Based on the sources [Daas Torah Heter Meah Rabbonim] and after consulting with Rav Moshe Sternbuch (who is very upset with what the Kanminetskys have done) - who read through all the relevant material on the case which I provided him - the following is clear.
Aharon Friedman can remarry without a heter meah rabbonim. That is the view of the majority of poskim. The Heter Meah Rabbonim was created to protect the wife. In this case, Tamar as moredes and going to secular court as well as declaring that she was never married to Aharon – has thrown aside the protection of the Heter Meah Rabbonim.
Tamar is clearly a moredes by deserting Aharon and taking their daughter to live with her parents. Furthermore she went to secular court without permission of the Baltimore Beis Din that she signed an agreement to obey. Finally she says she has no need for a Get since she never was married to Aharon and is living in an adulterous relationship at the present time according to the consensus of the major poskim of our time.
Additionally there is no obligation for Aharon to give a Get and he is not even required to deposit a Get with Beis Din before getting married. However it would be desirable if he did deposit a Get in case Tamar ever realizes the terrible mistake she has made and returns and accepts the full authority of the Baltimore Beis Din to decide the issues. But clearly the permissibility for him to remarry is not dependent upon providing a Get – either directly or depositing one with beis din.
Besides deserting Aharon and took away their daughter without his consent and going to secular court without the approval of the Baltimore Beis ;she compounded the problem by publicly shaming Ahron. Against the accepted halacha, she tried to pressure Aharon through shaming in the media world wide, public demonstrations, letters to have him fired from his job and even paid a poster displayed in the Washington Subway system against him. Goons were paid 60k to have him beaten up. She – with the assistance of ORA and Rabbi Schachter and Rabbi Kaminetsky was made into the poster girl for Agunos. Her reason for leaving Aharon was that she and her family thought she could do better – despite the fact she viewed him as a good father and husband – though not as sociable with her family as she wished. After failure to obtain a Get for a number of years – she switched gears and with the shameful collusion and encouragement of the Kaminetskys conducted a world wide shopping expedition to find a posek who would declare her marriage null and void. Through a phony psychiatrist report – from a therapist who didn’t even meet with Aharon – she had him declared to be totally crazy and unfit for marriage. A claim she never made to beis din or in any of the pronouncements to media while she was in her Aguna stage.
Much to the shame and disgrace of the Kaminetskys, they got Rabbi Nota Greenblatt to not only state that her marriage was annulled and that she had never been married – but he also married her to another man. Despite the world wide protest by the leading poskim of our times that the heter was invalid and she was committing adultery and despite the fact that Rav Dovid Feinstein and his beis ruled specifically at the request of the Kaminetsky - that the heter was not valid – Rabbi Greenblatt has not retracted. More importantly the Kaminetskys - while finally accepting the heter they engineered was invalid – refuse to tell Tamar that she should separate from her adulterous relationship. Tamar is saying that she has no need for a Get since she was never married to Aharon. The Baltimore Beis Din has said given these facts Aharon has no obligation at present to give Tamar a Get and there is no permission to publicly shame him into doing so.
==================
emes wrote:
Practically speaking, Aharon Friedman would have difficulty remarrying. His Parnassah is closely tied to his experience as a top staffer on Capitol Hill. Thus, he resides in the Washington DC area.
ReplyDeleteBut the Rabbinical Council of Washington has never retracted their letter making Mr. Friedman into an outcast.
How can you ask a woman to marry a man who is still shunned by large segments of the community he lives in? How can you bring children into the world who will also be shunned from birth by parts of the community?
There is one Shul where Mr. Friedman is welcome and highly valued for his friendship, and for participating in leading the Davening and Laining the Torah. There is a pre-school and a school affiliated with that old fashioned Torah-true Shul. Perhaps the right woman will accept the circumstances, and be happy here. There are difficulties, but there is hope.
“Tamar is clearly a moredes by deserting Aharon and taking their daughter to live with her parents. Furthermore she went to secular court without permission of the Baltimore Beis Din that she signed an agreement to obey.”
ReplyDeleteThank you, Rabbi Sternbuch. My problem Susan v Gerald also. Susan is clearly a moredet by deserting me by refusing to join me with our 6 children in Israel as she promised in writing in Aliya papers in 1989. Susan went to the civil court for go purpose. I quote Mendel Epstein on http://www.vosizneias.com/139832
“Epstein confessed that there are, however, occasions where going to court first is beneficial, especially when there is a particularly obdurate and uncooperative husband involved.”
I quote Rabbi Irwin Haut, the lawyer who filed the civil action against me:
“IRWIN HAUT being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. I reside at 852 East 12th Street, Brooklyn, New York and maintain offices for the practice of law in New York County. 2. I submit this affidavit at SUSAN ARANOFF's request in opposition to GERALD ARANOFF's motion for summary judgment dismissing his wife's separation action… 5. On that day and on the following days prior to defendant's departure, I urged him not to leave and told him he would be abandoning his wife and children if he persisted in leaving... WHEREFORE you deponent respectfully requests that defendant's motion be denied in all respects. IRWIN HAUT Sworn to before me this 25th day of September, 1991…”
I thought so too, but I regularly see cases of such couples.
ReplyDeleteThe complication here is (besides the one shul issue) that his job limits him to the DC area.
Did Rav Shternbuch make a general statement that a HMR isn't needed in a case similar to Aharon's based on the facts presented to him or did Rav Shternbuch specifically pasken that Aharon Friedman specifically doesn't need a HMR?
ReplyDeleteIs getting 100 rabbis to sign a HMR difficult?
ReplyDeleteAharon may want to get a HMR, even if it isn't required in his case, because by doing so he is making clear that he is still married to Tamar. By getting married after forgoing obtaining a HMR, based on that some people may falsely claim that Aharon views himself as no longer married to Tamar.
I don't think Aharon would have too much trouble finding a girl willing to marry him.
ReplyDeleteGreetings, my friend. This is why it's so important to follow R' M. Shternbuch's directives to protest more and more, so the recalcitrant BD's and all should comply with the *Derech asher yeilchu bam*. Then, vehakol yavo al mekomo beShalom. VehoElokim yevakesh et haNirdaf, and at the end of the day, TZEDEK will reign!
ReplyDeleteWe The Peopple, demand from all those that originally supported TAMAR should retract in Public, since they have nothing to show that anything in this saga is supported and done KEHALACHA. Umi sheyesh lo leheid ulehapech bizchutah lezakot ulelamed sanegoria, ad arbaim yom yavo veyeid. Till then, Los sonu ish es amiso prevails, and mideoraysa must open all the doors and welcome R' Aharon besever ponim yofos!
Thanks for clarifying the issues. It seems that in Israel they see things differently from those dayanim in the USA. The Beit Din should have some idea of a desired outcome and also be aware of the future consequences of any p'sak . For sure , a get is what we want - which is must better than annuling the kidushin , even a get me'useh is better , because be'di'eved we can rely on it . So in this case for sure AF would be recommended to give a get. And in Israel if things are stalled for I think a year or more , Beit Din then force a get Imho the baltimore Beit Din and those who have advised AF need to take also some responsibility for this mess. I am not sure if AF wants to remarry and get on with his life , for if so he would have done it a long time ago. There are plenty of people out there , both men and women who have gotten the bad end of the deal , but they have chosen to focus their energies on the future, on the positive than spend years fighting what is rightfully theirs
ReplyDeleteThe case is not a new case.. it is as old as the hills. frankly it has been paskened by many of the biggest Gedolim including Rav Akiva Eiger, the chasam Sofer etc. No Heter Meah rabonim is needed because the woman is a moredes, especially if it more than 4 years of rebelling (see opinion of Chasam Sofer) and rabbeinu Gershom was not goyzer in the case of a Moredes.
ReplyDeletePlease see the psak of Rav Chaim Oyzer in Shut Achiezer chelek 1. I do not have time to translate but it should be noted as the foremost psak of the 20th century in how to deal with these cases. For some reason it is not well known. THIS PSAK SHOULD BE PUT UP IN EVERY SHUL IN THE WORLD TO STOP THE CANCER OF ARKO"OYS ALREADY.
Here is the source, it is siman Yud (in chelek rishon). No disrespect to any of the other rabbonim mentioned but Rav Chaim Oyzer was the biggest posek in pre war Lita.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14671&st=&pgnum=65
Frankly I am not sure why in Eretz Yisroel the Gedolim were so insistent on a Hetter Meah in these kinds of cases where the woman would not go to Bais Din. I suspect it was to prevent the situation where the woman was willing to go to Bais Din and the husband still would not give the Get. But to me they are totally diffrent cases.
“Furthermore she went to secular court without permission of the Baltimore Beis Din that she signed an agreement to obey.”
ReplyDeleteI printed out and read the psak of Rav Chaim Oyzer in Shut Achiezer chelek 1. I try to apply to Susan v Gerald.
What’s wrong with going to the civil court for no good purpose ? So what ? What’s the harm ? What’s the problem ?
The problem is civil courts have bad judges. Civil courts have nice, even beautiful, written rules, but do they follow them ? I wrote today to the NYS Court of Appeals motion 2017-262:
“The issue before the NYS Court of Appeals is the question: Does Judge Prus' stonewalling and ostracizing me shows judicial bias ? Judge Prus indeed stonewalls me. Note that Judge Prus does not relate to specific points I raise. Judge Prus does not do as Judge Mulcasey and Judge Sand did --- give a careful review of my arguments especially that I'm prose. Judge Prus ostracizes me in ordering me not to contact him or his staff ever again. I have to worry about the unpaid $25,000 fines against me of Judge Rigler and Judge Garson. I have to worry about Susan trying to garnish my social security. Judge Rigler and Judge Garson also stonewalled me and ostracized me. My habit was to phrase all my motions, “Motion for Leave to Make a Motion” to get around the judges' stonewalling and ostracizing me.”
“THIS PSAK SHOULD BE PUT UP IN EVERY SHUL IN THE WORLD TO STOP THE CANCER OF ARKO"OYS ALREADY.”
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin 33b
“Our Rabbis taught: Whence [do we infer] that if the accused leaves the Beth din guilty, and someone says: ‘I have a statement to make in his favor,’ he is to be brought back? [For re-trial] — Scripture reads: The guiltless[נקי, not guilty of the crime so long as there are still arguments in his favor unheard] slay thou not “Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer.” (Exodues 23:7). And whence [do we infer] that if he leaves the Beth din not guilty, and someone says: ‘I have something to state against him, he may not be brought back? — From the verse, And the righteous [צדיק, found righteous in court, though not necessarily innocent, seeing that there is still evidence against him to be heard], slay thou not.”
Judge Prus ruled 11/18/2016: “The time to object or appeal the pension award or any other award to the plaintiff has long since passed. Consequently, Mr. Aranoff's claims are time barred and at this late stage are nothing short of frivolous. Accordingly, Mr. Aranoff's applications are denied in toto with prejudice. Mr. Aranoff is ordered not to file any further proceedings before this court. Mr. Aranoff is ordered not to contact this court, the clerk's office or chamber's staff as all his requests are time barred and nothing less than a waste of this court's time and resources…”
According to the Torah someone says: ‘I have a statement to make in his favor,’ he is to be brought back? [For re-trial]. Yes, I ask the NYS Court of Appeals for a retrial of the court’s awarding custody, the house and 55% of pension to Susan.
Mr. Katz - you should really educate yourself on the facts of this case. your obviously a 'womens lib' with no regard for halacha or justice. Maybe you hold Tamars marriage to Adam is kosher.
ReplyDeleteThey might recommend AF give or not give a get, but they will require adequate visitation in his city. Which is all he (originally) wanted.
ReplyDelete