50th Yahrtzeit of the Seridei Eish: Rav Moshe Sternbuch's reminisences

The following was taken from Rav Sternbuch's parsha sheet for this week. He had a close relationship with the Seridei Aish

Bo; Leaving Mitzrayim In Two Stages by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

The Gemarah in Brochos 4b and 9a, explain, that although we didn't leave Mitzrayim until the morning, the "Geulah" began the night before...

So, the question arises, why in fact, did Hashem take us out in two steps??

Could it be, that the very next piece of Gemarah, is addressing this question??...

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

Putting a gadol in cherem when he causes embarrassment to other rabbis and a chilul haShem

שולחן ערוך (יורה דעה הלכות נידוי וחרם סימן שלד סעיף מב): חכם, זקן בחכמה, או אב בית דין שסרח, אין מנדין אותו בפרהסיא סה לעולם, אלא אם כן עשה כירבעם בן נבט וחביריו. אבל כשחטא שאר חטאות, סו מלקין אותו בצינעא. וכן כל ת"ח שנתחייב נידוי, אסור לב"ד לקפוץ ולנדותו במהרה, אלא בורחים ונשמטים ממנו. וחסידי החכמים היו משתבחים שלא נמנו מעולם לנדות תלמיד חכם, נח] ואף ע"פ שנמנים להלקותו אם נתחייב מלקות או מכת מרדות. נט] ואי סני שומעניה ס] כגון סא] שמתעסק בספרי אפיקורוסין ושותה במיני זמר, סב] או שחביריו מתביישין ממנו סז ושם שמים מתחלל על ידו, משמתינן ליה

ערוך השולחן(יורה דעה שלד:לה): חכם זקן בחכמה אף שאינו זקן בשנים או אב ב"ד שסרח אין מנדין אותו בפרהסיא לעולם מפני כבוד התורה אלא אומרים לו הכבד ושב בביתך אא"כ עשה כירבעם בן נבט וחביריו והיינו שחוטא ומחטיא את הרבים דאז רודפין אותו אבל כשחטא איזה חטא לעצמו מלקין אותו בביתו וכן כל ת"ח שחייב נידוי אין לב"ד לקפוץ ולנדותו במהרה אלא נשמטין ממנו בכל האפשרי אא"כ רואין שהרבה יתקלקלו ע"י כך דאז אין נושאין לו פנים וחסידי החכמים היו משתבחים שלא נמנו מעולם לנדות ת"ח [מ"ק י"ז א] ואף על פי שנמנים להלקותו אם חייב מלקות או מכת מרדות אמנם אם השמועות עליו מתגברות כגון שמתעסק בספרי מינים ושותה במיני זמר או שחביריו מתביישין ממנו ושם שמים מתחלל על ידו משמתינן ליה דכבוד שמים אין ביכולתינו לוותר מאומה:

שו"ת יהודה יעלה (אסאד) חלק א - אורח חיים סימן לה

הנה לא אפונה כי כל הדברים וכל החזיון האמור למעלה נתאמתו אצליכם ויציבא פתגמא וכאשר מאז נודע בין החיים לקול השמועה כי עוף השמים יוליך את הקול בכן תמיה אני מה זו שאלה הנה על כל אחת ואחת מארבע מראות נגעים ופגעים הנ"ל הוא פסול להורות ע"פ דין תוה"ק וגם לשמש בשם רב כלל וכלל כי אחר הוא. מכ"ש כי חוברו יחדיו אצלו כל הנ"ל אחת ושלש שלשה פשעי ישראל ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו מבזה את המועדות הנה ידוע מאחז"ל כל המעמיד דיין שאינו הגון כאילו נוטע אשירה בישראל בגמ' סנהדרין ד' ז' ואין לך שאינו הגון יותר גדול מזה שהוא משובש ומופסד בדיעותיו בעיקרי האמונה ומקולקל גם במעשיו ולא למד ולא שימש כל צרכו הנהו חוטא ומחטיא את אחרים עמו בפתוי וביטוי שפתים ככתוב נביאך חזו לך שוא ותפל. ואם אתם מחשים וחכיתם עון כי עתיד הקדוש ברוך הוא ליפרע ממעמידין וקיי"ל בש"ע יו"ד סי' של"ד ת"ח או אב"ד ששמועתו רעה כגון שמתעסק בספרי אפיקורסים או שחביריו מתביישין ממנו ושם שמים מתחלל על ידו שאומרים עליו שרי ליה מארי פלוני או שמזלזל בדבר א' מד"ס ואצ"ל מד"ת משמתינן לי' ובסי' רמ"ו סעיף ח' /יו"ד/ קיי"ל הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה אף על פי שחכם גדול הוא וכל העם צריכים לו אין למידין ממנו כו' שאסור ללמוד תורה מפיו ומכ"ש שאסור לסמוך על הוראותיו והרמב"ם ספ"ד מסנהדרין כתב וז"ל מי שאינו ראוי לדון או להורות מפני שאינו יודע או מפני שאינו הגון שעבר ריש גלותא ונתן לו רשות או שטעו ב"ד ונתנו לו רשות אין הרשות מועלת לו כלום עד שיהא ראוי שהמקדיש בעל מום למזבח אין הקדושה חלה עליו עכ"ל ובחומש בפ' יתרו בפה מלא דיבר הכתוב ממעלות הדיינים אנשי חיל יראי ד'. ופי' הרמב"ם בפ"ב מהל' סנהדרין אנשי חיל אלו שהן גבורים במצות ומדקדקים על עצמם וכובשין את יצרן עד שלא יהא להם שום גנאי ולא שם רע ויהיה פרקן נאה כו' יראי אלקים כמשמעו כו' א"כ פלוני הנ"ל סני שומעניה ואין פחד אלקים לנגד עיניו ונזרקה בו מינות ומושרש הוא בחטאו ופשעו בסרחון רביעי ע"פ מעשיו הנ"ל שהצעתם מפורש יוצא דינו דהאי גברא ע"פ דין תוה"ק להעביר אדרתו מעליו שלא יקרא עוד בשם רב או דיין ממונה הסר המצנפת והרם העטרה כי אסור לקבל הוראותיו ושיבוש דעותיו בשום ענין מענייני הדת וכתבי התרות אם יש בידו בטלין כחרס המה לא שרירין ולא קיימין כפסק הרמב"ם שאין הקדושה חלה על בעל מום כנ"ל ועליכם יזרח ד' להסיר מכשול ולבער הקוץ מכאיב וסילון ממאיר מקרביכם יהי חן ד' עמכם יאשר כחכם יאמץ חילכם להוציא לפועל טובה מחשבותיכם. נאם אוה"נ הדורש שלומכם וטובכם כל הימים: הק' יהודא אסאד.

שו"ת יהודה יעלה (אסאד) חלק א - אורח חיים סימן לז

והנה קי"ל בש"ע יו"ד סימן של"ד ת"ח או אב"ד ששמועתו רעה כגון שמתעסק בספרי אפיקורס וכו' או שחבריו מתביישין ממנו ושם שמים מתחלל על ידו שאומרים עליו שארי ליה מאריה לפלוני או שמזלזל בדבר א' מד"ס ואצ"ל מד"ת משמתינן ליה ובסי' רמ"ו סעיף ח' /יו"ד/ קיי"ל הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה אעפ"י שחכם גדול הוא וכל העם צריכים לו אין למידין ממנו וכו' שאסור ללמוד תורה מפיו. +הג"ה מבן המחבר עיין של"ה פ' תשא ע"פ ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל ורמב"ם פ"ה הי"א מיסוה"ת דמי שזכה להיות מנהיג בישראל צ"ל מלא בחכמה ודעת והגון בעיני אלהים ואדם: וצריך שיהיה ניכר במעשיו בדיבורו בהילוכו במלבושיו במאכלו ומשקהו באופן היותר נאות עיין רמב"ם פ"ה מדעות ופ"ד מתשובה ה"ב ועיין מהרש"ל ביש"ש פרק חובל סימן נ"ח.+ ומכ"ש שאסור לסמוך על הוראותיו והרמב"ם ספ"ד מהלכות סנהדרין כתב וז"ל מי שאינו ראוי לדון או להורות מפני שאינו יודע או מפני שאינו הגון שעבר ריש גלותא ונתן לו רשות או שטעו ב"ד ונתנו לו רשות אין הרשות מועלת לו כלום עד שיהיה ראוי שהמקדיש בעל מום למזבח אין הקדושה חלה עליו עכ"ל. ובחומש בפ' יתרו בפה מלא דיבר הכתוב ממעלות הדיינים. אנשי חיל יראי ה' ופירש הרמב"ם בפ"ב מהלכות סנהדרין אנשי חיל אלו שהן גבורים במצות ומדקדקים על עצמם וכובשין את יצרן עד שלא יהא להם שום גנאי ולא שם רע ויהא פרקן נאה וכו' יראי אלהים כמשמעו וכו' א"כ פלוני הנ"ל סני' שומעני' ואין פחד אלהים לנגד עיניו ונזרקה בו מינות ומושרש הוא בחטאו ופשעו עפ"י המעשים אשר הצעתם עתה. ואשר נשמע עליו מני אז מפורש יוצא דיני' דהאי ג,,, רא /גברא/ עפ"י דין תוה"ק להעביר אדרתו מעליו שלא יקרא עוד בשם רב או דיין ממונה. הסר המצנפת והרם העטרה כי אסור לקבל הוראותיו ושיבושי דיעותיו בשום ענין מעניני הדת. וכתב התרות אם יש בידו בטלין כחרס המה לא שרירין ולא קיימין כפסק הרמב"ם שאין הקדושה חלה על בעל מום וכו' כנ"ל. ואליכם יזרח ה' להסיר מכשול ולבער הקוץ ומכאוב וסילון ממאיר מקרביכם יהי חן ה' עמכם יאשר כחכם יאמץ חילכם להוציא לפועל לטובה מחשבותיכם נאום אוה"נ הדש"ת. ומני שים טעם להעתיק מכתבינו זה אות באות ולשלחו לעיני הרבנים מובהקים גדולי ישראל יחיו המפורסמים גדולים צדיקים יחיו: ולבקש מהם שגם המה יעשו את שלהם. וכשתשיבו עוד שלשה מכתבים משלשה רבנים מפורסמים לא אפונה כי גם הקיר"ה גם שרי המדינה שטאטהאלטערייא יר"ה יתנו עדיהן יצדקו ויאמרו אמת יסכימו לפסק הרבנים נרם יאיר. לבער הרע מקרביכם. וה' עמנו ועמכם והעיר שושן צהלה ושמחה ושלשה הרבנים לדעת יהי' הרב הגאון דק"ק פרעסבורג והרב הגאון דק"ק אוהעל והרב הגאון דק"ק גראס ווארדיין יצ"ו. ולא תפרסמו את כל זאת עד אחר שיהיה בידכם הסכמותם ואת צנועים חכמה כתיב. נאום הק' יהודא אסאד

Rav Shmuel Auerbach joins other gedolim in protesting Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Open Letter to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah

David Wax sentenced to 7 years for kidnapping and torturing husband to give a Get

Rivka Stein's RICO case against Yoel Weiss is dismissed

Case 1:13-cv-06795-BMC-JO Document 104 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #: 1181

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- )(

RIVKA STEIN,

Plaintiff,

- against -

WORLD-WIDE PLUMBING SUPPLY INC., MOSHE WEISS (a/k/a MOSES WEISS, a/k/a MOSHE WEISZ), YOEL WEISS (a/k/a JOEL WEISS, a/k/a DAVID WEISS, a/k/a DAVID STERN, a/k/a JOE WEISS, a/k/a WIZTEL USA, INC.), PEARL WEISS, CHAIM LEFKOWITZ, SURI LEFKOWITZ ( a/k/a SARAH WEISS LEFKOWITZ), GEDALIA DANIEL KATZ (a/k/a DANIEL KATZ), BARUCH WEISS, SIRKI EHRMAN (a/k/a SIRKY EHRMAN, a/k/a SIRKA WEISS EHRMAN), RUCHIE WEISS (a/k/a RACHEL GOLDA WEISS), ABRAHAM BERGER ( a/k/a ABE BERGER), BURTOLUCCI'S RISTORANTE, LLC, BERTOLUCCI'S CATERING CORP., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-5,

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------- )(

C/M

ORDER

13 Civ. 6795 (BMC)(JO)

This Court entered an Order on December 22, 2015, warning plaintiff prose that if she

continued to fail to meet her discovery obligations in this case and to ignore the case, it would be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. That Order was based Magistrate Judge Orenstein' s prior

warning to her to the same effect on November 10, 2015. No activity on plaintiffs part has

occurred since the entry of these Orders.

The Second Circuit has identified several non-exclusive factors that a district court

should consider in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute:

(1) the duration of the plaintiffD s failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal,

Case 1:13-cv-06795-BMC-JO Document 104 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 1182

(3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings, ( 4) a balancing of the court D s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiffD s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal. Lucas v. Miles, 84 F .3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996). D [W]hile pro se litigants may in general deserve

more lenient treatment than those represented by counsel, all litigants, including pro ses, have an

obligation to comply with court orders. When they flout that obligation they, like all litigants,

must suffer the consequences of their actions. D McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor

Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988).

All of the factors, and any other considerations of which I can conceive, weigh in favor of

dismissal. The case has been pending for over two years with no progress made. Plaintiff has

been on notice of her obligations as a prose litigant since her attorneys were granted leave to

withdraw nearly eight months ago and has taken no action. This case is a parallel proceeding to

pending divorce proceedings in state court and possibly religious court as well, and using it as

leverage without prosecution unfairly prejudices the participants in those proceedings. The

Eastern District ofNew York is one of the most highly congested courts in the country. I can

think of no lesser sanction that will induce plaintiff to prosecute the case as she has represented

that she has limited means and she has been warned repeatedly that she must proceed with this

case or it would be dismissed. And the only excuse for not proceeding that she has offered is

that she is raising young children and working multiple jobs, but she has given no indication that

her situation is going to materially change at any point in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Plaintiff raised very serious allegations in her complaint and the Court devoted

2

Case 1:13-cv-06795-BMC-JO Document 104 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 1183

substantial effort to considering them seriously in the context of the motions to dismiss. But

even serious allegations must be pursued; they cannot be allowed to remain no more than

allegations for an indefinite future. The case is therefore dismissed for failure to prosecute.

SOORDERED.

Digitally signed by Brian M. Cogan

U.S.D.J.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 12, 2016

Trying to make sense of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter Fiasco

Guest Post by A Concerned Jew

Random thoughts:

It seems to me that there might be three sets of issues preventing the non-chasidic rabbonim in the US from addressing the issues:

1. As you have noted, they are not willing to do anything that would involve subjecting R' Shmuel to any amount of criticism. I think these people could be divided into two groups.

a. There are some who want to protect R' Shmuel because they believe that anything he does is necessarily correct and that to question him is to question Hashem. Therefore, if R' Shmuel was involved in the heter, no one has the right to question the heter.

b. There are some who want to protect R' Shmuel because they believe that he is an important gadol who has devoted 70 plus years to serving the Jewish People. They are incapable of accepting the possibility that R' Shmuel did anything wrong. They believe that R' Shmuel (1) either has absolutely nothing to do with the heter or (2) at most they are willing to accept that R' Shmuel made an honest good faith mistake in being very peripherally involved in the heter. But they are unwilling to even entertain the belief that R' Shmuel either (1) was substantially involved in the heter, (2) would have any part whatsoever in advancing the heter in any possible fashion (including not objecting to the heter) if R' Shmuel had any doubts about the heter's validity [in other words, they believe that R' Shmuel was at most, peripherally involved in the heter, and that if so, he honestly believes that the heter is completely justified], or (3) wrongfully intervened in this matter in any fashion on behalf of a family with whom he has longstanding and extremely close personal and financial ties. It appears to me that even Rabbi Feldman and Rabbi Miller fall into this category.

2. Even if R' Shmuel did something wrong, exposure of this fact would somehow degrade respect for "Daas Torah" and respect for the "system." In short, they fear that transparency itself is harmful.

Within this category, (a) some believe that exposure of any wrongdoing or misconduct of whatever sort is generally bad, and (b) there are some who have a vested interest in a system whereby insiders, in which those who are wealthy, related or just well-connected, receive favorable treatment from the system - which in many cases doesn't involve other parties necessarily ending up on the losing end. They are unwilling or unable to disconnect the concept that a rich donor will receive attention and honor for no real reason other than that person being a rich donor (which is a reality, and oftentimes completely innocent, but something they might not want to acknowledge), from that bleeding over into such type of person getting an unfair advantage from the "system" when such person is involved in a dispute with a "plain" person.

3 - a Those who believe from a moral perspective that a woman is necessarily entitled to an unconditional no-questions asked get upon demand no matter the circumstances. They are therefore extremely uncomfortable with a situation where halacha results in a woman not being able to get remarried under halacha, and therefore willing to try to "bend" halacha in order to achieve what they see as the morally correct result. These people have adopted the general moral norms now prevalent in the U.S. that have their origins in the radical counter-culture of the 1960s. Some of these new moral norms generated by the counter-culture have seeped into even the most yeshivish parts of the Orthodox world. No-fault divorce against the will of either spouse was not available in any U.S. state before the counter-culture, but is now available in every U.S. state - and now seems, at least to many in the Orthodox community, to be the obvious morally right answer. Other norms of the counter-culture may not have yet been adopted by the yeshivish, but have started seeping into more left-wing parts of the Orthodox community as well, such as the Open Orthodox attitude towards gay marriage.

3-b There are also many who believe that 3-a is the position of the masses and that the rabbonim have no choice but to go along.

Giving Tochacha - even if it causes embarrassment and degradation - for bein Adam L'Makom mitzvos

update Rabbi Shain has additional sources that he asked to be posted

http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2014/08/rambam.html

BM (59a): Better it is for man to cohabit with a doubtful married woman1 rather than that he should publicly shame his neighbour. Whence do we know this? — From what Raba expounded, viz., What is meant by the verse, But in mine adversity they rejoiced and gathered themselves together... they did tear me, and ceased not?2 David exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Thou knowest full well that had they torn my flesh, my blood would not have poured forth to the earth.3 Moreover, when they are engaged in studying "Leprosies" and "Tents"4 they jeer at me, saying, "David! what is the death penalty of him who seduces a married woman?" I reply to them, "He is executed by strangulation, yet has he a portion in the world to come. But he who publicly puts his neighbour to shame has no portion in the world to come."’5

       Mar Zutra b. Tobiah said in Rab's name — others state, R. Hana6 b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simeon the pious — others again state, R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Better had a man throw himself into a fiery furnace than publicly put his neighbour to shame. Whence do we know it? — From Tamar.7 For it is written, when she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law [etc].8

 Berachos(19b):     R. Judah said in the name of Rab: If one finds mixed kinds3 in his garment, he takes it off even in the street. What is the reason? [It says]: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord;4 wherever a profanation of God's name is involved no respect is paid to a teacher.

Rambam(Hilchos De'os 6:7-8): 

Halacha 7

It is a mitzvah for a person who sees that his fellow Jew has sinned or is following an improper path [to attempt] to correct his behavior and to inform him that he is causing himself a loss by his evil deeds as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely admonish your colleague."

A person who rebukes a colleague - whether because of a [wrong committed] against him or because of a matter between his colleague and God - should rebuke him privately. He should speak to him patiently and gently, informing him that he is only making these statements for his colleague's own welfare, to allow him to merit the life of the world to come.

If he accepts [the rebuke], it is good; if not, he should rebuke him a second and third time. Indeed, one is obligated to rebuke a colleague who does wrong until the latter strikes him and tells him: "I will not listen."

Whoever has the possibility of rebuking [sinners] and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin, for he had the opportunity to rebuke the [sinners].

Halacha 8

At first, a person who admonishes a colleague should not speak to him harshly until he becomes embarrassed as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him." This is what our Sages said: Should you rebuke him to the point that his face changes [color]? The Torah states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him."

From this, [we learn that] it is forbidden for a person to embarrass a [fellow] Jew. How much more so [is it forbidden to embarrass him] in public. Even though a person who embarrasses a colleague is not [liable for] lashes on account of him, it is a great sin. Our Sages said: "A person who embarrasses a colleague in public does not have a share in the world to come."

Therefore, a person should be careful not to embarrass a colleague - whether of great or lesser stature - in public, and not to call him a name which embarrasses him or to relate a matter that brings him shame in his presence. 

When does the above apply? In regard to matters between one man and another. However, in regard to spiritual matters, if [a transgressor] does not repent [after being admonished] in private, he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Ha’aros #70):...It would seem that all that is prohibited between people (bein adam l’chavero) is only prohibited when done in a harmful and destructive manner without justification. For example regarding the prohibition of “Not hating your brother.” This is only prohibited for gratuitous hatred (sinas chinom). In other words when he is not doing anything wrong (davar ervah). However if he is doing something wrong then it is permitted to hate him. It is important to note that the reason for hatred being permitted in this case is not because of the fact that a sinful person is not considered your “brother.” Tosfos (Pesachim 113b) explains that if you hate this sinful person for another reason then you transgress the prohibition. The hatred is only permitted because of the bad (davar ervah) that you see in him. Similarly regarding the prohibition of beating another, the Rambam writes that it is prohibited only if done as fighting (derech netzoyan). This is clear from the fact that it is permitted for a teacher to his student. And this that we noted before in Sanhedrin (84b) – that is only a rabbinic restriction. And similarly concerning the prohibition of causing anguish to a widow or orphan, Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) writes that if it is done to teach Torah or a trade – there is no prohibition. Similarly concerning the prohibition of lashon harah, it is permitted against people who cause discord and quarrels in order to stop the fight. Similar concerning using words to cause anguish (onas devarim), it is permitted publicly criticize someone publicly if it is for the sake of chastisement. It is even permitted to publicly embarrass someone if it is done for the necessity of chastisement for a person who has not stopped his bad behavior after being rebuked in private. In such a case it is even permissible to curse him. In fact this is what was done by the prophets in the past as the Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:8) notes. We thus shown from all this, that all the prohibition involving interpersonal actions do not apply when the act is beneficial.

Is this comparable to the the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter? Former Judge Is Convicted of Bribery in Divorce Court

NY Times

A former State Supreme Court judge was convicted yesterday of accepting bribes to manipulate the outcome of divorce proceedings in a case that led to a broad political and judicial corruption inquiry in Brooklyn.

The judge, Gerald P. Garson, 74, could face as many as 15 years in prison if he is sentenced consecutively on the three guilty verdicts, on bribery and two lesser charges. The jury acquitted him on four other counts after a four-week trial in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

In his roughly five years on the bench in Brooklyn, Mr. Garson handled nearly 1,100 matrimony cases, making decisions on child custody and financial matters. In finding him guilty, the jury endorsed the prosecution theory that he had an agreement with a divorce lawyer to take cash, dinners and cigars in exchange for courtroom assignments and favored treatment. [...]

Mr. Garson was first charged in 2003, along with the divorce lawyer, Paul Siminovsky, as well as one of his clients, a court officer, a former clerk and a man described as a fixer. All six were charged with felonies.

The case immediately reverberated throughout Brooklyn, from playpens and dinner tables to the upper echelons of politics. Divorce cases were reopened. Judges feared that their offices were wired for surveillance. The system of nominating judges was ruled unconstitutional.[...]

“Finally, we have justice,” said Frieda Hanimov, whose divorce case was handled by Mr. Garson and who wore a surveillance device to collect evidence against him. Adding that she and other victims were planning civil lawsuits, she said, “Now hopefully they’re going to learn and realize we have corruption everywhere.”

macho'oh vs. Macho'oh: Being concerned for a man's honor and not G-d's

Nedarim (39b): Raba, or as others say, R. Isaac, lectured: What is meant by, The sun and the moon stood still in their zebul?15 What were they doing in the zebul, seeing that they were set in the raki'a?16 This teaches that the sun and the moon ascended from the raki'a to the :zebul and exclaimed before Him, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! If thou wilt execute judgment for Amram's son,17 we will give forth our light; if not, we will not shine.’ In that moment He shot spears and arrows at them. ‘Every day,’ He rebuked them, ‘men worship you, and yet you give your light. For My honour you do not protest, yet you protest for the honour of flesh and blood.’ [Since then,] spears and arrows are shot at them every day before they consent to shine,18 as it is written, And at the light of thy arrows they go, etc

Sanhedrin (103b):It has been taught: R. Nathan said: From Gareb to Shiloah is a distance of three mils, and the smoke of the altar33 and that of Micah's image intermingled. The ministering angels wished to thrust Micah away, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, ‘Let him alone, because his bread is available for wayfarers.’ And it was on this account34 that the people involved in the matter of the concubine at Gibeah35 were punished.36 For the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, ‘Ye did not protest for My honour, yet ye protest for the honour of a woman.’

Sanhedrin (110a): Raba said: What is meant by the verse, The sun and the moon stood still in their zebul, at the light of thine arrows they went?40 — This teaches that the sun and the moon ascended from the rakia’ to the zebul, and exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! If thou wilt execute justice for Amram's son [by punishing Korah and his assembly], we will go forth [to give light]; if not, we will not go forth.’ Thereupon he shot arrows at them, saying, ‘For My honour ye did not protest, yet ye protest for the honour of flesh and blood!’41 So now they do not go forth until they are driven to it.42

רד"ק שופטים כ

(כא) וישחיתו בישראל - אמרו כי העונש הזה היה לישראל בעון פסל מיכה שהיה בימים ההם כמו שפירשתי והנה קנאו לדבר פלגש בגבעה ולא קנאו לפסל מיכה והיה לה' לקנא ולעלות עליו למלחמה ולבער הפסל מישראל כמו שבערו זאת הרעה ולפיכך נענשו במלחמה הזאת אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודי לא מחיתם בכבוד בשר ודם מחיתם:

רמב"ן בראשית יט

 ומה נכבדו דברי רבותינו (סנהדרין קג ב) שהיה הקצף בפסלו של מיכה, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודי לא מחיתם, בכבוד בשר ודם מחיתם. לומר, בכבודי לא מחיתם במחוייבי מיתה ופושטים ידיהם בעיקר, בכבוד בשר ודם מחיתם יותר משורת הדין. ועל כן סכל עצת שתי הכתות ואמץ את לבבם ולא זכרו ברית אחים:

Open Letter to Rav Aharon Schechter regarding the 4:30 p.m. meeting concerning Tamar's "heter"

Update: I had posted this Sunday morning before the meeting - but then removed it when I received conflicting messages from insiders as to whether it would be a positive influence.

Received word Monday morning that the meeting was viewed as productive

Was told I would received details later. 
 ===============================================

I hope the Rosh Yeshiva does not view this letter as chutzpa - but rather as acting according to Berachos (19b) - "when there is a chilul haShem our first duty it to correct the problem even if it unavoidably results in shame to distinguished rabbis." 

This letter is written out of great pain and concern for the corruption of the halachic process which has taken place - which the Rosh Yeshiva is well aware of and is why there is a meeting today at his house.

Today is perhaps the last opportunity to correct the great chilul HaShem that has resulted from the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt "heter" for a married woman to remarry without a Get. As has been fully documented, the heter resulted from the joint efforts of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and his son Rav Shalom  to obtain a heter for Tamar Epstein. They not only got a psychiatrist to write a false report without speaking to the husband - but they went around the world seeking out poskim who would agree to accept the facts and the "heter" that they had written up.

The relevant documentation is publicly available and leaves no doubt that the facts presented to Rav Greenblatt are false and that the "heter" has no basis - as has been clearly demonstrated by Rav Aharon Feldman and others. Rav Greenblatt did not investigate the facts or even talk with the husband. He based his psak entirely on the false psychiatric report that the Kaminetskys assured him was accurate.

The issue before the Rosh Yeshiva now is how to clean this ugly stain from the soul of the Jewish people?

It is clear that most of the distinguished attendees of the meeting have one concern - to save Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky from disgrace. We all are aware of Rav Kaminetsky's great achievement, his many talmidim, his great mesiras nefesh for many decades and the fact that he is a beloved and well liked person. But we also are aware of his obstinate refusal to take any responsibility for this "heter" or to condemn it.

There are a number of options open. The most obvious solution is simply to blame Rav Shalom Kaminetsky for everything. Let him take the full brunt of criticism and simply say he duped his father and Rav Greenblatt. However it is clear that in the eyes of the bnei Torah who have followed this crisis carefully - that is simply a cheap solution and one that ignores the facts of the case. That solution will simply produce cynicism and loss of emunas chachomim. Rav Shalom will simply be viewed as a scapegoat being sacrificed to cover up his father's active role in the "heter".

The only way this can be properly resolved is for all parties - Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Shalom Kaminetsky and Rav Nota Greenblatt - to categorically acknowledge that the "heter" is invalid and that they made a serious error in judgment. They need to take the path of Yehuda when he admitted that he had erred in dealing with Tamar. Only by clearly and strongly denouncing this heter can it be guaranteed that it won't be used by others to destroy the kedusha of clall Yisroel.

We are not simply dealing with a one time mistake in judgement or the single tragic case of Tamar Epstein. As Rav Aharon Feldman and others have stated the issue at stake is no less than the future of Gittin and marriage as well as the stability of the family. This can not be accomplished by blaming Rav Sholom Kaminetsky for the entire debacle. The focus has to be on the future not the past. Furthermore Rav Shalom Kaminetsky's reputation and future should not be destroyed - he has much of value to contribute.  The solution has to focus on retracting the heter and preventing it from being viewed as a viable option in other cases - there is no need to ruin anybody.

We are looking forward to the Rosh Yeshiva - with siyata dishmaya - bringing a full resolution of this chilul HaShem.