates not shaming and humiliating people. I know - in this case its not only allowed, but it's your obligation to do so!
ReplyDeleteI wonder why all of the gedolim haven't been out there publicizing this diary ad you have now decided to do if it is so mutar and I'm guessing you'll say even a chiyuv to do.
I'm not an "expert" in halacha as you are, and I know that you will ridicule my source, but I also know bad manners disguised as halacha when I see it.
The need for actual professional opinions like this is in dire need. +1
ReplyDeletePlease read Rabbi Shpitz' analysis. See my recent post dealing with shaming people and tochacha - especially the comment of Rav Elchonon Wasserman.
ReplyDeleteThere is no categorical prohibition of causing humiliation to others - especially in the case of to'eles such as this where Tamar has caused great public shame to Aharon and this is clear evidence that her claims are false.
You realize there is a man out there, who very mental competency is being questioned and nit picked. Oh but that's not embarrassing... Somehow you justify that to be ok
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to twist halacha around to fit in with your goals. I don't need to read your earlier post to see how you interpret halacha to justify your tactics. Again, if what you're doing is so very noble, then why aren't those greater than you doing this same thing?
ReplyDeleteShoshana, when the feminist "agunah" activists decry legitimate attempts to disclose the facts about Mr. AF's divorce as "sick and exploitative", it is the height of hypocrisy and double standards .
ReplyDeleteFor years these same feminists have subjected Mr. AF to an extremely vicious campaign of public defamation and denigration in every corner of the secular news media, in addition to subjecting him to harassment, bannings, fake siruvim, and assaults.
Rabbi,
ReplyDeleteI am careful in all my postings to be respectful. I hope that you can do the same.
Stridently sating "you are wrong" sounds to me like the words of one is not m'vakesh emes. You can have your opinions, but I hope that you might be willing to see other people's side of things, whether you agree or not.
Your erudite reply below shows why it MIGHT be muttar to reveal personal correspondence. It does not, however, explain why you think that posting THIS item helps anyone or your case further and achieves the status of toeles.
I do not go for the "forgery" rebuttal from another com-mentor (m'faresh). I have trust in your handling of documents. You have been an honest handler of them. Quoting would be enough to make your point. This is, in my opinion, too much and you have probably caused great anguish to other people.
Your case is sound and strong enough. This is sensationalism.
So, the to'eles is to prove Aharon Friedman's mental health condition? From a page in his ex-wife's diary, clearly written in a time of distress and torment from a failing marriage - this is your "crystallizing" evidence? How exactly do you square that with you fierce condemnation of a diagnosis, based on actual conversations with people who know Aharon Friedman personally, as groundless and agenda-driven? What it does crystallize is what this blog has become: a tabloid for the frum world - carefully documenting all the juicy details of a Yid's private life.
ReplyDeleteshoshana says” It is the sign of a desperate
ReplyDeleteperson, who recognizes that he will not be getting his way, to stoop to this
kind of sick and exploitative behavior, but watch as he and his supporters will
rationalize and justify it as people like him will do.”
Compare to
(internet 2012):
“Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon
Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring
Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have
protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a
website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official
congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah
International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media
has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the
bullets have been fired."
BTW. the Appellate
Division 2nd Department issued me on Friday January 8, 2016 a docket
number 2016—281. Yes I made the bracha before
my wife Yemima on hearing unusually good news.
Wish me luck as I try to recover my house and 55% of pension Susan
stole, unrelated to my divorce from Susan.
Tamar Epstein and her family despised the Torah and tore it into shreds to achieve her selfish goal and they took Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky down with them. Granted he may have begun down that path a dozen years at the urging of another liar but the damage Tamar did is as bad as that of Solomon Schechter or Isaac Mayer Wise.
ReplyDeleteGood point.
ReplyDeleteI am Curious - why is this the only determining piece of evidence? Maybe there is much more that you don't know about.
Cherry picking from a general halachic discussion doesn’t a halacha
ReplyDeletepesuka make. You have decided – with respect to a prohibition, that your
Internet source itself explains should be treated with the same severity as a
Torah prohibition - that providing private notes in the context of litigation
renders such private documents “public”. Your source in section “B” includes legal records – that a person prefers to remain private – in the issur, i.e., that courts treat submissions as part of a record (public or otherwise) or make their own records public doesn’t convert that submission into a public
conversation and is not tantamount to throwing that document into the public
trash, as in “A” in your source.
Enough said, but needless to say your absolute conclusion –
with nary a doubt – that your publicizing this document will help (my
emphasis, and your source’s text) spiritually the person (as if you were a Bais Din or her parents, in your source’s examples in “D”) whose privacy is invaded is conclusively inabsolute. I imagine as an ish chochom v’yoshor you have additional raglayim for your legless psak.
Your comment is total nonsense - A respected posek told me what I did is ok
ReplyDeleteShoshana you are not refuting my sources but simply claiming I am twisting them.
ReplyDeleteSince you admit you don't know halacha - how can you know I am twisting that which you don't know?
I asked a respected posek and he said posting the diary entry was permitted
Bottom line - you insist the Torah must say what you think it should say - but it doesn't!
Regardless if posting this is halakhically justified or not, I agree that the timing of the post is in preparation for whatever letter is to emerge from Sunday's meeting, which the ba'al hablog has already expressed his disappointment with.
ReplyDeletePerhaps.
ReplyDeleteBut give credence to the own thoughts and concerns of TE.
I agree as well that RE can be trusted regarding documents.
ReplyDeleteBut the issue is that due to th exposure of this case it has become a he said she said.
Now it's just a she said.
That is right. As the Rambam states " v'im lo shvu basaiser, machlimin osun borabim ". Translation: if they haven't repented in private, we humiliate them in public.
ReplyDeleteThe true gedolim spoke out against her more vociferously and bluntly than this exhibit, the "silent gedolim" were silent on the much more serious issues of this episode. They need to be brave, lead and stop remaining silent.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeletePlease stop confusing people with the facts if they have already made up their mind. If you post a document that is too damming and convincing, then it must be prohibited. I need no source, nor do I need to read the actual sources that you have provided. It is all about having my personal feelings supersede everything (i.e. Halacha) and everyone (i.e. AF etc) else.
PQ, speaking of respect, others respectfully think that this should be public........Especially when she and her supporters went public....
ReplyDeleteIt's cute how you refer to a nameless "respected posek" as a reliable source, but deny that the Torah is a legitimate source. And why do you refuse to address the question of why greater people than you are not misbehaving in the way that you are if it's so OK to do so.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I never justified anything.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if what was done to this man was wrong, did your mother never teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? In this post I am addressing the seriously wrong and unethical behavior of posting a personal journal in this manner. Isn't it see through to you how it was done by a sore loser, and not because of noble intentions, but because he is acting out as a result of not getting his way in this matter?
I think you are committing the logical fallacy of defining the "true gedolim" based on whether or not that have behaved in this episode to your liking. There are some circles in which the Edah etc. are considered the "true gedolim," but I would venture a guess that if you would have asked the readership of this blog, and certainly the Litvish olam haTorah, about this two months ago, those are not the names that would come to mind.
ReplyDeleteI fail to understand why your criticism is directed at Tamar and her family, and not at the rabbonim advising her to act in the way that she did.
ReplyDeleteA respected posek told Tamar what she did is ok.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is your raglayim ledovor to be mecane shem?
ReplyDeleteNo...
ReplyDeleteBecause I don't claim have be able to discern people's motives and sincerity
Seemingly you do... And G-d who is בוחן כליות
Good company to have. But I highly doubt you have such powers.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point. The point is that you willfully ignore the injustice done to the man.
This entry is important as it can help crystallize for us what are the issues she had with him.
Try to come to a fair minded conclusion.
But the "sinner" here is the rabbi advising her that she is married to the second guy, not the woman in question.
ReplyDeleteAnd about 30 other poskim said it was wrong. Point being?
ReplyDeleteIf you think what RDE did was wrong. Bring proof.
I completely respect your yashrus regarding your hesitancy to proclaim a diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to note that.
People like you can be a balancing force on this site for reason.
You have that backwards. Tamar TOLD a (previously) respected posek what she wanted him to say was ok.
ReplyDeleteBecause the rabbonim are the dog being wagged by the tail. The Epsteins told the rabbis what they wanted and the rabbis acted accordingly -Pnei Ha'Dor k'Pnei Ha'Kelev
ReplyDeleteExcept for this blog, how do I know 30 poskim said it was wrong. I haven't seen this anywhere but here which makes me wonder what is really the truth. 30?
ReplyDeleteGreat people like Rabbi Feldman, Rav Sternbuch, et al. HAVE spoken up and said the heter is worthless. But you and many others don't seem to hear that. That's why sometimes it must be illustrated for you. I've tried telling people like you about the seruv on a moser for years but nobody noticed.so I put up this illustration which does get noticed (and criticized by people like you)
ReplyDeleteWith Hatzlocho!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure many poskim would readily disagree with the psak you got. How you twisted even what has been said to fit your agenda is despicable and simple common sense clearly differentiates between the scenarios. Only someone so blinded by their own agenda can fail to see the glaring differences. We could start a blog trashing you and calling you and your posek for a distortion of halacha.
ReplyDeleteAnd your own Rabbi Shpitz "says" - at least per a translation of something he "said" somewhere else, I assume in Hebrew - that what you did is very not okay.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the other point being, your respected posek told you what you did was ok - but to ask prior to 'doing' is beneath you and counter to your daas torah blog community guidelines: shoot from the lip, then look for the basket, I mean the posek. Because, after all, you would also call for a press conference and only then figure out what you had to say and bang this blog with (guest posts) comments describing how such an approach is not only not totally nonsensical and under thought out, but also brilliant and strategic- I guess in blogland horses do come before the cart.
Btw, it's kind of dark to resort to kleine kinder spiel talk ('total nonsense', u'deemai) - if you had a posek to back up the repugnance of posting this then say so from the get go. And, if you didn't don't disingenuously (or maybe you really are just an unfortunate toeh bidvar Rabbi Shpitz) resort to an Internet article - that anyone with mediocre critical thinking and analytical skills would understand supports the opposite conclusion.
Tamar never broadcast her husbands diagnosis, you did. Look at your own poll in the top corner, even most of your readers think it is you who is the cess pool of yiddishket. But you are to blind to deal with the reality you created.
ReplyDeleteNot see thepu
ReplyDeleteMefaresh already spelled out the main point: "He may not be the most well adjusted socially adept guy, but suffering from a debilitating personality disorder? Absolutely not."
ReplyDeleteBesides for that, the other takeaway from here is that Tamar's parents didn't get along with AF and vice-versa. My own opinion - this was probably the biggest factor in the marriage falling apart. The first thing on her list that she feels they will never resolve is "in-laws".
For this we annul a kiddushin!!!???
This isn't even reading b/w the lines - it's reading what's plainly written, for all the times this mentions "in-laws", family, in Philly etc.
Never mind me, Yehoshua, there's a time to be analytical like you are being now, then there's a time for common sense, like when the Torah appears to be falling apart, R"L where the Gemara Brochos 19b says that in an instance of Chilul HaShem, that one is not even preoccupied with kovod for the perpetrators, even if they are rabbonim. Again, please forgive me. ..
ReplyDeleteWasn't following it, but I would have said the same thing.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about the "silent gedolim"..............truthfully, if they were really gedolim, they wouldn't be silent. Speaking about using sources from the Torah, my source: Gemara Brochos 19b says that in an instance of Chilul HaShem, that one does not careful to even give kovod to a great Rav (if he is the perpetrator,which they may be guilty of, as a plethora of great rabbonim have come out against them), certainly anybody smaller, like TE, we are supposed to come out and protest her Chilul HaShem and not be concerned about personal kovod.
ReplyDeleteTo me this appears to be notes that she is writing while speaking with a therapist...Not a diary...
ReplyDeleteגוזמה
ReplyDeleteIt depends whom you ask.Rav Dovid Eidensohn will most likely disagree, since he himself warned her beforehand. Then you might ask, was she surrounded by advisors or just a very strong support group? Could she have overcome th? Should she have known better? Does she know that she made lies against him? Maybe yes, maybe not, I do contend that perhaps others are more responsible than her....
ReplyDeleteWhy, are the letters forged?
ReplyDelete......who then lost his respect by a wide consensus of rabbis across the spectrum. ......
ReplyDeleteNo need for asking forgiveness. But what you wrote does not detract from the point Shoshana made above. Take your top ten Rabbonim in the American yeshiva world, and none of them have engaged in the types of accusations and tactics found on this blog. You say that is proof that they are not "true" gedolim. Perhaps other have more humility, and are not trying to fashion the gedolim in their own image.
ReplyDeleteThe Epstein family has had a close connection for decades with one of the gedolei hador, who has been advising her. I don't see why anyone in that position would give a hoot about what R' Dovid Eidensohn has to say.
ReplyDeleteDE, It's a close call whether anonymous bloggers hiding behind monikers or your spam scepter contribute more to the quantity of written toxicity in the blogosphere. You complain about Shoshana, knock her around e.g. challenge my sources/analyze halacha, va'yovo hayom where you need to pick on someone your own size or bigger, and it turns out your source and analysis are a pathetic joke that would be laughed out of any legitimate bais medrash. But out comes your scepter and once again you can feel like the tallest man in the room. One thing for sure (even you would concede that no "evidence" required): in your apartment you are daas torah.
ReplyDeleteWithout NASA how can I know there is a moon and the world is round.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have saidnit better
ReplyDeleteAlthough I thought maybe in laws referred to his parents.
Given what's on the rest of the paper, I think it's pretty clear what "inlaws, what is respectful" means.
ReplyDeleteIf someone said publicly that you were crazy, and you had a document written by them which indicated you weren't, would you publicize it to clear your reputation?
ReplyDeleteThe more so he should have recused himself. Tchiloso vesofo beISSUR. After the Giants hayoshvim al haMODIN reprimanded them, they are still holding on their own. Atsas Achisofel, look at her now. is this what you call doing better?
ReplyDeleteAnd whatever that might be, this latest response from R' Shmuel Auerbach would torpedo that.
ReplyDeleteI certainly won't pasken from my device. In the meantime, she is an accomplice to them and his a nirdof and also, this does clear him considerably, although Bechhofer wants to say that he forbids the posting and for anyone to read i even though he said he wanted to see it for proof for assertions on behalf of Aharon Friedman. ....
ReplyDelete? Not sure what you're are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteLololllllllll. ...........just inadvertently pressed some buttons. ...trying to delete this didn't help.......I hope the other stuff I wrote is more appreciated ;-D
ReplyDeletePlease learn basic writing skills.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I guess I would, but this "document" doesn't prove a single thing, as much as you'd like to say it does, and therefore the sole purpose of posting it is to humiliate TE - this is just pretend frumkeit.
ReplyDeleteThis entry help crystallize nothing. It is one entry of who knows how many others, and written by someone who was likely very distraught at the time. when people are in the midst of trauma, they cannot always articulate their every feeling and thought. Your statement of this crystallizing the issues is wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteNot correct
ReplyDeleteGoogle OCPD. A symptom is stinginess
She explicitly writes he's generous with money.
That's not open to interpretation.
Do you think something like that is insignificant?
Another thing I was taken by when I first saw this is how often she couches her issues with AF through the prism of other people.
ReplyDeleteShe seems to be very concerned with what others think and feel. Which is not necessarily bad as it shows a sensitivity for other people. But it is also very dangerous because others opinions can very much influence affect your feelings about your spouse. Something that is very unhealthy for shalom bayis.
I think that ties in very well to your observation regarding her parents. If they didn't like him and she is the people pleasing type. That means bad news for the marriage.
Tzvi “A respected posek told Tamar what she
ReplyDeletedid is ok.”
Is that you, Tsvi, my
dear son? Tamar is in big trouble. It’s little help to her that a respected
posek told Tamar what she did is ok. It’s
also little help to Mendel Epstein et al that respected rabbis supported
them. Mendel Epstein et al are responsible
for their own actions. ORA fooled and mislead them. So what a respected posek
told Tamar what she did is ok? Tamar is responsible for her actions. Who coached and advised Tamar in her
stupidity? It was ORA who fooled and
misled her.
1) Many think that the Chilul HaShem is obvious and 2) that couples even more with an unfortunate fact that rabbonim (especially nowadays,) are afraid to give Mussar. They don't like to confront anybody and the more powerful the person, the more they are afraid to confront. ....think about it, what happened now with this heter was so akin to what the Nosi of Shevet Shimon, Zimri ben Solu, who took a Midianite woman and was mezaneh with her in public. Here, z'nus was sanctioned in public, under a chuppah. Oh, of course you may tell me that 'they hold not, but nonetheless, some facts are undeniable. (Don't forget, Zimri also told Moshe to his face that what he was doing was okay.) The cat is out of the bag that the heter was flimsy on the 1) facts and on 2) the halachic viewpoint EVEN IF THE FACTS WERE TRUE. And although people were rodef* Pinchas that he killed a nosi, HaKodosh Boruch Hu said, "Hineni nosen lo es brisi sholom!
ReplyDeleteCompletely insignificant. You clearly have no understanding of how diagnosis of mental illness works. One isn't diagnosed with OCPD based on a symptom of stinginess, which is NOT one of the criteria used to diagnose OCPD. There are several criteria that inform diagnosis of OCPD, and only 4 of them are necessary for a diagnosis. This journal entry reveals absolutely nothing in regard to whether or not AF has OCPD or any other form of mental illness.Again, posting it is just a low and shameful move.
ReplyDeleteHow about this: If someone said publicly that you were crazy, and you had a document written by them which your friends and supporters thought proved you weren't, would you publicize it to clear your reputation in their eyes?
ReplyDeleteposting it is just a low and shameful move.
ReplyDeleteWhy, does the truth hurt?
You clearly have no understanding of how diagnosis of mental illness works.
Really? Please explain these following mechanics about how "mental illness" works.
A. Is it possible for a true diagnoses to be done without having met the person being diagnosed?
B. Is having four of the DSM's "criteria" for OCPD considered a conclusive fact that the person does indeed have OCPD? Please answer in yes or no before you run into any commentary and excuses...
Are you stating that she was married to retard - of whom she did not want to be married to - yet she wrote this diary entry. If so, I must conclude that your comment it is just a low and shameful move.
So I guess you didn't even dp the simple due diligence to check the symptoms. Yeah that tells me more about your inabilities that my lack of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDid I say the diagnosis revolves around stinginess. No I did not. But the fact that he isn't is a very important detail, among other details. That lends credence that perhaps other symptoms as well are not present.
All I was trying to point out is that this diary serves toeles to lend credence that the diagnosis was cooked up.
But being that you made up your own halachos to unilaterally pasken thay this is assur, I'm not surprised you would do the same about diagnosis. Lack of integrity.
But feel good. Sit on your mighty high horse while you look down upon us, while we try to clear the name of a man who your ilk have smeared and lambasted. Fight for women's rights. While we fight for כבוד הבריות. For all people's rights, including a mans.
He didn't deny the Torah is a legitimate source. He denied your figurative pointing at a large pile of documents and claiming that it supports you. You clearly never read them, and can't point out in detail why it is an issue. Lacking any intelligent nuance.
ReplyDeleteWhat you call "twisting" we call nuanced detail.
I understand, the early chritians and tzedukim were also bothered by the Pharasaic teachings. Felt like they skirting around the law.
Not the best company to keep.
But then again you have already implied that you are able to divine other people's motives without proof. Maybe you have divined the intention of the Torah on this one too. Thu no need for proofs.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/are-you-sensibly-frugal-mentally-ill/
ReplyDeleteHonestly just a simple google search.
You're fighting for Kavod Habriyos? That's a joke.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what you're fighting against.
Your post is quite incoherent - The truth doesn't hurt. what hurts is horrible behavior in the name of frumketi and zealousness.
ReplyDeleteshoshana - you keep repeating that you are right and everyone else is wrong because you just know you are right. You haven't presented any sources - accept to say you know the Torah agrees with you.
ReplyDeleteIn short your comments are not adding anything to the discussion. Your uneducated personal opinion is of no interest to the rest of us.
You ran straight into commentary and excuses.
ReplyDeleteAt least admit your wrong when you stated so emphatically that extreme frugality is not a symptom of OCPD.
Until you do so your criticisms are just an excuse for fake frumkeit and zealousness.
Signs of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder include:
ReplyDeleteExcessive preoccupation with details, lists, orderliness, rules, procedures, or schedules
Perfectionism so stringent that it interferes with task completion
Excessive devotion to work so that it interferes with social and personal activities
Unwillingness to delegate tasks to others for fear others will not perform up to his or her rigid standards
Extreme frugality or miserliness
Strict adherence to moral and ethical code, rules and regulations
Overwhelming need for order and environmental control
Excessive attention to detail
Excessive preoccupation with punctuality
Hoarding useless, worthless items with no sentimental value
GhSigns of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder include:
ReplyDeleteExcessive preoccupation with details, lists, orderliness, rules, procedures, or schedules
Perfectionism so stringent that it interferes with task completion
Excessive devotion to work so that it interferes with social and personal activities
Unwillingness to delegate tasks to others for fear others will not perform up to his or her rigid standards
Extreme frugality or miserliness
Strict adherence to moral and ethical code, rules and regulations
Overwhelming need for order and environmental control
Excessive attention to detail
Excessive preoccupation with punctuality
Hoarding useless, worthless items with no sentimental value
Shoshana,
ReplyDeleteLet's ratchet down all the emotions...you've got a bunch of people yelling at you on this thread.
I see where you're coming from...this thing is ugly, and is getting uglier with each passing day. If people can't acknowledge that fact, then there's no point in having the discussion.
However, you strike a nerve with some here because certain organizations, women, and others decided that airing everything out in public is the best way to try and bring these cases to resolution. I think this decision was made initially on behalf of the women...AF is but one example, the Yoel Weiss circus is another. It seems that when the right set of variables are met ($$, PR value, sympathetic 'victim', etc), certain principals would throw a couple's problems into the media court, hoping to force a get that way.
Certain rabbis also bought into the approach. On this very blog, you have R Bechoffer stating that the media circus falls within the HdRT.
Well, I think we now see that both sides can play that game. Some people, and this blog is run by one, are trying to even the field, since every single divorce is unique, and complex, and sometimes very ugly. Women can also play unfair...and some have done it in the ugliest of ways.
We now see that going public is NOT the way to go. We need people to come up with a better solution to resolve these issues. Maybe if everyone on the sidelines shunned BOTH man and woman who engage in ugly, protracted battles, maybe both parties would have significantly more skin in the game to finally come to terms and move on. Maybe if TE was as much if pariah as her husband was made to be, maybe both would have long ago settled.
DanielNY1,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't agree with your premise that by definition both parties here behaved in ugly ways, I appreciate your level headed approach to this which is so different than that of DE and his supporters.
While his campaign to malign and destroy TE's life was horrible enough, his stooping to publicize her personal diary entry was so shameful that I was compelled to comment for the first time on this blog.
He wants to discredit me for being "uneducated", stating that no one wants to hear from me. But he refuses to answer the question that I've posed repeatedly - if posting the diary entry was so noble and important, why have greater people than him not thought of it first, and why haven't they taken on this campaign as rigorously as he has?
I am used to zealots like him and his supporters, who portray themselves as the frummest people on Earth, and go about acting in the most unfrum of ways; these are the same kinds of people who spit and throw rocks at others who they deem not as frum as they should be.
According to the DSM V, "extreme frugality or miserliness" as you state is NOT one of the criteria.
ReplyDeleteIncluded in the 8 criteria is "Adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes"
With that said, the DSM V also states that 4 criteria of 8 need to be indicated for an OCPD diagnosis and therefore it is irrelevant if this diary entry proves that AF is the most generous person on the planet, and LOVES spending money. If he theoretically has 4 of the other 7 criteria, he is eligible for this diagnosis.
I am not saying whether he has OCPD or not My only point is that this diary entry was publicized under the false pretense that it proves something, when really the only motive in publicizing it was to humiliate TE as part of temper tantrum because DE was not getting his way in this matter.
While you may be right regarding the requisite symptoms needed to come to a diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Rav Ahron Feldman in his teshuva protesting this heter quotes directly from the doctors report that Rav Shmuel Kamineztky provided as proof for the heter. And in the report is explicitly points out his "stinginess ".
stinginess in this case was used to diagnose.
I and other mental health professionals who have seen this diary, while careful not to conclude concretely;as that would be highly unprofessional, have clearly pointed out that it lends very strong credence to the illegitimacy of the diagnosis.
Why is a private letter like this published so publicly?
ReplyDeleteHow is this anyones business??
As has been repeated stated - lashon harah is permitted if there is a clear to'eles and similarly the prohibition of invading privacy doesn't apply in cases like this where there is a clear to'eles of refuting the slander that Tamar has spread about Aharon.
ReplyDeleteMy rebbe in Shor Yoshuv once told me that he heard from Rav Hutner that when Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan entered Slobodka he had problematic hashkofas. The Alter of Slobodka told his room mate to read his personal diary and to report to him what he had written in it so that he would know where he was holding.
That's a lot of he said she said in that story....
ReplyDeleteI guess I didn't realize one can difuse motzei shaim rah with lashon harah.....
Is there a sourse I can confirm that in?
you want to know whether one is allowed to tell the truth and relate the facts in a matter concerning a major violation of Torah?! I would suggest you speak to your husband and/or your Rav for clarification
ReplyDeleteIf David hamelech had not sinned with Batsheva /or her husband, would he have become melech hamoshiach? ( Nathan had earlier prophesied that Israel would no longer be exiled, and that his throne would be everlasting).
ReplyDelete