Sunday, September 25, 2016

Corruption and Conflicts: a lecture presented by the Greater Washington Community Kollel or a description of the Kamenetsky-Greenblatt outrage?

Update: Added a poster for the Agudah's lecture claiming that they also are concerned with honesty. Hypocrisy is not a rare commodity these days


Guest Post

The primary driving force behind the entire Kamenetsky-Greenblatt outrage have been Rabbis Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Sholom Kamenetesky.  Rabbi Greenblatt has explained that he ruled the marriage annulled because he had no choice but to accept the “facts” as presented to him by Rabbi Kamenetsky because of Rabbi Kamenetsky’s status as a “gadol.”  Rabbi Greenblatt refused to take into account that Rabbi Kamenetsky’s actions might be motivated by his longstanding and extremely close ties to the Epstein family. Rabbi Greenblatt stands by his annulment despite the ruling to the contrary by Rabbi Feinstein’s Beis Din and Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky’s letter that his father accepts the ruling of that Beis Din, because Rabbi Greenblatt insists that he must continue to rely on the “facts” given to him by Rabbi Kamenetsky, which Rabbi Kamenetsky still apparently stands behind.

This complete disregarding of the Kamenetsky ties to the Epstein family has occurred for many years, and is probably a large part of what caused the Kametskys to believe that they could get away with annulling the marriage without any basis. Rabbi Kamenetsky’s earlier letters attacking Aharon Friedman should have always been seen as biased and driven by his ties to the Epstein family, but were instead accepted by some, led by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, as those of an objective “gadol” whose opinion must prevail [because “sod hashem le’rauv”], even though he directly contradicted the Baltimore Beis Din to which the two parties brought the case and held several hearings with the participation of both parties. [http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/10/tamar-epstein-is-rabbi-hersehl.html]

Unfortunately, the Washington Vaad’s actions in the case after the death of Rabbi Gedalia Anamer also appear to be driven by conflicts, if not outright corruption. In 2009, at Tamar’s request the Washington Beis Din sent Aharon a simple and straightforward hazmana to a “din torah” regarding a get.  Aharon responded that Tamar was not entitled to involve another beis din because the parties had submitted the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din and Tamar had violated their orders.  At the time, the Washington Beis Din accepted Aharon’s answer and did not send another hazmana. The Av Beis Din of the Washington Vaad’s Beis Din at the time was the Vaad’s long-time leader, Rabbi Gedlaia Anamer, a rav in the DC area for over fifty years.  So long as Rabbi Anamer was the alive, the Vaad and that shul refused to take any actions against Aharon.  Aharon, along with the child when with him, fully participated in the shul, such as sometimes laining or serving as shaliach tzibbur.

But within months of Rabbi Anamer’s tragic and sudden passing in April 2010, that all changed.  A friend of the Epstein family took over Rabbi Anamer’s shul and he quickly started ostracizing Aharon despite the lack of any beis din ruling against Aharon. 

Following Rabbi Anamer’s death, the DC Vaad’s Beis Din sent Aharon an extremely nasty hazmana (in contrast to the earlier hazmana) essentially concluding that Aharon was guilty even before trying the case and demanding that Aharon appear before them for some unspecified type of proceeding that they did not even bother to claim would be a din torah. Nonetheless, after Aharon again responded that the matter was brought to another beis din whose orders Tamar had violated, the DC Vaad’s Beis Din acknowledged that it had no right to intervene against Aharon.  Nonetheless, the Epstein family friend who took over from Rabbi Anamer prohibited Aharon from setting foot in shul.

Tamar also asked the Beis Din of America to intercede against Aharon, but they refused to do so after calling the Baltimore Beis Din.  Despite the tremendous pressure from the Kamenetskys and the Epstein family, Tamar could not find an actual beis din to intercede against Aharon.  According to the testimony of Tamar’s toein, medical malpractice lawyer Frederic Goldfein, in Federal district court [Goldfein was forced to testify when the government granted him immunity because the government stated that Goldfein would otherwise have refused to testify by citing his right against self-discrimination under the Fifth Amendment), the Epstein family turned to the criminal Rabbi Martin Mordechai Wolmark to organize a “beis din” to intercede against Aharon.  Wolmark had the criminal enterprise he helped run issue a “seruv” against Aharon. Wolmark pled guilty to criminal charges in connection to his role in the criminal enterprise, and is currently in prison.  Two of the other signatories to the “seruv” narrowly avoided criminal charges n the case,: an FBI court affidavit stated that the FBI had probable cause to believe that they violated five different Federal criminal statutes, with regard to their participation in the case.  The criminal enterprise didn’t even attempt to pretend that its “seruv” had any validity, not even sending a hazmana before the seruv.  To highlight that the “seruv” had no basis in halacha, but was an exercise of raw political power, the criminal enterprise had Rabbi Kamenetsky sign the “seruv” despite his well-known and extremely longstanding personal and financial ties to the Epstein family and his previously having publicly reached a conclusion on the matter and publicly attacked Aharon

Following Rabbi Anamar’s death, active leadership of the Vaad devolved onto its director, the brother-in-law of Simon (Shimmy) Glick, whose daughter is married into the Epstein family, and Rabbi Dr. Freundel.  Glick is one the largest philanthropists in the yeshiva world, and his influence in Orthodox is very deep and very wide.  It is not clear exactly how large a role he has played in this tragic case, but as Rabbi Eidensohn has noted before, his influence is clearly strongly felt --  http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/12/tamar-epsteins-heter-money-can-metaher.html --- and particularly so in Silver Spring.

Despite the fact that even the Washington Vaad’s own Beis Din ruled that it could not intervene against Aharon, the Washigton Vaad seized upon the criminal enterprise’s “seruv” to publicly attack Aharon, issuing a letter that effectively incited violence against Aharon and the parties’ child.  Even after the Tisha Ba’av assault when Aharon brought the child to the Epstein house, the Washington Vaad refused to retract its letter or clarify that it did not mean to call for violence.  

Even after the Baltimore Beis Din issued a letter that Aharon was not guilty of wrongdoing, [http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/baltimore-beis-din-apologizes-for-many.html] the Washington Vaad has refused to retract its letter attacking Aharon. 

It should be noted that the rav giving this shiur is new to Silver Spring, and is not on the Vaad.  But lest anyone get their hopes up that this shiur might address the corruption and conflicts driving the Kamenetsky-Greenblatt, it should also be noted that the rav is a member of a kollel headed by Shimmy Glick’s nephew.


18 comments:

  1. Now that it is established that Yiftach is equivalent to Shmuel, we now return the gzeiro shovo that RSK (Shmuel) is equivalent to Yiftach. Like Yiftach, it was beyond his dignity to stoop down to Pinchas and retrieve his Neder, same RSK will not retreive his Psak and rather let Tamar die spiritually and live in sin. Tamar is now in limbo and afraid to get pregnant, lest she will have a Yiftach bedoro ben Isho....
    Tamar, snap out of it, and get a life. Wake up and smell the coffee. Happy New year to us all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have said this before - that the R' Kaminetskys identified and sympathized with Tamar's plight especially since Torah institutions have benefitted from the family's donations is understandable and is subject of the Gemorrah at the end of kiddushin concerning sho'chud. The greatest Rabbis disqualified themselves as dayanim because they identified so strongly with one side because of the chesed. Imho the Baltimore should have paskened visiting rights etc which they believe in the best interests of the child and addresses the concerns of all parties in the best manner possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “Despite the fact that even the Washington Vaad’s own Beis Din ruled that it could not intervene against Aharon, the Washigton Vaad seized upon the criminal enterprise’s “seruv” to publicly attack Aharon, issuing a letter that effectively incited violence against Aharon and the parties’ child. Even after the Tisha Ba’av assault when Aharon brought the child to the Epstein house, the Washington Vaad refused to retract its letter or clarify that it did not mean to call for violence.”
    In Pacer we read how, indeed, prominent rabbis incite terrible violence with no basis. I’m waiting for admirers and supporters of Mendel Epstein et al, Liebowitz et al, ORA, Agunah International etc to express remorse, regret, and admission of error, and to offer, somehow, to make amends – תשובה. The photos of beaten up husbands and the testimony of Aharon are what convinced the jurors and much of the public in the Mendel Epstein et al case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Even after the Tisha Ba’av assault when Aharon brought the child to the Epstein house, the Washington Vaad refused to retract its letter or clarify that it did not mean to call for violence.”
    I say that followers of Aaron, the brother of Moses, would never call for violence. The gamara in Baba Kama 28a permit violence in the rare (theoretical --- for teaching only) case to prevent the freed Israelite slave from keeping his non-Israelite woman the master allowed him while he was a slave. However, the activist feminists are quick to call for violence once a wife asks for a divorce, e.g.
    (internet 2012):
    “Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the bullets have been fired."
    The activist feminists and their supporters have yet to retract or to clarify that they do not mean to call for violence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The world has gotten so absurd that it may be time for current event/halacha blogs like this to merge with the Moshiach is coming blogs because how much more of this can we endure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lehevei Yadua Bechol Tfutzot Beis Yisroel!

    Mihayom veholo, whenever a Name of a Beis Din or it's members thereof appears on their letterhead, ruling that calls for the public to intervene and execute any and all means at their disposal to convince the party to conform, must specify distinctly that Vesholach yodo bemaklos or beyodayim, umake nefesh v'omes, is excluded from utilization. Anything less, the person who raised his hand over the other and persons responsible for the instigating poster, flyer, or otherwise, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law so that they will know. Dina deMalchusse prevails. Orur makeh re'ehu beseser ubagalui.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If Rabbi Grossman isn't part of the Vaad, then why is the writer attacking him? Was he in any way involved with wronging Aharon Friedman? Is his crime "guilt by association" with the son of the dead brother in law of Shimmy Glick (Rabbi Kalman Winter a"h)?

    Do you even know what the shiur was about? (Hint: ask him).

    ReplyDelete
  8. כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו

    תנא: לא שלו היתה, אלא של שכינתו היתה, ומתוך שלא מיחה בה - נקראת על שמו

    אמר רב עמרם בריה דר"ש בר אבא א"ר שמעון בר אבא א"ר חנינא לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שלא הוכיחו זה את זה שנאמר (איכה א, ו) היו שריה כאילים לא מצאו מרעה מה איל זה ראשו של זה בצד זנבו של זה אף ישראל שבאותו הדור כבשו פניהם בקרקע ולא הוכיחו זה את זה

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hint - did you bother reading the post?

    It should be noted that the rav giving this shiur is new to Silver Spring, and is not on the Vaad. But lest anyone get their hopes up that this shiur might address the corruption and conflicts driving the Kamenetsky-Greenblatt, it should also be noted that the rav is a member of a kollel headed by Shimmy Glick’s nephew.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, I did bother to read the post. In fact I was even going to quote the lines you refer to, before adding my comments. However I decided that it wasn't necessary.

    The point I'm trying to make, is that it's not fair to drag Rabbi Grossman into this mess. The main people in Silver Spring who were originally involved in this debacle are dead (Rabbis Anemer and K. Winter), and we haven't seen any connection whatsoever between Rabbi Grossman and the rabbi(s) who doesn't/don't allow AF to come to shul. So why drag Rabbi Grossman into the mix? Because of his association with a kollel headed by Shimmy Glick’s nephew? Is he in any way responsible for the current state of affairs?

    We don't even know that S. Glick supports the kollel in Silver Spring. But assuming that yes, will you now go on a crusade against any rabbi whose institution receives a donation from S. Glick?

    If I would give a similar shiur in Israel, would you also drag my name in the mud, just because of the casual relationship between the title of my shiur, and the Friedman case?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rabbi Grossman is not being dragged into this mess. The issue is the conflict between the values of the sponsoring organization and the title of the talk

    ReplyDelete
  12. You might disagree, but I feel that by posting the sign with his picture, you are thereby automatically dragging Rabbi Grossman into the mess.

    You allege that there's a conflict between the values of the sponsoring organization and the title of the talk. My problem is, that other than the fact that the deceased father of the rosh kollel was involved in the Friedman story, do you have proof that the Kollel of Greater Washington is in also involved, in any way, and that their values have been compromised?

    ReplyDelete
  13. You call yourself "Honesty"? Be intellectually honest.

    Do you know for a fact that Rabbi Grossman is even aware that a problem exists?

    Furthermore, Chazal say מי שאפשר. Is Rabbi Grossman considered מי שאפשר?

    Why are you judging him in the courtroom of public opinion without giving him a chance to defend himself?

    Also, which city do you live in? Is everything in your city according to halacha? Are you meticulous to protest any and all transgressions of halacha in your city?
    קשוט עצמך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים (ב"ב ס ב).

    ReplyDelete
  14. You claim that Rabbi Grossman is not being dragged into this mess, yet you allowed "Honesty's" comment, which personally maligns Rabbi Grossman. To me that means that you condone dragging him into the mess.

    You also didn't respond as to whether you have proof that the Kollel of Greater Washington is
    involved with the Friedman case, and that the values of the kollel have been compromised.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I see that this has become a personal issue for you.

    Do you know for a fact that he is unaware that a problem exists? I find it impossible to believe that a dayan in Silver Spring would be unaware of RSK's and RNG's heter. But this article seemed to be directed at the Silver Spring community and not specifically this speaker.

    How was he judged? Why can't he defend himself? I'm sure Rabbi Eidensohn will publish his article if he chooses to defend himself.

    Your last point is simply ridiculous! You need a case and point before you tell a person to shut up. Sorry, but you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My past comments on this blog reflect the fact that I consistently get involved when I feel that a wrong is being perpetrated. In such cases, I was taught to protest vigorously and tirelessly, especially in this case where a talmid chacham and an entire kollel are being maligned.

    In my book, before coming out against a person, the burden of proof lies on the one who chooses to besmirches another. Simply put:
    המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

    In this case, I have seen zero proof to the effect that Rabbi Grossman is aware that AF isn't allowed to come to shul, and if he does, that he has within his ability to effectively change the current state of affairs.

    I also haven't seen proof that the Kollel of Greater Washington is involved in the Friedman case.

    BTW, have you stopped beating your wife?

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the Silver Spring community would have decided to lynch a fellow member of this speaker's kollel and refuse to allow him to enter any Shul, would he sit by idly? Would he continue attending Shuls that behave this way, or would he form his own breakaway minyan?

    Sorry, but the shameful campaign against Aaron Friedman included the entire community. Everyone got the letters and the phone calls.

    But you did not respond to my points.
    1) This article was not a personal attack against this speaker; it was about the despicable behavior of the Silver Spring community.

    2) If he would like to defend himself, the floor is wide open for him to do so.

    ------

    Would it be wrong if I brought up the initial defenses some people tried to put up for Barry Freundel?

    ReplyDelete

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