Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: The shameful reality is they think we are stupid

As mentioned yesterday, R Sholom Kaminetsky wrote a letter in which he acknowledged that Rav Dovid Feinstein had paskened that the heter was worthless and that he accepted this psak.

Some people felt that this was news worth celebrating - after all didn't the forces of good triumph over the forces of evil? The answer is no! The situation is much worse than before.

What was Rav Dovid Feinstein doing for the last 6 weeks? Apparently he was given one job and that was to decide whether the heter was good or not. Why did he do this? He apparently did this because the Novominsker and others convinced him that he was the only one that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky would listen to - as in fact Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky wrote to Rav Weiss when he asked him not to protest against the heter. 

Thus Rav Feinstein was paskening solely for the sake of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky regarding the heter. He was not dealing with what Tamar Epstein should do, nor was he deciding whether Aharon Friedman should give a Get. He was not dealing with the corruption of the halacha in this case with a phony seruv issued by Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky. He was also not dealing with whether Rav Nota Greenblatt was wrong in paskening based on a flawed psychiatric report based solely on Tamar Epstein's biased views about a case where Rav Nota didn't bother to speak to both sides or even verify that the information he was spoon fed by R Sholom Kaminetsky was true.

In short - Rav Dovid Feinstein was used to save the hide of the Kaminetskys. With his psak about the heter he gave Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and son a ladder to climb down from the branch that they were precariously hanging from that was being sawed off by the major rabbonim around the world who have explicitly condemned the heter.

That is why the heter was not announced publicly but was sent to R Shalom Kaminetsky. It was only his response that was published and that done through the strange publication in Matzav - not the normal channel for such an important notification. There is no written psak from Rav Dovid Feinstein and there is no official letter of response from Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky. It is simply smoke and mirrors. I was told that if there had been an official written psak, that the Kaminetskys would have been subject to direct criticism by the Rabbonim and  by the media and they would not have retracted. Rav Dovid Feinstein and the Aguda avoided this spectacle by making a virtual announcement. This way the Kaminetskys were allow to make it appear that they were innocent bystanders - without Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky actually saying anything. 

Ah but you are saying - but Rav Dovid did invalidate the heter. Isn't that progress? The answer is no. Primarily because Rav Greenblatt has not retracted his mistaken psak. Thus Rav Dovid Feinstein was suckered into making this a machlokess haposkim. It is now his view versus Rav Greenblatt. Tamar can simply say that she received the heter from a major posek and that the heter is still in place. Nothing has changed,

What needs to happen is that Rav Dovid Feinstein has to issue a written psak -  as has been done by major figures such as Rav Shlomo Miller and the Baltimore Beis Din. He needs to explicitly criticize the process of the heter - otherwise it will open a floodgate of phony heterim. Rav Dovid has done nothing to protect us from anyone with mail order smicha doing away with the need for Gittin.

He needs to write that Tamar needs to separate from Adam. Without addressing the status of Tamar and what she has to do - it remains simply a public relations move to save the Kaminetskys.

Finally Rav Dovid Feinstein needs to directly criticize Rav Nota Greenblatt for issuing the heter and trying to deceive everyone that he had nothing to do with the heter. He needs to make public condemnations so that no one in their right mind will think of doing this again. As it stands there is absolutely no downside of privately telling a woman he she doesn't need a get because if she had only known what she knows now she would never have married him. This is the Rackman mechanism - which has gained a foothold through this heter.

Bottom line, Nothing has been done to clean up the stinking garbage of corruption and trampling on our holy Torah. We need the restoration of Torah leadership - not more "leave it to the gedolim to decide" announcements.

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: A reader asks, What is the real agenda of this blog in protesting corruption of halacha and adultery?

We have been dealing for a long time with the issue  of a recognized gadol - R Shmuel Kaminetsky - being involved in the slimy task of corrupting halacha and refusing to accept responsibility to stop the adulterous relationship of Tamar and Adam. R Kaminetsky and son conducted a worldwide campaign to produce a psak from R Greenblatt in which he investigated not a single one of the phony facts presented to him. R Greenblat married the couple solely on the say so of Rabbi Kaminetsky. "It is chutzpa to question what a gadol says!" Worldwide outrage was expressed in letters from most of the leading poskim against the heter. [see the post at the uppoer right corner of this blog] In spite of that we still have people - as seen in the comment below - who say, "What is your agenda?"

in short: what is the real agenda here? to try and get RSK to force Tamar out of current situation thru the blog pressure (which does not seem to be happening), or to somehow allow him to 'save face' , but to get the desired result

 There are a few issues here.

1) Did something horribly wrong take place in the producing of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter which threatens the foundations of yiddishkeit by damaging the collective emunas chachoim?

2) Do we ignore or tolerate horrible actions by gedolim because they are gedolim and therefore- We -the "fungus under their feet" - have no right to question them?

3) Is there an imperative to protest this corruption of Torah - as we do any other corruption - or is it a task only for other gedolim to deal with?

4) Is it a fact that the protests on this blog have not produced results?

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

We have dealt with the other issues at length. I would like to address the last issue.

It is clear from the feedback that I have gotten -- that the protests have in fact registered. While it is true that Tamar and Adam are still living in sin - but the protests have not been in vain

1) R Kaminetsky and his extended family are highly irritated by the protests - based entirely on their claim that R Kaminetsky has done nothing wrong and has clearly acknowledged that Rabbi Dovid Feinstein has said the heter is garbage. In particular, that he never paskened that Tamar could remarry and thus he has no obligation to do anything. He feels no responsibility for the campaign that his son conducted - in direct consultation with him and his approval of every step - to find poskim who would agree to the heter nor the phony psychiatrist report that his son produced to support the heter. In short, he claims he is totally innocent of wrong doing  and that the responsibility is solely that of R Greenblatt. It doesn't bother him that Tamar is relying entirely on the heter of R Greenblatt that he engineered - because after all she has a major posek to rely on. This despite that R Greenblatt relied totally on the facts that were presented to him by the Kaminetsky's - including the false claim that Aharon Friedman is totally insane. However as one family member told me, "the whole thing stinks and is a grave embarrassment" [yes there are family members who are ashamed of what R Kaminetsky has done]

2) Talmidim and admirers of R Kaminetsky are alternatively angry with me and embarrassed by the fact that they have no intelligent explanation for R Kaminetsky's conduct in this sordid affair. But after all he is gadol hador so they struggle with their cognitive dissonance as best as possible. Some by attacking anyone who questions R' Kaminetsky's actions and others by a strong sense of shame and embarrassment which they heroically suppress.

3) There is in fact widespread awareness amongst the yeshivas students and avreichim - as well as the rabbis and poskim of our generation. This includes of course the many rabbis who wrote letters denouncing the heter. Most have no idea of how to deal with this - but they are very bothered by it. They understand that R Kaminetsky is the "bank that is too big to fail" as well as that their jobs and their future employment and shidduchim for their children are in danger if they make any public statements. R Kaminetsky is a very important figure in the Torah world and he has a high level of influence - not only personally but through marriage. One of the major rabbinic players told me a long time ago that it was clear to him that R Kaminetsky was acting against the halahca "But who am I to criticize the gadol hador - no one will listen to me."

So yes - there is a need to continue the protest against what R Kaminetsky has done and against the fact that he has not publicly stated that the couple needs to separate and has not apologized to Aharon Friedman for the slander and "dirty halachic tricks" he has used against him.

It is Elul for gedolim also!

Truth

Trump Accuses Obama Of Treason, Pushes Mail-In Voting Conspiracy | Morning Joe | MSNBC

The unpleasant details of how Tamar Epstein deliberately destroyed her marriage with the encouragement of the Kaminetskys

The terrible travesty of justice in this case is not just that Tamar decided to have custody litigated in court instead of in Beis Din – although this decision by itself is extremely troubling and contrary to halacha. The terrible travesty in this case is that the destruction of a family with a young child could have been avoided. And even if divorce was going to occur, it could have been settled amicably and quietly. 

Instead of pursuing either of these two outcomes, the Kamenetskys encouraged the Epstein family to engage in no-holds barred warfare against Aharon, the Baltimore Beis Din, and even the very notion of halacha, and a Jewish community. This has included kidnapping the parties’ child and then getting that kidnapping to be treated as a fait accompli by violating several agreements between the parties, tricking Aharon into canceling a pendete lite civil court trial in which it was likely that the child would be returned in order to bring the case to Beis Din, committing perjury in court and the Baltimore Beis Din, violating the Baltimore Beis Din’s orders regarding dismissing the civil court case, and then successfully arguing in civil court that Aharon couldn’t contest the kidnapping because he had voluntarily cancelled the pendete lite trial to bring the case to Beis Din. 

There is no low to which this campaign would not stoop or any level of crime in which they would not engage, including a vicious Tisha Ba’av assault (in which Cheryl Epstein [Tamar’s mother] signaled her henchmen to attack by telling the child to give Aharon a kiss) that endangered the life of the child, Federal capital crimes, and a capital crime under halacha.

The following is an overview of what occurred prior the case being brought to the Baltimore Beis Din:

Tamar and Aharon were married in April 2006, and resided in Silver Spring. They were blessed with a child, C, in November 2007.

In March 2008, on Aharon’s birthday, Tamar told Aharon she was divorcing him. Tamar told Aharon she wanted to relocate C to Pennsylvania (PA). Aharon objected. Tamar told Aharon that if he didn’t move out of their apartment, she would take C to PA. Aharon told Tamar that she may not relocate C to PA. Aharon moved out of the apartment.

On April 10, 2008, Tamar unilaterally relocated C from Silver Spring to PA. When Aharon arrived in the parties’ apartment on April 10 to see C and she was not there, he phoned Tamar. Tamar said that she had taken C to PA, and if Aharon didn't like it, Aharon should call her lawyer. Tamar did not ask a Court or Beis Din [Rabbinical Court] to rule that she could relocate C. Instead, Tamar likely acted upon legal advice to take C and establish residency in PA, and then delay adjudication for as long as possible so that the relocation would be a fait accompli.

It is not generally a criminal offense for one parent to unilaterally relocate a child. However, such action is regarded extremely negatively by the law and the courts. The unilateral relocation of a child by one parent is “reprehensible” and the law in virtually every state is meant to “ensure[] that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” – including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.” Comment to Section 208 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act [codified by nearly every State, including MD and PA].

Tamar’s family immediately started spreading false rumors about Aharon, in order to justify Tamar’s unjustifiable behavior, including criticizing his parenting. This effort was led in Silver Spring by Tamar’s sister and brother-in-law, Yael and Rabbi Ranan Cortell, who are long-time residents of Silver Spring. Yael is an extremely popular teacher in a local Jewish high school. Rabbi Cortell was a top talmid in Silver Spring’s yeshiva, and remains very close to many of the rabbis in the Washington area. They have engaged in an extremely nasty campaign to isolate Aharon. This campaign has included pressuring families in Silver Spring and elsewhere not to let their children play with C during periods that C is with Aharon.

Tamar claimed that she would consider reconciliation, which Aharon wanted - but only if Aharon allowed her to temporarily keep C in PA. Aharon later agreed to temporarily let Tamar keep C in PA after several rabbis, including Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky, promised they would work to foster reconciliation and urged him to agree to this arrangement– despite Aharon’s lawyer warning that this was likely a trick to keep C in PA permanently.

On May 5, the parties signed an agreement, titled Separation for Purposes of Fostering Reconciliation, providing that Aharon would let Tamar keep C in PA for two months, but only because she made that a precondition for considering reconciliation. The agreement provided that this arrangement would not affect jurisdiction or be detrimental to Aharon with regard to child custody.

During those two months, Tamar refused to as much as attend marital counseling with Aharon. After the two months were over, Tamar informed Aharon on the phone that their marriage was over. Tamar refused Aharon’s repeated requests to bring C back. Tamar said that for several years, she would, at most, generally only allow C to see Aharon on Sundays during the daytime.

Under halacha [Jewish Law], custody matters are supposed to be adjudicated in Beis Din [Rabbinical Court]. But any specific Beis Din generally only has jurisdiction if both parties agree. The matter was extremely time-sensitive. Tamar was allowing C to spend very little time with Aharon. Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would transfer jurisdiction over the matter to PA, unless the case was filed in MD court. In addition, Tamar’s continuing to hold C in PA would be extremely prejudicial in any eventual adjudication, no matter what the forum. Tamar refused to negotiate or mediate. Tamar also refused to see a rabbi together with Aharon to find a way to resolve custody issues according to halacha. Aharon certainly had as much legal right to physically seize C and bring her back to MD, as Tamar did to physically seize C and relocate C to PA. But Aharon did not do so. Aharon received a psak [Jewish Law ruling] to bring an emergency child custody motion in Court, but only on the condition that after the emergency motion Aharon would bring the matter to Beis Din for the case to be decided, before any further proceedings in Court. Aharon brought an emergency custody motion in late July 2008, at which point Tamar had not allowed C to spend any time with Aharon on Shabbos [the Jewish Sabbath] or Yom Tov [Jewish Holidays] for almost three months.

The emergency custody hearing was held on August 1, 2008. Tamar violated the parties’ Reconciliation Agreement by arguing that the Maryland courts did not have jurisdiction. Tamar also violated the Reconciliation Agreement by extensively arguing that the custody arrangement during the time covered by the Agreement should be prejudicial. Tamar falsely claimed that she had taken C to PA with Aharon’s consent. The Court recognized Tamar was depriving Aharon of “meaningful access” to C but said that the matter was not an emergency because “the kid's not in any danger” and “nobody's bleeding.”

The Court said that the emergency hearing was not a trial on the merits and that the custody order after a trial would be different than the custody order at the emergency hearing. The Court ruled – perhaps because Tamar had convinced the Court that “Well, they agreed that she would leave” – C would remain in PA in the interim, with C to be with Aharon every other weekend. The Order was to be temporary; for example, it did not address holidays in any way.

The Court indicated that at trial (the pendete lite trial was subsequently scheduled for October 6, 2008) there was a good chance that C would be returned to Silver Spring. In addition, the Court said that if Tamar had unilaterally taken C, the Court would look upon that badly. Even Tamar’s lawyer, after falsely claiming that Tamar had not unilaterally taken C (“This [taking C unilaterally] was not something that was done”), acknowledged: “as you said, the Court would look badly on this if she just packed up and left.”

Tamar filed suit in MD court for limited divorce. Aharon opposed Tamar’s claim for divorce.

In September 2008, the parties signed an agreement to cancel the October trial and bring the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din (if the parties could not reach a settlement through mediation), and providing that custody arrangements before any litigation would not be prejudicial.

Aharon agreed to cancel the October 2008 trial only because that was required by the psak and Aharon wanted to follow halacha. Aharon followed the psak to cancel the trial even though it was to his own severe disadvantage as: (1) Aharon had every reason to believe that the Court would have ruled in Aharon’s favor at the October 2008 trial; and (2) even if Aharon prevailed in Beis Din (or the Beis Din would not decide custody – as turned out to be the case), he would be at risk that the Court would ultimately decide the issue at a later date (the Court may not show deference to a Beis Din decision in custody cases, even if the parties have agreed to binding arbitration), and Aharon would be severely prejudiced in such a later proceeding by the fact that C would have been in PA for a much longer period.

Tamar rejected as a basis for negotiation the mediator’s proposal that C mostly live in PA, and be with Aharon about one-third of the time; equally split marital property; and a get given and accepted. Tamar ended mediation.

Tamar’s Supporters Continue to Publicly Make False Allegations Against Aharon

Guest post:   

Tamar Epstein and her supporters consider Tamar to be free to remarry under Jewish Law.  But that is not enough.  Instead, Tamar’s supporters are continuing their years long international propaganda campaign against Aharon Friedman, making misleading and even outright false allegations against Aharon.

A recent article in the Jerusalem Post by Barbra Sofer, J Post, claims that Aharon refused to give Tamar a get despite Aharon’s decision to divorce Tamar. “She [Tamar] and Friedman agreed to end their marriage, and received a civil divorce in 2010.” This allegation is completely false. Tamar insisted on divorce while Aharon wanted to keep their family intact. ;After Tamar brought Aharon to trial in civil court over her claim for divorce, Tamar admitted in her proposed findings:

“[Tamar] filed a Counterclaim for Limited Divorce and subsequently filed a Supplemental Complaint for Absolute Divorce based on mutual and voluntary separation without cohabitation. [Aharon] testified and the court finds that [Aharon] has repeatedly asked [Tamar] to reconcile, thus eliminating the grounds of mutual and voluntary separation. However, either party may file an Amended Complaint for Absolute Divorce based on two years of separation [which Tamar subsequently did] and the hearing will be held on April 12, 2010 [the date Tamar subsequently obtained a civil divorce]; two years after the date of separation.”

Sofer also asserts that Tamar left Silver Spring where the family lived and “moved back to the safety and sanity of her parents’ home in Philadelphia.” The very clear insinuation is that Tamar was not safe in Silver Spring because Aharon physically beat her. In a similar vein, ORA has repeatedly accused Aharon of domestic abuse and Tamar herself asserted in another Jerusalem Post article that Aharon abused her while they lived together.

These vicious accusations are completely false. Tamar, in compiling a list of pros and cons for leaving the marriage, wrote that she believed that Aharon was “loving, sweet, affectionate, gentle” to her. During the trial, when asked directly by the Court, Tamar admitted there was no domestic violence. [The Court had interjected while Tamar was going on at length with vicious but nonspecific accusations concerning how horribly Aharon supposedly treated her.]

Perhaps most tellingly, Sofer neglects to mention that Tamar didn’t just move back to Pennsylvania; Tamar unilaterally relocated the child over Aharon’s objections and without even bothering to tell Aharon. In other words, Tamar abducted the child to another state. The official Comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act [codified by nearly every State in response to the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act], describes the unilateral relocation of a child by one parent as “reprehensible” and explains that the Act “ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct” –including a “parent who abducts the child pre-decree.” But to Sofer and Tamar’s other supporters, that Tamar would (and should) abduct the child is so obvious that it goes without saying, apparently because a child is a mere piece of chattel wholly owned by the mother who has an absolute right to relocate the child, without permission of any court or beis din, to wherever the mother pleases.

zaken Mamre Encyclopedia Judaica

A zaken mamre was not liable to the death penalty unless he was an ordained scholar, who was fit to pass judgment and whose decision had validity. His defiance of the supreme bet din had to be in a matter which if done willfully carried with it the penalty of *karet , and if done inadvertently a sin-offering, or in a matter that if done deliberately would lead to a transgression carrying with it the same penalties, for instance, a disagreement on the intercalation of the year that would lead to leaven being eaten during Passover (Sanh. 87a; Maim., Yad, Mamrim, 3:5, 4:2). A zaken mamre is liable to the death penalty when he disagrees about a matter whose basis is in the written Torah and whose explanation is from the *soferim ("scribes"), or about a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai, or about something derived from the 13 hermeneutical principles (see *Hermeneutics ) whereby the Torah is interpreted, but not when he disagrees on a law of rabbinic provenance which has no basis in the Torah (Maim., ibid., 1:2).
רמב"ם הלכות ממרים פרק ג
הלכה ד
אבל זקן ממרא האמור בתורה הוא חכם אחד מחכמי ישראל שיש בידו קבלה ודן ומורה בדברי תורה כמו שידונו ויורו כל חכמי ישראל שבאת לו מחלוקת בדין מן הדינים עם בית דין הגדול, ולא חזר לדבריהם אלא חלק עליהם והורה לעשות שלא כהוראתן, גזרה עליו תורה מיתה ומתודה ויש לו חלק לעולם הבא, אף על פי שהוא דן והן דנים הוא קבל והם קבלו הרי התורה חלקה להם כבוד, ואם רצו בית דין למחול על כבודן ולהניחו אינן יכולין כדי שלא א ירבו מחלוקת בישראל. 

Fired U.S. Attorney Berman Refused to Sign Letter Criticizing New York City Before Firing

https://time.com/5857749/us-attorney-berman-nyc-letter/

The tensions between Berman and the Justice Department reached a breaking point Friday, when Barr issued a surprise press release saying Berman had resigned and would be replaced by the Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton, a lawyer who has virtually no experience as a federal prosecutor. Berman refused to step down, and went into work Saturday. He eventually consented to leave after Barr said Trump had officially fired him and the second in command of the office would take over.

 

Senate Republicans defend Trump over firing of U.S. attorney in New York

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/22/republicans-defend-trump-firing-attorney-new-york-334280

“[If] they’re worried about interference with the investigations, Barr said there wouldn’t be any interference,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a former Judiciary Committee chairman, said Monday.

“And I don’t understand why the Democrats are complaining about Berman if the person that’s going to take his place, Berman himself said that that person is competent,” Grassley added. “So I don’t know what the big deal is, really.”

But Grassley himself raised alarms in 2007 when the attorney general at the time, Alberto Gonzales, presided over the removal of multiple U.S. attorneys amid questions about political motivations.

“It is improper for a president to fire a U.S. attorney for retaliatory reasons or to impede or obstruct a particular prosecution for unjust political or partisan gain,” Grassley said at the time. “We don’t want to see the independence, integrity of our attorneys compromised to the point where they aren’t serving their districts in the interests of justice.”

Though Grassley acknowledged that presidents have the power to hire and fire their own U.S. attorneys, he said the handling of the matter — particularly inconsistent statements made by the attorney general — were problematic.

Fmr SDNY Chief: Trump Fired 'Independent' Prosecutor To Replace With Someone He Can 'Keep An Eye On'

Tamar Epstein's heter: A summary of the case

A guest post 

בקש שלום ורדפהו

There is a fire^[1] raging in the Jewish world. From Eretz Yisrael to the US, from the Edah Hachareidis to Yeshiva University, there has been wall-to-wall condemnation of a psak that was given to an eishes ish to remarry without a get, and her subsequent remarriage.

Here are the undisputed facts:

Dr. David Epstein was an active supporter of the Talmudical Academy of Philadelphia[2]. He was close to the roshei hayeshiva, especially Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky, and later Rav Sholom Kamenetzky.

When his daughter Tamar left her husband Aaron Friedman, it was the Kamenetzkies who rallied for her support. A seruv of the Aggudas Harabbanim against Mr. Friedman was uncharacteristically signed by Rav Shmuel, although he is not a member of that Bais Din, simply because he was active in the case.

The parties brought their case before the BD of Baltimore. At one point they left BD and ended up in court. The BD insists that the case is still pending and retains jurisdiction on it.

Later, after a protracted campaign - spanning over five years – to pressure the husband to give a get was unsuccessful, a new idea arose: to nullify the marriage based on mekach ta'us[3]. Subsequently, it was announced that "Tamar is Free", and about two months ago she married one Adam Fleischer. When it became known that the mesader kiddushin was Rav Nota Greenblatt of Memphis, he was questioned by Rav Aharon Feldman as to the basis for the heter.

Although many suspected that Rav Shmuel and Rav Sholom were somehow behind the heter, and at the very least supported the heter, they insisted all along that they had nothing to do with the heter. When approached by Rav Aharon Feldman and others, Rav Shmuel wrote a clear declaration "I was never matir…" All the blame was put on Rav Nota.

However, the documents speak for themselves. The paper trail of this saga is available on the internet. Although Rav Shmuel was indeed not matir her to marry without a get[4], he did advise her to go to Rav Nota Greenblatt to be matir.[5] Rav Sholom wrote letters to many rabbanim, detailing the grounds for annulling the marriage. As far as is publicly known, only one posek, Rav Nota Greenblatt, was matir and even officiated at the marriage ceremony.

Rav Nota Greenblatt has told a number of people, and penned a letter to assert that, never did he independently investigate the facts relating to the husband's condition that were the premise for the mekach ta'us, nor was he ever informed that a Bais Din had been involved, a factor that he says might have precluded him from getting involved. Even the psychiatric report, so crucial to the basis of the heter, was not properly read by Rav Nota. All fact-finding in this case was supplied by Rav Sholom Kamenetzky, upon whom Rav Nota relied blindly.

Rabbi Mordechai Willig tried numerous times to reach Rav Sholom unsuccessfully. Rav Chanoch Saltz spoke to Rav Sholom, who told him that he refuses to discuss the case with anyone who has negius, only with someone like Rav Dovid Feinstein.

According to Rav Sholom's family, Rav Dovid told Rav Sholom that Rav Nota is a bar-samcha. However, this only helps if the question is halachic. Rav Nota, however, is claiming that the facts were never determined by him, but by Rav Sholom. What does it help that Rav Nota is a bar-samcha if he was not the one who determined the facts?

It is clear from Rav Sholom's letters to Rav Nota that:

1.      More than merely "sending the woman to Rav Nota", he actively pursued Rav Nota until he procured from him a heter in writing.

2.      He writes clearly that his father saw all that he had written as a basis for the heter, and "approved him to sign his name", which clearly gave the impression to Rav Nota and others that Hagaon Rav Shmuel was already mattir.

3.      Rav Nota in his first letter to Rav Sholom writes that he understood that Rav Sholom was relaying a message from Rav Shmuel to state his opinion on the matter. Rav Nota in his reply is clearly being "mitztareif" to other "baalei horaah" who are matter. This indicates that Rav Nota was under the impression that Rav Shmuel was mattir and was only approaching Rav Nota to be "mitztareif".  

The obvious conclusion from this should be that Rav Nota was mattir only based on the facts provided him by Rav Sholom, and only because he understood that Rav Shmuel was mattir.

Another important point: Rav Sholom wrote specifically to Rav Nota that "it has already been paskened that he must give a get", an extremely controversial assertation, considering that the Baltimore Bais Din, the only BD accepted by the parties, refused and still refuses to pasken such. Rav Sholom is referring to a psak written by the Agudas Harabbanim, at the request of Rav Shmuel, against all standard halacha, to write such a psak without having met the husband.

The question now is:

Rav Shmuel is either mattir or not. If he is matter, let him come out and say so, and let him explain what he meant when he insisted all along, and even put it in writing that he was never mattir^[6]. If he is not mattir, then he should say that clearly too, so that Rav Nota can then decide if he wants to retract from his heter or not.

The same is for Rav Sholom. He should either:

(a)    deny Rav Nota's claims that Rav Sholom, and only Rav Sholom, determined the facts upon which the psak is based,

(b)    acknowledge that he determined them and accept responsibility for the psak,

(c)    shift the blame for the fact-finding on someone else whom he relied on.

But hiding is not going to work.

Rav Nota has been forthcoming; Rav Shmuel and Rav Sholom is hiding. Whom do we believe?

Whoever can must ask the Kamenetzkys and anyone else who has an influence over Tamar:

1.      Where is the maaseh bais din and gvias edus establishing that she is muteres?

2.      Who met the husband and established his mental condition?

3.      Who determined that this mental condition existed before the marriage?

4.      Why did tamar never mention Aaron's mental health disorders in Bais Din, or in court, when she could have challenged his custody rights based on mental illness?

5.      Where is the makom igun that warrants such an extreme and rare psak according to the Igros Moshe, when the sole bais din that was agreed upon by the parties never paskened that he is obligated to give a get?

6.      Was she savra v'kibla?

7.      Why did Rav Shmuel lead this poor woman to do such a foolish move which would predictably end in such controversy, making her problems even greater than before?

How can we remain silent, when the Torah is being undermined by those who are supposedly protecting her? Is the Torah any less an agunah than Tamar?

---

[1] See Mishlei 6:27-29

[2] Philly.com archives

[3] According to Rabbi Willig, the idea was the brainchild of her lawyer Goldfein.

[4] As he has insisted numerous times, and even wrote (see below).

[5] Heard from a Kamenetzky family member

[6] Bearing in mind that a talmid of Philadelphia who cheats on his Regents exam is expelled because a shakran is the worst.

As President Trump Rails Against Mail-In Voting, Many of His Senior Advisors Have Repeatedly Used It

https://time.com/5857524/trump-advisors-mail-in-voting/

While instances of voter fraud are rare, Trump’s campaign seized on recent news stories detailing how a Philadelphia election judge recently pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes in exchange for bribes between 2014 and 2016.

 

Pollster Nate Silver says Trump can 'absolutely win' 2020 election despite dive in polls

 https://www.foxnews.com/media/pollster-nate-silver-trump-can-win-2020-election

He stressed, though, "I want to be really clear, Trump can absolutely win reelection. But he definitely has his work cut out for him.”

Ultra-Orthodox push for closure of synagogues for fear of 2nd virus wave

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/BkK113L0aU

In an interview with the Ynet studio, Rabbi Shimon Ragovi, chairman of the Mazor organization - which offers medical counseling, guidance, and information – voiced a plea to close down houses of prayer to minimize virus fatalities.