audio link
Joseph Orlow replies to Eddie “Stealth? I told him my name. Deception? Aharon Friedman is my friend, the friend to which I refer. What's with the accusations anyway? Chutzpah? The calls were made under the guidance of my Rabbis.”
The specially convened Feinstein Bais Din was a sham.
The Bais Din was constituted for one, and only one, purpose: to issue a ruling for Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. The Bais Din decided that Tamar Epstein is halachically married to Aharon Friedman.
After the court reached its conclusion, there was no communication between Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky regarding Tamar Epstein separating from Adam Fleischer, the man she currently lives with.
The audio indicates that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky acknowledges the Psak of the Bais Din. He stops there and does not take the next logical step to tell Tamar Epstein and Adam Fleischer to separate.
I would like to draw an analogy.
A man was concerned that he may have cheated one of his clients. This client never complained. Nevertheless the man asked a Bais Din to hear his case.
The Bais Din ruled the man indeed cheated the client. But the Bais Din did not order the man to compensate the client.
The man chortled to himself, "I was unsure before if I acted criminally. Now I am certain I acted criminally!" And he retains the ill gotten gains.
In our case, Rabbi Kamenetsky salvaged his reputation by characterizing the fiasco as a Machlokes HaPoskim. Tamar Epstein and Adam Fleischer engage in Ni'uf and Rabbi Kamenetsky washes his hands of the matter, while the Philadelphia Community Kollel collects the checks.
Rabbi Kamenetsky's statement that he is uninvolved is surreal, as any follower of the Daas Torah blog is aware. He was certainly intimately involved in every step of the case, including signing a letter bereft of Halachic basis demanding that Aharon Friedman is obligated to divorce Tamar Epstein.
Joe Orlow
Joseph Orlow replies to Eddie “Stealth? I told him my name. Deception? Aharon Friedman is my friend, the friend to which I refer. What's with the accusations anyway? Chutzpah? The calls were made under the guidance of my Rabbis.”
The specially convened Feinstein Bais Din was a sham.
The Bais Din was constituted for one, and only one, purpose: to issue a ruling for Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. The Bais Din decided that Tamar Epstein is halachically married to Aharon Friedman.
After the court reached its conclusion, there was no communication between Rabbi Dovid Feinstein and Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky regarding Tamar Epstein separating from Adam Fleischer, the man she currently lives with.
The audio indicates that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky acknowledges the Psak of the Bais Din. He stops there and does not take the next logical step to tell Tamar Epstein and Adam Fleischer to separate.
I would like to draw an analogy.
A man was concerned that he may have cheated one of his clients. This client never complained. Nevertheless the man asked a Bais Din to hear his case.
The Bais Din ruled the man indeed cheated the client. But the Bais Din did not order the man to compensate the client.
The man chortled to himself, "I was unsure before if I acted criminally. Now I am certain I acted criminally!" And he retains the ill gotten gains.
In our case, Rabbi Kamenetsky salvaged his reputation by characterizing the fiasco as a Machlokes HaPoskim. Tamar Epstein and Adam Fleischer engage in Ni'uf and Rabbi Kamenetsky washes his hands of the matter, while the Philadelphia Community Kollel collects the checks.
Rabbi Kamenetsky's statement that he is uninvolved is surreal, as any follower of the Daas Torah blog is aware. He was certainly intimately involved in every step of the case, including signing a letter bereft of Halachic basis demanding that Aharon Friedman is obligated to divorce Tamar Epstein.
Joe Orlow
where is the post?
ReplyDeleteCan we have an exact quote?
ReplyDeletejust added it plus will be adding a recording of Rav Shmuel
ReplyDeleteyouwill soon hear a recording of Rav Shmuel
ReplyDeleteHgaon Reb Shmuel shlita is consistently forthcoming open and honest. I personally recommend based on chazel that one is extraordinarily careful about shaming a talmid chochum.
ReplyDeleteStick to the facts
ReplyDeleteWhat do his own words say abour your claims?
Small comfort to the Mamzer that Tamar Epstein may bring into the world that the community was more concerned about shaming a man than of preventing the Mamzer's birth.
ReplyDeleteWhich Chazal teaches that in a place of Chilul Hashem that one gives priority to a Rabbi's honor?
Please highlight the specific words you are referring to? Generalized condemnation is in my humble opinion irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious you have not been following this item
ReplyDeleteRead the letter from his son which I have e pinned to right side of blog
And then tell m who is being open and honest
Respectfully ask the posek Horav Feinstein shlita if and how best to publicize his psak. What is the seeming infatuation with Hgaon Reb Shmuel shlita?!
ReplyDeleteThe Kamenetsky's apparently supplied Rabbi Nota Greenblatt with a written evaluation by a psychiatrist. Based on that paper, Rabbi Greenblatt nullified Tamar Epstein's marriage to Aharon Friedman.
ReplyDeleteYet, Rabbi Kamenetsky maintains Rabbi Greenblatt is the one responsible for the Heter given to Tamar so that she could remarry. Rabbi Kamenetsky said as much in the call.
He set up Rabbi Greenblatt. He put Rabbi Greenblatt in the position of either defying the head of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah or of going along and using the psychiatric diagnosis as the basis for determining that no woman would have ever married Aharon Friedman and thus as a means of nullifying his marriage. For the record, the psychiatrist never examined Aharon Friedman.
Rabbi Greenblatt chose to "listen to the Gadolim", to use the phrase he exhorted me with. And in turn, Rabbi Greenblatt became the fall guy.
And yet you say that Rabbi Kamenetsky is an honorable man.
I say he plays games.
Are deliberately ignoring my comment? Again how do reconcile your claims with the obvious contradictions?
ReplyDeletenot apparrently r shalom stated he did
ReplyDeleteAvrohom Wrona says “Hgaon Reb Shmuel shlita is consistently forthcoming open and honest.”
ReplyDeleteNo. I heard the audio. It was ridiculous and bizarre for Rabbi Kamenetsky to brush off Tamar’s unlawful/sinful remarriage as something he has little to do with, that Rabbi Nota approved etc. Tamar and her supporters (Susan?) made false charges to Rabbi Kamenetsky which he heard without hearing Aharon’s side.
Rabbi Kamenetsky had no authority to allow Tamar to remarry without a get. Rabbi Kamenetsky is doing the brush off to all of us. I quote: “Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants, man or maid, When they made a complaint against me? What then should I do when God arises; When He calls me to account, what should I answer Him?” (Job 31:13-14).
The posekim shlita involved are responsible for their decisions. If you feel the chiyuv to rebuke Hgaon Reb Shmuel Kamentsky shlita why not phone him?! Just be sure to follow shulchan orach when offering rebuke and be cognizant of the fact you have taken upon yourself to publicly admonish a Godol B' yisroel.
ReplyDeleteAll posekim are beholden to shulchan orach. Claims that so and so said are illegitimate and you are being motzei shem Ra on the posek.
ReplyDeleteWow! You really don't know anything about this case
ReplyDeleteRabbi Dovid Feinstein has studiously avoided contact with me despite my best efforts to reach him.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Dovid Feinstein is fitting to be placed in Nidui for his failure to tell Tamar Epstein and Adam Fleischer to separate.
Avrohom Wrona, you are accusing me of making a lie. Fair enough. I will respond. Please be specific, however. You have my words on this blog. Quote which statement(s) you consider a lie.
ReplyDeleteWhom are you related to and what is your agenda?
ReplyDelete“Rav Shmuel acknowledges the problematic nature of Tamar's remarriage without a get”
ReplyDeleteAllow me to show you my letter today to the NYS vcts, Inspector General, TIAA, Susan etc:
1.I submit this letter on my behalf, acting pro se. I request leave to contact the Court, the clerk's office or chamber's staff for the purposes of the cancellation of the fraudulent QDRO awarding 55% of my TIAA pension to Susan.
2.Exhibit A: Susan's lawyer letter 3/24/1993 and Pesce letter cc Kaye 9/13/1996. Allow me to detail Susan's actions in getting Judge Rigler to order early 1994 a 100% freeze on my TIAA pension, in violation of ERISA. The Jewish law is clear that a man who leaves the country permanently and has small children, that man must pay child support. The Schuchan Aruch states that the bet din court can invade the man's assets, physical and real estate, to pay child support. I quote
“Schulchan Aruch Eben Haezer 71 (1-2)…A person is required to feed [support] his children until they reach the age of 6, even if they have assets that fell to them from the house of their mother's father and from then on as the rabbis have ruled… One who went overseas and left here his children, [a court may] sell from his possessions to support them [his children] until the age of 6. However after the age of 6 and beyond [a court] may not feed [support] them from his possessions [that remain in the country]. Some say only if he did not feed them after the age of 6, but if he did [feed them after the age of 6], [a court] may to feed [support] them from his possessions, for surely this would please him.”
3.Susan made the false charge in court papers before Judge Rigler that I'm a deadbeat dad, Heaven forbid. When I went to Israel to settle permanently July 1991 I left the house, cars, and motor cycle, books etc. The house was in the name of Gerald and Susan Aranoff. There were no other assets of mine in NYS. It was ridiculous and bizarre for Susan to request Judge Rigler in 1994 to freeze my TIAA pension 100%. I offered Susan half of my TIAA pension, then $750 monthly child support. I needed my TIAA pension to pay Susan child support. It was ridiculous and bizarre for Susan to prepare a QDRO based on sample forms TIAA provided her for Judge Rigler to award Susan a QDRO awarding her 100% of my TIAA pension. TIAA objected to the 100% award and said that they would be ok with a 55% award as is the case today. TIAA should not have sent sample forms to Susan and should not have approve the 55% payout and should not have made retroactive payments etc.
4.Judge Rigler had no authority to order a 100% freeze of my TIAA pension early 1994. It was judicial over-reach. That bad/illegal order violated ERISA. It was ridiculous and bizarre that I failed to get the unlawful QDRO quashed in my many court efforts. TIAA was grossly negligent and so too the NYS Insurance Department --- not to intervene to help me.
5Exhibit A: Susan's lawyer letter 3/24/1993 and Pesce letter cc Kaye 9/13/1996 shows that Susan accepted, willingly and with full knowledge, in a bet din Jewish court (run by Rabbi Ralbag) the get I sent her from a bet din Jewish court in Israel. Israel issued me a divorce degree. It was ridiculous and bizarre Judge Pesce talking of my children from my new wife, Yemima, as illegitimate.
i responded to this erroneous claim which i pinned tp the right side of the blog
ReplyDeleteYour ad hominem attacks are misdirected.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning, the Rabbis Kamenetsky have been fishing for a way to "free" Tamar Epstein.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/05/tamar-epstein-is-free-according-to.html?m=1
Is their advocacy based on a pre-existing relationship? If so, has that connection affected their adherence to the Halacha?
how do real gedolim such as Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Chohetznhaim do when accused of making serious halachic errors - hint they didn't scream" we are Daas Torah and anyone who questions our ACTIONS IS A KOFER
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you are concerned about the psokim issued address those concerns to the Morei Horah.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a vendetta against Hgaon Reb Shmuel Kamentsky shlita why keep airing it publicly?!
VENDETTA IS NOT WHAT THIS ABOUT SHAME ON YOU TRYING TO FRAME IT AS SUCH WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS
ReplyDeletePlease explain, how the the so-called "posekim", fulfilled Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10).
ReplyDeleteThere is an explicit halacha in Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) that a rabbi is not allowed to permit something that people perceive as being prohibited.
However, there happens to be a leniency formulated by the Shach (s.v. 17), IF the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.
A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "Eishes Ish" to remarry without having received a Get, qualifies as an "unusual ruling".
As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for their leniency (as per the Shach).
SOOO, how did your "posekim" fulfill the Shulchan Aruch?
Sorry, please share your intent in posting? If you can do so void of hyperbole it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
ReplyDeleteREAD RAV MALINIWITZ'S POST AS WeLL AS THE MANY LETTERS LINKED TO THE Post pinned on the right which detail the travesty involved including the letters from the beis din
ReplyDeleteWith the permission of the Rav Ha'Blog, may I share my motivations?
ReplyDeleteFirst I should say this explanation is "virtue signaling", a term out there that means playing up one's own strengths in order to show up others. This is not something good. But I think it's nigh impossible for me to talk about my inner state without exhibiting virtue signaling.
I never thought of myself as especially righteous, or even concerned about the exact details of Halacha. There always seemed to be people around me who thrived through the careful observance of the Torah, while I seemed to run far back in the field. I went off to other pursuits, happy to keep my own minimal observance of Mitzvos, and immensely honored that I knew about others who would ensure the perfect continuance of the Mesorah.
And then it began dawning on me that some of these people of my generation and the one before that I lionized for their strict adherence to the way of G-d could be lacking in their actual implementation of the Halacha at which they excelled in learning.
My reaction was, "I don't want to know." But it was too late. I had found them out.
And then deep down inside me, beyond my reach, embers glowed. "The transmission of the Tradition is not going to falter in my day if I can help it." Flames of zealotry licked at my conscience.
And here is where the virtue signaling comes in. I ask, where is that desire in everyone else? A few seem to have it who I meet in the comments section of this blog. Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn has it. We wouldn't be having this online conversation if Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn didn't have it.
I meet some in real life who have it. And others who don't.
What is now an inferno was lit in me by my parents and teachers, and it just smouldered till my indignation flared up; the unjustices I uncovered, or that were shown to me, acting as dry kindling.
Can you not hear how nervous I was on the call? Not because Rabbi Kamenetsky would show me up to be a fool. That would be a relief. But because Rabbi Kamenetsky might reveal himself a fraud, and how that would further fuel the internal engine that races ever harder forward.
Your passion to set things straight is evident. I'm happy to have respectful dialogue in a private setting. Should you wish please provide contact information or call me at (718)473-6383
ReplyDeleteWhile blogs, when utilized properly can be beneficial I don't feel discussing respected Talmidi chochumim on a blog is appropriate.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-shmuel-kaminetsky-letter-asking.html
ReplyDeleteוכמו שיורה כן יקום
The reasoning may go something like this: Since Rav Dovid never said that Rav Nota is unreliable, then his psak is that Rabbi Greenblatt is reliable. So his psak is being upheld.
why would i want to do that?
ReplyDeleteI was offering. If you aren't interested that is your prerogative.
ReplyDeleteContinued Hatzlocah
Respectfully, Avrohom
i am simply asking what significance is there for you acknowledging the truth
ReplyDeletePoskim involved are responsible?
ReplyDeleteIf someone eats treif food that has a (otherwise acceptable) hashgacha, he is still liable. Especially in a case where there are valid doubts to begin with. Especially where its knowingly based on false facts. Especially where half the world says its treif. Especially where its still considered treif.
Now we hear its a psychiatrist. Before now, it was an unidentified psychologist (which we suspect was 'nogaat bedavar' conflict of interest). Who never met the subject he she was evaluating.
ReplyDelete"Listen to gedolim" after it was shopped around all over the world and no gadol was willing to sign on.
Overruling a valid bet din both sides agreed to, till it started to actually issue an (undesirable) psak ruling.
Pushed by a gadol with minimal if any experience in even haezel outside plain gemara, with a substantial conflict of interest.
Please explain, how the the so-called "posekim", fulfilled Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10).
ReplyDeleteI'm planning on calling Rabbi Nota Greenblatt to find out the actual nature of the report he received about Aharon Friedman.
ReplyDeleteI hope that you'll get a real response from him.
ReplyDeleteRav Shmuel should wither have Tamar and adam thrown out of shul or bring Aharon back in to shul. preferebly to do both. But to leave the status quo is totally wrong!!
ReplyDeleteWhat is your current position now in February 2022?
ReplyDelete