Rav Sternbuch:Husband should not be spiteful and should give a Get if there is no chance of reconcilliation and all issues are resolved

This is being reposted from 4/12/12

Additional teshuva of Rav Sternbuch

Rav Sternbuch (4:301): Question: I received a question from America where -  due to our many sins - it is common that women rebel against their husbands and afterwards go to secular courts - Gd forbid! The secular court makes a judgment in her favor - through coercion and not in accord with the law of the Torah. The judgment  obligates the husband to pay very high support payments and carries a penalty of prison for failure to comply. In addition she is typically awarded custody of the children. The husband is asking for a heter of meah rabbonim to be able to remarry without giver her a get since she is a moredes and has transgressed the religious laws. On the other hand she claims that the heter of meah rabbonim is not relevant since she in fact is willing to accept the get. She also claims that there are rabbis who support her position. So she wants to benefit twice by obtaining a get according to the Torah and also a judgment from civil court which steals money from from her husband even after the get.

Answer: In my humble opinion there is no validity to her claims and therefore the husband should be given a heter so he can marry another woman. The only limitation is that he needs to deposit the get with beis din as is the established practice. The reason for this is complex. 1) first of all since they are coercing him financially not in accord with the halacha regarding the support payments which are much higher than the halacha - that constitutes theft. Thus the get itself is a forced get. The gedolei poskim are worried about get me'usa. Thus the get is not actually valid and we have the problem that she is still a married woman who thinks she can remarry. Therefore it is necessary to exempt him from all financial obligations that were done against his will in order that the get itself be valid. Furthermore if the wife refuses to go to beis din, then that itself gives her the halachic status of moredes as is clear from Divrei Chaim (E.H. 51) and he cites the Chavas Daas who ruled that a woman who refused to go to beis din  was a moredes and the gedolim agreed with him. ... According to this if she goes with him  only to beis din then he is obligated to give her a get. However when she goes to secular court in addition to make monetary claims - she is not able hold on to both sides. In other words she can't go to the secular court with monetary claims and at the same demand that he give her a get in beis din. If she forces him to accept the rulings of the secular court in marriage matters he has no obligation to give her a get. We need to state in addition that the essence of the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom was for the benefit of the wife.  However this benefit is only available when she doesn't abrogate her halachic obligations. But in the present case she has created serious devastation in the marriage in that she has rebelled against him and went to secular court where she received excessive judgements concerning maintenance and also the custody of the children. Her husband must give her a get in beis din so that she can remarry. So in the case of moredes the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom which was meant to benefit women was not intended and the husband can remarry with the heter of 100 Rabbis and he deposits the get with beis din until the judgment of the secular court is nullified. When that happens- if he has not yet remarried - then it is prohibited for him to do so until he gives his first wife a get.

In reality your question is a local issue of America and it is the job of American rabbis to decide. However my view is in agreement with the rabbis there who permit the husband to remarry without any difficulty and he needs to deposit a get with beis din. But when the judgment of the secular courts has been nullified then it is prohibited for the husband to remarry until he has properly divorced the first wife.

You should be aware that we are obligated to fight against her going to secular courts and we prevent her from remarrying if she does and if the get is given under these circumstances there is a suspicion that it was coerced (me'usa). Nevertheless in a case where she claims she can't stand him (ma'us alei) and there is no reason to believe they can be reconciled and the man is simply being cruel to her and is being spiteful by not to giving her a divorce - then even though it is prohibited for us to exert any force- G-d forbid! - nevertheless it is correct to notify the husband that the view of many of the gedolim (e.g., Rambam, Ravad, Behag, Rashbam, Rashi etc) is that he is sinning and they would encourage him to give her a get. Because even these poskim are concerned about creating [an invalid get] which would leave her as a married woman even bedieved - so G-d forbid that we should use any type of coercion. Regarding the issue of tormenting her and leaving her an aguna - it is correct for him to be concerned for her claim that she finds him revolting (ma'os alei) and it is prohibited for him to leave her as an aguna - even if she is not correct. But we are not to coerce him G-d forbid with any type of coercion that would possibly bring about a get me'usa. Rather [once we have informed him that it is wrong for him to withold the get] he needs to come the the realization himself that he must conduct himself like a descendant of Avraham and the verse says that the ways of Torah are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace and that he will find happiness with someone else.

All of this we need to explain to the husband. That leaving her as an aguna is a transgression of a severe sin of onas  devarim - not to torment his wife. That refusing to divorce her serves no purpose except to get revenge against her. He doesn't want to live with her and he shouldn't think her life is worthless and he should be fully aware that in Heaven there is judgment and there is a Judge. He should also be informed that to many of the early gedolim it is correct even to force him to divorce. Unfortunately there are many beis dins that when they see that the husband doesn't want to divorce his wife they simply remain silent. But that is not acceptable. They must inform him that he is unjustifiably tormenting her and this is not correct. This of course is assuming that the beis din is convinced that there is no hope for reconciliation....
=======================================================

Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (1:389): Question: A woman has suffered for a number of years from her husband who refuses to divorce her - how can he be forced to give a get?  

Answer: It is an established halacha that if the wife refuses to live with her husband because she claims he is disgusting to her (ma'os alei) that it is impossible to force him to divorce her. This is explicitly stated by the Rema (E.H. 77:3). And even if it has been a number of years that they have separated and he is being spiteful and cruel in refusing to divorce her it is clearly stated by the Teshuvos haRosh (43:6) that if we force him to give the get there is the concern that it is a get me'usa and therefore invalid and it only serves to increase mamzerim. However while it is stated in the Rema (E.H. 154:21) that nidoi (cherem) is considered force and is prohibited, nevertheless he says it is permitted to decree that no Jew should do him a favor or should do business with him or even to circumcize his sons or to bury them - until he divorces his wife. But the Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 154:30) says there these shunnings (harhakos) are equivalent to nidoi (cherem) and are not permitted to be imposed today and the only recourse is to tell him that it is permitted to call him a sinner  and he says it is best to be strict according to this opinion. This is agreed to by the Chazon Ish (E.H. 105:12). He concludes in the name of the Rashba that it is not permitted to humiliate the husband or to torment him - examine this well.

However it appears that what is prohibited is to humiliate him and to shun him in a manner similar to cherem - i.e, not to do business with him and not to do him a favor - and that is not done today. (Chazon Ish understands the Pischei Teshuva differently). But when he is not actively humiliated but that he is only not given honors for example he is notified that he will not receive an aliyah in his shul or any other shul and that he will not be allowed to be the shliach tzibor - then this is not like cherem at all even though it causes some humiliation. The only pressure permitted is that he should know that the community does not approve of his conduct of being cruel to his wife - but this is not called force at all.

I recall witnessing an incident involving Rav Yechiel Weinberg (Seridei Aish) concerning a husband who spitefully refused to divorce his wife after a number of years and he directed that it be known and publicized that this husband was not to get an aliya in the shul. That is in accord with what I have written that this type of pressure is not called force. It is also done here in Yerushalayim to publicize notices in the street that a particular person is a sinner and has made his wife an aguna. In my opinion 1) if she has solid justification for her desire to be divorced then it would be possible and appropriate to force him  actively with humiliations to give her a get. We learn from Kesubos (71a) if it is clear that he hates her then he is obligated to divorce her. 2) On the other hand if there is no apparent reason for her being repelled by him we can distance him.  I am inclined to permit humiliation in such cases but it is necessary for beis din first to be very careful and thorough in evaluating the situation as to whether it is appropriate. Similarly one should not spare any efforts to encourage that she live with him when she requests a divorce and there is no clear reason except she says she doesn't like him. 3) But if there is a clear reason - then even if we don't force him with a beating we are accustomed to be lenient to pressure him with notices  in shuls as I mentioned above.

This that the wife creates pressure with the claim that he is tormenting her and she can not stand the situation any more and that she is ready to go to "rabbis" who are lenient in divorce - that is still not justification for us to make rulings against the Torah. The ways of G-d are hidden and some suffer physically while other suffering financially and some suffer in their marriage. We need to hope to G-d that the end of suffering has arrived and that he will divorce her. On the other hand, to force him with high payments for food or to humiliate him when it is not permitted - it doesn't help because this pressure only produces a get me'usa - G-d forbid - which has no validity. But concerning cruelty and spite which is characteristic of Sedom - only Heaven can punish him.

Baltimore Beis Din: Tamar Epstein is still married to Aharon Friedman and is forbidden to remarry without first receiving a Get

update: Just added a letter written November 3 by the Baltimore Beis Din which addresses many of the short comings in the original letter which was written in July
============================================

update: I had removed this post a week ago at the direct request of Rav Mordechei Shuchatowitz of the Baltimore Beis Din. See Removal of post of Baltimore Beis Din

I did this for the sake of shalom bayis. That is to avoid side disagreements that would distract from dealing properly with the main issue of the phony heter. However it has become clear that whatever benefit for shalom bayis might have resulted from its removal - it is outweighed by the loss of critical information that is needed in the resolution of this crisis.

As this crisis winds down to the "end game" - it has become clear that various individuals feel a need to present the facts in a new more flattering way which smooths over certain difficulties.

Therefore aside from the need to accurately present the facts as to what has happened and why it has happened for the sake of Truth - it is needed to present the facts in order to know what to do to rectify the problem. Furthermore as Santayana wrote (in The Life of Reason, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” or as eloquently and wisely expressed by Winston Churchill

“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

—House of Commons, 2 May 1935, after the Stresa Conference, in which Britain, France and Italy agreed—futilely—to maintain the independence of Austria. (My book* page 490).

Letter written November 3, 2015

------------------------------------
The following letter written in Tammuz from the Baltimore Beis Din was posted on Otzar Forums. 

After reading all the other letters against the heter of mekach ta'os - this one is clearly not a protest against a heter. In fact it doesn't acknowledge that there was a heter or a remarriage. It simply says the Baltimore Beis Din knows nothing about a divorce  either that they were involved in or that others did. Consequently according to their level of knowlege Tamar Epstein is still married to Aharon Friedman. It is a letter which shows extreme reluctance (timidity? or cowardice?) to even acknowledge that something has happened and therefore it refuses to criticize directly or indirectly Rabbi Greenblatt, the Kaminetskys and Tamar Epstein

Because the description  of events in the Beis Din's letter is truncated and missing critical information - a detailed description of events is available here  in this revised Procedural Summary.

  Procedural Summary

 It is important to know why Aharon Friedman is named as the plaintiff in the civil courts. it was not because of his desire to have the case handled by the secular courts [contrary to the assertions of the Beis Din's letter] but was the result of a psak he received from Rabbi Breitowitz that he needed to take action quickly in the secular courts to avoid losing his daughter. As the Summary clearly shows - he actually cancelled a trial in civil court in October 2008 in order to bring the case to beis din. He also ultimately agreed to entirely cancel the secular lawsuit when the beis din later ordered him to do that - but Tamar refused. In fact a major posek who has been deeply involved in this case stated recently that Aharon showed too much deference to the beis din and rabbinical adivisors and that he should have gone to the police when Tamar abducted their daughter and moved to Philadelphia in April 2008 and should not have canceled the October 2008 trial to being the case to Beis Din - for the reason that Tamar had established facts on the ground by relocating the child out-of-State that would effectively pre-determine the outcome of any court case (if postponed any further), and beis din, even with a binding arbitration agreement would have no legal ability to change that.

As both Rabbi Landesman's letter to Rabbi Feldman, and the letter from the Rabbi Rabinowitz's Beis Din Ezer Mishpat make clear, Tamar violated the Beis Din's  orders and brought the case to trial in civil court. Tamar's actions in this regard also violated the parties' mediation agreement (pursuant to which Aharon agreed to dismiss a pendete lite trial in October 2008), and violated the shtar beirurin [binding arbitration agreement] signed before the Beis Din, both of which bound the parties to have the case decided by the Baltimore BD.

It is true that Aharon participated in the civil court trial.  But once Tamar refused the Beis Din's orders and insisted on taking the case to trial in civil court, Aharon had no choice but to participate in that trial -- and even the Beis Din did not ask Aharon not to.  Although courts must generally respect binding arbitration agreements regarding other matters, if one party to a binding arbitration agreement regarding custody insists on the court deciding the case, the court may not defer to the arbitrator and must decide the case from scratch under the doctrine of parens patriae. 

This is the rule in Maryland under a case called Kovacs, which specifically ruled that the Maryland courts may not enforce a binding arbitration agreement before the Baltimore BD with regard to child custody where one party objected.

===============================================================
The Baltimore Beis Din is still the only beis din that has been authorized by both sides to deal with the issues. And they state they are willing to continue.

It simply affirms that Tamar Epstein still retains the status of being the wife of Aharon Friedman and can not remarry with first receiving a Get.

Since the copy is not very clear I retyped it, in what I hope is the correct text. Any corrections will be appreciated. It is signed by the dayan hak'vuah Rav Mordechai Shuchatowitz, Rav Moshe Heinemann and Rav Yaakov Hopfer. Rav Aharon Feldman added a note that Tamar Epstein is clearly still married to Aharon Friedman and signed as well.

Letter written July 2015

THE BALTIMORE BAIS DIN -       בית דין קבוע מטעם ועד הרבנים דבאלטימאר 

בס"ד                                                                                                                                             

נשאלנו בעת על דעת הבית דין אודות המעמדה בהלכה של מרת תמר (עפשטין) פרידמן שתחי', אשתו שלר' אהרן פרידמן שיחי', והנה זה כבר כמה שנים מאז באו הצדדים הנ"ל לפנינו בשנת תשס"ט וחתמו על שטר הבוררים שלנו לדון בעניני נישואיהם וגירושיהם כולל החזקת הבת שלהם וביקוריה והמסתעף,וטענו דבריהם בשלשה מושבי הב"ד במשך שלשה חדשים, והורינו אז להם שלדאבוננו אין עוד תקוה עלשלום בית ומוכרחים הם להתגרש לאחר שיסתדרו עניניהם ובפרט הענינים המתייחסים אל בתם,והשתדלו אז לסדר ענינים אלו אצל יועץ ומתווך מסוים, ושוב פנו אל הערכאות שלא ברשות בית דין ועלאף שהתרינו בהם שצעדם זה הוא שלא ושלא כדין, ולאחר שיצא משפטם שמה הודיענו להם שאף שלא יזדקקו הב"ד לדון שוב בדיונים שקבלו עליהם הכרעת בית המשפט, תיק הב"ד עדיין פתוח לדון עלמה שלא הובא שמה, דהיינו גירושיהם כהלכה ושום תביעות ממוניות שביניהם, אמנם מאז ועד עתה לאהגישו לא זה ולא זו שום בקשה לב"ד דידן, וגם לא הודיעונו לא הם ולא אחרים על סידור גט פטוריןביניהם ולא שמענו ולא ריאנו שום היתר נשואין מאיזה בית דין אחר כלל, ולכן כפי ידיעתנו אשה זועומדת בחזקת אשת איש גמורה ואסורה לכל אדם עד שתקבל ג"פ כדת וכדין.

ואמנם אם יש לשום אחד איזה ידיעה שלא ידענו או איזה טענה בהלכה שלא שמענו, הננו מוכניםומזומנים להושיב ב"ד מיוחד לדון על דינה דהאי איתתא לאמתה של תורה, ומי בעל דברים יגיש דבריואליהם, ובזה נזכה להסיר מכשול מביננו ולהרים קרנה של תורה ולתרבות שלום בעולם בעזה"ש ית"ש.ועכ"ז בעה"ת ביום ששי בשבת תשעה ימים לחדש תמוז תשע"ה לפ"ק

מרדכי שוחטוביץ

משה היינמאן

יעקב האפפער

הנני מצטרף לנ"ל ושפשוט שהאשה הנ"ל אשת איש גמורה

אהרן פלדמן

English Translation of Rav Moshe Sternbuch's protest against heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get

Rav Moshe Sternbuch

Protest against heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get

This is in regards to the recently publicized psak of one of the gedolim (an American rosh yeshiva) together with an American posek. The psak freed a woman from marriage without a Get despite the fact that she had lived with her first husband for an extended period of time and she had born a daughter from him. But now a therapist claims that the husband suffers from mental illness that had existed prior to their marriage. Therefore these two rabbis paskened that they had determined that the marriage was a mistake (mekach ta'os) and that therefore the woman was free to marry immediately without needing a Get. And in fact they [the posek] officiated at a wedding for her without her receiving a Get.

And I saw the teshuva that "freed" her. I hate to say this but the teshuva is total nonsense. Taking the approach of this teshuva it is possible to destroy the whole framework of halachic marriage. For example, if a spouse is found to have cancer – something which begins to develop a long time before it is discovered by the doctors – it would be possible according to the logic of this teshuva to declare that the marriage is a mistake (mekach ta'os) and thus never existed. Similarly there are thousands of other cases of problems that develop prior to marriage but are only discovered after marriage.

In fact in many cases of divorce, the wife brings a therapist's opinion to beis din, that the husband suffers from mental illness that was a pre-existing condition. Therefore according to the view of these two rabbis there would be no need for a Get (G-d forbid!) in those cases! Such an approach is destructive to Judaism and uproots the basic laws governing Jewish marriage. And this that they claim that they are merely basing themselves on the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein – that is total nonsense. The present case is not comparable to Rav Moshe's cases. But this is not the place to go into the details.

When a certain Religious Zionistic rabbi declared the he had found a heter for  a person who had the status of a mamzer to marry, the Minchas Yitzchok (Dayan Weiss) gathered the people together and they sat on the ground and tore their clothing as a sign of mourning. It is explained in Kiddushin (13a) that when a married woman is declared to be free of her married status against the halacha, G-d becomes very angry and brings about punishment which is greater than that of the Generation of the Flood. To the degree that even the fish in the sea are destroyed.

It is important, therefore that it be publicized that the heter of these rabbis for her to remarry is totally worthless and has no basis. Consequently she is still married to the first husband in every respect and therefore any children born from her relation to the second husband are clearly mamzerim. I have no peace of mind because I have not heard protests against this false heter - which is against G-d's honor and His Torah.

I heard from the Brisker Rav that when there is a serious problem that it be  dealt with by  issuing a categorical prohibition without giving detailed explanations. That is because if a reason for the objections are given, then it is possible for someone to argue and say they are wrong. Therefore also in this case, I am not coming forth except to encourage he who protests the heter and sanctifies G-d's name.  His reward is exceedingly great.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch explains why Tamar Epstein's heter is so dangerous

The following is from Rav Sternbuch's parsha sheet for this week

 בשבוע שעבר עוררנו על ההיתר שניתן מאחד מהפוסקים באמריקה להתיר אשת איש לשוק בלא גט, ואחד מגדולי ראשי הישיבות שם הביע דעתו שאפשר לסמוך על הרב שהתיר (מתוך עדות הנמצא תתת ידי), והיא תקלה ופרצה גדולה. ובשעה שרב אחד בצרפת התיר נישואין על תנאי לפני יותר ממאה שנה, כתבו כל הרבנים ומנהיגים בכל העולם כולו שאין בו ממש, והדבר הועיל לבטל את ההיתר, ועכשיו עדיין לא נשמע קול מחאה כראוי, והסכנה עדיין בעינה עומדת, וחייבים לכתוב להדיא שהיא אשת איש גמורה ואין כאן שום מקום היתר, וגם המתיר יחתום שאסורה, ובזה תתבטל הסכנה בס"ד.ולפני כשנתיים רב אחד בצפת התיר גט בלא הבעל מדין זכיה, ויצאו כבגדו אבל כפי הנראה לא נשמע קול מחאה כפי הצורך, וכיון שלא הפקיעו אותו רבתה הפרצה ומינו אותו עכשיו כראש בית דין - בבית דין בירושלים. וכל לבב דווי בשעה ששמו של הקב"ה מתהלל בראש כל חוצות, וראש הממשלה כאן הודיע שיחזק הרפורמים בארץ , וכעת שנתפרסם פסק להתיר אשת איש בלא גט, הדבר עלול לשמש את הרפרומים שמחכים למצוא איזה קולא של גדולי ישראל כדי להיתלות בו ולומר שהם משורש "בית הלל" שמקילים יותר, והיא בכיה לדורות רח"ל, וחוב מוטל על יהדות אמריקה לבטל הגזירה...

Last week we protested the heter that was given from one of the American poskim to permit a married woman to marry without obtaining a Get from her first husband. One of the greatest rosh yeshivos  in America voiced his opinion that it was possible to rely on the rabbi who gave the heter to remarry. (I have clear evidence in my possession for this). This a a terrible stumbling block and breach in normative halacha.

More than 100 years ago when a French rabbi made a conditional marriage, the rabbis and leaders from all over the word wrote that there was no validity to such a thing. The protest was effect in nullifying his heter.

However I still don't hear an appropriate level of protest against Tamar Epstein's heter. Therefore the danger remains as dangerous as it was before. We need to write openly that Tamar Epstein remains fully  married to her first husband - and there is no basis for a heter in this case. Even the one who said the heter was a good should write that it is prohibited. In this way the danger will be eliminated with G-d's help.

Two years ago there was a rabbi in Tzfas who created a Get without the involvement of the husband by means of the principle of zichoi. There in fact was a protest against him but it seems it was not strong enough. Because it wasn't nullifed, there was an increase in the failure to observe the halacha and he in fact was appointed as a dayan in Yerushalayim.....

Currently there is another case which has been become known where a woman was given a heter to remarry without first receiving a Get from her first husband. The matter threatens to serve the Reform who have waiting to find a leniency from gedolim in order to claim that they represent a legitimate alternative like Beis Hillel who were more lenient. But this is a disaster for all time. Therefore the Jews in America have an obligation to nullify this decree...

Rabbi Akiva Eiger - like all gedolim - needed to make a mistake to show he was human

This is a first hand report that was sent to me by someone I know

I am reporting a story I heard from Rav Avrohom Turin shlit”a, mashgiach in Yeshiva Bais Moshe Scranton. There is a known question from Reb Akiva Eiger in which he inquires how it is that a man can be together with his wife when she is pregnant, if she is carrying a girl, then he violates אשה ובתה. Reb Akiva Eiger poses an answer, but doesn’t accept it in conclusion.

When the bochurim in Telshe in Europe were learning a related sugya, they encountered this tshuvah, and were perplexed. Firstly, they considered the question foolish, then they wondered how he offered the teretz he did, then how he remained inconclusive at the end. The bochurim attacked this with a vengeance. How did Reb Akiva Eiger consider this a valid question, what is the real teretz, and why did he not consider that teretz, etc. Needless to say, the bais hamedrash was buzzing with this issue for days. The Rosh Hayeshiva  came in to say shuir, and immediately acknowledged that the preoccupation with this issue needed to be addressed. Here is what he said.

"Reb Akiva Eiger was pronounced dead by his doctors some 15 years before he actually died. During that time, he wrote voluminous chidushei Torah, tshuvos in intricate areas of halacha, and said great shiurim. Observing this, one might conclude that Reb Akiva Eiger was not a human but a malach! That, proclaimed the Rosh Hayeshivah, would not be good. One cannot consider a malach a potential role model. Only a great human can serve as a role model. Every Yid has the potential to achieve greatness, and use of role models for this is a critical aspect of Avodas Hashem. In order to recognize that a great human is truly human, they must be known to have erred. Imperfection is uniquely human. So HKB”H arranges that every tzaddik makes one mistake so that we should know he is human. This was that mistake for Reb Akiva Eiger."

Even gedolim are required to keep the Torah

I just received the following email - expressing great disgust at my efforts to expose the terrible thing that the Kaminetsky's have done in collusion with Rav Nota Greenblatt. The letter writer obviously feels gedolim inherently are infallible and that anyone who says otherwise - you shoot first and don't ask questions. 

Unfortunately my view is not some warped fantasies of a blogger who harbors hatred towards Torah Judaism - something which is implied in his criticism. The opposite is true. My life has been devoted to preserving and enhancing the Orthodox Jewish community - for many years.The whole chain of events pains me greatly as I am a great admirer of Rabbi Kaminestky and Rabbi Greenblatt. So while I love and admire gedolim - I love Torah and truth more.

My view is actually held by the clear majority of rabbinic figures in the Orthodox world. These rabbis  are now trying to deal with the delicate and embarrassing situation of gedolim acting as Reform Jews in trying to ameliorate the unpleasant situation of a young woman they felt an obligation to use their full power to help.

The transgressions of normative halacha and halachic procedure done by these gedolim are so blatant - most high school students can fully understand the problematic halachic issues and the misuse of psychology to justify it. The only issue is whether to deny that the emperor has no clothes - in a vain attempt to preserve the illusion of rabbinic authority and infallibility.

I am thouroughly disgusted by both you and your daastorah blog. how dare you criticize rav Shmuel kaminetsky shlita, you don't even come to his toenails. I am ready to vomit from the comments you posted after the rav Ahron Feldman article. I hope the next article you publish will be asking mechila berabim from him and promising to close down your vile blog. You even attemt to claim he's not a Posek and attack his seforim while in the same breath admit you've never read them and rely on others for your opinion. What gall you have. Have a great week, I hope you'll think about what I am telling you.

Sent from my iPhone

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky: Why he erred in thinking the Maharsham was senile

Recently events have caused me to recall an interesting story I heard from Rav Yitzchok Berkowitz. I believe Rav Berkowitz said that this story was told by Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky at an Agudah Convention many years ago.

When Rav Yaakov Kaminetseky was a yeshiva bachur he happened to be traveling by train through the city that the Maharsham lived. Being a great admirer of the Maharsham , as well as other gedolim, he decided to take the opportunity to meet with the Maharsham - who at that time was a very old man. He said to himself, "Who knows if I will have another opportunity to meet him."

When he met the Maharsham, he raised a question in Yevamos that had been bothering him for a long time and which he had found no satisfactory answer in the standard commentaries. The Maharsham listened carefully to the question and then said, "You will find the answer in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim." He gave him the precise simon. Rav Yaakov thanked him for the answer and for giving up some of his precious time to talk with him.

As Rav Yaakov was walking back to the train station, he sadly thought to himself. "What a pity such a great man was suffering from senility. How absurd to say that I should look at Orech Chaim for the answer to a complex question from Yevamos. Everybody knows that Orech Chaim doesn't deal with such questions."

The more he thought about the tragedy of the loss of the Maharashm's mind, the more an inner voice struggled to be heard. It said, " If a gadol tells you something - you should take it seriously and don't be so hasty to dismiss it."

In deference to the inner voice he stopped in a beis medrash and looked up the source that the Maharsham had proposed. Much to his astonishment and shame, the source in Orech Chaim did in fact answer the complex question of Yevamos. 

With a feeling of great embarrassment and degradation, he ran back to the Maharasham's house to apologize for his terrible mistake in thinking the Maharasham was senile.

The Maharsham of course greeted him gently and told him not to be so upset about his misjudgment. He told Rav Yaakov to go to his bookcase and take down the first volume of his set of Shulchan Aruch. He then told him to open to the inside cover. There Rav Yaakov saw there was about 100 marks inscribed there. The Maharsham said, "Those marks are the number of times I have fully reviewed the Shulchan Aruch. You should know that even if I had become senile - because of my intimate familiarity with the Shulchan Aruch that has resulted from constant review - I still would have been able to give you the answer to your question.