This is a follow up to my last email.
Yoni clarified why Rabbi Greenblatt cut off the conversation.
Apparently, Yoni had confronted Rabbi Greenblatt in person in the past. At that time, Yoni brought up that Rabbi Dovid Feinstein ruled against the remarriage. Apparently, Rabbi Greenblatt did not want to discuss the matter then.
Yoni brought up Rabbi Feinstein in this conversation in order to lead up to asking a question about the status of any children Tamar Epstein will have with Adam Fleischer before she receives a Get from Aharon Friedman. In particular, will the child be a Safek Mamzer.
What I think I sensed was the concern Rabbi Greenblatt has that Rabbi Dovid Feinstein ruled against the remarriage.
Rabbi Greeblatt writes in a letter published elsewhere on this blog a statement about mental health. He seems to assume that mental health professionals have an agreed upon list of mental illnesses. I assume he is referring to the contents of the DSM. He writes, if I understand him correctly, that the professionals have agreed upon which of these conditions are curable, and which are incurable.
I do not think that this is the case. I am not going to prove that here. I will say that the burden of proof is on Rabbi Greenblatt to demonstrate that his assertion is true. As far as I can tell, mental health professionals tend to talk in terms of treating mental illness, not curing it. Cf. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/braintalk/201408/cure-mental-illness%3famp
Rabbi Greenblatt basically told me the following. Say a doctor diagnoses a man with an incurable mental illness, determines the illness pre-existed the man's marriage, and is confident that the man's wife was unaware of the condition at the time of marriage. Those circumstances are the basis for a Heter to annul a marriage.
Taken to a logical extreme, they are also the basis to effectively uproot the laws of Gittin.
Any woman can go to a psychiatrist and manipulate the psychiatrist into diagnosing her with an incurable, pre-existing, mental illness. Then, the woman can go to Rabbi Greenblatt, and ask him to annul her marriage. He will determine that it is unlikely her husband would have wanted to marry her if he had known she had such a mental illness.
For example, the woman could state to a psychiatrist that before she met her husband she was "hearing voices", feeling alternatively "depressed" for several weeks and "maniacal" for several weeks, and had an intense desire to kill herself. She can say she hid all this from her husband and/or all these conditions disappeared when she met her husband only to have them recur after the marriage; that is, she can say she is now back to hearing voices, the cycle of depression and mania, and having suicidal thought
“For example, the woman could state to a psychiatrist that before she met her husband she was "hearing voices", feeling alternatively "depressed" for several weeks and "maniacal" for several weeks, and had an intense desire to kill herself. She can say she hid all this from her husband and/or all these conditions disappeared when she met her husband only to have them recur after the marriage; that is, she can say she is now back to hearing voices, the cycle of depression and mania, and having suicidal thought”
ReplyDeleteתוספות 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.]”
Yes, women are a shapeless lump before marriage. Probably men too. Yes, women and men are also a shapeless lump after marriage and do need a mental professional therapy. Good luck. “And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man. Then the man said, This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken. Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:22-24). Tamar returned to her father and mother and threw out her husband out! The modern feminists like that!
“basis that Rav Greenblatt permits adultery by Joe Orlow”
ReplyDeleteKiddushin 2b:
"Alternatively I can say: The author of this [Mishnah] is R. Simeon. For it was taught: R. Simeon said: Why did the Torah state “A man marries a woman and cohabits with her. Then he takes an aversion to her” (Deuteronomy 22:13) and not if a woman be taken to a man? Because it is the way of a man to go in search of a woman, but it is not the way of a woman to go in search of a man. This may be compared to a man who lost an article: who goes in search of whom? The loser goes in search of the lost article [But the lost article does not seek the loser. Thus, man having lost his rib, he seeks to recover it. Since R. Simeon says It is the way of a man, etc. he also teaches: A WOMAN IS ACQUIRED IN THREE WAYS. Derek (way) is applicable to something that happens in conformity with nature or normal practice.]”
The Tamar case is the opposite of Deuteronomy 23:13. She took an aversion to him. The rule of Deuteronomy 23:14 etc (“and makes up charges against her and defames her…) requires a bet din to flog the man “The elders of that town shall then take the man and flog him” (Deuteronomy 23:18). See, the man could simply divorce the woman as in Deuteronomy 24:1-2. The man well deserves the flogging for his avoiding simply divorcing the woman instead going the route of making up charges against her and defaming her (all lies).
Tamar, too, could simply follow the Baltimore Bet Din she agreed to and get a divorce. Tamar deserves a flogging for going the route of slandering her husband etc. Yes, modern feminists (ORA etc) love what Tamar is doing! Why? Modern feminists take the woman’s side, even if when it’s none of their business.