Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Alienation of Affection State Laws KAMINETSKY GREENBLATT HETER

https://www.verywellfamily.com/alienation-of-affection-state-laws-2303186



Alienation of affection lawsuits is when an outsider interferes with a marriage. Defendants in these suits are often an adulterous spouse's lover, but family members, counselors, therapists, and religious members who have encouraged a spouse to get a divorce have also been sued for these matters. 

84 comments :

  1. Presumably they had a civil divorce already. The "heter" was a quasi-halachic matter not a secular one. Under US law she is not committing adultery, "only" under halacha, unless there is a substantial basis for the heter, which we have not seen on paper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. divorce is not evidence of no alienation of affection!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You barking up the wrong tree. We call it "stirring".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Greenblatt explicitly walked me through how the Heters to remarry are formulated.

    1. Husband must have mental illness diagnosed by a mental health professional.

    2. The mental illness must be incurable according to a mental health professional.

    3. Husband's mental illness must have existed prior to his marriage. This determination must be made by a mental health professional.

    4. The wife was unaware of the pre-existing incurable mental illness that her husband has. This does NOT mean she was unaware before the wedding of the symptoms of the illness. This means she was unaware that her husband's behavior and/or speech were indicative of a cluster of symptoms that add up, in the estimation of a mental health professional, to a diagnosis of pre-existing incurable mental illness. The wife's level of unawareness is presumably evaluated by the mental health professional. I say that because Rabbi Greenblatt holds that the Rabbi(s) issuing the Heter need not have any contact with the husband, nor with the wife.

    That's it. Heter follows from the above. This is based on my recent conversation with Rabbi Greenblatt.

    Note: Rabbi Greenblatt emphasized that the Heter is totally based on the testimony of a mental health professional. Even if it turns out later that the mental health professional lied, this would not uproot the Heter, because the mental health professional was a bona fide mental health professional.

    I would add that we must make a distinction between the case of a missing husband, and the case of a husband who has been diagnosed with a pre-existing, incurable mental illness.

    In the case of the former, a husband who disappears, a Heter to the wife to remarry may be given under some circumstances. If later the husband reappears, it is my understanding that the wife is forbidden to her husband as well as forbidden to the man she married based on the Heter.

    Not so with the Heter Rabbi Greenblatt holds by when a husband is diagnosed with a mental illness by a mental health professional. The mental health professional can retract his diagnosis, and the Heter still stands. And so Rabbi Greenblatt informed me, in so many words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A) heter/niuf nothing to do with the state law.
    B) did she want the divorce? On what basis? Was she happy and then rsk told her to divorce?
    C) so now you want to go to arkaot as well? Does Rav sternbuch approve?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seems to me similar to
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

    A Jewish marriage is controlled by a contract. A husband has obligations to the wife, and the wife has obligations to the husband.

    Comes a mental health professional, relative, or religious leader, and libels the husband by telling wife the husband is incapable of keeping his contractural obligations, I would think this is something that could be litigated.

    Recall that Tamar never said she didn't like Aharon. Just the opposite, as her diary page testifies to. Why then did she leave?

    ReplyDelete
  7. From jpost:
    Soon after the wedding, their relationship soured. According to Epstein, their already bad marriage deteriorated further after she got pregnant, and got still worse after she gave birth to a daughter. She moved back to the safety and sanity of her parents’ home in Philadelphia. She and Friedman agreed to end their marriage, and received a civil divorce in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wine can go sour because of bacteria.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A JPost article after the fact, which was meant to shame and extort her husband, is not considered very credible. On the other hand, her diary and testimony are considered extremely credible.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Beautiful bravo to Joseph Orlow and Daattorah
    “Alienation of affection lawsuits is when an outsider interferes with a marriage. Defendants in these suits are often an adulterous spouse's lover, but family members, counselors, therapists, and religious members who have encouraged a spouse to get a divorce have also been sued for these matters. These claims are challenging to establish and involve many elements like proof of entailed love, alienation and destruction, malicious conduct, and more. Showing proof of extramarital sex is not required, however.
    Definition of alienation
    A withdrawing or separation of a person or a person's affections from an object or position of former attachment : estrangement”
    Alienation of affection is what Mendel Epstein et al, ORA, Agunah International etc did for decades with varying levels of intervention. Mendel Epstein et al used heinous torture. Susan, ORA etc used cherem etc:
    (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."
    I apply “A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears” (Proverbs 26:17).
    Showing proof of fraud is important. Rabbi Nota Greenberg etc knows very well the PhD psychology letter is a fraud, same as Judge Prus knows very well the 1995 Rigler Order of Separation is a fraud. What’s the date on the fake/phony PhD psychology letter? Was it before or after August 1, 2013 when Susan first presented to Judge Prus the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did she not request divorce/get?

    ReplyDelete
  12. In other words, seems like a certain Rabbi feels incapable of admitting that he may have issued a mistaken ruling.

    -----
    With a husband who does return, inia case where the Beis Din had ruled that she may remarry (or in any case where the Beis Din mistakenly had ruled that a marriEd woman may remarry), then she may return to her husband - if he is not a Cohen.

    [Well, if he is a Cohen, a certain Chicago Rabbi has the ability to annul that as well, somehow. Oh, his siblings and his father remain a Cohen in good standing. It was covered previously here, but I couldn't find it now.]

    ReplyDelete
  13. Huh?
    What is your question?
    What is that you're trying to say?

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/man-who-wont-grant-religious-divorce-to-ex-wife-is-given-rabbinical-sanction/2011/09/27/gIQAU8SS8K_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f56827e8b992

    I think you have all gone crazy, have negios, obsessed with this case and the characters. Now coming up with one fantasy after another to keep your hatred for rsk burning.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eddie, quit projecting your issues on everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whoa, true colors showing and all that, huh Eddie? How about a little respect here. Just because you are solid in your respect for Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, doesn't mean you can slack off in the respect you owe everyone else.

    Or maybe, the fact that you respect a Rasha poisons the wellspring of respect for those of us who are working hard to do what we think is right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. i removed it because i was threatened with legal action husband is a lawyer but your memory is correct

    ReplyDelete
  18. only after being given bad advise

    ReplyDelete
  19. Man, you nailed that one.

    I can testify to the *crazy* rallies Ora had, based on the *negios* of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. First ORA rally I attended against Aharon, to counter-protest, Rabbi Jeremy Stern whips out a letter with Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky's signature, and justifies the rally on that basis.

    Isn't it the Kamenetskys who were highly focused, dare we say *obsessed*, with finding some way for Tamar to remarry without a Get?

    That's why I have no remorse about shouting at Rabbi Kamenetsky. His actions brought about plenty of shouting at Aharon, and I took the proximate brunt of it sometimes by standing opposed to the shouters. Here was my oppotunity to shout back.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So she ends up in a niuf relationship through no fault of her own, based on bad advice ? Sounds like she has the real mental problems here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Haha, I have no negios with either side. I'm not one of those crazy ora types.

    ReplyDelete
  22. she cannot go back to him anyways - if you hold this new fling of hers to be adulterous, then her ex-husband must give the get. He cannot live with her again.
    None of my business why she left, but she has left and got a civil divorce, - presumably RSK got involved when she couldn't get the get.
    Doesn't seem logical that everything was dandy they had not separated, and then suddenly RSK shmoozes her into getting a divorce for no reason! Seems the other way around.
    In any case, it is likely she is a nutcase. Some people are just crazy. Some have post natal depression, . Maybe she had mental health issues.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let me spell out what it is I am trying to say:


    This new clause is about influencing people to get a divorce. Usually the get part is the technicality. a couple have problems, separate , divorce, and it is bitter. When the Get is not given, then the real problems begin, and people take sides. This is suggesting - without evidence, that Rav Kamenetsky also created the divorce from the beginning. Is there any evidence for such a claim? I thought he got involved when she needed a Get, since her old man was a friend of the Rav.

    So we need a timeline of events, with supporting evidence please.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You have made a bunch of assumptions. All of them are incorrect. The complete timeline of events, as well as the irrefutable evidence is all available in the archives of this site.

    There have been many, many posts on this topic. Please read them and make informed comments instead of.aking ignorant comments which are simply contrary to the facts of this case. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I, and all of Klall Yisroel, owe you a great debt of gratitude for how much you have put yourself out in order to stand up for truth and what is right. Thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. You're welcome. Thank you for standing up for the truth and what is right!

    ReplyDelete
  27. presumably

    That's your problem. You would look a lot more intelligent if you bother to review the material and make comments based upon facts. You should not be making presumptions which are simply contrary to what actually happened. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73c041e03e7cdc066c0eed31e6909cc2dd171aa9121217747138785d7f6a232f.png

    ReplyDelete
  28. A husband has no obligation to give a Get even if his wife wants a Get, answer any halachic criteria they mandates a Get.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Make that Mr. Jeremy Stern.

    ReplyDelete
  30. So what? Requesting a Get does not entitle her to it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. so do you think RSk broke up the marriage on purpose and wasn't worried about get 'cause he could void it anyhows? The Alienation law is about civil divorce. get is something totally different from civil divorce. Under civil laws, she has remarried, but under [classsical] halacha, she is forbidden to marry without the get.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Do you also make that Mr Kamenetsky?

    ReplyDelete
  33. this post is suggesting that The rabbi had undue influence, causing her to file for divorce. The subject of this post is not the get , it is the divorce proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Civil marital laws have no standing in halacha and have no meaning, status or effect under Jewish law.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No. It's Hagaon HaRav Shmuel Kaminetzky shlit"a.

    The other guy is Clown Jeremy. Look how much all his protests helped Tamar.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The alienation law hasn't to do with divorce per se. One can wrongfully (under the law) alienate relatives other than a married couple and one can wrongfully alienate a married couple who does not get divorced.

    ReplyDelete
  37. How are you deciding who should be called Rabbi? I agree with you that Jeremy Stern is very far from an authentic rabbi. Problem is, there are too many others who have sullied the title as well. Problem is, Rav Moshe Heineman, Rabbi Hershel Schachter and so many others who suportt/supported ORA by default support his classification as well.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky supported the protests!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Torah in this week’s parsha Mattot implies that the father has more common sense and stability than his young daughter in matters of vows and the husband has more common sense and stability than his wife in matters of vows: “Every vow and every sworn obligation of self-denial may be upheld by her husband or annulled by her husband” (Numbers 30:14).
    Rabbis Kamenetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt were not and are not today persuaded by bribes that may or may not have been paid to them but by their personal beliefs in modern feminism. Joseph Orlow says:
    “First ORA rally I attended against Aharon, to counter-protest, Rabbi Jeremy Stern whips out a letter with Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky's signature, and justifies the rally on that basis. Isn't it the Kamenetskys who were highly focused, dare we say *obsessed*, with finding some way for Tamar to remarry without a Get?”
    Judges, officials, and clerks in the NYS courts from early on were hostile to me in my long-running divorce court proceedings against Susan. This was not due to bribes Susan may have or may not have paid court officials. I have no evidence of bribes. The police put a secret camera in Gerald Garson’s chambers to prove he took bribes. That video is on you-tube.
    Rabbis Greenberg and Kamenetsky deeply resent Torah laws that bar the wife from effecting a divorce over the objections of her husband with no real parallel bar to a man effecting a divorce over the objections of the wife.
    Judges, officials, and clerks in the NYS courts deeply resent that I could leave USA permanently to settle in Israel and if Susan chooses not to follow (despite her earlier promise to follow me) and demand a get---I could so easily obtain a kosher divorce certificate. There’s no real parallel with a wife that chooses to leave her home to settle permanently elsewhere and her husband refuses to follow her, she cannot get a kosher divorce certificate over her husband’s objections. Read closely Judge Pesce’s 9/13/1996 letter:

    ReplyDelete
  40. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d3dc334b7b5eb73b9a446668c4a37f15e8df21e29b053be5e35d7ce1567f8c68.png

    ReplyDelete
  41. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62f8a49c9c228ec818bcb54982ac19d4db63ad8189b2626cf0e000df58cf2572.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  42. Some of your pals here call him a rasha.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Let's spell it out.

    Rabbi Kamenetsky told me I can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt. Rabbi Kamenetsky is considered the greatest Gadol in America by many.

    Rabbi Greenblatt has basically nullified the Torah through his nullifying marriages.

    Rabbi Kamenetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt are thus destroying Torah observance in America.

    Those of us who cling to the Torah consider this act of destrpying Torah as evil.

    Women who follow Rabbi Kamenetsky can now remarry without a Get. All that is required is to have a mental health professional call Rabbi Greenblatt and testify her husband had an incurable mental illness from before the marriage and that she was unaware of her husband's condition when she married him.

    If Rabbi Greenblatt can do that, then so too can those who rely on Rabbi Greenblatt. AND RABBI KAMENETSKY HAS SAID YOU MAY RELY ON RABBI GREENBLATT.

    Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Is that for me or for Moe Ginsburgh?

    "Eddie Moe Ginsburg • 14 hours ago

    Do you also make that Mr Kamenetsky?



    Moe Ginsburg Eddie • 13 hours ago

    No. It's Hagaon HaRav Shmuel Kaminetzky shlit"a."


    Seems you have a difference of opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Wrong place.

    Also, where did you take this quote from?? All sorts of things are attributed to him.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Actually, you are mistaken. Whereas a civil divorce is not accepted as a Gett, a civil marriage has been considered as being a formal marriage, i.e. by Biah, and hence requirement for a Get.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You are arguing about a political point. I am not going to be pulled into a discussion of politics. There will be no end.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The Torah says that after all these curses have come upon us, Hashem will remember the Brit and gather us in to the land He promised our forefathers. Zionism were the first people who rejected assimilation, and we're Jews by choice.
    Muslims threaten everyone, including Washington, London Paris etc. Even the Sunni are scared of Iran, and Saudi said there is a right for us to have a state (Israel).
    Rav Kasher ztl said the oaths were violated by the goyim, so are no longer binding. The meshech chochma ztl said no fear of the oaths anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  49. There is a 3 part series entitled "The unpleasant details of how Tamar Epstein deliberately destroyed her marriage with the encouragement of the Kaminetskys"

    see first: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-unpleasant-details-of-how-tamar.html

    Here it states: "The following is an overview of what occurred prior the case being brought to the Baltimore Beis Din:

    Tamar and Aharon were married in April 2006, and resided in Silver Spring. They were blessed with a child, C, in November 2007.

    In March 2008, on Aharon’s birthday, Tamar told Aharon she was divorcing
    him. Tamar told Aharon she wanted to relocate C to Pennsylvania (PA).
    Aharon objected. Tamar told Aharon that if he didn’t move out of their
    apartment, she would take C to PA. Aharon told Tamar that she may not
    relocate C to PA. Aharon moved out of the apartment."

    This was prior to the BD. There is no mention or evidence presented in this trilogy, of involvement by RSK in Tamar's asking for divorce in march 2008.

    However, the wise guys commenting here are saying it is a matter of fact that it was the Kamenetskys who broke up the marriage, and this post is "Alienation of Affection State Laws KAMINETSKY GREENBLATT HETER"


    However, the Heter of Greenblatt was not until around 2015-16? Some 7-8 years later.


    What evidence do you have that it was Kamenetsky who told her in 2008 to ask for a divorce? If you do not have evidence, then this article is totally fictitious.

    ReplyDelete
  50. No, the civil marriage is immaterial. If someone civily married sometime to get an immigration visa or citizenship, but never lived with that person, it would not be a halachic marriage despite the existence of the civil marriage.

    It is the shtar (kesuba), kesef (ring) or (what you're thinking of but not getting at) biah that, any one of individually, can make a halachic marriage even in the absence of the other two. Irregardless of whether or not a civil marriage exists.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Moe, yosher koach, you respect both rabbonim, not using bad names. Of course you're misguided , but we'll done anyway

    ReplyDelete
  52. Let me spell it out. here is what HaRav Moshe Sternbuch was quoted as saying at his Yeshiva Gedolah:

    "The Iranian government only works against Zionism and the conquest of Arab lands, not against the observance of Judaism in their country. But
    if the Iranian government hears that Agudath Israel, which represents a large percentage of Torah observant Jews, is working against the
    American government’s peace plan, then all of Iranian Jewry is likely to be in great danger.
    Therefore, it is the obligation of all American Jews and rabbis at this time to speak up against this, and to make known that they have nothing to do with this action, and that their role is only to
    strengthen Jewish observance, not to get involved in politics."




    Firstly, Eretz Yisroel is not "Arab Lands". That is a statement that is a) objectively false, b) in violation of the Torah, and the prohibition to give land or make life easy for them.


    next, Iran has threatened to wipe out the State of Israel (Zionism), which means killing or expelling the 6 million Jews who live there. [remember what happened in Europe. Rav Sternbuch was fortunate to have been an Englishman]


    Iran backs hezbollah, which has killed hundreds of Jews, and Hamas/PLo who have killed thousands of Jews. However, Rabbi Sternbuch - who is the spiritual guide for this blog, sees no problem with these rodfim and murderers, since they "only oppose zionism".


    I am not in the habit of using names, although you fellows are quite quick to use names to castigate Rabbi Kamenetsky. yet you whitewash the dangerous statements that your own mentor is making.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Where are your three parts?
    The only thing you cite is an article about how much was destroyed "even if divorce was going to happen."

    You did not go back and read many earlier articles. What did R. Shalom Kamenetzky testify to the Baltimore Beis Din over the phone? What does Tamar's diary clearly state? When and where were there issues?

    You have so many dates wrong!

    Do you know anything about what went on in their marriage that you speak this way?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Eddie says “Actually, you are mistaken. Whereas a civil divorce is not accepted as a Gett, a civil marriage has been considered as being a formal marriage, i.e. by Biah, and hence requirement for a Get.”
    תוספות מסכת כתובות דף ד עמוד א
    בעילת מצוה - קרי לה בעילת מצוה משום דכתיב כי בועליך עושיך ואמרי' (סנהדרין דף כב:) אין אשה כורתת ברית אלא למי שעושה אותה כלי וע"י כך מידבק בה ובאין לידי פריה ורביה ולהכי קרי לה לבעילה ראשונה בעילת מצוה.
    Sanhedrin 22b
    “R. Samuel b. Unya said in the name of Rab: A woman [before marriage] is a shapeless lump [i.e., of undetermined character], and concludes a covenant only with him who transforms her [into] a [useful] vessel, as it is written: “For He who made you will espouse you—His name is Lord of Hosts. The Holy One of Israel will redeem you—He is called God of all the Earth.” (Isaiah 54:5). [As God formed the character of Israel so does a husband that of the wife.]”
    The woman makes a contract with her husband. When? When she does בעילת מצוה with her husband for the purpose of making a baby. Outsiders, such as rabbis Greenblatt and Kamenetsky intervene and enable Tamar to break her contract with Aaron. Yes, Tamar wanted to break her contract with Aaron. This is none of the business of rabbis Greenblatt and Kamenetsky. Tamar could not break her contract with Aaron without rabbis Greenblatt and Kamenetsky intervention and aiding and abetting. Follow, Eddie? I suspect, you Eddie, are Rabbi Aryeah Ralbag.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 1. Hagaon HaRav Moshe Shternbuch shlit"a is saying that the *Muslims consider* the Holy Land to be Arab. And that Iran targets Zionists and the Zionist State but it does not target the Jews living in Iran.

    2. The reason the Muslims threaten the State is because of the Zionist project begun in the late 19th century and the subsequent establishment of the Zionist State. (Which is in contravention to Jewish law, incidentally.)

    3. Rav Shternbuch is NOT the spiritual guide of this blog. He doesn't even read it. He happens to be the rabbi the publisher of this blog considers to be his personal spiritual guide. But that doesn't mean everything the baal hablog does, says or publishes has the impetuar or approval of Rav Shternbuch.

    ReplyDelete
  56. hevron massacre because if zionists?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gerald, you got the wrong end of the stick. The position in halacha, eg for reform weddings or civil weddings was that they generally need a gett. That was the position of Rav Henkin. Rav Moshe was meikil, and said that these are not valid, hence they do not need a gett. This alleviates the risk of mamzerus, but not everyone accepted his psak,.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Absolutely. Chevron occurred decades after the Zionists started agitating to takeover the Holy Land.

    ReplyDelete
  59. http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/ravsternbuch

    ReplyDelete
  60. Did you know that Jews lived in Eretz Yisrael even before the Crusades? There were even the karaites, who are halachically Jewish, and they moved there , but also Orthodox Jews, such as Rav Yehuda Halevi, Ramban, the Arizal and his chug, Rav Y. Berav.

    Jews were regularly attacked and massacred or forcefully converted by fanatic arabs muslims,(also in Iran by muslims).

    The law of rodef is valid in all times, and is d'oraita.

    Arizal held that the oaths only had tokef of 1000 years (tradition through Rav Chaim Vitale).

    All Jews are zion-ist, and all Torah Jews believe that it is a mitzvah to take over the Holy land, and this is taught by Ramban.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You're both halachicly and factually wrong about every point you made.

    ReplyDelete
  62. They are not my 3 parts, they are the blog owners.

    This is the 3rd and it has links to the first 2 https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-unpleasant-detalis-of-how-tamar.html
    The dates i have entered are transcribed from the first article I posted earlier.
    You are not very smart - you are disagreeing with the story of the blog writer. If so, then that is your problem, and not mine. Why should I believe your story?

    ReplyDelete
  63. The_Original_Bored_LawyerJuly 12, 2018 at 2:23 AM

    but family members, counselors, therapists, and religious members who have encouraged a spouse to get a divorce have also been sued for these matters

    Really? Has anyone ever prevailed against such persons (who are not the adulterers -- meaning people who advise divorce)?

    IMO, such a case is a loser under secular law for several reasons.

    One, persons giving an opinion, particularly professionals, are privileged to give their opinion, so long as they do so in good faith, meaning not for an ulterior motive.

    Two, as far as I can see, Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky did not advise Mrs. Epstein to do anything. They ruled on whether she is still married acc. to the Torah. So it is hard to say they interfered with the marriage in any sense recognized by secular law.

    Three, there is a well established carveout for religious questions. Secular courts in America are forbidden by the Establishment Clause from determining religious questions. This goes back to a long line of cases since Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871).

    I'll give one example from recent times. Someone in Monsey got a secular divorce, did not give a get, claimed he had a hetter meah rabbonim and married a second wife. The Va'ad Harabonim of Great Monsey looked into it, decided he was in violation of halakha, and condemned him as a bigamist. He sued for defamation in federal court. The Court dismissed the case, because it would require the secular court to rule on whether he violated halakha -- a religious question that secular courts in America may not pass on.

    Whatever you think of the hetter that Mrs. Epstein got, there is no way that a secular court is going to pass on that question. And without such a ruling, there is no way that a claim against the rabbis can be sustained.

    (Nor, in my opinion, should we want the secular authorities ruling on halakha.)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Are you still claiming that the Kamenetzkies, as well as Tamar's family are not guilty of alienation of affection? It is clear that they are! Sad reality, but is the fact, as is clear from the evidence.
    They should be sued, למען ישמעו וייראו.

    ReplyDelete
  65. My virus protection (McAfee) advises me not to visit this site. They are a known Neturei Karta site that takes things out of context to advance their wild agenda. Rav Shternbauch is a prolific writer. Additionally, there is a reliable organization that publishes his speeches and teachings. If he wrote it, or it is published by that organization, then I will accept that he said that. Otherwise, I do not believe that he said this.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thank you for the compliment but I'm not sure why it's noteworthy that anyone would hold in high esteem two gedolei yisroel regardless whether they agree with each other or not or lhavdil whether they agree with myself or not.

    ReplyDelete
  67. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/08/rav-moshe-sternbuch-forgettig-hashem.html?m=1

    Fighting amalek. He says Jewish gay's are amalek. But forbids army or fighting our external enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  68. What connection does this have to your attributed quote above?

    People who do things with their body which are quite unnatural and disgusting - but insist on notifying the world that they do it, and insist that all Jews should accept these types of unnatural behaviors are behaving like Amalek.

    As to defending ourselves from our enemies - would you have chosen Uganda as a Jewish homeland? You should be aware that in 1905, at the seventh Zionist Congress, the debate of Uganda or Palestine continued. The religious Zionists voted for Uganda!

    If you would like to have a debate as how best for Jews to deal with the nations of the world, this should be a starting point. In 1905, would you have chosen Uganda, Palestine, or for Jews to seek to live in whichever nation it works out for them, without fighting against the host country?

    ReplyDelete
  69. In this one, he says that Herzl's (and zionism's) "his true agenda was to abolish any trace of Torah from the Jewish people, in his speeches he would stress the need to return to Eretz Yisroel.By latching on to such a holy concept as returning to Israel, Herzl made himself appear as if he were truly interested solely in the welfare and the strengthening of the Jewish community"

    https://www.scribd.com/document/33552314/Rav-Moshe-Sternbuch-Duplicity-4


    So the State of Israel has abolished any trace of Torah from the Jewish people? So no official Kashrut, or rabbinical authorities, or yeshivas, synagogues, eruvs, mikves set up by the state?


    These claims show that even a genius in halachic literature can have views of objectivity clouded due to pre-formed ideology.
    If The brisker Rov really said what he is quoted as saying, again it is a very strange comment. he could be limiting it to the secular extremists, eg the Kibbutzim. However, the State set up a Rabbanut, (which eh opposed). Is the rabbanut also removing every last trace of torah from the jewish people?

    ReplyDelete
  70. The original bored lawyer says: “One, persons giving an opinion, particularly professionals, are privileged to give their opinion, so long as they do so in good faith, meaning not for an ulterior motive”
    I quote:
    “A single witness may not validate against a person any guilt or blame for any offense that may be committed; a case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more. If a man appears against another to testify maliciously and gives false testimony against him, the two parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests or magistrates in authority at the time, and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst.” (Deuteronomy 19:15-20).
    Greenblatt and Kamenetsky are malicious witnesses. They are the main witnesses that the fake/phony medical professional opinion is in good faith. They block releasing the name of the PhD medical professional and releasing the date of the fake/phony report. This is like my case with Susan. Myla Serlin handed the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation to Judge Prus 8/1/2013. Susan herself could never do this by herself. She needs cooperation from crooked lawyers and court officials etc. Tamar could never do Tamar is free without illegal intervention by Greenblatt and Kamenetsky and supporters (Susan, ORA, etc). Greenblatt and Kamenetsky will lose in a secular court, the same as crooked lawyers often lose.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 1) original quote was from a website you don't accept and maybe it's false
    2) Kal vchomer on amalek. Fight them, it's a mitzva.
    3) Uganda was never a serious option but would you choose Uganda or Auschwitz in 1942?
    4) there was a Soviet autonomous region for Jews and the Jews who moved there were saved from the Holocaust.
    5) you cannot make an oath to violate the Torah for example to eat pork on Wednesdays. Sensitive commandment to conquer Israel in Every Generation the alleged three of cannot really be valid and certainly not for all the time

    ReplyDelete
  72. Where is your proof that they they caused her to separate and ask for a divorce?

    ReplyDelete
  73. show me proof that when she initially left her husband it was due to pressure from rsk.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Original Bored lawyer says:
    “Two, as far as I can see, Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky did not advise Mrs. Epstein to do anything. They ruled on whether she is still married acc. to the Torah. So it is hard to say they interfered with the marriage in any sense recognized by secular law.”
    Secular law prohibits a married woman with her husband alive and well to marry her lover. Secular law generally does not determine the status of a man or woman. Secular law did determine that Aaron and Tamar were married. When? Maybe when they filed for a marriage certificate. In the US 2 homos could apply and get a marriage certificate that they are married under state law. Did state law certify the marriage of the wife Tamar with her lover? Seems yes based on the G-K heter.
    I married Yemima May 9, 1993 after I divorced Susan February 17, 1993. NYS law probably would have barred my marriage to Yemima if we lived in NYS, Heaven forbid, on the basis of bigamy. On this reasoning secular law should bar Tamar’s marriage to Adam Fleischer on the basis of a woman having 2 husbands.

    G-K had no authority to intervene on behalf of Tamar and to rule that Tamar is no longer married to Aaron, since the matter is still at the BBD which Tamar agreed to.
    See attached letter NYS Court of Appeals 6/29/2018
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/141748f62559f98620113b0410d1cea77a8437e45bf9344caad4739d547feaef.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  75. Original bored lawyer says “I'll give one example from recent times. Someone in Monsey got a secular divorce, did not give a get, claimed he had a hetter meah rabbonim and married a second wife. The Va'ad Harabonim of Great Monsey looked into it, decided he was in violation of halakha, and condemned him as a bigamist. He sued for defamation in federal court. The Court dismissed the case, because it would require the secular court to rule on whether he violated halakha -- a religious question that secular courts in America may not pass on.”
    Tamar got a secular divorce and no get and married a second husband. Joseph Orlow says this is in violation of halacha and condemn Tamar as an adulteress. Joseph Orlow is safe from any lawsuit Tamar may bring because a secular court would have to rule on whether Tamar violated halacha.
    Joseph Orlow can charge G-K with being malicious witnesses:
    “You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness: You shall neither side with the mighty [others multitude] to do wrong—you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty [others multitude]” (Exodus 23:1-2).
    Oh, secular law will hear cases of perjury and malicious witnesses etc. The fake/phony PhD psychology letter is perjury etc. Please, Joseph Orlow, bring the evidence: the name of the phony/fake mental health professional etc and the date of the letter etc.

    ReplyDelete
  76. RHS says you can rely on RSK. "kvar horeh zaken" a gadol (zaken) already ruled (on this matter)

    ReplyDelete
  77. The BBD publicly said in writing she is not (yet) entitled to a get.

    ReplyDelete
  78. No Fault of her own?
    She didnt know she needs a get?
    Her lawyer didn't tell her?
    Her local rav?
    Her High school yeshiva training didn't tell her?
    The publicity she was responsible for didn't tell her?
    Her need to travel to Memphis for a siddur kiddushin didn't tell her?

    ReplyDelete
  79. No.

    A couple living together in one apartment as husband and wife (even if there is no biah, but we always assume there was biah) require a get. RMF only says if it was a C or R rabbi who married them, she can remarry if we can't arrange a get, but we should still try (try is often overlooked, but that's another story).
    As rav henkin writes, even a Catholic priest who marries two Jews, requires a get.

    ReplyDelete

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