Mamzerim: When a woman remarries without a Get from the first husband - Rav Sternbuch

 Rabbi Dovid Katz wrote an important article dealing with attempts to deal with the problem of mamzer by using a shifcha. It is available here www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf.     This is page 13 and 30 of the article

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

 Minchat Yitzchak: V 47: In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many displaced persons were unaware of the fate of their spouses and loved ones. Families had become separated, and in the period immediately following the end of World War II, there were cases where survivors believed that their families had perished when in reality they had survived. It thus happened a number of times that a woman, believing herself to be a widow, married another man after the war, had children by him, and subsequently discovered to her horror that her first husband had never died! The chaotic conditions prevailing in those years, especially in the DP camps and Eastern Europe, led many people to marry without consulting a rav or Bet Din, so many people were not even aware of the ramifications of their status.

R. Yitzchak Weiss, author of Minchat Yirzchak, was consulted about such a case. R. Tzvi Elimelech Kalish, Rabbi in Munkatch and subsequently in Bnei Brak, was faced with the situation of an entire group of young men who were the children of mothers who had remarried after the war, only to find out later that their first husbands were still alive. As the offspring of second "marriages" which in the eyes of Jewish law were adulterous, these young men were mamzerim. Two decades after the war, these young men, who had grown up in Hungary, wished to marry. R. Kalish therefore asked whether it was actually possible to convert gentile woman as shefachot kna'aniyot in the twentieth century.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Teshuvot Vehanhagot I  764, R. Moshe Sternbuch describes how he was faced with a situation in South Africa of a woman who had had an Orthodox marriage, but had remarried without benefit of a get, a halachic divorce. Her husband had been relucant to give her a get, so she remarried in a Reform ceremony. Obviously, the children from her "second marriage" were mamzerim because in the eyes of Jewish law she was still married to her first husband at the time she had children by another man. Some years later, the woman became a ba'alat teshuva (repentant), sought and obtained a get from her first husband, and even sent her children to Orthodox day schools. She was nevertheless faced with the consequences of her second marriage: her children were mamzerim .

In seeking a solution to this tragedy, R. Sternbuch likewise reasoned that it ought to be possible for a gentile woman to become a shifcho even in modern-day South Africa inasmuch as the entire process would be a legal fiction to which the state would not take exception. In the end, however, R. Sternbuch concluded that if such great authorities as the Minchat Yitzchak and Chelkat Yaakov were unable to sanction such a procedure, in the one case on account of halachic objections and in the other on account of a reluctance to rule absent support from other poskim, then such an option was not practicable nowadays. R. Sternbuch had no choice but to advise the mamzerim to marry converts, knowing, however, that their children would also be mamzerim down to the end of time. As he put it: 

ועל כל פנים אין לנו לפרוץ גדרים בייחוס שלא שמענו מאביתינו כן מעולם אף שהיה יכול להציל פסול זרעו לעולם

In any event, we ought not to "break fences" [i.e. make radical innovations] in matters involving family relations. We have never heard of our ancestors [resorting to such a procedure] even though [the mamzer] would be able to save his progeny [from the taint of mamzerut] forever.

Talk Therapy Found to Ease Schizophrenia

NY Times  More than two million people in the United States have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and the treatment for most of them mainly involves strong doses of antipsychotic drugs that blunt hallucinations and delusions but can come with unbearable side effects, like severe weight gain or debilitating tremors.

Now, results of a landmark government-funded study call that approach into question. The findings, from by far the most rigorous trial to date conducted in the United States, concluded that schizophrenia patients who received smaller doses of antipsychotic medication and a bigger emphasis on one-on-one talk therapy and family support made greater strides in recovery over the first two years of treatment than patients who got the usual drug-focused care.

The report, to be published on Tuesday in The American Journal of Psychiatry and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, comes as Congress debates mental health reform and as interest in the effectiveness of treatments grows amid a debate over the possible role of mental illness in mass shootings.

Its findings have already trickled out to government agencies: On Friday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published in its influential guidelines a strong endorsement of the combined-therapy approach. Mental health reform bills now being circulated in Congress “mention the study by name,” said Dr. Robert K. Heinssen, the director of services and intervention research at the centers, who oversaw the research.[...]

Experts said the findings could help set a new standard of care in an area of medicine that many consider woefully inadequate: the management of so-called first episode psychosis, that first break with reality in which patients (usually people in their late teens or early 20s) become afraid and deeply suspicious. The sooner people started the combined treatment after that first episode, the better they did, the study found. The average time between the first episode and receiving medical care — for those who do get it — is currently about a year and half.[...]

The more holistic approach that the study tested is based in part on programs in Australia, Scandinavia and elsewhere that have improved patients’ lives in those countries for decades. This study is the first test of the approach in this country — in the “real world” as researchers described it, meaning delivered through the existing infrastructure, by community mental health centers.[...]

In the new study, doctors used the medications as part of a package of treatments and worked to keep the doses as low as possible — in some cases 50 percent lower — minimizing their bad effects. The sprawling research team, led by Dr. John M. Kane, chairman of the psychiatry department at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, randomly assigned 34 community care clinics in 21 states to provide either treatment as usual, or the combined package.

The team trained staff members at the selected clinics to deliver that package, and it included three elements in addition to the medication. First, help with work or school such as assistance in deciding which classes or opportunities are most appropriate, given a person’s symptoms. Second, education for family members to increase their understanding of the disorder. And finally, one-on-one talk therapy in which the person with the diagnosis learns tools to build social relationships, reduce substance use and help manage the symptoms, which include mood problems as well as hallucinations and delusions.

For example, some patients can learn to defuse the voices in their head — depending on the severity of the episode — by ignoring them or talking back. The team recruited 404 people with first-episode psychosis, mostly diagnosed in their late teens or 20s. About half got the combined approach and half received treatment as usual. Clinicians monitored both groups using standardized checklists that rate symptom severity and quality of life, like whether a person is working, and how well he or she is getting along with family members.

The group that started on the combined treatment scored, on average, more poorly on both measures at the beginning of the trial. Over two years, both groups showed steady improvement. But by the end, those who had been in the combined program had more symptom relief, and were functioning better as well. They had also been on drug doses that were 20 percent to 50 percent lower, Dr. Kane said.[...]

Public Notice from Ami Magazine regarding a forged letter

Mother of three battling MS takes own life at Dignitas assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland

Manchester Evening News

A mother of three from Bury who battled a debilitating illness for nearly two decades has ended her life at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland.

Rachelle Linz, 50, known as Shelley, fought with multiple sclerosis for nearly 20 years. She died after taking a fatal dose of barbiturate at a Dignitas clinic in Zurich two weeks ago.

She leaves behind husband Jonathan and three children - Joshua, 24, Hannah, 22, and Jason, 20. All four were by her side when she passed away.

Mr Linz, 51, from Whitefield, who was by his wife’s bedside said the family had always hoped a miracle cure for MS could be found, but his wife had feared she would ultimately die from the condition and made the decision after her health badly deteriorated.[...]

Poll: Should Tamar Epstein's heter and poskim be revealed or kept secret?

I put a poll in the sidebar concerning the issue of the secrecy of the nature of Tamar Epstein's heter and the identify of the poskim behind it.

It is important to take part to convey a message as to how the public - as opposed to bloggers - view the matter.

So far there is considerably less then 100 votes. There are thousands of people who view this blog. Please make the effort to vote. It is totally anonymous - and if you change your mind you can change your vote.

The results so far clearly indicate - as Rav Nota Greenblatt himself has paskoned - secret heterim and secret poskim make a joke out of halacha.

A Rapist’s Nightmare

  NY Times   FOR as long as anyone can remember, upper-caste men in a village here in northern India preyed on young girls. The rapes continued because there was no risk: The girls were destroyed, but the men faced no repercussions.

Now that may be changing in the area, partly because of the courage of one teenage girl who is fighting back. Indian law doesn’t permit naming rape victims, so she said to call her Bitiya — and she is a rapist’s nightmare. This isn’t one more tragedy of sexual victimization but rather a portrait of an indomitable teenager whose willingness to take on the system inspires us and helps protect other local girls. [...]

Bitiya, who is from the bottom of the caste system, is fuzzy about her age but thinks she was 13 in 2012 when four upper-caste village men grabbed her as she worked in a field, stripped her and raped her. They filmed the assault and warned her that if she told anyone they would release the video and also kill her brother.

So Bitiya initially kept quiet.

Six weeks later Bitiya’s father saw a 15-year-old boy watching a pornographic video — and was aghast to see his daughter in it. The men were selling the video in a local store for a dollar a copy.

Bitiya is crying in the video and is held down by the men, so her family accepted that she was blameless. Her father went to the police to file a report.

The police weren’t interested in following up, but the village elders were. They decided that Bitiya, an excellent student, should be barred from the local public school.

“They said I was the wrong kind of girl, and it would affect other girls,” Bitiya said. “I felt very bad about that.”

Eventually, public pressure forced the school to take her back, but the village elders continue to block the family from receiving government food rations, apparently as punishment for speaking out. [...]

Bitiya says she does not feel disgraced, because the dishonor lies in raping rather than in being raped. And the resolve that she and her family display is having an impact. The rape suspects had to sell land to pay bail, and everybody in the area now understands that raping girls may actually carry consequences. So while there were many rapes in the village before Bitiya’s, none are believed to have occurred since. [...]

In one village, I asked a large group of men about rape. They insisted that they honor women and deplore rape — and then added that the best solution after a rape is for the girl to be married to the rapist, to smooth over upset feelings.

“If he raped her, he probably likes her,” explained Shiv Govind, an 18-year-old.[...]

L.A. Teacher of Year fired for child abuse by new special committee

LA Times

When a colleague complained that Rafe Esquith, the most celebrated teacher in Los Angeles, had made a joke about nudity to his fifth-grade students, the district called into action a newly formed squad of investigators to get to the bottom of it.

Internally dubbed the "tiger team," the unit was created last year in the wake of repeated sex abuse scandals that had long plagued the nation's second-largest school district. These investigators were supposed to cut through the bureaucracy's red tape and investigative backlog and quickly ferret out wrongdoing.

In Esquith, they had their highest-profile subject and their biggest test.

This week, based on the unit's investigative efforts, the school board behind closed doors voted unanimously to fire Esquith.

On Thursday, Esquith attorney Mark Geragos criticized the inquiry into his client and slammed the unit as "an investigative hit squad" that was determined to find wrongdoing by probing, if necessary, into every aspect of an employee's life.

District officials defended the work of its investigators, saying they've brought professionalism and a faster resolution to complex cases, which is better for teachers and for students. They said that nearly half of the employees investigated by the unit returned to their jobs.

The team includes seven full-time investigators, a supervisor and two forensic specialists. Among them are former L.A. Police Department detectives and a former investigator with the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. Three former administrators review their work, and the unit is headed by Jose Cantu, who's been with the district for more than 30 years, including 14 as a principal.

Also participating in the Esquith investigation is an outside law firm, a practice the district has reserved for especially sensitive cases.

Esquith qualified for special handling because he is one of the most famous and honored teachers in America, the subject of articles, a documentary and White House accolades. He's renowned for coaxing stirring performances of Shakespeare from Latino and Asian students who live in the working-class neighborhood around Hobart Avenue Elementary School. [...]

Noach; The dimensions of the GIGANTIC "Re'em" creature

Chazal discuss a creature, called the Re'em, that was the size of a mountain....

Was it a very tall animal? or was it actually short, and very wide?

The Gemarah Zevachim 113b, in discussing if the Mabul reached Eretz Yisroel, debates how the "Rimah" (which is the Re"em in Aramaic) survived the flood...

Could it be that the Gemarah itself had no specific tradition on this exotic creatures' physique, and is actually debating it's height?...

For questions or comments, please email salmahshleima@gmail.com 

Rabbi Shlomo Pollack

The Tower of Babel, A lesson for educators by Allan Katz

Allan Katz

The parasha of the Tower of Babel and the subsequent dispersion brings to mind the totalitarian dictatorships and communistic states , whose leadership in the name of some ideology or defense against possible threats 'made a name for themselves' and called for absolute uniformity and obedience to the state. The rights of individuals must be sacrificed for the success of the state and its goals. The leadership under Nimrod managed to persuade and convince people to put their trust in a leadership whose advanced technological skills - made bricks and mortar instead of using stone and clay – would take care of any environmental and any other threats. All the people shared this common purpose with the state and there was no dissension or opposing opinions or perspectives. Nimrod even used religion to further his goals and introduced the sacrifice to God of predators like lions in order to glorify the ideals of 'power, government and kingship' that would have absolute power and control over the people. God realized that powerful and controlling governments with the help of technology would try to make ' a name for themselves '. This would be at the expense of (1) looking to God for spiritual solutions to man's problems and (2) seeing the state and society as being there to serve the individuals rather than individuals being there to serve the state. In fact the Midrash describes people mourning the destruction and loss of bricks, while the death of builders went unnoticed.

It would seem that a controlling society, one that demands uniformity and everyone sharing the same opinions is not conducive to spiritual growth and the creation of a caring society. In the fact, it seems the opposite is true. In a comment about his years spent at Shor Yoshuv under the dynamic leadership of Reb Shlomo Freifeld, Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn said it was also the fact that the boys were both brilliant and non-conformists that created a dynamic and spiritually empowering and uplifting environment. - Yet control, compliance and conforming seem to be what drives parents, educators and teachers, today.

In a classroom setting, it is quite understandable that a teacher should have classroom management skills and be able to ' control' a classroom so to create an environment conducive to learning. But in many schools and classrooms the ultimate goal has become order and conformity where rather than treating discipline as 'instrumental to mastering academic content' teachers reverse those ends and means. They maintain discipline by the way they present course content. If the goal is order and conformity one would choose a traditional approach to education – teacher lecturing and doing most of the talking, text books, work sheets, tests and quizzes and extrinsic motivators like grades , honor rolls, competition and praise to get the kids to learn. One certainly would not choose a classroom where kids are encouraged to construct meaning and share their unique opinions, understand ideas from the inside out so the approach would be collaborative, kids also learn in pairs or groups, open-ended, project-based and driven by students' interests and a love for learning. When it comes to discipline and behavior – both positive and negative, teachers who have a need to control, will keep the locus of control with them, using rewards, praise, punishments and consequences to get compliance and in this way promote the most primitive form of moral behavior – helping a kid to ask – what will be done to me or what will I get if I do XYZ.? Instead teachers can give up control and let kids participate in deciding what goes on in the classroom, reflect on values, motives – not simply behaviors - and goals so kids learn to ask – what type of classroom do we want, what type of person do I want to be, what are the consequences of my behavior on others, how can I make a contribution and if I have ' screwed up ' how can I do Teshuva and engage in an autonomous way in the moral act of restitution.

In the classroom and home the evidence is overwhelming in favor of supporting the autonomy of the child , so that he feels self-directed and connected to his inner –being ( neshama) as opposed to a controlling environment where compliance and not independent and creative thinking is encouraged. As educators we can learn from the teaching of R' Eliezer who said that he had never said anything that he had not heard from his Rabbi and then we see in the Avot De' Rabi'Natan where he is reported to have given a sermon and said over novel thoughts and chidushim that no one had ever heard before. R' Chaim Shmulevitz resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining what R' Eliezer meant when he said that he never ever said anything that he had not heard from his Rabbi. This cannot be taken literally because ' being a tape recorder' and only repeating what one has learned is certainly nothing to be proud of. R' Eliezer explained that whatever he said was something that he was sure his Rabbi would say or agree with. So R' Eliezer was being very creative in his learning and at the same time very authentic. There are 70 faces-facets to the Torah and this is intended to encourage us and our kids to construct and find personal meaning in what we learn and do so we become more connected to Hashem and His Torah. The lesson of the Tower of Babel is to warn us of the dangers of being controlling and not encouraging personal and creative thinking for our kids' spiritual growth and development. Instead of being ' controlling' and trying to motivate kids , we can inspire them and help them connect to their learning, create the conditions to help them motivate themselves and become caring long life learners.

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.” [...]