After universal condemnation and rejection of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt "heter" - the couple is still living together. Neither R Greenblatt nor the Kaminetsky's seem to feel it necessary for the couple to separate despite clear consensus that they are committing adultery.
This raises in interesting question of kibud av. Given that her father was niftar - it seems reasonable that when they have a son that she would name him after her father. The question is whether honoring her father by naming a mamzer after him is truly honoring her father's memory? On the other hand if she doesn't name her son after her father that shows that she acknowledges that her marriage is not valid according to halacha and she is disgracing his memory by merely remaining in the phony marriage.
A related question is whether Rav Shmuel or Sholem Kaminetsky or Rav Greenblatt would be the sandek for their son? Is it considered an honor to be a sandek for a mamzer? On the other hand if they refused the "honor" that would mean that they acknowledge that the child is a mamzer that they were responsible for creating.
For those close to these gedolim, I would appreciate if you asked them these questions. I will publish their answers. If you can get them to explain why they haven't told the couple to separate - even after the Kaminetsky's accepted Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak that the heter is garbage - it would also be appreciated.
How do we know they are living together, did anybody see them together? if so, when?
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a halacha that at a mamzer's bris it is required to publicly announce that the child is a mamzer?
ReplyDeletethat just reinforces the question
ReplyDeleteI was told this by sources close to them who wish to remain anonymous
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point of living besod, if it's sod for gantz Brod. Does sod haShem lireiov cut it? Do they have any explanation to R' Dovid, To R' Moshe Shternbuch he promised to abide by R' Dovid, for all other Gedoilei Yisrael, or Hahsem hanosen torah leamo? Why has now R' Shlomo Miller remained quiet about the the other half of the Emmes? There seems like a cloud of mystery around this scandal. Sod H' lireiov kind.
ReplyDeleteThey should name him Kidor.
ReplyDeleteMight I suggest that in fulfillment of that requirement the child be named Shmuel Sholom in honor of the ones who made his conception a reality, and that would be sufficient announcement of his illegitimate status.
ReplyDeleteAccording To my source rav shmuel kaminetzki after Gettin The pask of rav dovid that its assur. rav shmuel asked for a clarification . If thats rav dovids opinion. Or what rav dovid held according To rav moshe. The reply was that this is rav dovids own. Opinion however rav mosh might. Have. Paskened diffrently. That left The kaminetzky. Family with option to go with rng who was paskening according to rav moshe something rav dovid refused to do
ReplyDeletethis absurd and can not be true - unless you want to say that both Rav Shmuel and Rav Sholom are outright liars. In which case this whole discussion is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteTell your source to read Rav Shmuel's letter to Rav Weiss and to notice that he is contradicted by R Sholom's letter which state that both he and his father accepted Rav Dovid's psak
RNG is definitely not paskening like Rav Moshe Feinstein would have in this case. As has been repeatedly shown the facts that RNG relied on are lies. RNG refuses to retract even though he has been told repeatedly that he relied on a report which is grossly inaccurate.
Rav Shmuel accepted. In his letter to rabbi wiess Rdf psak because. He assumed rdf would apply his fathers gedarim not his own . as things evolved rav shmuel is. Sticking to his guns that. Rng is a bat samcha on rmf daoh. And therefore will not tell her to be poreish. Since rav dovid did not pasken according To rmf gedarim but according to his own.
ReplyDeleteMakes no sense. Why bother going to Rav Dovid and waste his time when he already got a psak for Rav Greenblatt and Rav Feurst?! Why waste Rav Weiss' time by claiming he would abide by Rav Dovid's ruling when what he meant is only if Rav Dovid Feinstein agreed with Rav Greenblatt?! There is nothing in R Sholom's letter - which he wrote after the psak - to indicate this condition.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore as everyone who has written a letter on the matter the clear unambigous consensus is that this heter is posul according to Rav Moshe Feinstein. The only reason that RNG paskened differently is that he was utilizing a report that was full of lies and which he refuses to retract because he doesn't do such things.
Please get this far fetched claim in writing in the name of the person who is making these claims. I would love to publish it. If true - it shows a basic lack of honesty and integrity. If true this scandal stinks even more of corruption then before - something I find hard to believe.
There is a very fine line here . rav shmuel fully acceps the halocha as rdf has paskened and if he is asked in another case or for lets say a talmid or a family member he will go with rdf psak howeve . In this case. Its a shayla of being poresh. Thats a whole new shaylo. And. The women is allowed to be someich on rng as he is applyin . Halocha here based on his understandin of rmf psak
ReplyDeleteIf you would use standard punctuation and spelling, we would have a much easier time understanding you.
ReplyDeleteyou are changing your story now.
ReplyDelete1) Did Rav Shmuel agree to accept Rav Dovid's psak? The answer is clearly yes without any condition that he pasken like Rav Moshe (you haven't provided any evidence that Rav Dovid in fact paskened differently than Rav Moshe)
2) You claimed before that after asking for a psak from Rav Dovid and accepting it he turned around and said "Thank you very much but I will accept RNG heter and not your prohibition. Now you are saying that he accepted the psak - but he didn't tell her to be poresh because she was relying on RNG. Rav Shmuel had agree to accept Rav Dovid's psak - which inherently requires that Rav Shmuel tell Tamar she needs to be poresh. She never said that she was accepting Rav Dovid's psak. According to your fable Rav Shmuel should have told her that now that he accepts Rav Dovid's psak that the heter is no good he is obligated to tell her that she must be poresh. She could say no. But that makes no difference for Rav Shmuel's obligation to tell her to be poresh. In fact he did the opposite. According to informed sources he told her NOT to separate. Which is a violation of his agreement to accept Rav Dovid's psak and fits in your version 1 of the story but not your version 2
But now you are saying a new story that Rav Shmuel accepted the psak of Rav Dovid that the heter was no good but he rejected the requirement to tell her to be poresh because he was relying on RNG psak that it wa good?!
Make up your mind - did Rav Shmuel reject Rav Dovid's psak because he didn't think it was what Rav Moshe Said or did he accept it but decided not to tell her to be poresh because he said he can rely on RNG?
You are mixing a lot of apples and oranges and your story not only doesn't make sense but it is inherently contradictory
Duvi since you are the only one of Rav Shmuels thousands of talmidim and supporters who is willing to even offer an explanation - I am offering you the opportunity to consolidate your various versions and make a guest post defending Rav Shmuel's behavior in this mess. That means answering the criticisms that I have raised regarding your inside information.
ReplyDeleteThey should name him Shmuel Nosson. Or Sholom Nosson. Or Sholom Shmuel.
ReplyDeleteI personally know Rav Greenblatt, who does not need my haskomah, but he is a true Godol BeYisroel and an expert in Kol HaTorah Kullah. What he wrote is completely right, there are clear gemoros and halochos regarding the issue of mekach to'us in kiddushin. He's made it completely clear that his was not a psak enabling Tamar Epstein to remarry but rather an answer as to whether or not we could claim mekach to'us in such situations. I've sat down in many gittin with him and would never question him. HOWEVER I cannot understand how he could, then, officiate at Tamar Epstein's chasene. I won't say she's an eishes ish and that he children will be mamzerim, but I wouldn't allow any of my descendants to marry any of hers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thelakewoodscoop.com/news/2016/07/first-report-two-lakewood-children-required-to-be-matir-neder-after-being-mekabel-nezires-on-themselves.html
ReplyDeletethe more important issue at this point is why he isn't telling them be poressh given that the facts he used have been universally rejected. If he was only giving a theoretical answer - then he has a duty as a Jew to stop them from adultery!
ReplyDeleteעצם המציאות שהרב מיללער מטורונטו יושב בחיבוק ילדים, מראה דמדשתקי רבנן ש"מ דקניחא ליה
ReplyDeleteThis is an indictment against almost all gedolei Yisroel of this generation
Reb Daniel,
ReplyDeleteHas anyone tried to ask him personally? Not al yedei kli sheni or shlishi, she'ayno mevashel... as a primary source. Why not ask him a straight question asking for a straight answer: "HaRav, is Tamar Epstein an Aishes Ish with regards to her estranged (ex) husband or not? If yes, then would you kindly make it known and tell her to separate from her new "husband" immediately, if not, please let us know why so that we can wish the newly weds brochah vehatzlochah..."
Sometimes the politics of kovod (ie. I'll not degrade myself to asking him a question, he needs to come to me with an explanation, etc, etc...) are extremelly detrimental to the pursuit of truth and justice.
We say Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof and HaBoreach Min HaKovod, when in fact our actions show Kovod Kovod Tirdof and HaBoreach min HaTzedek...
Very sad to say the least...
Zay Gezunt!
“If you can get them to explain why they haven't told the couple to separate - even after the Kaminetsky's accepted Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak that the heter is garbage - it would also be appreciated.”
ReplyDeleteMy theory. Yes the heter is garbage. The problem is in the licensed witness against Aaron, who never met or never interviewed him seriously. My theory is that this licensed witness played up his or her professional opinion that Aaron is a mental case which Tamar would never have married if she only knew. My theory is that this licensed witness knows how to talk and how to persuade Rabbi Greenblatt and Rabbi Kaminetsky that it’s a life or death issue which should over-ride mere halacha, in this extreme case. Normally, Aaron could bring his own licensed witnesse to testify that he’s a regular guy. Normally, Aaron could tear into a licensed witnesses testifying that he’s a mental case, without interviewing him. The supporters of the heter keep the licensed witness’ name a secret and details of his or her damning (to Aaron) report a secret.
I bet that this licensed witness is related to the witnesses granted immunity in the Mendel Epstein et al trial, such as to Tamar’s lawyer. Maybe his or her name will come up in the Mendel Epstein trial papers due starting this week, in Pacer. Isn’t there some way we can hold of the name of licensed witness, or maybe see the report, or to hear a good summary of it? Incidentally, is Tamar Epstein related to Mendel Epstein?
He has been asked in the past and declined to discuss the issue
ReplyDeleteReb Gerald,
ReplyDeleteOne thing has nothing to do with the other... you are mashing it all up. Focus on the issue at hand please. More to the point, irrespective of the validity of the heter (as regards your comment), Feldman is a recalcitrant husband, a mesarev get, who MUST be completelly shunned by anyone who has at least a modicum of Yiras Shomayim. A Get is NOT an instrument to gain leverage over the other party and should not be used as such. His behaviour is not to be excused or justified and he should have given Tamar Epstein a Get, no questions asked, if that was the psak of the Beis Din at the time.
Unfortunately, all and all, this case is a clear proof of our lowly spiritual level... a generation in which Batei Din don't have the strength to deal with recalcitrant husbands, a generation in which Feldman can be so brazen before the whole community, a generation in which G'dolei Yisroel in America may have made such a tremendous mistake in their psak...
...and it all gets blogged about.
So he should be asked again, and again...
ReplyDeletebe my guest - he doesn't want to talk about it
ReplyDeleteRavinah you are incredibly ignorant of this case. First of all the husband's name is Aharon Friedman - not Feldman. Secondly the Baltimore Beis Din which is the only one authorized to deal with this case has said he does not have an obligation to give a get. Thirdly the seruv which was issued by Rabbi Kaminetsky is illegal as explained in written comment to the Baltimore Beis Din's letter by non other than Rav Reuven Feinstein. This is another example of Rav Kaminetsky going against Shulchan Aruch - please read the documentation in the Archives. This case is not an example of our low spiritual level - it is an example of gedolim who don't think they need to follow the halacha. So again THERE WAS NEVER AN AUTHORTIZED PSAK THAT HE NEEDS TO GIVE A GET
ReplyDeletePlease before you start pontificating make sure you know what the facts are.
" I won't say that she is an aishes ish and that her children are mamzerim. ...."
ReplyDeletebut, Ravinah, every other rov would - you have yet to find us just one letter that accepts R Greenblatt's "p'sak" against the mound of written condemnations by all the prominent rabbonim. ..
You have a lot to learn, not just about the case, but the halacha in detail regarding if and when a get is warranted simply because it was requested or even demanded. ...and perhaps, one might add that you have a lot to learn in the ways of the world. ...
ReplyDeleteI asked Rav Shlomo Miller why nothing is being done. As I recall at this moment, he seemed to say that he has done what he can. He did for sure tell me to my inquiry as to where things are going if they didn't separate, to which he responded that at least now, if someone would have the audacity to pull off such a shenanigan, they would think twice...
ReplyDeleteFor your benefit, Nathan, this is what I told ehud:
ReplyDeleteI asked Rav Shlomo Miller why nothing is being done. As I recall at this moment, he seemed to say that he has done what he can. He did for sure tell me to my inquiry as to where things are going if they didn't separate, to which he responded that at least now, if someone would have the audacity to pull off such a shenanigan, they would think twice...
Aside that it is irrelevant to this post, RSK's p'sak is "specifically irrelevant" based on our discussion how he dealt with serious halacha. ....
ReplyDeleteWhy the offense? I don't understand such gratuitous lack of derech eretz.
ReplyDeleteReb Daniel, I ask you too the same question, why the offensive tone?
ReplyDeleteAs per the letter issued by the Baltimore Bais Din, which I've just consulted in your archives, Friedman is not even mechuyav to listen to the aforementioned Beis Din as he lives outside of their jurisdiction. I stand by what I say regarding recalcitrant husbands in general and I do retract my assertions regarding Friedman, which were ill informed.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that you retracted the Motzai Sham Ra that you posted, however neither Rabbi Kamenetski or Rabbi H Schechter have the decency to retract the lies that they have spread.
ReplyDeleteindeed something to do Teshuvah for...
ReplyDeleteI tend to trust Rav Miller. It seems he has been muffled or blackmailed by someone. Same with the other rabonim. Oy ledor shekach olso lo beyomov.
ReplyDeleteRead my lips, oops i mean my reply to PI
ReplyDeleteShomu Shamayim!
ReplyDeleteNo relation outside of being professional liars.
ReplyDeleteHe refuses to discuss it with his own contemporaries who is close to.
ReplyDeleteOK, Trying to calm down, pardon my 'enthusiasm', but the posuk in Mishlai has long said: "matzdik roshoh umarshia tzaddik toavas HaShem gam shnayhem"............................................. you (and unfortunately, many like you) almost gleefully, or at least comfortably (and I might add comfortably add, pontificatingly) are apt to insult and pass judgement on someone in a situation like Aharon Friedman when they are in actuality rodef achar hanirdof, which many commentors here (myself included), in one way or another, identify themselves with, where
ReplyDeleteIs it offensive to inform you that you are ill informed "regarding recalcitrant husbands in general"?
ReplyDeleteHow about if I tried to inform you before (without any innuendo) of the same error, but you choose to ignore it? Aha, no innuendo, but perhaps just blunt, can it perhaps be that a direct response is warranted?
I will consider it.
ReplyDeleteDear P.I.,
ReplyDeleteThe whole approach of public "burning people" at the stake, on this blog or any other for that matter already fulfills the posuk you quoted from Mishlei, that's what this (and other) blogs are made of... speculation, hasty judgements, politics, vitriol, etc...
Reb Daniel would have long been out of a job if no one read and/or commented on anything he posted... Everyone has an opinion and very very very few of them, if any, will make any real sense and be rooted in emes leamiso. Everyone is judging with whatever limited (and biased) information they have. C'mon... you know that as well as I do. I can glean from your "enthusiastic" words that you are probably in the same matzav as Aharon Friedman and if so, I wish you can resolve your situation as quickly as possible... I'll add more comments in response to your comment below.
I have ZERO patience for anyone who's been declared a mesarev get by a qualified Beis Din which has duly analyzed the entirity of the case and paskened that the husband or the wife for that matter (yes, it does happen as well) fit the category of mesarvei get. Once there is a psak that a Get should be given/accepted (which was NOT the case re Aharon Friedman, as I've learned) it must be complied with or else, the recalcitrant party must face all possible halachic consequences, as established by halochah (needless to say, by also abiding by the law of the land). There's no room for disagreement over this position no matter how sad a story you want to share with the readership... "MiNa'im sheShloshah sheYoshvim BaDin haShechinah beineihem...?" A clear Psak, by a competent, reputable and established Beis Din must be complied with...
ReplyDeleteHence, without a clear psak a husband who has not yet given his wife a Get is NOT a recalcitrant husband... once the psak is out, the non compliant husband IS a recalcitrant husband.
Ravinah - I see you like to jump to conclusions without bother finding out the facts. The discussions on this blog are accompanied by detailed analysis in halacha and there is always a clear attempt to get all the facts relevant.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it is the gedolim in this case and a number of other cases we have dealt with that have produced announcement of halacha which are wrong. Such as calling for demonstrations against the clear declaration of the authorized beis din. They have demaned a Get - against the clear declaration of the beis din. They have clearly ignored the facts and created others such as false psychiatric reports. And are simply voicing their opinion which unfortunately is not objective. Please read for example through the material on the Dodelson Weiss divorce. Check out the Tropper case or the Hersch case or the Kolko case etc etc.
Trying to smear my reputation and that of the other participants in this discussion is below disgusting.
If you have some facts present them. Apparently you don't have anything to offer accept slander
One second - where, when and how have I tried to smear your reputation? I re-read my post and can't find anything remotely resembling an offensive comment towards you.
ReplyDeleteI also fail to understand how I'm jumping to conclusions or how your answer has anything to do with my comment.
I may not agree with you on everything but that doesn't give me the right to smear you in any way and I honestly don't think I've done that. That's simply not me...
you did write this didn't you?
ReplyDeleteDear P.I.,
The whole approach of public "burning people" at the stake, on this blog or any other for that matter already fulfills the posuk you quoted from Mishlei, that's what this (and other) blogs are made of... speculation, hasty judgements, politics, vitriol, etc...
Reb Daniel would have long been out of a job if no one read and/or commented on anything he posted... Everyone has an opinion and very very very few of them, if any, will make any real sense and be rooted in emes leamiso. Everyone is judging with whatever limited (and biased) information they have. C'mon... you know that as well as I do. I can glean from your "enthusiastic" words that you are probably in the same matzav as Aharon Friedman and if so, I wish you can resolve your situation as quickly as possible... I'll add more comments in response to your comment below.
And how does that amount to smearing your name? I'm talking about people in general and their habits and saying that if people didn't comment in such a ferocious manner your blog would not exist as there would be no audience to write for...
ReplyDeleteAgain, Kvodo BiMkomo Munach, I can't see any smear at all...
Great,I agree in principle that a *qualified* Bais Din must issue a p'sak. Now kindly tell me, how do we know which Bais Din is qualified? Because it's prominent and famous? That's probably the yardstick used by the public, but unfortunately, they are in for the shock of their lives. That doesn't qualify. I do, however, believe that it can be verified. ..
ReplyDeleteindeed something to think about.
ReplyDeletehow do you propose it be verified?
OK. Update for today... this is what I have: "Rav Greenblatt is Da'as Torah in his own right and a renowned posek who boasts decades of dealing with the most complex cases of gittin around the world. He does not have to explain his psak to anyone, especially those who are not on his level. If Rav Moshe Sternbuch has a question he wants to ask or wants to voice his disapproval he can come to Memphis and meet Rav Greenblatt to discuss the issue. This is neither the first nor the last time there is a machloikes haposkim regarding gittin. He is the AB"D of Memphis, his psak and even the Chuppah took place in Memphis, therefore, in his territory which no one has to right to infringe upon. Therefore, the issue is really a result of amaratzus on loshon horah and to that we say zil lebeis dekroh."
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts?
BTW I restored your posts that were deleted yesterday
ReplyDeletemany thanks!
ReplyDeletemy post above is a quote from what I've received this morning, hence the quotation marks.
ReplyDeleteI saw the vast amount of published material and will comment on the appropriate page.
Rgds.