Tamar Epstein and the Scarlet Letter: The Kaminetskys and Rabbinic sanctioned adultery

Jewish society is faced with a major crisis - how to deal with a case of rabbinic sanctioned adultery. On the one hand we have adultery - which is one of the worst sins and one which is based on betrayal of the most important human - that of husband and wife. This betrayal aspect is why it is used as a metaphor for betrayal in the relationship of G-d and the Jewish people. There is a primal revulsion towards the betrayal of  a wife who has an affair with another man. It also is one of the most defiling of sins - because of its violation of the sanctity of marriage.

At the same time we are faced with another theme - loyalty to rabbinic authority and gedolim. There is no higher praise than to say one has emunas chachomim i.e., obeys the decisions and views of G-d representatives - the rabbis. In this case Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Rav Nota Greenblatt are American gedolim who have the stature of being of the select group of transmitters of G-d's Torah and Mesorah.

The halacha is very clear - Tamar Epstein is a married woman who is married to a man not her husband - the definition of adultery. But she did it with the guidance and encouragement of two major rabbinic figures. However the rabbis who sanctioned this adulterous relations refuse to justify their actions. By their silence they are demanding acceptance of their activities simply because of their status and authority as gedolim - not because they are experts in the halacha - or are correct.

From the point of view of the Kaminetskys and Greenblatts they are saying they have no need to justify anything they do - no matter how horrific in appearance - because they are gedolim. They are hoping that the perceived obscenity of what they are doing will eventually be forgotten and they will succeed in getting away with distorting the Torah. Thus they are not only giving the appearance of violating the Torah by facilitating apparent adultery but they are violating a specific requirement of halacha - that decisions which appear wrong - need to explained in detail to the public.

What about the other rabbis who know that R Greenblatt and the Kamenetskys are wrong? Why haven't there been loud cries of outrage from our rabbinic leaders? The answer is that the rabbis are very uncomfortable with being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thus they are dodging the question with a technicality. They acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that there is a valid justification for the marriage without a get. However they say that they can not judge whether this is truly a case of adultery - unless they see a written justification for the act to which they can agree or disagree. Without this written justification - they feel they need to assume that what great rabbis have done - must be correct. The fact that the failure to provide a written justification is a violation of halacha - while puzzling - is also something which they say must be given the benefit of doubt.

So the crisis continues - a blatant act of adultery, a brazen concealing of justification,  demands of "trust me I am a gadol", timidity and fear of rabbinic leaders in addressing the issue - and the accelerated loss of emunas chachomim and growth of cynicism by the masses.

Tamar Epstein: Rav Gestetner condemns her remarriage without a Get

   Rav Gestetner's Letter Condemning Tamar Epstein's Marriage

Tamar Epstein Case: Why the Kamenetskys think the annulment will be accepted

guest post

Tamar Epstein’s annulment and remarriage, apparently with the support of Rabbi Kamenetsky is consistent with their history in this matter of making a mockery of halacha and the very notion of beis din. It should not be surprising that they would fully expect their actions to be widely accepted. Instead of facing condemnation for their outrageous actions until now, Epstein has been celebrated as a heroine while Rabbi Kamenetsky has been treated as an infallible Pope-like figure whose every word, no matter how contrary to normative halacha, is Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai. With rare exception, the no holds barred tactics of Epstein, and Rabbis Kamenetsky and Schachter, and their accomplices (some of whom have pled guilty or been convicted in criminal proceedings related to this matter), have scared into silence most anyone who would otherwise publicly disagree.

Epstein abducted the parties’ child out-of-State in April 2008. Epstein and Friedman later agreed to bring the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din (BBD). Friedman agreed to cancel a civil court trial in October 2008 in order to bring the case to the BBD. The BBD held three hearings with the participation of both parties. After hearing testimony and examining the evidence, the BDD did not require a get. After the BBD heard Epstein’s testimony criticizing Friedman’s parenting, and also from several witnesses who testified favorably about Friedman’s parenting, the BBD issued a temporary custody order that significantly increased the child’s time with Friedman. Epstein then violated the BBD’s orders regarding dismissing the civil court trial scheduled for June 2009. In civil court, Epstein and her family again criticized Friedman’s parenting and argued that the BBD’s expansion of the child’s time with Friedman should be reversed. The Court declined to reduce the child’s time with Friedman, finding “both parties are fit and proper to have physical custody of the child.” However, Epstein successfully argued that her abduction of the child should be treated as a fait accompli because of the time that had elapsed between the relocation and the trial. Epstein specifically argued that the elapsed time should be held against Friedman because he had voluntarily agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial to bring the matter to Beis Din. In addition, Epstein also successfully asked the court for a custody schedule under which much of the child’s time with Friedman was rendered moot because of Shabbos.

As the BBD refused her demands to order a get, Epstein involved the Washington Beis Din (WBD). After sending three hazmanos to Friedman, the WBD ruled that it could not get involved given that the parties had brought the matter to the BBD whose orders Epstein had violated.

Epstein also had Rabbi Kamenetsky issue public letters attacking Friedman and his family. Rabbi Kamenetsky has longstanding personal and financial relationships with Epstein’s family, as has been reported in both the Jewish and mainstream media. ORA, and its posek, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, jumped into the matter claiming that the BBD should be disregarded because Rabbi Kamenetsky had taken the opposite position. Even while the BBD publicly said Friedman had not committed any wrongdoing and actions against him were wrong, ORA demonstrated against Friedman and also against the WBD for refusing to intervene against Friedman.

It is not clear if the goal was to coerce a get, which would have been invalid, or to help ORA fundraise and make the point that a get must be given on demand no matter the circumstances – contrary to even Rabbi Schachter’s previous statement that a get can only be required by a legitimate beis din. For ORA and Rabbi Schachter, who appeared with Epstein at an ORA panel at YU, Epstein was the heroine (touted by ORA as the “world’s most famous aguna”), and Friedman the villain.

If the tactics were actually intended to coerce a get, they were not working. But the fact that Epstein and her supporters were able to silence any opposition to their outrageous behavior, not only against Friedman and his family, but against the BBD and the WBD, just incited more. For example, one rabbi involved in the case privately acknowledged that Epstein was not an agunah and that the rallies against Friedman were abusive, but refused to say so publicly: “My word is nothing compared to [Rabbis Schachter and Kamenetsky] and I am not willing to argue with them because I know ahead of time that I will lose and [Friedman] will not gain.” Instead, he publicly denounced Friedman, claiming Epstein was being reasonable with regard to custody – after she filed a civil court contempt motion demanding the child’s time with Friedman be limited to supervised visitation.

To recap: two parties brought a matter to a beis din. One party didn’t like the beis din’s decisions and violated that beis din’s orders causing severe damage to the other party, so the first party gets a rosh yeshiva with whom that party has close personal and financial connections to publicly attack the other party?! And then Rabbi Schachter declares that the beis din is irrelevant because the rosh yeshiva’s word must be accepted as “sod hashem lera’uv” and incites communal attacks on the other party?! It is not just that the beis din to which the parties brought the matter and which actually heard the case refused Epstein’s demand for a get. Epstein, apparently with the active advice and encouragement of the Kamenetskys, abused the beis din process in order to have her abduction of the child treated as a fait accompli. This outrageous behavior makes a mockery of halacha, the very concept of beis din, and the Orthodox community.

Eventually, Rabbi Kamenetsky was able to cobble together a so-called beis din to purport to issue a “seruv” against Friedman. The “beis din” did not even pretend to function as anything other than a kangaroo court. The “beis din” did not bother issuing even a single hazmana [summons], but started off with a “hasra’a acharona” [final warning] demanding a get, thus issuing its ruling before commencing the proceedings.

Friedman was then attacked by several masked individuals while returning the child to Epstein’s house on Tisha Ba’av, in a beating and attempted kidnapping. The attack endangered not only Friedman’s life but also that of the child. But still, few rabbonim were willing to publicly denounce the outrageous behavior.

Amongst the signatories on the purported “seruv” was Rabbi Mordechai Wolmark, who was arrested by the FBI on charges of ordering a kidnapping and beating of a man in order to obtain a get. Rabbi Wolmark and several co-conspirators pled guilty. Other co-conspirators, including Rabbi Mendel Epstein, were found guilty at a trial at which the attack on Friedman was alleged to be part of the Epstein-Wolmark gang’s criminal conspiracy. The competence of Rabbi Wolmark, or the complete lack thereof, was demonstrated by the fact that Rabbi Wolmark ordered the kidnapping and beating of a fictional husband regarding a marriage that did not exist. At least two of the other “seruv” signatories were alleged to be part of the gang. That anyone would assign any credence to the actions of this “beis din” over that of the BBD in this case is beyond absurd – but yet some, including the WBD that had previously refused to intervene because it ruled that the BBD had jurisdiction, did.

This just further emboldened Rabbi Kamenetsky to believe that any actions he undertakes, no matter how directly contrary to halacha, will receive wide acceptance if those actions are undertaken on behalf of a wealthy and influential family. But all the public attacks against Friedman were not working. And the attractiveness of ordering another assault and kidnapping apparently diminished after the FBI sting operation. The idea that Epstein should come to a reasonable resolution of all matters, despite the fact that she is part of a powerful family accustomed to getting its way, seems to be something that Rabbi Kamenetsky never even considered, proclaiming that there was nothing to negotiate. When another rav in Philadelphia attempted to initiate negotiations, he was told in no uncertain terms by the Epsteins to mind his own business.

So it should not be that surprising that several months following the FBI arrests, ORA publicly announced that Tamar is “free” without a get. And still, there was little outcry at this mockery of halacha. Many rabbonim, including in Baltimore and Philadelphia, were outraged, but were too scared to speak out. Thus, it should not be surprising that Rabbis Kamenetsky believe remarriage based on an annulment will also be accepted. Time will tell. Rabbis Daniel and Dovid Eidensohn have refused to be cowed and continue to denounce this mockery of halacha and yashrus.

Palestine: The Psychotic Stage -The truth about why Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust

Wall Street Journal    By Bret Stephens

If you’ve been following the news from Israel, you might have the impression that “violence” is killing a lot of people. As in this headline: “Palestinian Killed As Violence Continues.” Or this first paragraph: “Violence and bloodshed radiating outward from flash points in Jerusalem and the West Bank appear to be shifting gears and expanding, with Gaza increasingly drawn in.”

Read further, and you might also get a sense of who, according to Western media, is perpetrating “violence.” As in: “Two Palestinian Teenagers Shot by Israeli Police,” according to one headline. Or: “Israeli Retaliatory Strike in Gaza Kills Woman and Child, Palestinians Say,” according to another.

Such was the media’s way of describing two weeks of Palestinian assaults that began when Hamas killed a Jewish couple as they were driving with their four children in the northern West Bank. Two days later, a Palestinian teenager stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, and also slashed a woman and a 2-year-old boy. Hours later, another knife-wielding Palestinian was shot and killed by Israeli police after he slashed a 15-year-old Israeli boy in the chest and back. [...]

Regarding the causes of this Palestinian blood fetish, Western news organizations have resorted to familiar tropes. Palestinians have despaired at the results of the peace process—never mind that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas just declared the Oslo Accords null and void. Israeli politicians want to allow Jews to pray atop the Temple Mount—never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu denies it and has barred Israeli politicians from visiting the site. There’s always the hoary “cycle of violence” formula that holds nobody and everybody accountable at one and the same time.

Left out of most of these stories is some sense of what Palestinian leaders have to say. As in these nuggets from a speech Mr. Abbas gave last month: “Al Aqsa Mosque is ours. They [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet.” And: “We bless every drop of blood spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah.”

Then there is the goading of the Muslim clergy. “Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said Friday in a recorded address, translated by the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.”

Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!”

Imagine if a white minister in, say, South Carolina preached this way about African-Americans, knife and all: Would the news media be supine in reporting it? Would we get “both sides” journalism of the kind that is pro forma when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians, with lengthy pieces explaining—and implicitly justifying—the minister’s sundry grievances, his sense that his country has been stolen from him?

And would this be supplemented by the usual fake math of moral opprobrium, which is the stock-in-trade of reporters covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In the Middle East version, a higher Palestinian death toll suggests greater Israeli culpability. (Perhaps Israeli paramedics should stop treating stabbing victims to help even the score.) In a U.S. version, should the higher incidence of black-on-white crime be cited to “balance” stories about white supremacists?

Didn’t think so.

Treatises have been written about the media’s mind-set when it comes to telling the story of Israel. We’ll leave that aside for now. The significant question is why so many Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust—by a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. Despair at the state of the peace process, or the economy? Please. It’s time to stop furnishing Palestinians with the excuses they barely bother making for themselves. 

Above all, it’s time to give hatred its due.[...]

Today in Israel, Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil. To call it anything less is to serve as an apologist, and an accomplice.

The Real Obama Doctrine - avoid risk!

Wall Street Journal

Henry Kissinger long ago recognized the problem: a talented vote-getter, surrounded by lawyers, who is overly risk-averse

 Even before becoming Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger understood how hard it was to make foreign policy in Washington. There “is no such thing as an American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger wrote in 1968. There is only “a series of moves that have produced a certain result” that they “may not have been planned to produce.” It is “research and intelligence organizations,” he added, that “attempt to give a rationality and consistency” which “it simply does not have.”

Two distinctively American pathologies explained the fundamental absence of coherent strategic thinking. First, the person at the top was selected for other skills. “The typical political leader of the contemporary managerial society,” noted Mr. Kissinger, “is a man with a strong will, a high capacity to get himself elected, but no very great conception of what he is going to do when he gets into office.”

Second, the government was full of people trained as lawyers. In making foreign policy, Mr. Kissinger once remarked, “you have to know what history is relevant.” But lawyers were “the single most important group in Government,” he said, and their principal drawback was “a deficiency in history.” This was a long-standing prejudice of his. “The clever lawyers who run our government,” he thundered in a 1956 letter to a friend, have weakened the nation by instilling a “quest for minimum risk which is our most outstanding characteristic.”

Let’s see, now. A great campaigner. A bunch of lawyers. And a “quest for minimum risk.” What is it about this combination that sounds familiar?  

I have spent much of the past seven years trying to work out what Barack Obama’s strategy for the United States truly is. For much of his presidency, as a distinguished general once remarked to me about the commander in chief’s strategy, “we had to infer it from speeches.” [...]

Palestinians protest the "heinous crime" of Israelis killing terrorists who attack Jews

Only the New York Times could report the Palestinian drivel with a straight face. Only the NY Times could accompany an article about Palestinians killing Jews in terrorist attacks with this picture of Palestinians mourning a killed terrorist!

 

NY Times     Four attacks by Palestinians in Jerusalem and a city 40 miles away killed three Israeli Jews and wounded at least a dozen others in two hours on Tuesday morning, the police said, the most intense eruption so far in two weeks of escalating violence that has alarmed Israel and flummoxed its security forces.[..]

The outbreak of violence on Tuesday came after four stabbing attacks on Monday in Jerusalem, including one in which a 13-year-old Jew riding his bicycle was critically wounded by two Palestinian cousins, 13 and 15. The younger assailant was hit by a car and severely hurt as he tried to flee, the police said, while the older one was fatally shot by officers, prompting outrage.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called the killing of the 15-year-old a “heinous crime” and compared it to an episode widely seen as having helped incite the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, in 2000.

“If the Israeli government continues with this escalation of this dangerous method of executions, the region will be in a position that cannot be controlled, and everyone will pay a heavy price,” Mr. Rudeineh said in a statement reported by Palestinian news outlets.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, sent the Security Council an urgent letter on Monday night listing numerous cases in which Israeli forces fatally shot attackers, as well as people protesting against Israel’s occupation in the West Bank and rushing toward the fence that separates Israel from the Gaza Strip.

“Each day that passes, more innocent lives are lost, as is any hope to reach a peaceful two-state solution in the future,” the letter says. “The violations mentioned above should trigger immediate action by the international community, including the Security Council, to finally take measures to provide the Palestinian civilian population with immediate protection.”

There have been more than 20 attacks, mostly stabbings, already this month, killing a total of seven Israeli Jews. At least 11 of those suspected of being assailants have been shot dead by Israeli security forces or, in one case, a victim who pulled out a pistol. Most of the attacks have been in Jerusalem, but violence has also struck in Kiryat Arba, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank; in the cultural and financial capital, Tel Aviv; and in far-flung, normally peaceful towns.[...]

Consequences of public knowledge of divorce details.The day after the Tamar Epstein heter is univerally rejected by our Rabbis

The tragedy of the Tamar Epstein case has becoming apparent for everyone to see. Following her rabbinic mentors she has gotten remarried without a GET. This move is something which is widely - even universally rejected - from the most extreme Orthodox members of Bnei Brak and Meah Shearim to the Moderates and Left wing. It is acknowledged that there was no basis for a psak of kiddushei ta'os - and that by not receiving a Get before remarriage that she is committing adultery and has damaged the status of her future children. There will be a letter or letters released in the near future that publicly condemn her remarriage and affirm that she is still married to Aharon Friedman.

The question is what changes will result from this incident? Ironically one of the consequences is to damage the supporters of women to receive a Get on demand. By putting the spotlight on a particular woman - the manner that she gets out of marriage now becomes a public obsession. With this type of attention - any irregularities or halachic uncertainties - brand her and her children forever. In the past the details of divorce were generally not public knowledge - by the wishes of all parties concerned. Now women publish detailed accounts of all events.

I just received the following letter today expressing this problem.

Dear Rabbi,

I have followed your work for several years and respect you greatly.  I am by no means an expert on Gittin.  (I sat on a beis din once and that was because the other dayanim needed a body...)  Over Shabbos, I was discussing the Epstein matter with another of your followers and felt the impetus to write.  

Having perused the Epstein issue, I have one subtle, but quite important observation:  She who lives by the sword dies by the sword.  Whether or not you agree with ORA or any of these organizations that publicize agunah issues (or whatever their opposition claims), it is clear that these organizations have added a new dimension to the modern day agunah.  Once an Epstein-type case becomes public, we all look to see how it is resolved.  I dare say that the Epstein case isn't the first time when a rov has nullified kedushin- this is just the first time that we have heard and cared about it. 

This leads to two results:  First, women who otherwise publicize their agunah issues may be hesitant to air their issues to the community for fear of what happens if their ploy fails.  Second, women who have gone public may be stuck in a catch 22.  Regardless of whether or not you may consider Rabbi Greenblatt's actions halachically valid, I highly doubt that he did this without backing of those with seemingly broad shoulders.  

Again, I am not passing judgment on any of the parties involved in the Epstein case, I am merely bringing an important issue- one that may eventually overshadow all of what your blog has focused upon- to light for discussion

Miriam Kosman: Exploring Gender in Judaism - Wednesday 8 p.m. Israel Center

Just received this and thought it would be of interest 

Just wanted to let those who reside in the Holy Land know about this lecture tomorrow night (Wed. Oct. 14) at 8:00 at the Israel Center. Sorry its so late--it took me awhile to figure out how to attatch an image to this letter.  Hope to be in touch with an article soon!

Chodesh Tov,
All the best,

MIriam Kosman
Circle, Arrow, Spiral, Exploring Gender in Judaism
MiriamKosman.com

PS. To download a free excerpt from my book, Click here

A Communication from Open Orthodoxy, with Reply

Cross-Currents

Dear editor [Cross-Currents],
On the advice of my legal counsel I wanted to put you on notice that I will pursue every legal venue available if you continue to publish Avrohom Gordimer’s libelous and unfounded accusations against me.

In his recent essay he accused me of wanting to “completely revamp” the suddur when I explicitly said in the referenced essay that I’m merely suggesting to use art work to compliment and enhance our prayer experience.

I also know that he is peddling a new essay in which he again distorts my words and accuses me of blasphemy. (I say that we should “debate” the parameters of our theology, while he claims that I “suggest” we change it.)

It’s about time I stand up for my reputation and kavod of my family. I will pursue any legal venue against your website and those of you who are behind it. That’s what I owe my wife, kids, family, students and community.

Shabbat shalom and Shana tova,
Ysoscher Katz
Rabbi Ysoscher Katz
Chair, Department of Talmud,
Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School; Director of the Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies; Educational Director of Judaic Studies, Luria Academy, Brooklyn, NY.; Rabbi, Prospect Heights Shul.

....

We at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah stand behind Rav Ysoscher Katz whom we respect and admire deeply. Any attack on him is an attack on all of us.
Rabbi Asher Lopatin

The following post, which may still be viewed on Facebook, is also germane and is mentioned in our reply. It addresses a recent article by Rabbi Gordimer, and reading it helps to place both the communications received and our reply in context. 

You misread my essay, R. Gordimer. I asked that the critiques NOT stop. Your essays serve an important purpose, they help explain why millennials are leaving MO in droves. Your version of it feels old and atrophied, lacking passion, courage or creativity.
The fact that you are lying in order to discredit your opponents, does not help your cause either. One can't help but see a pattern here. The lay leadership used dishonesty to ruin a beautiful institution, financially. You do the same to a beautiful idea, ruining the MO ethos by using lies to discredit those who have the courage to revive and revivify an idea that no longer carries currency with the younger generation.
(In your last essay you accused me of wanting to "revamp" the siddur, ignoring the fact that I said explicitly that I'm merely suggesting to use art work to compliment and enhance our davening experience. In this essay you accuse me of adopting heretical ideas when in fact I only suggested that we should have a discussion about the parameters of our faith. But, then again, what's a little lie here and there when you have an agenda. It didn't stop YU's lay leader, why should it stop you?)
So, as I said, in the essay you mention: please continue to write. These essays help sharpen and explicate our differences. While you argue for the status quo, many others are going out in the trenches searching for language and formulations that will allow them to bring God and his Torah to a tzibbur that no longer finds either of those relevant
Gmar chatima tova to you and yours.

Ysoscher Katz

================================================

Here, then, is our reply:

Dear Reb Ysoscher,

While only a few of the Cross-Currents writers have discussed Open Orthodoxy, we all share a Jewish tradition of open debate, argument, and even refutation. We previously believed that you do as well, and thus your communication to us comes as a disappointment.

The Talmud does not hesitate to say tiyuvta d’Rava tiyuvta — the opinion of Rava is conclusively disproven. Even a sage at the level of Rava suffered the rejection of his ideas after critical examination; that is how it is supposed to be. Those who express an opinion in Jewish thought (and, indeed, in the secular world as well) enjoy no protection from being told — correctly or otherwise — that they are wrong.

None of us believe personal attacks are appropriate. Despite your assertion that you were attacked personally, in none of your chosen examples were you even quoted by name. It is the ideology of Open Orthodoxy and YCT, as expressed in your articles and those of your colleagues, that we, among many others, have criticized.
In regard to your claim that AG distorted your intent about revising the siddur, here is what you wrote: “Tefilot have a very short shelf life. After a while they become outdated, losing their power to inspire… Revamping the entire liturgy is a rather ambitious project which could eventually happen but for now one needs to start small, doing it incrementally and let it expand with time.” Readers may decide if Rabbi Gordimer was faithful to your words’ intent, or not.

Given that the Chairman of your Board of Directors is a well-qualified attorney (to whom you cc’d your letter), it is certain that you were already informed that a libel suit would require proof of deliberate slander, and that you would not find that on our website. Thus your letter seems intended simply to protect your opinions and articles from criticism.

But in that, your letter is contradicted by your opinion as expressed elsewhere. We are unsure how to square your message to us with a Facebook post that you published within 48 hours after you sent the letter. There you wrote — commendably so — that you favor open debate and hope that Rabbi Gordimer in particular continues to write. But if you honestly appreciate the discussion, why would you send this letter? It seems inconsistent to us.

We also fear that this unusual behavior is not particularly new. Members of the YCT administration and their supporters have previously asked important acquaintances of Cross-Currents contributors to use their influence in order to mute criticism of the YCT claim to Orthodox legitimacy. This happened while those same individuals were writing publicly that they cherished the public debate! You, Reb Ysoscher, are merely the first to put both antipodal sides in writing.

This is what overrode any initial reluctance to publish your letter. Any individual, especially feeling beleaguered, can react rashly and irrationally. But when the President of YCT stood behind your words and your threat, and after a history of trying to silence Cross-Currents writers, this appears to be a pattern important enough to share with the public.

What we observe is an “Open Orthodoxy” trying to avoid a pushback that it certainly could and should have expected. It is attempting to make its changes a fait accompli within the greater world of Orthodoxy before meeting compelling rejection from within both Modern Orthodoxy and the charedi community. Open Orthodoxy is trying to obstruct open debate of its philosophy and goals, and is even trying to hide that it is doing so.

Open Orthodoxy has not merely misled the public about being Orthodox — it has dissembled about being open, as well.

That seems compellingly germane to the ongoing discussion of the Open Orthodox agenda.

Yours Sincerely,
The Editors and Writers of Cross-Currents

A Neglected Point In the Tamar Epstein Case

Guest post

I would just like to precede with an analogy to help clarify this issue. If one were to go to a Bais Din with a claim that he just purchased a car from a dealer and there was no engine inside. If the Bais Din were to declare this a Mekach Tois without speaking to the dealer and giving him the opportunity to express his position. The Bais Din would be considered at best a Bais Din Shel Hadyotis and their ruling would be null and void. The reason being that it is impossible to decide an issue without hearing both sides of the story. The dealer could very well counter with a claim that he only sold the car for parts and bring a bill of sale proving his claim. The same is true here, it is impossible for any Rov or Bais Din to declare a Mekach Tois without hearing from the husband. Since this ruling was done without the presence of the husband it is null and void. There is no heter or excuse for a UNILATERAL decree of Mekach Tois.

In my opinion discussions of the validity of the grounds claimed for Mekach Tois detract from the issue that it is impossible to unilaterally declare a Mekach Tois. All claims made for Mekach Tois are invalid unless the husband is given the right to refute them.

Tamar Epstein: R Sholom Kaminetsky repackaged this from a normal shalom bayis case into annulment

In order to fully appreciate the corruption of the halachic process involved in the Tamar Epstein case - it is important to understand that it started out as a normal shalom bayis case.

1) As noted before there is nothing in Tamar's diary description of Aharon that indicates any inherent mental health problem - and surely nothing serious enough to warrant annulling the marriage because nobody could stand living with him (Rav Moshe Feinstein's requirement).

2) In addition to Tamar we have the Baltimore Beis Din - the only beis din authorized to deal with the case - they also viewed it as a run of the mill "she wants out of the marriage case."

Beis din can categorize a case as being one of four levels of dysfunction  1) nothing serious but one party wants out and the other doesn't 2) One or both party is irritating or abusive to the other - but nothing that counselling and good will can't fix 3) One party has serious problems such as being physically abusive or suffers from mental health or physical issues which make the marriage very unpleasant. In such a case the beis din can order the husband to give a divorce. 4) the existence of a pre-existing condition that was not known to the spouse which makes marriage impossible for most people such as severe mental illness. It is not fixable and as soon as the spouse found out about it - left the marriage. This is the basis for annulment of the marriage because it was a mistake - according to the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein.

For 5 years Tamar Epstein demanded a Get to end her marriage to Aharon Friedman. She became the number 1 Agnua. She was featured in the media including the NY Times. She appeared with Rav Herschel Schecter in a video about the problems of Agunas. She was supported strongly by ORA with public demonstrations against Aharon and his family. A campaign was mounted to have Aharon fired from his job. And finally her lawyer admits transferring $60, 000 to Mendel Epstein to take care of Aharon. Subsequently Aharon was physically attacked by several men as he returned his daughter to Tamar's family home.

However during these many rallies, interviews etc - there was never any mention made that Aharon was deeply flawed mentally or physically. For 5 years there was no mention that this was an example of kiddushei ta'os (a mistaken marriage) and that therefore no Get was needed. Why did Tamar and her supporters waste all this time and energy - if they could have simply pulled the plug with an annulment?

It is important to remember that during all this time - Tamar was strongly supported by the Kaminetsky's. Her father was the yeshiva doctor and one of its strongest supporters. There was no effort that was spared to obtain a Get for her. This included letters from Reb Shmuel against Aharon demanding that he give a Get. This included support of ORA's demonstrations to force a Get - even though the only authorized beis din said a Get should not be forced or pressured. Rav Herschel Schacter even wrote a letter saying he bowed to the authority of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in Tamar's case. In short the Kaminetsky's marshaled all the forces in Heaven and Hell to obtain a Get. But there was one exception - there was never a mention of an annulment.

The following is a letter I received from a reliable source regarding the view of the Kaminetsky's for 5 years as they battled for a Get for Tamar.

Both parties agreed to have the Baltimore Beis Din adjudicate the case under binding arbitration.   The Baltimore Beis Din held three sessions on the case with the participation of both parties.  The Baltimore Beis Din refused to order that a get be given. 

Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky testified (by phone) at one of the sessions held by the Baltimore Beis Din.  He argued that the marriage was over and that the beis din should not try to encourage reconciliation because Tamar had no feelings towards Aharon to make the marriage work.  He argued that there were basic issues between them and that the two were incompatible.  Upon questioning, he acknowledged that he had previously told Aharon that he thought the marriage could and should be saved.  However, he said that after talking further to Tamar he believed the marriage couldn't be saved because she had no feelings for the marriage from her perspective. 

When the Beis Din asked whether the marriage could be saved if Tamar would try to make it work, he said he couldn't tell.

At no point did Rabbi Kamenetsky even make the claim that there was some underlying physical or mental issue regarding Aharon such that Aharon was not marriageable.

Suddenly after 5 years of battle, Tamar and the Kaminetsky's changed tactics and used those of Senator Aiken regarding the ending of the Vietnam War. When America was hopelessly mired in a losing war in Vietnam - one which they could not afford to lose but had no way of winning - Senator Aiken proposed that the US simply declare that it had won the war and withdraw its troops.

That the Kaminetsky's followed this approach can be seen when Tamar suddenly announced - after 5 years of a war of attrition against Aharon - that she was free of the marriage. That she didn't need a Get. The Kaminetskys not only approved of this approach they were the driving force behind it. They drew up a suggested psak and solicited poskim to agree - without actually investigating the case - that the marriage was annulled as a mistaken marriage.

Bereishis - פרו ורבו - Was Chizkiyahu Hamelech decreed to die

The Gemarah Berachos 10a relates to us a conversation between Chizkiyahu Hamelech, and Yeshayahu Hanavi. Chizkiyahu was deathly ill, and the Navi Yeshaya came to be Mevaker Choleh (pay a sick visit).

Both being great Torah giants, they have a disagreement. Did Chizkiyahu still had hope of a full recovery, and he should continue praying... or was it too late, and Chizkiyahu Hamelech was about to die regardless... 

Ultimately, Chizkiyahu prevails, and we now rule אפילו חרב חדה מונחת על צאורו של אדם אל ימנע עצמו מן הרחמים    Chizkiyahu davens, survives, and marries Yeshayah hanavis daughter......

But, asks the Turei Even,  in the course of the discussion, Yeshayah hanavi said, that it was "כבר נגזרה גזרה". We know from Rosh hashanah 18a, that once a decree is made on an indavidual person, its NOT rescinded...

 

 

youtube

Stop the Presses!: Direct confirmation of my conjectures regarding the heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get

While I have been very involved in reporting the Tamar Epstein case - the understanding of some of the critical issues concerning the heter of kiddushei ta'us have been based largely  on conjecture. This morning I received a letter from a well known posek who directly confirmed what I suspected. While the posek doesn't want to reveal his identity, I know him and accept fully the truth of what he says. I am also getting solid information from insiders - which I am in the process of checking out - which provides further confirmation and names names.

 As far as I have established - the Kaminetskys did not actually pasken - they are not poskim - but they are the sole source of information that poskim including Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for their psak. The poskim rubber stamped what the Kaminetskys proposed. The poskim did not independently investigate the matter. In short the Kaminetskys went poskim hopping - to find someone who agreed with them. They provided not only the information but the description of the exact heter - kiddushei ta'us - they wanted. They did not ask for the independent view of the posek or for the posek to conduct an independent investigation. If the posek rejected their proposal, they went elsewhere until they found what they were looking for.

It is clear that many rabbis are disgusted by the distortion of halacha in allowing Tamar to remarry without a Get  - but are afraid of severe consequences for their futures if they openly condemn what the Kaminetskys have done.

This is the letter exactly as the posek sent me - with full permission to publish it.

In the summer of 2013, I was approached by a renowned rabbi and shown copy of a "Heter Nisu'in" for Tamar Epstein. If my memory serves me right, it was written by a student in a Kollel in Philly, and approved by a Rabbi Kamenetsky.

The reason I was given the "Heter" was so I can review it, and if I approve it - then I should sign on it.

I read the Teshuvah/Heter (was surprisingly short), and the whole basis of the Heter was based on some "eidus" by a professional (maybe a therapist?), and "eidus" of certain individuals (not named in the Teshuva), that the husband was "not normal", and it was therefore a "Mekach To'us." The examples cited of his behavior were pretty bad on a Shalom Bayis scale (if true), but nothing remotely strong to constitute a "Mekach To'us" even according to the most Meikel opinions.

Although I am a big Meikel by nature, after I reviewed the Teshuva/Heter I said that there is no way I can approve such a lackluster Teshuva/Heter, until I speak to the doctor, psychologist, etc. to ascertain if there is any valid reason to consider such a Heter, but the reasons in the Teshuva/Heter are not valid.

After I reviewed it and voiced my opinion, I gave it back to the rabbi and I didn't keep a copy for myself, so I can't tell you with 100% certainty what the "eidus" was, especially two years later, but what's written above is my recollection.

Kiddushei Ta'us (annulment) Rav Moshe' Feinstein's view - by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

Getora

Rav Moshe Feinstein's Extraordinary Ruling

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, E.H. 1:79) disagrees will all of the aforementioned authorities and argues that if a woman discovers a severe defect in her husband, she does not require a get. Rav Moshe writes that one should make all efforts to obtain a get, but a lenient ruling may be given ifthese efforts fail. He reasons that some defects are so severe that, clearly, no woman would have married this man.7 For example, Rav Moshe takes issue with Rav Yitzchak Elchanan and argues that no woman would marry an impotent man. Thus, just as a man who mistakenly marries an ailonit does not require a get, so too a woman who marries an impotent man does not require a get. Rav Moshe takes this exceedingly bold argument8 one step further, asserting that even Rabbeinu Tam would not require a get for a woman to remarry upon discovering a severe preexisting defect in her husband. As we have mentioned above, Rabbeinu Tam rules demands a get to dissolve the marriage if a man discovers that his wife is an ailonit. Rav Moshe argues that only a man might agree to marry a woman with a severe defect, because his ability to give a get assures him a relatively easy halachic exit from the marriage. However, it is obvious to all, Rav Moshe claims, that no woman would marry a man with a severe defect. She would never risk being unable to tolerate the man's problem, Kidushei Taut because she knows that she has no simple halachic mechanism to escape from the marriage. 

Limitations on Rav Moshe's Ruling

Rav Moshe suggested applying this ruling in five actual cases. They involved an impotent man (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, E.H. 1:79), a man who concealed that he had been institutionalized prior to the marriage (E.H. 1:80), a man who concealed that he vehemently opposed having children and later forced his wife to abort a fetus (E.H. 4:13),9 a man who concealed that he was a practicing homosexual prior to the marriage (E.H. 4:113), and a man who concealed that he converted to another religion (E.H. 4:83). In the last case, however, Rav Moshe hesitated to permit the woman to remarry without a get, as she did not observe Torah law. It must be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that the woman never would have married such a man. However, since this woman did not practice Judaism seriously, Rav Moshe questioned whether we can assume that she would never marry an apostate. 

Similarly, Rav Yitzchak Herzog (Teshuvot Heichal Yizchak, E.H. 2:25) appears to fundamentally accept Rav Moshe's premise. Nonetheless, Rav Herzog did not permit a Sephardic sixteen-year-old girl to remarry without a get after she married a man in his forties whom she thought was significantly younger. Although the girl had been deceived, Rav Herzog explained that one could not state unequivocally that a sixteen-year-old girl in such a community would never marry a man in his forties.

Rav Moshe issued his ruling about an impotent husband in 1951 and his ruling about an institutionalized husband in 1955. The present availability of psychiatric drugs allows for treating many psychiatric illnesses and casts  doubt upon whether he would have ruled this way today. Similarly, impotence can be treated and cured in most cases today. It is thus unclear if a woman today would undoubtedly refuse to marry a man with either of these ailments. Even some homosexuals, with the help of psychotherapy, can lead a healthy married life.

Moreover, Rav Moshe did not rely on the woman's testimony alone to verify the husband's impotence and mental illness. Rather, the rabbis involved in the case examined the medical records of the husbands, and the doctors even testified that they unsuccessfully tried to cure one husband's impotence. In today's society, it is highly unlikely that such information would be forthcoming from medical officials.

Conclusion

It is extremely difficult to permit either partner in a marriage to remarry solely based upon kiddushei ta'ut. Every effort should be made to obtain a get even when major defects are discovered in either spouse. For a defect to be considered as grounds for kiddushei ta'ut, it must be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that virtually no one would marry a person with the defect. Moreover, the defect must already be in existence  before the marriage