update: Added the Hebrew text of Rav Zilberstein
We are faced with a very strange situation. A heter was given to Tamar to remarry based on a seriously flawed psychiatric report which was based on conjecture and evidence primarily from the estranged wife - without any input from Aharon Friedman. While it is clear to the majority of rabbis who have seen the evidence that the heter is invalid, that Tamar is still married to Aharon and thus is committing adultery and her future children are mamzerim - we are facing a new problem.
We are faced with a very strange situation. A heter was given to Tamar to remarry based on a seriously flawed psychiatric report which was based on conjecture and evidence primarily from the estranged wife - without any input from Aharon Friedman. While it is clear to the majority of rabbis who have seen the evidence that the heter is invalid, that Tamar is still married to Aharon and thus is committing adultery and her future children are mamzerim - we are facing a new problem.
The matter has been turned over to Rav Dovid Feinstein at the request of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky - who instigated the heter and was instrumental in obtaining it for the sake of Tamar Epstein - whose family members are prominent backers of his yeshiva.
Rav Dovid Feinstein has been given the task of resolving the matter. He has a narrow mandate - to determine whether the heter can possibly be valid - and thus save the reputation of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky - as well as that of Tamar from the status of being an adulteress.
The halachic process is not inherently concerned with truth but procedure. Thus if facts are not established by the testimony of two kosher male witnesses - they don't exist. Or rather they have no halachic significance. A judge only concerns himself with the evidence that he has - not with what he doesn't have.
Therefore the question Rav Dovid Feinstein is looking at is whether on the level of pure halacha - can he accept the reasoning and evidence behind the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter.
He has the psak of Rav Greenblatt that given the evidence he had - the case was comparable to those that Rav Moshe Feinstein declared that the marriage was invalid because of kedushei ta'os. Rav Greenblatt acknowledges that he himself did not investigate anything and knows nothing beyond what he has told by the Kaminetskys and the psychiatrist report. He also has been established by both Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Feinstein as a bar samcha. Meaning that the psakim he produces can be presumed to be valid - unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. He has the report by a psychiatrist (let's call him Dr. K) who is a well known psychiatrist with a very impressive background - a recognized expert in the field of psychiatry. The report clearly states that Aharon suffers from 2 incurable personality disorders - both so severe that a normal woman would not put up with him. As Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be halachically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his professional standing. The fact that it wasn't based on a direct interview is halachically irrelevant since it is from an expert.
He has the psak of Rav Greenblatt that given the evidence he had - the case was comparable to those that Rav Moshe Feinstein declared that the marriage was invalid because of kedushei ta'os. Rav Greenblatt acknowledges that he himself did not investigate anything and knows nothing beyond what he has told by the Kaminetskys and the psychiatrist report. He also has been established by both Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Feinstein as a bar samcha. Meaning that the psakim he produces can be presumed to be valid - unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. He has the report by a psychiatrist (let's call him Dr. K) who is a well known psychiatrist with a very impressive background - a recognized expert in the field of psychiatry. The report clearly states that Aharon suffers from 2 incurable personality disorders - both so severe that a normal woman would not put up with him. As Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be halachically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his professional standing. The fact that it wasn't based on a direct interview is halachically irrelevant since it is from an expert.
Normally the above evidence would be sufficient for a halachically oriented judge to accept the heter. The fact that Rav Feinstein has not told Tamar and Adam to separate until his evaluation is done clearly indicates that Rav Feinstein is starting with the assumption that the heter is good.
Now what role does truth and reality play in this sordid mess. The answer is that halacha doesn't require that it play any role. Rav Dovid Feinstein does not have to concern himself whether Aharon Friedman is crazy. After all, he is not himself a psychiatrist. And even if it is clear in speaking with Aharon that he is not crazy - Rav Feinstein can simply say, "I am not an expert on mental health". Even if Aharon has a psychiatric evaluation that says he is healthy or 6 therapists who say the report is mistaken - Rav Dovid Feinstein can say it doesn't overrule the halachic sufficiency of the report by a known expert. By sticking closely to the question of halachic sufficiency, he can ignore the many troubling facts in this case. He merely needs to find that there is a sufficient halachic basis to the heter - not whether it is true or likely to be true.
Thus if Rav Feinstein takes this very narrow halachic mandate seriously, he can in fact declare the heter to be valid. That saves Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky's reputation and Tamar's new marriage. He can thus sacrifice truth and Aharon Friedman for the seemingly greater good of the Orthodox World without transgressing halacha.
It is only if Rav Feinstein deviates from his mandate and is concerned about truth and the severe injustice done to Aharon Friedman by the lies declaring him to have severe incurable personality disorders will he decide that the heter is false. It is only if Rav Feinstein is bothered by the severe loss of emunas chachomim that this scandal has produced will he take the issue of truth into consideration.
Will Rav Dovid Feinstein chose the minimal sufficient rule of pure halacha and save Rav Kaminetsky and Tamar - or will he chose truth and redeeming the reputation of Aharon Friedman? We will soon know the answer.
====================
Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein tells the story of a young wife whose husband beats her severely - but only in the privacy of their home. Obviously there are no witnesses to the abuse which the husband denies. The dayanim say they have no basis to believe her word over his and thus say they can not force or even ask him to give a get.
Her brother than pays two Jews to testify that they saw the husband beating his wife. Based on this false but true testimony the dayan order the husband to give his wife a divorce which he does. Thus we have a Get given by a proper beis din based on the halachically valid testimony of two witnesses. All halachic procedures were complied with.
Can she remarry with this Get that she knows was obtained through false witnesses (who told the truth)? Rav Eliashiv said no.
====================
Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein tells the story of a young wife whose husband beats her severely - but only in the privacy of their home. Obviously there are no witnesses to the abuse which the husband denies. The dayanim say they have no basis to believe her word over his and thus say they can not force or even ask him to give a get.
Her brother than pays two Jews to testify that they saw the husband beating his wife. Based on this false but true testimony the dayan order the husband to give his wife a divorce which he does. Thus we have a Get given by a proper beis din based on the halachically valid testimony of two witnesses. All halachic procedures were complied with.
Can she remarry with this Get that she knows was obtained through false witnesses (who told the truth)? Rav Eliashiv said no.
עלינו
לשבח (ויקרא עמוד שי"ז)
מרן הגרי"ש אלישיב לא רצה ,להקל בדיני עדי השקר
ולא תשקרו (י"ט י"א)
מעשה
שהיה באשה שבעלה חיכה אותה ואף אחד לא ידע מכך , לבד מבני הבית. היא התלוננה על כך בבית דין, והדיינים היתרו
בו כמה פעמים, אבל הוא המשיך באיוולתו הנוראה.
אחי
האשה שידעו גם הם מסיגלה, החליטו לעשות את שלא ייעשה. הם שכרו עדי שקר, שיבואו ויעידו
שראו בעיניהם שהבעל מכה את אשתו , למרות שלא ראו , כי כאמור הדברים נעשו בהסתר .
בית
הדין חקר את העדים, ולא מצא בעדותם כחל ושרק, ומיד לאחר מכן קיימו הדיינים את שכתוב
בשו"ע שבעל שמכה את אשתו כופיו אותו לתת גט.
האשה
באה אליי עם הגט בידה, ואומרת לי כן : ברור שעדותם של העדים היא 'נכונה', שכן בעלי
חיכה אותי, אבל מאידן אם אני עושה את חשבון נפשי עם הקב"ה, הרי מדובר בעדות שקר
ממש וכיוון שבית הדין הסתמך בהחלטתן לכפיית הגט על עדי
שקר
, אולי הגט פסול ואינני יכולה עתה להינשא
?
הבעל ההרי יודע אח
האמת !
והיה
מקום בליבי להתיר לה להינשא, כיוון שההסבר בהיתר לכפיית הגט (למרות שבדרך כלל הגט צריך
להינתן בהסכמה), הוא, שאנחנו יוצאים מנקודת הנחה, שכל
יהודי
רוצה לעשתוב רצון בוראו, אלא שלפעמים 'היצר סוכן בנו', ומפריע לנו בכך, ואם
'נותנים קצת מכות' אזי הכל בא על מקומו בשלום, וזה הפשט ב'כופין'.
ואם
כן, בנידון שלנו, רי הבעל יודע את האמת, ובתוך ליבו הוא יודע שמוטל עליו חיוב לתת
גט, וממילא נחשב הדבר כאילו נתן מרצון, למרות שכפו זאת עליו.
אבל
מרן הגרי"'ש לא הסכים לכך, והורה שםא הגט נין לע סמך עדי שקר, אסור לאשה
להינשא. אלא שבמרה כזה, לאחר שהגט כבר בידיה של האשה, אין צורך לבוא אל הבעל ולספר
לו שהרב אלישיב אמרשהגט אינו כשר... אפשר לומר לו שכיוון שהגט כבר נמצא ממילא
בידיה של האשה, אולי תכתוב עכשיו גט מרצונך, כוי'.
"We will soon know the answer."
ReplyDeleteSeems you already know how he will rule, he is not going to destroy R Shmuel Kaminetsky because that would be like destroying himself and handing R Aron Schechter sole rules of the whole Aguda world in the USA, and R Dovid Feinstein is not stupid.
R Dovid Feinstein is not impressed with R Aron Schechter's lobbying, he knows that R Aron Schechter defied his father damaging his reputation. So he is not going to do something that would in fact destroy his father's R Moshe Feinstein's entire legacy either, even if he has to go out on a limb, he will not throw himself and R Shmuel Kaminetsky and the heritage of R Moshe Feinstein over the cliff just because some people are screaming chai vekayam!
R Dovid Feinstein is not interested what the Satmar rabbanim have to say because they never accepted his father either. He is his own man and will not kowtow to R Shternbuch and the far-right BADATS point of view either.
So what does that leave you, a very independent thinker who knows that his father's disciple R Notta Greenblatt will also go down the tubes if he points his thumb down, so he will not do that either. R Notta's life is more important than a tzubrochena divorced man in Philadelphia or Washington DC.
Most importantly he knows that there is still plenty of support for the Kaminetskys in the American LItvish Yeshiva Velt. The letter of support that R Shmule Kaminetsky got from all those rabbanim with R Elya Brudny of the Brooklyn Mirrer Yeshiva and R Yankel Bender from the Five Towns Darchei Yeshiva and the fact that r Dovid Kohen the Posek has not joined the protesters, all this give shim cover to rule for the validity of the Hetter.
Add in that all the rich Aguda Balebatim are pro-Hettter and most importantly that R Shteinaman teh RASHKEBEHAG never said a word nor did he attack the Hetter or say it was the "end of the world" like R Shternbuch keeps on saying, the end result is R Shmuel Kaminetsky gets saved at the 11th hour, and Tamar gets to keep her husband and everyone else needs to find a life and get on with life.
Do not lose hope all those who fought against this huge mistake inflicted on Klal Yisroel by the modern-day Kaminetskys! You win some, you lose some. This was a small step for man and a big leap for Emmes nevertheless and warning to the world of the consequences, because after R Dovid Feinstein goes there will be no one left in this world who can ever give an okay to such a Hetter ever again until the re-establishment of a Sanhedrin HaGadol with the arrival of the true Mashiach! Bimheira Beyameinu, Amen!
A Freilichen Purim everyone!!
Does the חזקה of לא מרע אומנתיה apply when the name of the professional and the report they give is not released?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting piece, and I am not taking sides. However, you have placed in black and white terms. So you say that halacha is purely scientific/factual, withot taking other concerns into condieration. And these are imposed on one whom you consider to be a Gadol in halacha.
ReplyDeleteBut what if other concerns and processes can be taken into consideration? I keep bringing Rackman into the picutre, becasue he wrote about "Teleological" halacha, and alleged that Rav Moshe ztl had such an approach, both in gittin, and other areas. In the less controversial issue of cigarette smoking, Rav Moshe also took into consideration non scientific issues, eg the kavod of Talmidei Chachamim who were well known smokers. What has that to do with anything? The question was whether it is harmful, and thus assur.
Many of the contorversies arise when poskim do bring in other factors, thus for example R Goren, even before his biggest controversy, would make giur more meikil, based on the power of Eretz Yisroel. What, one may ask, has that to do with the convert accepting halacha (although it might be argued that one feels more Jewish when living in Israel and fighting for the jewish people).
"The halachic process is not inherently concerned with truth but
ReplyDeleteprocedure. Thus if facts are not established by the testimony of two
kosher male witnesses - they don't exist." While this is certainly correct in certain contexts, it is not generally true. It is true when what is needed is Eidut l'kiyum davar, or in dinei nefashot and when monetary cases are decided by din. But a beit din isn't supposed decide monetary cases by din; it is supposed to encourage p'shara that is, arbitration, where the dayanim have discretion to use any information they consider credible. And when a posek is considering a shaila, either he is supposed to use whatever information he thinks is credible to determine the facts of the situation, or he is supposed to rule on the applicable halacha and leave the determination of the facts to the parties.
As much as I despise what the Kamenetskis have done here, and agree that there is been a travesty of justice and Halacha, this post of yours worries me.
ReplyDeleteIt almost seems like you're saying that from the standpoint of Halacha the Heter is valid.
In which case, any objection to it would be anti-Halacha, and you and all the protesters will be in the wrong.
After all, what are we standing up for if not for Halacha?
I don't want to voice what I'm thinking, but if you turn out to be correct, and Aaron Friedman gets thrown under the bus in the name of Halacha, that'll just be another black eye for Halacha in many people's minds.
כל המהרהר אחר מרינו ורבינו הגאון ר׳ דוד פיינשטיין כאילו מהרהר אחר השכינה.
ReplyDeleteבין לקולא בין לחומרא
במחילת כבוד תורתך, this one is the most disgusting, damaging, disrespectful posts I have seen. By telling people what ר׳ דוד has to pasken, and if he doesn't he is somehow shuttering his eyes to the reality, and you know better, is just wrong. He is a world renowned posek. Trust him to be able to handle it. Would you say the same thing about R' Moshe in a similar situation???
והיינו דכתיב דור מה רמו עיניו ועפעפיו ינשאו וכן כתוב דור טהור בעיניו ומצואתו לא רוחץ והה״ד דור חרבות שיניו ומאכלות מתעלותיו לאכול עניים מארץ ואביונים מאדם.
ויש להקשות על מלת מאדם ? דדור חרבות שיניו לוקח את הארץ מעני , היה לשה״עה לכתוב ואוכל מאביון ? או בגד מאביון ? והנראה לענ״ד דדור חרבות שיניו לוקח את הארץ מעני כמו השיניים חותכים. אבל דור מאכלות מתלעותיו לועס את האביון . לא לוקחים ממנו כלום אין לרש אין כל , אבל לועס אותו עד דאין לו הכבוד עצמי של אדם והיינו ואביונים מאדם, לוקחים את האדם ממנו.
אין לנו רשות להרהר אחרי צדיק וטהור כר׳ דוד פיינשטיין
End of story!!!
As Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be halahchically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his professional standing. The fact that it wasn't based on a direct interview is halachically irrelevant since it is from an expert.
ReplyDeleteThese two sentences seem to be quite contradictory. In this case the psychiatrist has damaged his reputation. That's why he is hiding. In fact, he would probably lose his professional license for what he has done.
I have a top biologist's laboratory report that this piece of ham is really cow meat. (Lab error, corruption, scientist was drunk that day, whatever.) I passed around this report to many poskim, who all threw it out, except for one posek from out of town.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows its treif meat, except for people in that out of town's shul.
you assuming a non-halachic reality based analysis. The halacha does not require the judge to question the validity of an expert.
ReplyDeletehaven't heard anybody mention anything other than din. Who is calling for a peshara?
ReplyDeleteYour last statement is in agreement with what I posted
While the judge does not have the responsibility to question the expertise of the expert, if he is well aware that the expert has a serious reiusa, how can he chose to ignore this?
ReplyDeletebut there's no ''mirsas'' (fear of damage to reputation / fear of government action) against the psychiatrist (is it confirmed that its a psychiatrist vs a psychologist?)
ReplyDeleteEspecially where there's no opportunity to bring other specialists reports.
Eddie you missed my point. We are not talking about other factors but rather the concern for the truth of the facts that are being used.
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goines Garbage in Garbage out. According to halacha I don't have to consider that I am dealing with garbage. I can say - as Rav Greenblatt did - "given the facts that you presented here is the halacha."
It is not a question of broadening the context or considering metahalachic issues. The question is - pure halachic analysis on the facts as presented or an investigation into the validity of the halacha before applying the halacha.
you have no understanding of what I wrote. Why don't you think before you spew out nonsense
ReplyDeleteThe Kaminetskys have testified to the nature of the psychiatrist - that is enough.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, as matters stand today, there are two choices:
ReplyDeleteMr. Friedman's pride or the breakup of a current jewish home and marriage.
Forget the history as it is clear that after 8? years neither side will change.
People get divorced. Custody is always an issue. People have to move on and get on with their lives.
Halacha is based on technicalities; I once read an article where a non religious person mocked halacha because of the 'loopholes'. In the article he was rebutted by a Rav who said, they are not 'loopholes' but specially designed so that halacha can be flexible for all situations. 'Truth' can be relative, which is why Rabbanim can use technicalities to keep jewish life going. We have no idea how many similar cases may have been ruled on over the years.
So, should halacha support one man's pride or should it support allowing a couple to build a jewish home?
Rav Greenblatt had no problem with that nor do the Kaminetskys. There is no necessity for Rav Dovid to deal with that question from the point of halacha - only from the view of truth
ReplyDeletewith all due respect, everything seems to be on shaky grounds, as in the following reasons, this is a meuves asher lo yuchal letaken.
ReplyDeleteA) He has the psak of Rav Greenblatt that given the evidence he had - the case was comparable to those that Rav Moshe Feinstein declared that the marriage was invalid because of kedushei ta'os.
***No, it is not comparable, too many flaws. R' Moshe was matir when there is no other choice, here there clearly was. It is also far from borur, having a faulty report. At best, it only calls for a Get.
B) Rav Greenblatt acknowledges that he himself did not investigate anything and knows nothing beyond what he has been told by the Kaminetskys and the psychiatrist report.
****The K's should have reclused themselves altogether, as a mekurev and as a Shoshvin. The Psych... was not to give a one sided report.
C) He also has been established by both Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Feinstein as a bar samcha.
**** RNG stated himself that he was duped and relinquished his Samchut on this whole Parsha.
D) Meaning that the psakim he produces can be presumed to be valid - unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. He has the report by a psychiatrist (let's call him Dr. K) who is a well known psychiatrist with a very impressive background - a recognized expert in the field of psychiatry.
**** The mere fact that Dr. K who is an unknown here is a big flaw in and of itself. This so called expert lost his expertees by evaluating someone in absentia, of which is against it's own rules, that can cause him to lose his license and the whole report is kechasfa bealma. That is more than enough clear evidence to the contrary.
E) The report clearly states that Aharon suffers from 2 incurable personality disorders - both so severe that a normal woman would not put up with him
****** Tamar herself put up with this phantom Krispeditis Disorder for many years and has never mentioned it before or after the get. Al this eminates from the K's. Not to mention savra vekibla. No such thing as al tnay.
F) As Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be halahchically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his professional standing. The fact that it wasn't based on a direct interview is halachically irrelevant since it is from an expert.
****** But it *is* most certainly relevant, and since his Report has no validity because he damaged his reputation and that is detrimental halachically as well, therefore cannot be called an expert.
G) Normally the above evidence would be sufficient for a halachically oriented judge to accept the heter. The fact that Rav Feinstein has not told Tamar and Adam to separate until his evaluation is done clearly indicates that Rav Feinstein is starting with the assumption that the heter is good.
**** There is nothing to assume. No one is able to report whether they still cohabit, and we have no clue whether this meeting is even taking place.
H) Even if Aharon has a psychiatric evaluation that says he is healthy or 6 therapists who say the report is mistaken - Rav Dovid Feinstein can say it doesn't overrule the halachic sufficiency of the report by a known expert.
**** The expert as of now, IS unknown, and the Board of Psychologists would revoke his license for not evaluating in a Professional manner.
Rav Greenblatt had no problem with that nor do the Kaminetskys.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this relevant? I feel like I'm missing a part here. What is Rabbi Feinstein ruling on? Is he ruling on the actual heter, or is he ruling on whether the halachic process that Rabbi Greenblatt used was a proper process?
Just because people don't understand halachic process doesn't mean it is a black eye for halacha. It just means people need to understand that it is a law system for living by. That is the whole point of the oral law and why we weren't given just a list of laws. Today with the shulchan oruch we tend to look at halacha differently but that doesn't change how it is meant to work.
ReplyDeleteIf you ever feel doubt about it, just consider rav yehoshua on yom kippur.
you are simply advocating an agenda based psak. This is Blu Greenberg - where there is a halachic will they will find a halachic way.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your alternatives - it is not a question of Aharon Friedman versus Tamar - it is a question of techinical halacha without concern for the validity of the facts in the service of an agenda or whether the main concern is truth.
It is possible to pasken halacha based on a concern for the truth. My question is whether that is what is going to happen.
I wasn't talking about this matter in particular, I just wanted to correct a possible misunderstanding of halacha in general. I have often heard it said as a general principle that halacha ignores anything not said by two male witnesses, and I just wanted to point out that is true only in very limited contexts.
ReplyDeleteThat would apply if you knew who the expert was. The fact that the identity of the "expert" is hidden proves that he fears his reputation would be damaged. Thus his evaluation is worthless.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that if Aharon gets an expert report that he is, and always was, mentally healthy (something that should be easily and quickly obtainable by him) and that the alleged conditions from Tamar's expert are false, and he then, even uninvited, has them given to Rav Dovid, then as a practical matter Rav Dovid will have to take Aharon's report into consideration ands or will pressure him to recognize his good mental health and the ultimate invalidity of the heter.
ReplyDeleteI think the sign of a great Rabbi is that he can put people's lives first if there is a halachic way and take the spiritual responsibility on himself.
ReplyDeleteAs the adage goes, "it is easy to forbid something but it takes a great rav to permit it"
I agree that before it may have been a question of technical halacha, but now it is also about declaring a woman an eishes ish, ruining a marriage and perhaps declaring a child a mazer. A great Rabbi would find a solution and shoulder the responsibility.
It nothing new in halacha that personal situations can affect a ruling.
"Custody is always an issue... He should move on" doesn't cut it. His child was kidnapped kneged halacha (and against the law). He needs to fight fire his child.
ReplyDeleteAgain we have two witnesses (the Kaminetskys) that he is kosher. This was accepted by Rav Greenblatt. Furthermore I assume he would divulge his identity to Rav Feinstein with the understanding that it not be publicized.
ReplyDeleteThe claim is made that he has no problem with his identity to be revealed but he can't reveal the therapist who violated confidentiality laws to give him information. Thus I assume he is claiming he has done nothing wrong and has no problem of revealing his identity but that it would constitute be a moser on another Jew.
It is relevant in the present situation
ReplyDeleteRDE, do you have any reason to think that a psak supporting the heter is in the works of likely?
ReplyDeleteAnd R' David hasn't even Paskened. You already know what he's going to pasken and why. What gets me most about your comment, is you assume that R' David will pasken based on friendships and enemies, and favorites, which in itself is being "Mevazeh Posek Hador" barabim.
ReplyDeleteהנני מוחה נגד הפוסט הזה נוראות נגד בזיון כבוד התורה. אשר אמרו ללשוננו נגביר שפתינו אתנו מי אדון לנו!!
David - we clearly have examples of poskim being concerned for the truth. It is not considered a violation of halacha to be concerned with the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn fact the Rambam states that if a dayan feels that following the halachic procedure leads to a false psak - he should psaken by his feeling
Apparently the latter
ReplyDeleteYou also keep Purim in Adar Rishon? And I thought I was the only one.
ReplyDeleteAgain you don't understand what I said. Rav Dovid can pasken as to whether the halacha is correct based on the facts given and halacha gives him the right to ignore whether the facts are true or not. Following a pure halachic analysis is not being mevazeh the Posek hador - unless you think that the Torah is wrong c.v.
ReplyDeleteWe are not talking about being a great posek who comes up with creative solutions.
ReplyDeleteI am asking should he pasken the halacha without evaluating the truth of the facts - or should he also be concerned with truth.
Rav Greenblatt was asked that question and he responded that he had two experts claiming that Aharon has serious problems. He said once he has accepted two witnesses then even if six witnesses say it is no go - they can not invalidate the testimony. Rav Feinstein can say the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather not answer that question for the time being
ReplyDeleteTwo witnesses who testified together? In front of Beis Din?
ReplyDeleteIsn't their a halacha that two new witnesses can testify that the two earlier witnesses were false witnesses, and thus invalidate the earlier witnesses?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why that would be. The חזקה of לא מרע אומנתיה is not just that someone says the professional is competent or reliable; it is a halakhic presumption that negates having to take into account the possibility that the professional is not being honest. How would a rabbi vouching for a professional replace that? What is the source for such a halakha?
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why it is the Kaminetzkys' reputations that have been damaged.
ReplyDeleteYears ago the head of a kashrus agency told my father that when they are asked for names of individual mashgichim they tell the inquirer it is enough you know the agency takes responsibility. When someone goes to hospital emergency room most times you have no knowledge who will treat you. You rely on the hospital's reputation. They have the responsibility for any incompetence or malice performed by their staff or by a medical equipment salesman they allow to perform surgery (that has actually happened). The Kaminetzkys' testified to the "truthfulness" of the report therefore they take the place of the disreputable expert and take his consequences on themselves.
Then how could he accept data that was provided in violation of confidentiality laws? He himself has violated those laws by accepting it.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone can say they never would have married such a person in the first place it would be AF about TE. So maybe there is a valid heter. But from the opposite direction.
ReplyDelete"People have to move on" - This is the halachically and morally bankrupt canard of the O-RAH feminist left. However this canard is only imposed by the feminists on men in divorce conflicts, but it's never imposed on women who are provided unqualified support while demanding far more than halacha allows them.
ReplyDeleteWhen a normal, self-respecting, halacha respecting man (such as AF) has a child, he must never "move on" and abandon his relationship with his child. Regardless if his moredes wife has to sit until her hair turns gray, maintaining a strong, healthy relationship with his children must remain a top priority in a man's life. This is mandated by both Torah and common sense, but it is something that the O-RAH male feminists simply have no comprehension of.
In all previous generations, our sages determined mental health issues in the context of halacha where this was relevant.
ReplyDeleteWhen, and by whom, was this determination authoritatively removed from their perception of normative behavior and deposited entirely in the hands of psychologists and psychiatrists, whose bible DSM is seriously questioned by the greatest of their profession?
Does any authority claim that the ורפא ירפא *permission* to *heal* (despite the apparent blasphemy of interfering with Divine Providence) apply to mental health professionals to the extent of sanctioning their right to destroy people by claiming them unhealable? Particularly in a case when that determination is a subject of disagreement by their own professional peers?!
they are secular laws - not Torah laws
ReplyDeleteRav Greenblatt is not a beis din - but he used that sevora
ReplyDeleteThere is a living, chashuv talmid of Reb Moshe who discussed the issue of granting a get via kedushei ta'os with the great Sage. Reb Moshe said that only he (Reb Moshe) could issue such a heter. If Rav Dovid Feinstein is aware of this fact, how could he muter RNG's use of the heter? If R' Dovid is not aware, he needs to speak with his father's talmid ASAP.
ReplyDeleteHow has withholding a get contributed to the relationship he has with his child?
ReplyDeleteIf two witnesses claim reuven is dead and tomorrow he walks in fine and well, who do we believe? Aron is here, no one in the world claimed so before, Aron held on to a responsible job, he was in front of the BBD and they can testify, RNG said himself he has no knowledge of either of them nor between [amongst] them. How in the world did RSK's ever pasken for a Get on someone who is *Toit Meshugeh*? Why did Tamar pursue a Get from a Meshugeneh? The reason we don't know the names of the Doctors, because for in the manner what they did, they can loose their license and Aron can sue the beguniyas out of them. And if rebi lo shono R' Chiye mino lan? If all was fine and dandy, why did RNG say he was duped. The ones that truly have serious problems are the ones who deliberately claimed her to be MUTAR.
ReplyDeleteDvorim 17:4: "Vdorashto heitev vehineh emes nochon hdovor..."
ReplyDeleteQuite disgusting of you to claim that RDF's psak will be influenced heavily by external factors.
ReplyDeleteqif you want to use the halacha of edus in this case, then father and son cannot be eidim witnesses.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the essence of *elo im ken nisbarrer behedye sheta'a*.
ReplyDeleteAnother possible conclusion will be that Rav Feinstien sends a message that he his confirming the heter which will be bad for Aron so if he wants to save face and be the hero he should give a get lchumra. This actually saves everyone.
ReplyDeleteReally? Do you do everything like Reb Dovid? He doesn't even agree with your statement
ReplyDeleteIsn't oso ve'es bno possul le'eidus? It is dina demalchusse that you cannot make a one sided report, hence, no messira. Besides, ein onu zekukin lo, sich a report is in case worthless, it has no integrity.
ReplyDeleteWho's! Being mevasa anyone your only being mevasa yourself by showing how you can't think yourself a little
ReplyDeleteWhat do they call it ? מכריע את דבריו ? Analysis ? Firstly let him speak. Let him pasken. Let's hear what he says and what it's based on. If he Paskens that she can stay married, and that the child is not a ממזר/ת, will you accept his Psak ?????????????
ReplyDeleteOr will you say, he is being pressured, it's a Kaminetzky coverup, etc etc etc, and be מוציא לעז on a woman and child.
And why don't you trust R' David to pasken ? And why don't you think that a post like this gives doubt in people's mind as to whether R' David is able to pasken, or whether his Psak is valid because you say he is under pressure.
ר׳ דוד בדורו כר׳ משה בדורו, וזה המסורה שלי מר׳ משה פיינשטיין למשה רבינו
Take down this post. It disrespects our mesorah.
Isn't a *KFEILA* an expert utilized to determine issur veheter? Or shall we say a car mechanic.... on and on ....
ReplyDeleteWhere is the R' Yitzchak Zilberstein story brought?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yehoshua. The premise of the חזקה of לא מרע אומנתיה is that a professional won't risk his career by doing something dishonest, and therefore we assume that he was honest in whatever he said.
ReplyDeleteHowever in this case, the professional's name has been shrouded in secrecy from day one. Since he never ran any risk to his good name, there's no presumption either about the integrity of his statements.
As to a so-called "rabbi" vouching for the professional, that person seems to have a conflict of interest here, which brings into question his "vouching".
Finally, it stands to reason that no professional would render such a document without having examined the subject of his report. Having done precisely so, he acted in a non-professional manner, and has demonstrated that the title "professional" is unbecoming to him.
The story you quote from Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein seems to indicate that Rav Elyashev held that considering that the testimony of the witnesses was "garbage", then the psak given to the husband that he's obligated to give a Get was invalid.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, in halacha WE DO need to consider if we're dealing with garbage testimony.
"withholding a get" - This is another O-RAH canard. AF and other men in his type of situation are not "withholding a get". On the contrary, their wives who refuse to cooperate with a halachic Bais Din, and the O-RAH enablers of the wives, are preventing GETs from being delivered by the husbands.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/02/rav-gestetner-critiizes-ora.html
If two people give eidus that the beheima was nishchat kedas ukedin by a shoichet mumche lemehadrin, bar samche and all, comes the Boidek and finds the Chalef Pagum after the facts, is that still considered Kosher? The truth and nothing but the truth?
ReplyDeleteQuote: "Even if Aharon has a psychiatric evaluation that says he is healthy or 6 therapists who say the report is mistaken - Rav Dovid Feinstein can say it doesn't overrule the halachic sufficiency of the report by a known expert."
ReplyDeleteThat is not true and illogical. No original Bais Din was siting that a halochoh of "kivun she'higid shuv eino chozer u'magid" can be declared here. Reb Dovid Shlita has a duty to call upon all and any (old or new) evidence in this case. If Aaron can get a report that says that he is healthy it absolutely will contradict the former report (which was commissioned and paid for by TE) and has to be brought as evidence to Reb Dovid"s BD.
If Reb Dovid has a right to re-convene a BD on this issue (even after the Baltimore BD - where both sides signed shtorei birrurin andboth sides accepted the BD - has given its psak), presumably because the sides (or at least TE) agreed to Reb Dovid's intervention and agreed for a new psak, then he has the right and duty to review any and all evidence in the case.
Presumably he would have to call down AF to see him as a "person" too (although I'm not sure AF has to come without a siruv from Reb Dovid's BD) and see with his own eyes if he's healthy.
In my mind: Reb Dovid will commission (and paid for by the BD of Reb Dovid) a new non-slanted report (and again with an agreed interview with AF and possibly TE too and any other eidim) that is not slanted and is not paid for by any of the 2 sides here, and only when that report comes in (and only then) will Reb Dovid give his psak.
Why do you think that you know better than the two biggest poskim in America today? While you have done many great things with this blog, you have taken things too far, with gadol bashing, calling true talmidei chachomim "reshaim," etc. Rav Dovid is not beholden to anyone and neither is Rav Shmuel. There is not one person who has said anything on this blog that comes near the gadlus of these two greats. Are you even serious when you say that Rav Shmuel fabricated reports, in order to be matir an eishes ish?! You and all the other talmidei chachomim bashers are asid litol es hadin.
ReplyDeleteIn Aleinu L'Shabeach - will try locating it
ReplyDeleteNever said I know better than. I am describing reality - you don't like it so take 2 blues and a red and call me in the morning.
ReplyDeleteI never called true talimdei chachomim - reshaim etc
I said the psychiatric reports are not accurate and they based on Tamar's testimony and conjecture on the part of the psychiatrist
I suggest pay attention to the words and stop making up lies that fit your ideology.
If you have nothing intelligent to contribute please stop wasting my time by commenting.
Quote: "The fact that Rav Feinstein has not told Tamar and Adam to separate until his evaluation is done clearly indicates that Rav Feinstein is starting with the assumption that the heter is good." Are you sure that is the case ?
ReplyDeleteI would assume that Reb Dovid has not asked that Tamar seperate until his psak is ready, is because he has no real jurisdiction over Tamar, and did she sign Shtorei Birrurin to accept the psak of Reb Dovid's Bais Din that Reb Dovid would gain jurisdiction over the inyan ? In fact, even of Reb Dovid pasken against Tamar and says the heter taus is wrong, is she obligated to seperate from her 2nd husband, since she has a heter from Reb Nota (unless Reb Nota backs down) and she never asked or is interested in Reb Dovid's BD geting involved ?
I think that until the Baltimore BD (where both sides originally agreed to be dan the case) agrees & signs that it no longer has jurisdiction over the case (with the agreement of AF and TE), that it will still has jurisdiction over the case and is the ONLY bais din that can adjudicate the case and give a "final" psak.
I am not a boki in halocho, but it may be that since there is chazoko that she got already married (of course this is the din that we are being mesupak on) on Reb Nota's Psak Din, Reb Dovid feels he cant tell her to leave her 2nd husband, until he has a "vadai" psak that she must leave her husband, but that on a sofek he cant tell her to leave the 2nd husband.
I'm not even sure if the 3 person BD of Reb Dovid has a din "bais din" with all its halochos (Din eidus, psak bais din etc.).
I agree with what you say - but in fact Rav Greenblatt made that statement and I assume that Rav Dovid Feinstein could say it also.
ReplyDeleteyes I am sure
ReplyDelete“Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Will Rav Dovid Feinstein throw Aharon Friedman under the bus to save it?”
ReplyDeleteGittin 66b-67a
“But does R. Jose admit that it is valid where he says to them, Tell [the scribe]? Have we not learnt: If the scribe wrote and there was one witness [besides], the Get is valid, [Our Mishnah text actually reads: WRITE AND GIVE, but this Gemarah reading is supported by the J. Mishnah.] and R. Jeremiah said in regard to this, Our Version is, If the scribe signs, [He signs the Get as witness, in conjunction with another witness.] and R. Hisda said, Whom does the Mishnah follow? R. Jose, who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent.[ Consequently we may safely assume that the scribe was commissioned to sign by the husband himself, and there is no fear that the agent told him to do so on his own authority, so as not to offend the scribe.] Now if you assume that R. Jose admits [that the Get is valid] where he says, Tell [the scribe], then a calamity may result, since sometimes he will say to two persons, Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so and So-and-so to sign, and out of fear of offending the scribe they will agree that one of them should sign and the scribe with him, which is not what the husband said? [He appointed special witnesses for the signature. This proves that the view that the scribe may witness the Get is not compatible with the view that the husband can say to the agent, Tell the scribe.] Since a Master has said [infra] [that a Get of this kind [Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so etc., to sign.] is] valid but this should not be done in Israel, it is not usual.[ And therefore R. Jose would not make provision against so remote a danger.] But is there not the possibility that he may say to two persons, Tell the scribe to write and do you sign, and they will go and in order not to offend the scribe let the scribe sign along with one of them, which is not what the husband said? — We say here also: Such a Get is valid, but this should not be done in Israel. [And therefore this also is unusual.]”
Rashi gives here a reference to Gittin 86b:
“And Rab? [He might rejoin:] Is there any comparison? There her marriage is permitted in the first instance, [And so we suppose that the scribe not only wrote but also signed.] but here only retrospectively.[If he wrote himself, and therefore if the scribe wrote without signing, the child is not legitimate.] And Samuel? [He can rejoin:] There is no difficulty;[ Even if we assume in each case that the scribe wrote without signing.] there we assume that the scribe is fully competent,[ And knows that he is not to write save on definite instruction from the husband. V. supra. 71b-72a.]here that he is not so competent.[ And he might have written on the instruction of a third party, in which case the Get is invalid. V. supra ibid.]
Schottenstein Hebrew note 36 on Gittin 67a: “That is to say, this opinion reasons that allowed to make a get by appointing an emissary to appoint a scribe, may result [Heaven forbid—a disaster] that the emissaries will appoint those who will sign. The fear is that the woman will hire emissaries maliciously [false, lying with bad intent] to appoint in the name of the husband to write and deliver her a divorce.
The din of Kivin Shehigid is only for a real bais din which sits as a BD, but if a chochom gives a psak (especially in issurim) and then hears contradictory evidence then he of course must hear the other evidence because he only gave a "horoah" and its only issurim, but he has not given a "psak bais din". Only on a real psak bais din is there a halochoh of once the psak is made that no psak may supercede the original psak (and proof to this is, that Reb Dovid is re-deliberating this case and this is only because the psak which is only a horoah may be changed of course)
ReplyDeleteThis is a shaalah (question) of issurin and a real din psak of a BD is not applicable. Maaseh bais din (that cant be deleted acc to the Gemoro) is on a monetary (mommenus) psak -- not issurim.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the evidence from which the original psak is made with, is found to be not permissible, then for sure the old psak is botul.
So for five months we have heard nonstop how this heter is anti-halachic, destroying Torah, a chilul hashem, etc, and now we find out that the heter could be perfectly legitimate from the standpoint of pure halacha. Am I missing something?
ReplyDelete"ר׳ דוד בדורו כר׳ משה בדורו, וזה המסורה שלי מר׳ משה פיינשטיין למשה רבינו"
ReplyDeleteYour mesorah not withstanding, Rav Dovid is not his father of this generation, Moreover, a posek has the right to argue with his father Rav Moshe, as well.
I'm not understanding Reb Nota Shlita's statement that the 2 experts have a din eidus and psak because his psak has a chomer of "psak bais din" ... because if there is a Bais Din on this matter, it can only be the first BD on this episode, which is the Baltimore BD.
ReplyDeletethat is contradictory because if Reb Dovid feels she doesnt need a get, then why would AF give a get (if she is already mutar) ?
ReplyDeleteI am not disagreeing with you, and I cannot presage what Rav Dovid will conclude. It is suffice to say that making these metahalachic types of psak will always stir controversy.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit surprised that you don't bring up what is the more glaring outcome should the heter stand:
ReplyDeleteIt is not only AF who is thrown under the bus, but all husbands in Judaism. If a man can play by the rules - and have this done to him anyway - then all men are on notice that your rights in a marriage mean little to nothing going forward.
I'm afraid that if the p'sak results does result in the dread we anticipate, We will all realize that Reb Dovid shortchanged halacha, the true gedolim, the majority of gedolim, whichever way you phrase it, have already outlawed such "law" (or lawlessness for that matter. ....) ......also, as far as we know, the Eidah HaChareidis did not comply with Reb Shmuel's request to get their agreement to submit the shayla before Reb Dovid. ...
ReplyDeleteI am not a Posek. I don't know if Rav David will pasken that this child yet to be born is a ממזר/ת or not. I do know that I will accept his Psak, regardless. I believe that we all should sign to accept his Psak. Everyone on the מועצת should sign to accept his Psak. He is the leading posek in the US. Whether it is לקולא or לחומרא, we all, and I mean all, have to accept the Psak of Rav David.
ReplyDeleteThis is a matter which affects a life, and a future family/families in klal Yisroel. How can we be so reckless as to allow people to be מערער on a Jewish person that he/she is a ממזר/ת if he/she is not. And if he/she is a ממזר/ת , we have to accept it and deal with it.
In the past few days a few commenters said Tamar is pregnant. Does anyone know if this is or isn't true? Or was that mere speculation.
ReplyDeleteAnd the PA judge said he is normal, very respectable.
ReplyDeleteI agree, he needs to move on with a heter me'ah rabbonim and she needs to rot until she realizes that AUTHENTIC halacha cannot be bypassed. ....of course ORA and the like won't begin to figure out why we are following halacha. ......after all, the botei din need to follow courts and *political correc
ReplyDeleteSure, a great rabbi would see what he CAN do to help the situation, but only within the parameters of true halacha (aside from considering AF's plight), and not violating it in the name of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. ...
ReplyDeleteIt is at the end of Mincha, but I haven't seen any reference to Rav Zilberstein!
ReplyDeleteAs Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be
ReplyDeletehalahchically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his
professional standing
He's anonymous, so this reasoning should not apply.
That might apply if nobody voiced any question on his credentials or validity, especially other psychologists. .....then we also have one of the many issues if Halacha recognizes the "finding" of that psychologist, not to mention how compelling psychology itself recognizes the flimsy nature of such reports. ....
ReplyDeleteYou are playing word games. You are the one who wrote that by giving a get, he would be abandoning his relationship with his child. Therefore, you have effectively stated that his not giving a get (however you want to describe it) is contributing to his relationship with his child. I am asking you in what manner is that so. Answer the question if you can, but playing word games is not really an answer.
ReplyDeleteRDE
ReplyDeleteIf this heter has some halachic justification (the first time you seem to have conceded this) can you summarise, in words of one syllable and several bullet points, what you have been going on about since Sukkos?
Thank you.
What I gather from this post is that you agree it would be halachically valid to pasken according to "procedure" and not according to "truth" (to use your terminology), but you prefer that it be done the latter way. Which leads me to several questions:
ReplyDelete1. On what do you base your preference?
2. Do you believe R' Dovid would be doing the wrong thing not to follow the "truth" approach?
3. If R' Dovid does validate the heter as per halachic procedure, will you still maintain that TE's marriage to AF remains in force and she is currently living in sin?
4. Assuming that you would oppose such a psak by R' Dovid, I ask: Do you not agree that R' Dovid, as a leading poseik and a gadol (not to mention an ish emes), has the right and the authority and the siyata dishmaya to correctly weigh the two sides, and what is to be gained or lost each way, and arrive at a proper and binding psak?
No such thing as saving face. That's exactly what *Lo sakiru panim bamishpat* is all about. Nobody is more equal under Das Moshe veYisrael! Only bnei Yishmael throw jews under the bus.
ReplyDeleteTalmud called Shimon kohen Godol that went in Lifnay veLifnim a tzedoiki.
ReplyDeleteIf you call the convening of R' Dovid a BD, did he ask reshus from BBD?
ReplyDeleteYes
ReplyDeleteSo did the whole world! If she refused a Get because of request of custody visitation rights, why didn't she say to the Judge he is insane? Instead of mekach taus, why didn't they claim that kinyan needs da'as hamakne, veim ein da'as, *kidush* vehavdala minayin? That would have been a full fledged Didon Notzach?
ReplyDelete2Q's - Does anyone know whether the couple as of now live together? Can anyone confirm if R' Dovid is looking into this case and in what Format?
What will it take for you guys to understand !!!!! That reb Moshe himself is the cause of this probelm, 1) he was the one who introduced this method of hetter in the USA, against the advice of senior rabbis in his day 2) he would issue these hettierim on the bases of the facts as they were provided to him, he NEVER inquired as the the veracity of those facts, the latter issue being a bigger issue in some ways then the first
ReplyDeleteWe need to face the truth and be מודה על האמת that the gedolim who opposed him were entirely correct, it's a big adjustment, but without moving forward this will continue, read my lips
Make up your mind. You just wrote a whole post about how R' Dovid Feinstein would be entirely within his rights as a halachic adjudicator to validate the heter, even if it does not reflect the ultimate truth. I would like to know how that fits with the five months of attacking R' Nota/R' Shmuel for doing precisely that.
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to hear my answer
ReplyDelete@kishkeyum If Rav Dovid does rule in favor of the heter, how will you reconcile that with the opposite conclusion of other leading gedolei poskim that have signed letters otherwise?
ReplyDeletePresumably the psychiatrist isn't anonymous to Rav Nota or Rav Dovid.
ReplyDeleteIt would not be the first machlokes between poskim in Jewish history.
ReplyDeleteBullseye! The whole goal of the "Orthodox" feminists is to dismantle any halachic rights for Jewish husbands and fathers. Why are the Silver Spring feminists still persecuting AF even while the feminists claim that "Tamar is free"?
ReplyDeleteThere is hakchosho and hazomo. Hazomo is a chidush for dinei nefoshos, and it must be *IMONU HOYISEM* eidus on the person and not on circumstances e.g. a REPORT of which is in category of hakchasha. it is also only for al echod shehorag es hanefesh.
ReplyDeleteI do.
ReplyDeleteYou should be scared for Yom hadin
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I would feel any compulsion to reconcile them, seeing as R' Dovid is certainly their equal in learning and has authority of his own, and I can live with a machlokes. But even if I were interested in reconciling them, I would first need to know how R' Dovid arrived at his conclusions before I could answer that question.
ReplyDeleteHe might be. I'm not sure. But if he is known to them, so long as the public does not know who he is, he will not damage his standing. The point of this sevarah is that his incompetence or dishonesty will become public knowledge. In this case, it will not.
ReplyDeleteI do.
ReplyDelete“He has a narrow mandate - to determine whether the heter can possibly be valid . . . .”
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand that. If the mandate is truly that narrow then the answer is definitely a resounding yes. IF AF is truly crazy and IF TE didn’t know about his issue before she married him and IF TE didn’t remain living with AF after she identified the issue and IF this defect is important enough to warrant a psak of mekach taus then “the heter can possibly be valid.” Based on that limited mandate, I can pasken that your kiddushin was a mekach taus too.
“A judge only concerns himself with the evidence that he has - not with what he doesn't have.”
I don’t think that is entirely correct. A judge concerns himself with the evidence he has AFTER both sides have received the opportunity to present their case. In this instance AF was not party to these proceedings. If you will say that this is not a din torah, just a psak given to one person, then, yes, a “posek” (as opposed to a judge) must concern himself with giving the correct psak.
“As Rav Greenblatt has stated - the psychiatrist can be relied upon to be halahchically valid - because if he were lying it would damage his professional standing.”
I don’t think the analysis is that simple. Yes, an expert can be relied on but we also need to be realistic about the context in which the expert has given his views. L’havdil in criminal cases when someone pleads insanity the state and the defense both offer expert testimony and the state’s psychiatrist invariably determines that the defendant is the sanest person alive and the defense’s psychiatrist invariably determines that the defendant is the craziest person alive – neither experts’ professional standing is tarnished in this regard. There is (or at least should) be more to the anlaysis of when and how much an expert can be relied upon.
“Now what role does truth and reality play in this sordid mess. The answer is that halacha doesn't require that it play any role.”
Again, I think you are conflating “din torah” and psak halacha. The notion that a posek in giving a psak halacha doesn’t have to trouble himself with petty things such as the truth seems a bit far fetched to me.
“Thus if Rav Feinstein takes this very narrow halachic mandate seriously, he can in fact declare the heter to be valid.”
Can he declare the heter “valid” or can he declare that if a posek believe the psychiatrist’s report the posek could reasonably determine that a heter exists. Whether others can or should rely on that heter (e.g. to be meshadech with children of this couple) is a separate issue.
On second reading of your comment, I see that my comment isn't applicable to your point - which indeed remains standing.
ReplyDeleteBut they won't tell anyone else, so it will remain a secret to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteEven if Aharon has a psychiatric evaluation ... 6 therapists who say the report is mistaken - Rav Dovid Feinstein can say it doesn't overrule the halachic sufficiency of the report by a known expert.
ReplyDeleteyour making a halachic statement. i dont think think you are correct halachikly.
whats your source? [1 against 6?!?!!]
It is only if Rav Feinstein is bothered by the severe loss of emunas chachomim
ReplyDeleteor if he's bothered by other issues mentioned by rav feldman & others
Look, you really have to stop with this 'feminism' nonsense. Many rishonim held that a woman could divorce when she wanted and the halacha is that generally children under six and girls go to the mother. In this case then according the jewish, halachic perspective, tamara should get her child - not the father.
ReplyDeleteSo what perspective are you coming from? What are you calling feminism? Stop displaying your twisted ignorance.
Ideally the truth of course but in extenuating circumstances they can overlook it. They tend to do this in cases of mamzerim and as i once posted here, it was done in a case where married women were kidnapped several centuries ago and their marriages were retroactively annulled. I am not saying that this case qualifies -I don't see why it would over any other aguna case- but after it was done and she got married, it should be accepted.
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't should he pasken like this- probably not. But can he? Technically yes.
Yes, he became a tzeduki. But Rav Shmuel Kaminetzki is the same talmid chochom and yarei shamayim he was yesterday. I do not see him espousing reform or feminist views. You want to question his psak, fine, but do not disparage a talmid chochom.
ReplyDeleteNathan, suppose you're right, then what would be the proper course of called for action?
ReplyDeleteAnd reb dovid himself agrees that you can argue with him
ReplyDeleteר׳ דוד בדורו כר׳ משה בדורו
ReplyDeleteSome people used to say that until the fiasco of the NY Get Law showed otherwise
This is a disgrace. Not only do you continue with talmid chochom bashing, you now extend it to the undisputed gadol and posek hador of America and abroad, Rav Moshe zt"l!
ReplyDeleteYehoshua,
ReplyDeleteI emailed you, but the email bounced back.
Didn't RSM say he doesn't want the Q sent to RDF? Did he change his mind?
ReplyDeleteI think that we will reconcile that Reb Dovid was afraid to stand up for the truth as he was apparently timid to speak up the whole time, here and elsewhere
ReplyDelete....which is why they chose him to adjudicate. .......sorry for speaking my mind.....offends you? Never mind, didn't say anything. ....
And after 6 he'll go only to the father, like we find in Halacha...?
ReplyDeleteNew experts who reject the view of the old experts don't qualify as a תרי ותרי? There's a קם דינא?
ReplyDelete"Do you not agree that R' Dovid, as leading. ....godol (not to mention an ish emes)...."perhaps Da'as Torah is trying to say that this outcome will serve as a 'litmus test' determining him of being an ish emes... how Reb Dovid will 'pasken', meaning , will he pasken according to p'sak or politics, like RNG and RSK were doing up until now. ...
ReplyDeleteGemora Shevuos 30b: How do we know that a judge who know the judgement is false that he shouldn't say, "Since the witnesses testified I'll pasken and let the punishment fall on the neck of the witnesses"? We are taught "Distance yourself from falsehood". Rambam Sanhedrin 24' 3': What should he do? He should check and research the matter with the standard of capital cases. If it seems to him that there is no falsehood he can pasken based on the witnesses, but if he feels uneasy that there may be falsehood; or he doesn't feel confident that he can rely on the witnesses even though he can't disqualify them; or he feels that one of the parties is a liar and trickster and fooled the witnesses even though they are qualified and talking innocently; or it seems in general that there are other hidden things going on and the litigant is hiding it; on all of these things it is forbidden for the judge to pasken rather he should remove himself from the case and let someone who feels confident judge it.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the apparent assumption that it's good for the matirim for RDF to agree with them. Maybe if he can undo the harm by assering it would be even better. This way their hetter won't have created permanent damage.
ReplyDeleteR' Dovid is trying some damage control.
ReplyDeletePolitics = The Art of the Possible!
ReplyDeleteBusiness = The Art of the Deal!
Life = The Art of Living!
Marriage = The Art of Love!
Imagination = Art!
It would take much more publicity to damage his reputation/
ReplyDeleteAnswer: The same way we can live with this:
ReplyDeletePolitics = The Art of the Possible!
ReplyDeleteBusiness = The Art of the Deal!
Life = The Art of Living!
Marriage = The Art of Love!
Imagination = Art!
??!!
ReplyDeleteSimilar to here?:
ReplyDeleteno, psak is what the majority decide in case of a BD, or the Gadlus of the posek. Rav Herschel Shachter gives a shiur where he says Halacha is not perfectly logical in the same way as in scientific or philosophical logic, but in its own terms it is.
ReplyDeleteCase in point - the Tannur of Akhnai, Rav Eleazar brings proofs for his case, which show the truth of his position, but is outvoted by the Rov.
This wouldn't be the first time in history that was a machlokes haposkim...
ReplyDelete+1
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear it.
ReplyDeleteThe father in this case isn't asking for custody. He is asking for more visitation. And he is asking that, per Halacha, visitation be determined by Beis Din, not by a non-Jewish judge in non-Jewish court.
ReplyDeleteAside, if a divorced couple had only boys, do you advocate that the father be given custody, per halacha, when they are six years old? Or do you only make this point when it suits the bill, i.e. it's only a girl?
And per accepted psak halacha for centuries, per the Shulchan Aruch, a woman cannot divorce simply because she wants to.
The only reason we believe a KFEILA, because he is mesiach lefi tumoi. Not so when a Report is biased, skewed and one sided for a fee. Mibchinat psychology, you must hear it from the patient to have a valid diagnosis.
ReplyDelete+1
ReplyDeleteHe can but it will be harder
ReplyDeletequote is from Rav Greenblatt
ReplyDeleteI already stated it. We are dealing with halacha as a procedure vs as truth (or at least the truth to the best of our ability).Rav Greenblatt insisted on halacha as procedure and Rav Dovid could do the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised you have come across this elementary distinction before
And the reason for doing it in such clandestine manner?
ReplyDeleteAnd what is the universally agreed upon mekor that you're supposed to focus on truth vs procedure?
ReplyDeleteAnd if there isn't one, and it's an open question, then is it correct to vehemently attack those who hold of procedure and call them not gedolim and call for them to be discredited?
I understand someone who is doing something that is outside of the pale and outside of normative halacha. But to vehemently attack someone simply because he holds the opposite of what you hold on an issue which is far from universally decided upon?
And if it isn't correct to attack, then "I would like to know how that fits with the five months of attacking R' Nota/R' Shmuel for doing precisely that.".
And if you hold it is correct to attack them, is R' Dovid next on your list of people who "aren't real gedolim" and need to be exposed?
Who is RSM ? Do you mean RSK ?
ReplyDeleteאפיקורס
ReplyDeletethe Rambam was recently cite by Yehuda on the subject.
ReplyDeletePlease cut out the nonsense. Then reread all the letters that rabbis have written complaining the heter is not true because the facts are not valid. If you don't understand after that I can't help you
The Rambam's position is one that is universally accepted by all the poskim?
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if Reb Dovid says absolutely nothing?
ReplyDeleteIf Rav Dovid feels on one hand there is enough halachic procedure to allow the heter as this post explains but realizes the facts are not so poshut then he can suggest get lchumra. Add to this that if he gets AF to give a get lchumra none of the Rabbonim, Gedolim, Poskim etc look bad since everyone can claim that Rav Dovid really agreed with them than it looks like a nice conclusion.
ReplyDeleteNot at all, if your objective ud agree with me, and many feinstein fans are beginning to see that
ReplyDeleteDid you get my message?
ReplyDeleteWhats true is true, and BTW in many circles he is not regarded as gadol hador
ReplyDeleteA good start would be to reevaluate rav Moshe in a repecful way
ReplyDeleteThis can't be true. If there are witnesses that contradict the first witnesses, then the חזקה that she's married will say that she's still married. There is no הלכה that says that a פסק, even from a בית דין, gets any presumption of validity. If new evidence comes to light, the new evidence must be considered.
ReplyDelete180?
ReplyDeleteNo, but that is exactly how rumors start.....
ReplyDeleteI'm not questioning the distinction. I'm questioning why when R' Nota/R' Shmuel make the distinction you spend five months denouncing them, while the possibility of R' Dovid making the distinction elicits nothing more than a shrug and "he's entitled to view the case from a purely halachic perspective." You are certainly entitled to opine on the validity of such a distinction but please be consistent. If your position is that one can divorce halacha from the ultimate truth then please remove the past five months worth of posts; if your position is that one cannot divorce halacha from the ultimate truth then please spend five months denouncing R' Dovid.
ReplyDeleteYou have not answered the question. All you have responded to his withering criticism is that he is too dim to understand. not an answer
ReplyDeleteNathan, where are you eat'n out t'night?
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you very much for clarifying that rumor.
ReplyDeleteThis is brought as halacha lemaasa in Sh"A Choshen Mishpat 15:3
ReplyDeleteR Shlomo Miller
ReplyDeleteIt is based on the Gemora Shevuos and the Gemora Sanhedrin 32b. The Rambam is just putting them together. Poskim usually try to not argue with Gemoras.
ReplyDeleteDear Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteA lot of my colleagues were wondering at what age did you first finish Even Haezer, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch with all the Poskim? And also how many times did you review it since then, considering that you devoted so much time compiling indexes on other sefarim?
Come on, after all these lies and contradictions. You must be kidding.
ReplyDeleteif a person can't grasp the distinction between technically correct but false halacha and true halacha - I really can't help him
ReplyDeletethere is a "subtle" difference between Rav Greenblatt's psak and Rav Feinstein's potential use of this approach. If Rav Feinstein actually supports the heter you will not see any difference between my treatment of the two.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a problem with what I say and what what the many rabbis whose letters I have posted - so say so - otherwise your presence is not welcome here.
ReplyDeletethe facts of the cases Rav Moshe Feinstein dealt with were based on solid evidence - and they were not contested. The probelm for the heter is the wide spread protests against the validity of the facts in this case - not the existence of a heter of mekach ta'os -
ReplyDeletethe validity of the heter has become widely accepted. The devil is in the details - not the heter itself
ReplyDeleteNot aware of any growing movement to invalidate the psak of kiddushei' ta'us. Maybe it is just on your block
ReplyDeleteLet's wait and see what Rav Dovid says
ReplyDeleteAs I have mentioned a number of times - we need to be concerned with truth - not just finding technicalities that would produce a heter. this is clear from Chazal, Rishonim Rambam through Shulchan Aruch. Isn't truth important to you? Read Rav Zilberstein's case that is included in my post
ReplyDeleteEddie the presumption is that the majority view is more likely to be true.
ReplyDeleteThe case you quoted - the rabbis had to vote what they felt was true because the Torah isn't in Heaven. We don't pasken on the basis of prophecy - it has to be truth obtained from human reasoning.
Strange, I always thought that truth is what the halocho says. The best we can say is that this becomes a machlokas like many before it. There have been furious machlokasim about gittin in the past. Ged MiKleves for example.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/kiteze/itan.html
Rav Zilberstein's case is not comparable. A first year yeshiva student can tell you that. In that case, the wife knew the witnesses were false (she knew that there was nobody in the house). In this case, the wife received a heter from talmeidi chachomim.
לאחר שהגט כבר בידיה של האשה, אין צורך לבוא אל הבעל ולספר
לו שהרב אלישיב אמרשהגט אינו כש
אפשר לומר לו שכיוון שהגט כבר נמצא ממילא
בידיה של האשה, אולי תכתוב עכשיו גט מרצונך, כוי'
What exactly does this mean - is the get kosher or not? If not, we should tell the husband surely?
This is always the issue with reports of Rav Elyashiv's psokim - they are always unclear.
the question with the Heter is whether reality matters. Halacha applied to lies produces halacha but it is not true. Does that matter to you? this is not a machlokes in psak regarding accepting the concept of kiddushei ta'us or how severe the deficit must be - but whether we should accept a psak based on lies. Most rabbis so no. Some rabbis say - halacha allows us to rely on experts and there is no need to investigate claims that the experts are not accurately describing reality.
ReplyDeleteOk, but what is procdeural halacha/ vs absolute truth?
ReplyDeleteIns't the majority view one of procedural rather than absolute?
In any case, my argument here is rather academic, and does not apply to the heter - since nobody has heard a Bat Kol allowing TE to remarry.
The עלינו לשבח title is misleading - it implies that R' Eliashiv's Psak had something to do with the Issur of עדות שקר.
ReplyDeleteBy holding a bargaining chip to pressure her to come to the table. ....something folks who went through this, can relate to. ....
ReplyDeleteOf course, sometimes the spouse still and nonetheless is adamant to impede the relationship with his children (thus making HER the one who is *truly recalcitrant, making it not worthwhile for him to pursue this avenue, but still does not justify applying pressure on him in various forms. ....
Oh you're probablyright, but hey, that would be POLITICALLY INCORRECT! ...
ReplyDeleteALL RIGHT CHEVRA, CAN TAKE IT ANY LONGER!!!! I'm so sorry for shouting, but Rav Daniel is basically saying, essentially saying and in fact saying (and actually shouting, for those who don't get it) that Halacha needs to be true and NOT merely procedural.....end of commotion. ...
ReplyDeletedon't be too sure about that
ReplyDeleteThe Torah says "MIDVAR SHEKER TIRCHAK" . there are very few instances in the Torah where it uses the word "Tirchak". So the Torah is telling you to "STAY CLEAR AND FAR FROM WORDS THAT ARE FALSE" . So I can understand Rav Elyashivs reasoning. Once you have false witnesses, then many other pieces of evidence can be false and therefore one should stay clear of the matter.
ReplyDeleteMy question was not why someone would consider withholding the get. I asked in this specific case where it has gotten him, and the answer is absolutely nowhere.
ReplyDeletePaying two people to falsely testify in beis din that they witnessed the husband beating the wife, when they never witnessed any such thing, IS עדות שקר.
ReplyDeleteI cannot fathom, how one such so called expert that makes an evaluation against the basic rules of assessment should have any credibility or validity. It's like a dentist removing the tooth of a patient in absentia. A shoichet mumche venisnablo beyodo is neveila, no matter how much of an expert, he blew it. The Doc's license should be revoked
ReplyDeleteAn ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
ReplyDeleteplease show proof that its assumed that the majority opinion is true. many examples that even when its clearly a mistake we still accept the the majority opinion
ReplyDeleteso you will wage war against RDF as well? along with your brother? sling filth at them and continue your campaign to discredit anyone who disagrees with RMS?
ReplyDeleteIt was not a mistake - it was G-d's will that they pasken that way. Please show me some of your many examples.
ReplyDeleteIt was worth the effort and it had potential even if in this case it turns out that it didn't work in the end. There was no way to know that upfront. Most women will not hold out for close to a decade in refusing to comply with the Torah, halacha and beis din if she will be prevented from remarrying all that time.
ReplyDeleteThe most prominent "damage" the heter has caused at this point is to the reputations of the Kaminetzkys and Rabbi Greenblatt and the adultery being committed by Tamar Epstein.
ReplyDeleteLet's assume Rav David Feinstein says the heter is worthless. What needs to happen? (some of the following is according to Rav Gestetner)
1) TE must separate from and receive a get from Adam Fleischer.
2) TE must return to the Baltimore Bais Din and follow their psak on custody arrangements and then receive a get from Aharon Friedman
Can the Kaminetzkys cleanse their reputation? Let's wait and see
In the meantime it should be abundantly clear to the Silver Spring and Philadelphia communities they need to ask mechilah from Aharon Freidman. Have they done that yet?
you are quite arrogant. There is nothing you have written of substance, and again, keep it to halacha, not talmid chacham bashing. And, yes, I know I am not welcome and so I do not plan on visiting again.
ReplyDelete