Kaminetsky-Greenbaltt Heter: A clear refutation of an alleged justification for the heter

update: added Bavli Yevamos (88a) to analysis

Last night I was given a possible justification for the infamous Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter. It was claimed that the Yerushalmi (Yevamos 15:4) states that once a beis din has given a psak that a woman could remarry - the heter remained valid even though the basis for the psak was lies and a misunderstanding of elementary halacha.

On the surface it looks like support. In essence the Yerushalmi describes a case where a woman remarried based on the psak of beis din who had two witnesses testify that her husband had died.

Then the husband comes to court - and the court denies that he is the husband and beats a talmid chachom who suggests otherwise. Thus it seems that a mistaken psak can validate a second marriage as we have in the case of Tamar Epstein.

However it is clear that is not the accepted halacha. The Yerushalmi only applies when there is a sofek as to the validity of the claim that the man is actually the first husband. as shown in Shulchan Aruch (E.H 17:56-57) - when it is clear that the first husband is in fact alive - the woman can not rely on the mistaken psak to remain married.

This is also a clear rebuke of the nonsensical view of Rabbi Greenblatt that once he has given a psak he does not need to retract it in the face of evidence that the facts and the halachic analysis are clearly wrong. Besides the fact that the two witnesses that he relied on (two therapists ) did not testify before beis din, one of them is not frum and the other one received his information from Tamar - and did not speak with Aharon Friedman at all. Even if they were kosher witnesses it is clear that their assertions about mental illness are wrong. Finally his psak is a blatant twisting and misuse of Rav Moshe's heter.

In sum, we have witnessed the shameful corruption of halacha by two gedolim. Even though it has been claimed that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has accepted the psak of Rav Dovid Feinstein that the heter is invalid - he has never actually stated such, He has not said that the heter is wrong but only that his son claims he will accept Rav Dovid Feinstein's ruling. And not only has he not told Tamar Epstein to separate from her husband he has reportedly told them not to separate despite the psak of Rav Feinstein.

תלמוד ירושלמי (יבמות טו:ד): פיסקא: עד א' אומר כו'. עד א' אמר מת ונישאת ובא אחר ואמר לא מת הרי זו לא תצא. מפני שאמר משנישאת. [דף עט עמוד ב] הא אם עד שלא נישאת ונישאת תצא.

אמר ר' יוחנן זו דברי רבי מנחם בי רבי יוסי. אבל דברי חכמים בין אמר משנישאת בין שאמר עד שלא נישאת לא תינשא. ואם נישאת לא תצא.

רב נחמן בר יעקב בשם רב נישאת על פי עדים שנים אפילו אתון אמרין לה לית אתנו.

 רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק בעי הגע עצמך שהוא אדם מסויים כגון אימי. אמר רבי יוסי בי ר' בון ולית כמן בר נש דמיי לרבי אמי?

אתא עובדא קומי דרבנן דתמן אמרין ליה לית אתנו. קם אבא בר בא ולחש לה גוי אודנה. אמר לה בחייך הב לה גט מספק. קמו תלמידוי דרב ומחוניה אמר ערקתא יקד וספסלה יקד. שמואל אמר תמן הוינא ולא ערקתא יקדת ולא ספסלה יקדת אלא אבא הוא דלקה. וקם לה.

 אתא עובדא קומי רבי אימי א"ל אין בריא דהיא שריא לך אלא תהא יודע דבניה דההוא גברא ממזירא קומי שמייא. והוה רבי זעירא מקלס ליה דו מקים מילתא על בררא:

Yerushalmi (Yevamos 15:4) If a single witness testified… If a single witness testified that the first husband was dead and she remarried and then someone came and said the first husband was still alive – she does not have to leave the second husband. That is because the Mishna says she had remarried before the witness came. But if she had not yet remarried and then this witness came and testified that the first husband is alive – if consequently she married she needs to leave the second marriage.

 Rav Yochanon said this is the view of Rabbi Menachem but the view of the Sages is that it doesn't matter whether this witness came after she remarried or whether the witness came before she remarried – she is not allowed to remarry. But if she remarried she does not have to leave the second husband.

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rav, if she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses– even if one of the said he is her first husband[1] – we say to him that we don't recognize him as the first husband.[2] [Because there are two witnesses that he died we tell him that he just looks like the first husband or we simply tell him that he is not the first husband because two witnesses said the first husband is dead]

Rabbi Shmuel said, What if the first husband was famous such as Rav Ami[3]  whom everyone recognizes^[4]  (by reputation and by brilliance but not by direct recognition)– would you still say he can't be the first husband [since two witnesses have testified that he is dead]? Rav Yosef said do you think there is no one in the world who is similar in greatness in Torah to Rav Ami?[5] [Since she has been permitted to marry by two witnesses, a person is not believed when he claims to be the first husband]

There was an actual case[6] that happened with the Rabbis of Babylonia concerning a woman who remarried based on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband was dead and afterwards the first husband came to beis din [and announced he was still alive]. The beis din said that that they did not recognize him as the first husband[7] and that the woman did not have to leave her second husband. Abba bar Bah stood and whispered in the ear of the second husband[8] – give your wife a Get because of a sofek – because it appears that this is actually the first husband and the witnesses lied. The students of Rav arose and beat Abba bar Bah[9]  because he disagreed with Rav (their rebbe)  - before them or because Rav was the official authority of that place.

It was said that the strap[10] that they beat Abba bar Bah as well as the bench that he was on during the beating – caught fire to show that  the beating was not in accord with the halacha.

Shmuel[11] said he actually had been there during the beating and in fact there was no strap or bench that burnt but that he saw Abba beaten and then he stood and left. In other words the halacha was in fact according to the students of Rav that he deserved to be beaten for telling the second husband to give a Get.

There was such a case that was presented to Rabbi Ami[12] and he said to the second husband , It is not clear that that she is permitted to you. You should know that your children from her are are almost certainly considered mamzerim before Heaven. Because before G-d everything is revealed as to whether it is true that this man is not the first husband.

Rabbi Zeiri praised Rabbi Ami[13] as one who knows how to present the matter clearly and reconcile the two views.

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

Yehuda added this from the Bavli 

(Yevamos 88a):MUST . . . LEAVE THE ONE AS WELL AS THE OTHER etc. Rab stated: This was taught only in respect [of a woman] who married on the evidence of a single witness, but if she married on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, she need not leave.44 In the West45 they laughed at him. ‘Her husband’ [they remarked] comes, and there he stands, and you say: She need not leave!’ — This46 [it may be replied] was required only in the case when the man47 was not known.48 If he49 is unknown, why is she to leave [her second husband] even where she only married on the evidence of a single witness? This is required only in the case where two witnesses came and stated, ‘We were with him49 from the moment he left until now, but you it is who are unable to recognize him’;50 

Regarding Rav's statement in the Yerushalmi that even if the husband comes back we don't remove a Heter given based on two witnesses: the Bavli Yevomos 88a brings it and says it only applies when we don't recognize the husband, and in fact in Eretz Yisrael they laughed at the thought that we would allow her to stay married if the husband is here. Tosafos explains that the husband returning is far better then two witnesses. Even the Yerushalmi itself in Yevomos 10'5' according to Korbon Ha'eidah's text says that we do not pasken like Rav because he is contradicted by a Mishna. The Ramban on the Parsha of Eidim Zomimin in Shoftim says that the dead person returning cannot make the pair of witnesses into zommimin because the posuk only refers to cases that require some investigation, but if the man returns then it is obvious that the witnesses lied.

Halacha:

Divrei Chaim^[14] (E. H. 1:42): She can remained married to the second husband and anyone who raises questions about the psak deserves to be beaten and the children are totally kosher – as is expressed by the Yerushalmi. [This apparently means if there are only rumors or his identity is not established by two witnesses]

Shulchan Aruch[15](E.H. 17:56): A woman whose husband left to a foreign country and she receives news that he died – if she remarries and afterwards her first husband comes – it doesn't matter whether she remarries based on a single witness or based on two witnesses – and even if she did not have intercourse with the second – she must leave both husbands and she requires a Get from both of them and she does not get a kesuba from either of them (even if the first husband takes her back).

Shulchan Aruch[16](E.H. 17:57): If a woman is told that her husband died and she remarries and afterwards she is informed that he in fact had been alive when she remarried – but he has subsequently died. Any child born to her prior to the death of her first husband is a mamzer according to the Torah. Children born after the first husband died are not considered mamzerim. There are some who say that they have the status of rabbinic mamzerus.

Shulchan Aruch[17](E.H. 17:58): … If a woman was forced to remarry by the mistaken psak of a major beis din – she is considered that she had been forced against her will and therefore she is permitted to her first husband after the mistake is discovered (Rashba 1189 as mentioned in Beis Yosef).

Aruch HaShulchan[18](E.H. 17:256): A woman whose husband went far away and then she was told that he died and she remarried and afterwards her husband returned – the Sages fined her with many punishments. … And even if she remarried based on two witnesses that the husband had died – because of the great damage that she did by remarrying when she was still married to the first hsuband and because of the potential for producing mamzerim it is appropriate that she be punished for the sake of other women that they should hear and fear that the same happen to them. After all she did sin to some degree since we see that the witnesses were false – she should have checked more carefully whether what they said was true...

---

[1] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו): אפי' אתון. אפי' באו בעליהן אח"כ:

[2] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד):  אמרין ליה לית אתנו. אין בנו כח להוציאה הואיל ואמרו שנים שמת בעלה של זו אמרינן זהו איניש אחרינא הוא וקלסתר פניו דומה להראשון א"נ לית אתנו אין אתם בעליהן של אלו שהרי העדים העידו שמתו:

[3] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד) הגע עצמך. אמור לנפשך אם הבעל השני הוא אדם חשוב ומפורסם כר' אימי שהכל מכירין אותו וכי נאמר שאחר הוא:

[4]  דברי חיים (אבן העזר חלק א סימן מב): ועתה לא נשאר לנו רק מה שאומר הבליעל הפסול לעדות כפי מכתבם (יעוין בדבריהם) [אין בדבריו] ממש דבעל על עצמו לא נאמן וגם כי הוא פסול:

ומה שמגזם בדבר לפי הנראה שהוא איזה תחבולה ורמאות עיין בבית מאיר [בתשובותיו שבסוף הספר סי' ח'] שם מבואר בהדיא דאין לחוש לפטומי מילי כי האי וכן מבואר בירושלמי [יבמות] פט"ו הל' ד' וזה לשונו ר' נחמן בר יעקב בשם רב נישאת על פי עדים שנים אפילו אתון אמרין לה לית אתנו ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק בעי הגע עצמך שהוא אדם מסוים כגון אימי אמר ר' יוסי בר בון ולית קמן בר נש דמיי לר' אמי אתא עובדא קומי דרבנן דתמן אמרין ליה לית אתנו עכ"ל הרי גם שהי' מפורסם כר' אמי היינו שלא היו מכירין על פניו רק בחריפות ובדבריו דברי תורה שאמר וסיפורי מעשיות בין הבריות ואפילו הכי קאמר שאין לחוש לזה וזה ברור:

ויתר דברי הירושלמי שם צ"ע במה שלחש לבעל שיוציא מספק וקמי שמיא גליא הלא אינו מותר בה רק כשנשאת להעד ואומרת ברי לי ואם כן מאי ספיקא גבה וצ"ע לפרש:

כללו של דבר שהאשה זו מותרת לישב תחת בעלה והמוציא קול עליה ראוי להכותו כמבואר בירושלמי והוא מוציא דיבה והבנים כשרים גמורים:

[5] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): ה"ג ולית תמן א"נ ולית כאן בר נש וכו'. וה"פ וכי אין בכל העולם אדם גדול בתורה כר' אימי ואיכא למימר זה אדם אחר שבא לכאן מסוף העולם וטעמא דמלתא כיון שיצאה בהיתר ע"פ שני עדים שוב אינו נאמן אף על פי שבא בעצמו:

[6] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): אתא עובדא. בא מעשה כזה שניסת ע"פ עדים ואח"כ בא בעלה לפני חכמים שבבבל:

[7] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): אמרין ליה לית אתנו. ואין מוציאין אותה מן הראשון:

[8] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): ה"ג ולחש ליה גו אודניה וא"ל בחייך הב לה גט מספק. וה"פ אבא לחש לבעל השני באזנו שיתן לה גט מספק דנראה שזהו הבעל הראשון ושקר העידו:

[9] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): קמו תלמידיה דרב. והכו אותו על שחלק על רב רבן בפניהם או באתרא דרב:

[10]  קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): ערקתא יקד. הרצועה שהוכה בה אבא וגם הספסל שרבע עליה בשעה שלקה שתיהן נשרפו להראות דשלא כדין לקה:

[11] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): שמואל אמר. שם הייתי בשעת ההכאה ולא הרצועה ולא הספסל נשרפו אלא ראיתי שאבא נלקה ועמד והלך לו ל"א וקם לה הלכתא כתלמידי דרב:

[12] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): תא עובדא. בא מעשה כזה לפני ר"א וא"ל להבעל השני שנשאה אין בני היא מותרת לך אלא הוי יודע שבניך מאשה זו קרוב לודאי שהן ממזרים לפני המקום ב"ה שלפניו גלוי אם האמת אתה שאין זה בעלה:

[13] קרבן העדה (יבמות פרק טו:ד): והוה ר' זעירא. משבח ליה לר' אימי שהוא יודע להעמיד הדבר על בוריו שעשה לדברי שניהם:

[14]  דברי חיים (אבן העזר חלק א סימן מב): ועתה לא נשאר לנו רק מה שאומר הבליעל הפסול לעדות כפי מכתבם (יעוין בדבריהם) [אין בדבריו] ממש דבעל על עצמו לא נאמן וגם כי הוא פסול:

ומה שמגזם בדבר לפי הנראה שהוא איזה תחבולה ורמאות עיין בבית מאיר [בתשובותיו שבסוף הספר סי' ח'] שם מבואר בהדיא דאין לחוש לפטומי מילי כי האי וכן מבואר בירושלמי [יבמות] פט"ו הל' ד' וזה לשונו ר' נחמן בר יעקב בשם רב נישאת על פי עדים שנים אפילו אתון אמרין לה לית אתנו ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק בעי הגע עצמך שהוא אדם מסוים כגון אימי אמר ר' יוסי בר בון ולית קמן בר נש דמיי לר' אמי אתא עובדא קומי דרבנן דתמן אמרין ליה לית אתנו עכ"ל הרי גם שהי' מפורסם כר' אמי היינו שלא היו מכירין על פניו רק בחריפות ובדבריו דברי תורה שאמר וסיפורי מעשיות בין הבריות ואפילו הכי קאמר שאין לחוש לזה וזה ברור:

ויתר דברי הירושלמי שם צ"ע במה שלחש לבעל שיוציא מספק וקמי שמיא גליא הלא אינו מותר בה רק כשנשאת להעד ואומרת ברי לי ואם כן מאי ספיקא גבה וצ"ע לפרש:

כללו של דבר שהאשה זו מותרת לישב תחת בעלה והמוציא קול עליה ראוי להכותו כמבואר בירושלמי והוא מוציא דיבה והבנים כשרים גמורים:

[15] שולחן ערוך (אבן העזר יז:נו): האשה שהלך בעלה למדינה אחרת ובאו ואמרו לה: מת בעליך, ונשאת ואח"כ בא בעלה, לא שנא נשאת על פי עד אחד או על פי שני עדים, ( אפילו לא נבעלה) (הרא"ש והריב"ש והריטב"א ונ"י סימן תק"ח), תצא מזה ומזה. וצריכה גט משניהם, ואין לה כתובה משניהם, ( אפי' החזירה הראשון) (הגהות אלפסי),

[16] שולחן ערוך אבן העזר (יז:נז):  אמרו לה: מת בעליך, ונשאת, ואח"כ אמרו לה: קיים היה ומת, ולד שהוליד קודם שמת, ממזר מן התורה, ושהוליד אח"כ, אינו ממזר. וי"א שהוא ממזר מדרבנן.

[17] שולחן ערוך אבן העזר (יז:נח): ... אבל אנסוה להנשא, או שהורו לה בית דין בטעות ונשאת על פיהם, הוי כאנוסה, ומותרת לבעלה הראשון (תשובת הרשב"א אלף קפ"ט הובאה בבית יוסף).

[18] ערוך השולחן (אבן העזר סימן יז:רנו): האשה שהלך בעלה למדינה אחרת ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעלך ונשאת ואח"כ בא בעלה קנסוה חכמים בכמה דברים כמו שיתבאר דעיקר מה שהאמינו חכמים לעד אחד מפני שאוקמוה אחזקה שתדייק שפיר עד שתדע על בירור שמת וכיון שלא דייקה קנסוה חכמים ומ"מ אף הנשאת ע"פ שני עדים ובא בעלה ג"כ קנסוה בכל הקנסות שיתבאר ואף על גב דמה הוה לה למיעבד דבשלמא בעד אחד היה לה לדייק אחר דברי העד כמ"ש אבל בשני עדים דע"פ שנים עדים יקום דבר בכל התורה כולה ולמה לנו לקונסה מ"מ מפני גודל הקלקול שנעשה להנשא באיסור אשת איש ולהרבות ממזרים בישראל כדאי היא שתוקנס למען כל הנשים ישמעו ויראו דהרי מ"מ פושעת היא קצת דהרי ראינו שעידי שקר הם וכל אשה הקשורה בבעלה יש לה לחקור הדק היטב אם אמת הדבר שמת אם לאו [נ"ל] ואפילו לא נבעלה עדיין מהשני כיון שנכנסה לחופה עמו קנסוה וה"ה אם נתייחדה עמו אחר הקדושין [חמ"ח סקק"י] אבל אם נתקדשה ועדיין לא נתייחדה עמו לא קנסוה כאשר יתבאר במילתא בטעמא בס"ד:

Obama administration says everyone has the right not to feel rejected!

foxnews

“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” King said. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

Wow! - a federal govenerment guarantee that one one will ever reject me or make me feel unwelcome. If you don't make me feel welcome I will get Obama to cut all Federal funds to anything you are connected to! 

So my problem is I feel that this gender legislation makes me feel unwelcome - what office of the government can I contact to make me feel more comfortable?

Or perhaps what this means is that the Federal governement will provide psychotherapy for all those who feel unwelcome and all those who make others feel unwelcome.

Given the current amount of therapists - I think the government will need to initiate an emergency measure to produce an adequate number of therapists to handle the demand created by this policy.

Does anyone know how many transgender individuals are being protected by this program?

72 year old Indian woman has first baby to end legal battle over inheritance

Deccan Chronicle

A 72-year-old woman delivered a baby after 46 years of her marriage at a Hisar-based fertility centre in April, making her the oldest woman to bear a first child.

The couple — Mohinder Singh Gill (79) and his wife Daljinder Kaur — were childless and decided to have a baby through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) three years ago.

While this news seems to be an occasion to rejoice, it has now emerged Mohinder Singh Gill decided to have a child in order to secure his father’s inheritance worth Rs 4.8 crores.

According to the Daily Mail, Gill, who is a farmer in Amritsar, admitted they turned to IVF to end a legal battle over his father's inheritance. He said, “My father was trying to deprive me of a share in his property on the plea because I didn't have a child.”

Gill claims his four siblings refused to give him a share in the property because he had no child. Gill says the tussle for inheritance began in his family nearly four decades ago, but his wife failed to conceive a child due to some medical complications during the 1970s and 80s.[...]

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel are losing the Internet war

 Washington Post    Ultra-Orthodox rabbis have waged a battle in recent years to stop the Internet from infiltrating their insular communities.

Their efforts have included declarations that smartphones aren't kosher, conferences on the evils of the Internet and rabbinic edits demanding that the pious stop using WhatsApp.

But the rabbis, it seems, are losing the fight.

Research by Israel’s Ben-Gurion University of the Negev has found that ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel use the Internet just as much as anyone else. And just like most others online, they gossip, consult with one another about life, discuss issues in their community and share their feelings on all manner of subjects.

In fact, the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, even like to tweet, and Facebook pages are abundant. [...]

With the rabbis clearly losing the battle, there have been some creative solutions to at least control the phenomenon. For example, some rabbis now allow for the use of “kosher” smartphones, enabling access to email and online bank accounts but blocking or filtering “problematic” websites.

Educating chareidi women about breast cancer

Tablet Magazine   Black-and-white posters called pashkevilim are one of the main ways that Israel’s ultra-Orthodox—who shun TV, radio, and Internet—get their information. So, when Ruth Colian, a 34-year-old Haredi mother and law student, wanted to advise ultra-Orthodox women in conservative Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, Bnei Brak, and Beit Shemesh to undergo routine breast cancer screenings, she made a poster. But she faced one big problem: She couldn’t use the words breast or cancer, or her posters would surely be ripped down.

Instead, the posters that Colian hung this winter—joining dozens of others encouraging modest dress, advertising Torah classes, and bearing the names of recently deceased community members—instructed the “dear woman” to “preserve your life,” and said that “there is a 90 percent rate of survival for early detection.” They also contained a phone number to call for more information.

Even without explicit language on them, the posters worked. Colian got hundreds of calls, many from women who said they had never gone for cancer screening because they had simply never heard of it in their sheltered communities. “I especially remember one sad phone call from a 42-year-old woman, who asked me, ‘What is a mammogram?’ ” Colian said. “To ask what is a mammogram at 42 years old is a very sad thing. It is a disaster. This is what I am trying to change, just the world around me.”[...]

“We see a meaningful change in attitudes toward screening,” said Anat Freund, a professor at Haifa University who has conducted research on ultra-Orthodox attitudes toward breast cancer and other medical conditions. “There is a lot more legitimization of breast cancer screening in the community.” The change comes as the ultra-Orthodox community has demonstrated more openness in other areas as well, including to higher education and the work force, Freund said, “but there are still lots of challenges and barriers.”[...]

Despite the rabbinical approval of mammography, doctors, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and others who have studied the issue say that the community’s tradition of modesty prevents discussion of the issue, so many women remain unaware of cancer screening.

“Breast is an immodest word, and cancer is ‘that disease,’ or ‘women’s disease,’ ” said Michoel Sorotzkin, an ultra-Orthodox rabbi and founder and chairman of the Hala clinic, which, although it serves all women, aims to make religious women more comfortable by taking steps like providing female doctors when requested and understanding that many patients may want to consult with rabbis before treatments.[...]

But rabbis are increasingly realizing that they must change this way of thinking.

“It seems that women today are in danger,” Moshe Sternbuch, vice president of the rabbinical court of Eidah HaHaredis, the leading ultra-Orthodox religious legal authority, wrote recently in a widely distributed rabbinical decree. “You should not rely on the biblical verse that God will protect, but rather be vigilant about check-ups.” In April, the ultra-Orthodox weekly Yated Neeman, a publication so concerned with modesty that it doesn’t print women’s names but instead uses only their first initials, printed Sternbuch’s statement. It was accompanied by statements from other rabbis emphasizing the previous psak on the issue, 15 years ago, stating that it is a religious obligation for women over 50 to get mammograms and other tests as needed.

“But this time the wording was much stronger,” said Sara Siemiatycki, the ultra-Orthodox founder and director of Bishvilaych, a women’s nonprofit health clinic founded to serve religious women in Jerusalem. Sorotzkin, at Hala, also said such a statement signals a change in attitude. “They see what’s happening,” he said. “Sometimes you need a collection of tragedies before taking action.”[...]

In another recent development, the Israel Cancer Association has been holdings meeting with ultra-Orthodox leaders on the topic of testing for mutations in the BRCA gene, which indicate a higher susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancers. It is estimated that one in every 40 people of Ashkenazi descent carry such a mutation. While the medical community in general is still formulating policies on whom should be tested and when, the issue is even more complex in the ultra-Orthodox sector. In addition to concerns about the impact of genetic testing on marriage prospects, there are also halakhic issues with how to treat women at higher risk of developing cancer, including the practice of preventative mastectomy and hysterectomy, Sorotzkin said.

“There is an increasing awareness that this is an important subject,” said Ephrat Levy-Lahad, director of the medical genetics institute at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, which is working with the cancer association to reach out to the ultra-Orthodox sector on the issue of genetic testing in connection to breast cancer. “You just have to do it in a way that’s open to their social and cultural environment.” [...]

Grossly out of place 33 story building to be built in the heart of Jerusalem

Haaretz

האדריכלים דניאל ליבסקינד ויגאל לוי מתכננים מגדל בגובה 165 מטרים על חורבות קולנוע עדן ברחוב אגריפס, בלב ההיסטורי של ירושלים. ההדמיות שהוצגו בכנס השבוע הכעיסו את האדריכלים בבירה. ועדת השימור המליצה אמש לא לאשר את הבניין

גובהו של המגדל יהיה 165 מטרים ו–33 קומותיו חורגות מ–24 הקומות שמותרות במסגרת תוכנית המתאר של ירושלים באזור מרכז העסקים הראשי, סביב רחוב יפו. לוי התעקש בדיון כי גובהו של הבניין — שיכלול שטחי מסחר, מלונאות ומגורים — אינו 165 מטרים אלא 118 מטרים, וכי הגובה הנוסף הוא חלל תחום בקורות ה"סוגרות" את הפירמידה. תוכנית המתאר של ירושלים מעולם לא אושרה רשמית, מה שמאפשר לגופי התכנון (העירייה או הוועדה המחוזית) להגביל יזמים מסוימים ולתת לאחרים זכויות רחבות.

תוכנית הבניין החדש הטרידה עד כדי כך את אדריכלי העיר ואת הסניף המקומי של עמותת האדריכלים, שהם החליטו לקיים את הכנס החריג בנוכחותו של ליבסקינד. לוי הפגין ביטחון בפרויקט, למרות הרחש בקהל, שהזדעזע לנוכח ההדמיות שהוצגו לו: "זה שידור חוזר מבחינתי", אמר לוי. "לפני 10–12 שנים הייתי בדיוק באותה סיטואציה, כי אני חתום על הגשר של קלטרווה בכניסה לעיר. גם אז הוא (קלטרווה) עמד מול קהל ודיבר על סמלים וכולם גיחכו וצחקו".

היזם של הבניין, שאינו אזרח ישראל, הוא פרוספר אמויאל. הוא ניסה להישאר עד כה אנונימי ואפילו בכנס כינה אותו ליבסקינד "היזם X". בכנס לא התקיים דיון של ממש. בעיקר עלו לבמה בזה אחר זה אדריכלים ומתכננים ונשאו נאומים מוכרים, בעוד בקהל נשמעות תלונות על המתכנן היהיר והזר שפלש לעיר הקודש ושזוכה להקלות מפליגות שהם — המקומיים — לא זוכים להן. ליבסקינד ענה להם כי בכל פרויקט שתיכנן הוא חרג מחוקי התכנון המקובלים למקום וכי כל פרויקט עורר מתחים. "אתיקה היא לבחון מחדש את החוקים", אמר בטון משכנע, ולא רק לפעול לפיהם בצורה אוטומטית, בבחינת "תנו לי את ה-24 קומות". לדבריו, "לא עשיתי את זה כי אני פריק של גובה (...) ואין לי ספק שזה יהיה בניין מהנה וטוב לעיר. גם ירושלים צריכה וואו".

Kedoshim; Do All Mitzvos Have Reasons? by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Rash"i in Kidoshim (19;19) teaches us, that although there are understandable reasons for most Mitzvos... Chukkim, HAVE NO REASONS.

The Ramban, modifies that, by explaining that we were not explicitily informed the reasons for Chukkim, but surely there is a reason, and it is part of Torah to work to uncover the reasons...

The Chinnuch (#159) in Parshas Shmini, seems to agree with the Ramban...

However, Rash"i in Sanhedrin (21b) seemingly in contradiction to his position in Chumash, agrees with those Reshonim, that even Chukkim have a reason??....

https://youtu.be/rsFfd6Wr_Bg

 

For questions or comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

FBI AGENTS SEIZE DOCUMENTS IN HUDSON VALLEY HASIDIC COMMUNITY

ABC 7

FBI agents conducted a raid Thursday in the Orange County community of Kiryas Joel.

They searched a yeshiva where a principal was caught on camera in what appeared to be some sort of intimate encounter with a student.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies seized documents and computers from multiple locations in the Hasidic village, possibly as part of a child pornography investigation.

Authorities executed search warrants at the United Talmudical Academy, the yeshiva where a principal was caught on tape in close physical contact with young boys, though it is not known if the search warrants are related to the principal's activities. [...]

The UTA's board of directors says the child was sent to the office for behavioral issues and that, while disturbing, is not evidence of abuse.

No comment from investigators, but UTA and several yeshivas have been in the feds' sights for months.

In March, a series of raids in Ramapo were carried out amid questions whether federal money earmarked for technology was being misused.

As for the videos, many in the community are coming to the defense of the rabbi.

"He's been a very, very wonderful rabbi," said one woman. "No complaints on him, my husband even learned from him and he's a wonderful person. I think this whole thing is a fake."

The only comment from the FBI is that this is part of an ongoing investigation, and that there have been no arrests or charges filed as of yet.

United Talmudical Academy of Kiryas Joel put out a statement earlier this week saying that the behavior caught on tape does not constitute a "criminal assault."

"In these videos, the school principal is seen embracing the students who were sent to his office for behavioral issues," it read. "While this type of restraint may be unacceptable to some viewers, it in no way rises to the level of a criminal assault." [...]

Shhh: Haredim Use Internet as Much as Other Israelis

Haaretz

Ultra-Orthodox Jews go online to gossip, share views and let down their hair, but usually under fake names, a recent study shows.

Their rabbis don’t like it, but ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel surf the internet like mad, a recent study shows. Some use their home computers, but since Haredi schools prohibit internet connections in the households of their students – and most ultra-Orthodox families have children – the average Haredi accesses the web using a mobile device.

Of Israel’s population of nearly 8.5 million, 74 percent are Jews, 20.8 percent are Arab and 5.2 percent are “other.”

Haredim account for around 750,000 of Israel’s total Jewish population of 6.37 million. It’s the fastest-growing Jewish subgroup, increasing by about 5 percent a year, compared to 1.7 percent for the Jewish population as a whole.

While ultra-Orthodox Jews surf the internet a lot, they don’t do it openly, the study done at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev shows – and a lot of their attention span is given to hiding their own identity while trying to guess who other surfers from their community might be.

Internet had been broadly prohibited in the ultra-Orthodox world because of the potential for distraction from the holy life. But solutions like “kosher” smartphones were clearly unable to keep pace with innovation and the rabbis have all but given up on outright bans.

The upshot has been the proliferation of sites and content for the Haredi surfer, which is now acknowledged not only to exist, but to be very active. The Ben-Gurion University study, which set out to characterize the Haredi surfer, shows that Israel’s ultra-Orthodox are online as much as their less religiously observant peers. [...]

The conclusion is that the rabbis may have fought the internet revolution tooth and nail but it’s changing the way young ultra-Orthodox people live and opening them not only to new employment opportunities, but to new thoughts.

Where is Torah Justice for Frum Divorced Fathers?

Guest post by Menachem B.

"Do not pervert justice" (Leviticus 19:15). 

"The judge who perverts justice is called an unjust person, hateful and detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination." (Rashi on Leviticus 19:15).

"Orthodox" Feminist activists often love to proclaim their support for alleged "Justice" and "Gender Equality" in regards to Jewish women.  

But the double standards and hypocrisy of the Orthodox Feminist activists are blatant. 

If one examines the marriage/divorce policies of these activists, it is clear they are not promoting halachic divorce practices or halachic justice. 

Rather the Orthodox Feminist activists are promoting blatant double standards of female power, privilege, and control over males. 

The double standards promoted by these activists are in fact major causes of the alleged "agunot crisis" that the Orthodox Feminist activists constantly protest! 

Here are some critical questions that need to be asked to the Orthodox Feminist activists:

1. ANTI-MALE PRENUPS: Why does the standard US Modern Orthodox prenup empower a Jewish wife to force a Jewish divorce on her husband for any reason using massive financial penalties, while Jewish husbands are not allowed any such option of forcing a Jewish divorce on their wives?

2. FEMALE GET REFUSAL ALLOWED: Why does the JOFA Guide to Jewish Divorce explicitly allow female Get refusal under some circumstances, while Get refusal by Jewish husbands is adamantly opposed by Orthodox Feminist activists who characterize it as evil, cruel, and unacceptable? 

3. FAKE SEIRUVIM AGAINST MEN: Why are alleged "seiruvim" against Jewish men constantly publicized on Orthodox Feminist websites (such as the ORA and Jewish Press sites), even when the husbands are in compliance with halacha? 

4. SEIRUVIM AGAINST WOMEN IGNORED: Why are valid seiruvim against Jewish women very rarely or else never publicized in the Orthodox Feminist media, even when the women have committed major violations of halacha? 

5. PROTESTS ONLY AGAINST MEN: Why are alleged male Get refusers (including men compliant with halacha) often subjected to protests, public shaming, sanctions, etc. by Orthodox Feminist activists (such as ORA), while female Get refusers, female halacha violators, female mosrim, and female parental alienators are almost never subjected to any protests, public shaming, or sanctions? 

6. ONLY HUSBANDS MUST CONCEDE: In typical divorce conflicts, why do the Orthodox Feminist "rabbis" and activists demand that the husband comply with his wife's demands, including demands for a Get, while almost never demanding that the wife reciprocate by respecting the husband's halachic rights, including respecting the husband's rights to parent his children?

7. EVERY WIFE AN INNOCENT AGUNAH: Why do Orthodox Feminist "rabbis", activists, and media often rush to label any woman in a divorce conflict as an innocent oppressed "agunah" worthy of public support, regardless of her halachic compliance, regardless of her halachic right to a Get, and regardless of any severe transgressions she committed against her husband?  

8. EVERY HUSBAND GUILTY: Why do Orthodox Feminist "rabbis", activists and media, when discussing divorce conflicts, often misrepresent halacha and facts to portray Jewish husbands as evil oppressors of their wives?

9. ANNULMENTS FOR WOMEN ONLY ALLOWED: Why do Orthodox Feminist "rabbis" and activists often extend full recognition to halachically invalid "marriage annulments" obtained by Jewish women, while usually refusing to recognize halachically valid heter meah rabbanim obtained by Jewish men?

10. CRUEL TREATMENT OF FATHERS IGNORED: Why do Orthodox Feminist "rabbis" and activists almost completely ignore the desperate plight of divorced Jewish fathers, many of whom are virtual agunim who have been alienated from or denied access to their children, or were financially crushed in non-Jewish courts, or were booted out of their homes on fake domestic violence charges? 

Its time to start focusing some significant efforts on restoring halachic justice and halachic rights for frum divorced fathers. 

Without halachic rights for Jewish men it may be impossible to preserve Jewish families and resolve the agunot-agunim problems.