Showing posts sorted by relevance for query feinstein seruv. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query feinstein seruv. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Until the phony seruv of Rav Kaminetsky's beis din is removed - he and his beis din are in cherem

update: The correct term is nidoi - but I used the term cherem in the title as the general non-halachic term for ostracizing and thus the term is explained as being a form of cherem in the post below.

I confirmed with Aharon's law school classmate who spoke to R' Herschel Schachter and R' Sholom Kaminetsky in December 2010 (which I believe is before the Seruv was issued) that the two Rabbis were aware of the Baltimore Beis Din's involvement and they intentionally ignored the Beis Din's involvement". He said he is willing to discuss this with Rov who needs to know the information.

 Guest Post

Rabbis Aryeh Ralbag, Yisrael Belsky, Mordechai Wolmark, Shmuel Kamenetsky, Gavriel Stern and Hershel Schachter are in [nidui] [cherem] 

The issuance of a purported "seruv"[contempt] against Aharon Friedman was outrageous from the very beginning.  The Union of Orthodox Rabbis did not bother to issue even a single hazmana [summons} before purporting to issue the "seruv."  In addition, the parties had previously signed a shtar beirurin [binding arbitration agreement] with the Baltimore Beis Din.  Furthermore, as ,the Baltimore Beis Din recently noted even putting aside those two points, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis had no right to issue a "seruv" against Aharon because he lives in a different State than the location of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis.

It is hard to imagine that the signatories of the "seruv" were not very well aware of these points and deliberately signed the "seruv" knowing that the "seruv" was baseless.  If the signatories were not knowledgable about the rules for issuing a "seruv", they should have not been involved in issuing seruvim.

In any case, even if the signatories were not previously aware of these rules and had some excuse for nonetheless involving themselves in a matter concerning which they had woefully inadequate knowledge, it has been several days since the Baltimore BD issued its letter clarifying matters, so there can no longer be any confusion or the least bit of doubt about this matter. One who wrongfully issues a seruv, or signs in support of such seruv, himself has the status of being in [nidui][cherem] as pointed our by Rav Reuvain Feinstein's recent letter, and has been previously noted by others concerning this case.

 The refusal of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, Rabbi Ralbag and the other signatories to retract the "seruv" is well beyond outrageous and makes a mockery of halacha, beis din and the Jewish community.  They must immediately retract the "seruv" - or they have the status under halacha [Jewish Law] of being in [nidui] [cherem].

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

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.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein and the editors of Cross-Currents are in Cherem

Guest post   Cross-Currents

Update: Objections were raised regarding the term Cherem. The more correct term is Nidoi - which is a form of cherem . It was also objected that the author presented no source that someone who is not a dayan should be punished for writing a letter supporting a phony seruv. Rav Reuven Feinstin only proposed that there should be such a takana. However the author of the guest post responded that Rav Gestetner clearly says that those who publicize the false seruv also deserves nidoi. He cites the Responsa of Chaim BeYad (88) as his source.Rav Gestetner (2nd to last paragraph). I just corrected the text to note that Rav Feinstein is proposing that at takana be made to punish with nidoi those who write letters supporting a phony seruv but that Rav Gestetner based on Chaim BeYad (88) says that one who publicizes a phony heter is to be placed in Nidoi.

שו"ת חיים ביד סימן פח
לאיסטאנקייו אייר התרכ"ה ליצירה.
שאלה מעשה שהיה כך היה בעיר אחת שאמר ראובן לשמעון מתוך מחלוקת ושינאה שהיה ביניהם שרב הגדול אשר בעיר ואם בישראל החרים אותך על ככה ושמעון הנז' כשומעו את הדבר הזה התעצב עד מאד ויחר לו כי איך יתכן שרב גדול בתורה יחרים אותו בלי דרישה וחקירה אם ראוי להחרים ותכף כתב אגרת להרב הנז' אם אמת הדבר והיתה תגובת הרב כי לא היו דברים מעולם ושקר ענה באחיו העל אלה דינא קבעי שמעון על ראובן שיחרימו אותו על אשר דיבר סרה להוציא עליו ש"ר =שם רע= יודיענו מה דינו.
תשובה איתא בגמ' פ"ק דקדושין כ"ח ע"א הקורא לחבירו עבד חייב נידוי ממזר סופג את ארבעים וכתבו התוס' שם שהוא מידה כנגד מידה הוא קרא לחבירו עבד דהוא ארור מקללין אותו בארור דהיינו נידוי וכ"כ הריטב"א ז"ל שם בחי' מידה כנ"מ =כנגד מידה= דאיהו מוקים ליה בארור כדכתיב ארור כנען ולפיכך מנדין אותו בנידוי בו אלה בו חרם ע"כ והרי אם בקורא לחבירו עבד דלא משמע להו לאינשי שהוא ארור עכ"ז מנדין אותו שעבד כנעני נאמר בו ארור כנען כ"ש אם קורא אותו ארור בהדייא דודאי דחייב נידוי ואם גם בקורא לחבירו ארור בהדייא מצי להפטר בהתנצלות כי שוגג כי לא ידע שחרור בו חרם ויהיה נאמן כמ"ש הרב כנה"ג בח"מ סימן ת"ך הגה"ט אות ע' והרב בני חיי שם הגב"י אות ל"א כמו שיע"ש ועיין עוד שם בכנה"ג ובספר בני חיי ובס' דבר משה ח"ב סימן צ"ג ד"ק ע"א ובס' חשק שלמה חח"מ רס"י ז"ך בהגה"ט אות א'. דהקורא לחבירו ארור בהדייא מנדין אותו זולת כשמתרץ בדיבוריה כי לא ידע כי בשם ארור בו חרם משא"כ בנ"ד שאמר בפירוש שהרב החרימו שהטיל עליו שם חרם והרי כתב הרב מוהראנ"ח ז"ל בתשו' ח"א סימן צ"ג והביאו הרב כנה"ג שם בח"מ סי' ת"ך הגה"ט אות נ"ב והרב בני חיי שם הגב"י אות ט"ו הקורא לחבירו מוחרם מנודה חייב נידוי יע"ש וכ"כ מוהרש"ל ביש"ש בב"ק פ' החובל סי' מ"ד דפ"ו ע"ג וז"ל וה"נ מי שקראו לחבירו מנודה או אמ"ל אתה עברת על החרם חייב בנידוי ל' יום כמו שקראו עבד מטעם מידה כנגד מידה יע"ש. ועיין עוד מ"ש מוהראנ"ח בתשו' ח"ב סימן כ"ד והביאו הרב כנה"ג שם אות ג"ן דהאומר לחבירו שהוא מנודה תלוי במחלוקת רש"י ותוס' שלדעת רש"י הוי כמו קורא אותו רשע ולדעת התוס' חייב נידוי יע"ש.

ונראה לומר דיותר הסברא נותנת דחייב כשהוציא ש"ר ודבר שקר לומר שהוא מוחרם מפי אדם גדול שמחזיק החרם בכח גדול דהגם שכתב מוהראנ"ח שם בח"א סימן צ"ה שמה שקרא אותו מנודה ומוחרם שאין לדון אותו כדין המנדה את חבירו שלא כדין שהוא לא נידה ולא החרים אותו אלא שאמר שהוא מנודה ומוחרם מ"מ גם בכיוצא בזה איכא עונש נידוי ואמינא לה מההיא דהקורא לחבירו עבד יהא בנידוי וכו' יע"ש כ"ש כשאמר לו שהוא מוחרם מפי אדם גדול הרי הוא ממש כמי שקראו מנודה ומחורם יותר מפי עצמו ובודאי דחייב נידוי ועוד איכא להחמיר בנ"ד כי מאחר שדיבר שקר שהרב נידהו הרי הוא כפוגע בכבוד הרב שנידה לאדם על לא חמס בכפיו והוי מנדה למי שאינו חייב נידוי כי בכה"ג גם הרב מוהראנ"ח מודה כי הוא חייב נידוי הן מצד שעשאו להרב שמנדה למי שאינו חייב הן שנגע בכבוד הרב שמדבר עליו שקר כי כן שורת הדין נותנת כי זה האיש אשר הוציא דיבה רעה על חבירו שהרב נידהו ולא היו דברים מעולם שיקבל עצמו התרה וקודם כל ילך ויפייס לחבירו על הדבר הזה והמוחל לא יהיה אכזרי וימחול לו ויעשו לו התרה והרב גם כן יעשה לו התרה וימחול לו. ואני אמרתי מוסר השכל במסיבת הועד של ראשי המדינה הביטו וראו ראשונים כמלאכים ואת אחרונים פוסקי הלכות סידרו אחר הלכות נידוי וחרם. הלכות בק"ח וקריעה והספד ואבלות לרמוז דהחי יתן אל לבו בין המנדה בין המנודה דסופו ליפול במשכב וימות ויספדו לו ויתאבלו עליו ועל מה זה יהיה קשה כארז ולא יהיה רך כקנה כי אדם להבל דמה ימיו כצל עובר ומי גבר יחיה ולא יראה מות. האל ברחמיו יזכינו. להכיר מיעוט ערכנו. ולעשות בכל דבר כרצון אבינו שבשמים אכי"ר.
Daas Torah

Daas Torah

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein endorsed, publicized, and even added his own further accusations to the baseless “seruv” against Aharon Friedman issued by R. Aryeh Ralbag and his enterprise doing business as the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada.

 As Rabbi Reuvain Feinstein noted, one who signs on to an invalid seruv [deserves] to be in Nidoi and he proposes that a takana be made for that]  Thus, Rabbi Adlerstein [deserves] to be in Nidoi. However according to Rav Gestetner there would be no need for a takana and in fact such a person should be placed in Nidoi according to Chaim Be Yad (88) [see above for the text.

In the article, Rabbi Adlerstein endorses the “seruv” against Aharon, and adds the further accusations that Aharon is mocking the “beleaguered halachic system” and manipulating halacha.

Tamar unilaterally relocated the parties’ child from Maryland, where the family lived, to Pennsylvania, over Aharon’s objections, and then perjured herself by falsely claiming to the court that she did not do so, before later acknowledging to the court that she had done so.  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 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].  In and of itself, it is quite remarkable that Rabbi Adlerstein did not think it relevant to mention the child abduction in writing about the matter.

Given the harsh manner in which the law views such child abductions and the remarks of the judge at an earlier emergency hearing in the case, there was every reason to believe that the child would be returned at a October 2008 pendete lite trial calendared in civil court.  Aharon nevertheless agreed to cancel that trial when Tamar agreed to have the matter adjudicated in the Baltimore Beis Din if the parties could not reach an agreement. The Baltimore Beis Din held three hearings in the matter with the participation of both parties.  Tamar then violated the orders of the Baltimore Beis Din regarding dismissing the case from civil court in order to have the matter decided by civil court instead of Beis Din.

Tamar successfully argued in civil court that the child should remain in Pennsylvania given the time that the child had already been in Pennsylvania before trial, and specifically argued that the time that had elapsed should be prejudicial because Aharon had voluntarily dismissed the earlier pendete lite trial to bring the case to Beis Din.  Thus, Tamar manipulated Aharon’s bringing the case to the Baltimore Beis Din to treat her abduction of the child as a fait accopmpli.

Even at the time of Rabbi Adlerstein’s Cross-Currents article it was known that the “seruv” was without any basis.

The Baltimore Beis Din had previously stated in the Washington Jewish Week: ”Currently, the Epstein-Friedman case remains open but dormant, as “neither party has approached” the Baltimore beit din, requesting that it reconvene, according to Rabbi Mordechai Shuchatowitz, a rabbi on the court. “Right now,” he said, “the ball is in [Epstein’s] court” because, as the party seeking the get, she is responsible for reinitiating proceedings. Since the court has yet officially to order a get, Shuchatowitz said, it’s “a bit premature” to be holding rallies and other events meant “to pressure [Friedman] because he’s not been given his day in court.” After all, “you can’t disobey something you’ve not been told to do.”

Furthermore as the Baltimore Beis Din later noted, even had the case never been brought before the Baltimore Beis Din, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis had no authority to issue a seruv against Aharon.

After failing to pressure the Baltimore Beis Din to order that a get be given, Tamar unsuccessfully attempted to have at least two other batei dinim, the Washington Beis Din and the Beis Din of America, intervene against Aharon. Failing to find an actual beis din to attack Aharon, she hired the criminal enterprise doing business as the Union of Orthodox Rabbis to issue a baseless “seruv” against Aharon.  Shamefully, Rabbi Adlerstein and the editors of Cross-Currents piled upon Aharon citing this baseless “seruv” and what they claimed were Tamar's "impressive list of rabbinic supporters." Even after the subsequent letter from the Baltimore Beis Din proclaiming Aharon's innocence and again stating that any attacks against Aharon were wrong, Rabbi Adlerstein and Cross-Currents have refused to retract their baseless attack against Aharon.

So in their baseless attack against Aharon, it is Rabbi Adlerstein and the editors of Cross-Currents who are guilty of mocking and manipulating halacha and the halachic system.  And, as noted by Rabbi Reuvain Feinstein [ a takana should be made while according to Rav Gestetner based on the Chaim BeYad (88),  Rabbi Adlerstein and the editors of Cross-Currents are therefore in cherem (nidoi).

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Rav Gestetner: Bitul Seruv or Nidui?

Guest post by Rabbi Tzadok   

Introductory lines:
Since the discussion about Rav Gestetner's " bitul seruv"  got fairly hot and heavy, and deviated quite a bit from what was written in the "bitul seruv" I thought I would do the public a favor and translate what I thought was the most interesting, as well as most problematic part of it, the fourth paragraph.  What follows is my own copyrighted translation, used here with permission, and my analysis:

And fear should arise upon the heads of the dayyanim that brought forth is worthless seruv that with this they have committed serious and terrible sins: that of "Embarrassing your neighbor" and that of spreading malicious false slander.  Their destiny then is explained in the Mishnah, Gemarra, Rambam, Tur and Shulhan Arukh that they will have no place in the world to come, that they will descend into hell and never arise that they will never have forgiveness.  And aside from all of that they are also under excommunication according to the ruling of the Rambam "All that pronounce excommunication upon someone not deserving of excommunication [there is included in this those who distribute a worthless seruv] they themselves are excommunicated.  And so they will come to feel that the world is not lawless(ChV"Sh).  And our sages have already said, all of the gates were locked except the gate of fraud, and see in the Beit Yosef that those who cry out over being defrauded are answered immediately, therefore know that this is a dangerous game of playing with fire.

My response:
I am presuming that that Chareidi Rabbanim who wrote the rather respectful letter to Rav Reuven Feinstein asking for his assistance in this matter are also included in this. 
If the Bitul Seruv of Rav Gestetner was just that, a simple Bitul Seruv, one might actually have to stop and think about it briefly.  Yes it would have been done in clear violation of halakha, in that one Beit Din(especially one that appears to only have a single Dayyan) is not supposed to cancel the rulings of another.  However, this goes from odd to flat out wacky in a heart beat.  Without too much beating around the bush he accuses these Dayyanim(and Rabbis) of corruption, fraud, and numerous other things.  Furthermore he(a single Rav) places an entire Beit Din, and four important and well respected Chareidi Rabbanim in Nidui, simultaneously declaring that they have no place in the world to come, and that they are going to burn in hell forever.
First thought.  I didn't realize that Neviim had returned that could make such pronouncements against Gedolei HaDor.   Second thought?  I need to check my calendar to make sure that this isn't Purim or April first or any of those other trickster holidays, because that kind of language at at Rabbanim and Dayyanim of that stature is just flat out insane.  Even the Nasi of the Sanhedrin(if we still had one) couldn't write something like that under his name alone.  The Chutzpah here is astounding, as well as being another flagrant violation of halakha Choshen Mishpat 3:2-3:

2 If fewer than three (4) judge a case, their ruling has no legal standing [5],even if they did not err, unless the litigants had accepted them to be the Dayanim, or the judge is a Mumcheh L’Rabim (acknowledged expert) (5)[6].(In our times (6), though, there is no such thing as a Mumcheh L’Rabim (7) who can judge a case against a litigant’s will [Mahariv, Siman 147). As longas there are not three (and the litigants did not accept them as judges, and [7] (8) neither are they Mumchim L’Rabim) (Tur) even if they received semicha in the Land of Israel,...
3 Although someone who is regarded as a Mumcheh L’Rabim is permitted to make rulings by himself (9) [10], our Sages command (10) that he seat others to join him.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Corruption and Conflicts: a lecture presented by the Greater Washington Community Kollel or a description of the Kamenetsky-Greenblatt outrage?

Update: Added a poster for the Agudah's lecture claiming that they also are concerned with honesty. Hypocrisy is not a rare commodity these days

Guest Post

The primary driving force behind the entire Kamenetsky-Greenblatt outrage have been Rabbis Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Sholom Kamenetesky.  Rabbi Greenblatt has explained that he ruled the marriage annulled because he had no choice but to accept the “facts” as presented to him by Rabbi Kamenetsky because of Rabbi Kamenetsky’s status as a “gadol.”  Rabbi Greenblatt refused to take into account that Rabbi Kamenetsky’s actions might be motivated by his longstanding and extremely close ties to the Epstein family. Rabbi Greenblatt stands by his annulment despite the ruling to the contrary by Rabbi Feinstein’s Beis Din and Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky’s letter that his father accepts the ruling of that Beis Din, because Rabbi Greenblatt insists that he must continue to rely on the “facts” given to him by Rabbi Kamenetsky, which Rabbi Kamenetsky still apparently stands behind.

This complete disregarding of the Kamenetsky ties to the Epstein family has occurred for many years, and is probably a large part of what caused the Kametskys to believe that they could get away with annulling the marriage without any basis. Rabbi Kamenetsky’s earlier letters attacking Aharon Friedman should have always been seen as biased and driven by his ties to the Epstein family, but were instead accepted by some, led by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, as those of an objective “gadol” whose opinion must prevail [because “sod hashem le’rauv”], even though he directly contradicted the Baltimore Beis Din to which the two parties brought the case and held several hearings with the participation of both parties. []

Unfortunately, the Washington Vaad’s actions in the case after the death of Rabbi Gedalia Anamer also appear to be driven by conflicts, if not outright corruption. In 2009, at Tamar’s request the Washington Beis Din sent Aharon a simple and straightforward hazmana to a “din torah” regarding a get.  Aharon responded that Tamar was not entitled to involve another beis din because the parties had submitted the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din and Tamar had violated their orders.  At the time, the Washington Beis Din accepted Aharon’s answer and did not send another hazmana. The Av Beis Din of the Washington Vaad’s Beis Din at the time was the Vaad’s long-time leader, Rabbi Gedlaia Anamer, a rav in the DC area for over fifty years.  So long as Rabbi Anamer was the alive, the Vaad and that shul refused to take any actions against Aharon.  Aharon, along with the child when with him, fully participated in the shul, such as sometimes laining or serving as shaliach tzibbur.

But within months of Rabbi Anamer’s tragic and sudden passing in April 2010, that all changed.  A friend of the Epstein family took over Rabbi Anamer’s shul and he quickly started ostracizing Aharon despite the lack of any beis din ruling against Aharon. 

Following Rabbi Anamer’s death, the DC Vaad’s Beis Din sent Aharon an extremely nasty hazmana (in contrast to the earlier hazmana) essentially concluding that Aharon was guilty even before trying the case and demanding that Aharon appear before them for some unspecified type of proceeding that they did not even bother to claim would be a din torah. Nonetheless, after Aharon again responded that the matter was brought to another beis din whose orders Tamar had violated, the DC Vaad’s Beis Din acknowledged that it had no right to intervene against Aharon.  Nonetheless, the Epstein family friend who took over from Rabbi Anamer prohibited Aharon from setting foot in shul.

Tamar also asked the Beis Din of America to intercede against Aharon, but they refused to do so after calling the Baltimore Beis Din.  Despite the tremendous pressure from the Kamenetskys and the Epstein family, Tamar could not find an actual beis din to intercede against Aharon.  According to the testimony of Tamar’s toein, medical malpractice lawyer Frederic Goldfein, in Federal district court [Goldfein was forced to testify when the government granted him immunity because the government stated that Goldfein would otherwise have refused to testify by citing his right against self-discrimination under the Fifth Amendment), the Epstein family turned to the criminal Rabbi Martin Mordechai Wolmark to organize a “beis din” to intercede against Aharon.  Wolmark had the criminal enterprise he helped run issue a “seruv” against Aharon. Wolmark pled guilty to criminal charges in connection to his role in the criminal enterprise, and is currently in prison.  Two of the other signatories to the “seruv” narrowly avoided criminal charges n the case,: an FBI court affidavit stated that the FBI had probable cause to believe that they violated five different Federal criminal statutes, with regard to their participation in the case.  The criminal enterprise didn’t even attempt to pretend that its “seruv” had any validity, not even sending a hazmana before the seruv.  To highlight that the “seruv” had no basis in halacha, but was an exercise of raw political power, the criminal enterprise had Rabbi Kamenetsky sign the “seruv” despite his well-known and extremely longstanding personal and financial ties to the Epstein family and his previously having publicly reached a conclusion on the matter and publicly attacked Aharon

Following Rabbi Anamar’s death, active leadership of the Vaad devolved onto its director, the brother-in-law of Simon (Shimmy) Glick, whose daughter is married into the Epstein family, and Rabbi Dr. Freundel.  Glick is one the largest philanthropists in the yeshiva world, and his influence in Orthodox is very deep and very wide.  It is not clear exactly how large a role he has played in this tragic case, but as Rabbi Eidensohn has noted before, his influence is clearly strongly felt -- --- and particularly so in Silver Spring.

Despite the fact that even the Washington Vaad’s own Beis Din ruled that it could not intervene against Aharon, the Washigton Vaad seized upon the criminal enterprise’s “seruv” to publicly attack Aharon, issuing a letter that effectively incited violence against Aharon and the parties’ child.  Even after the Tisha Ba’av assault when Aharon brought the child to the Epstein house, the Washington Vaad refused to retract its letter or clarify that it did not mean to call for violence.  

Even after the Baltimore Beis Din issued a letter that Aharon was not guilty of wrongdoing, [] the Washington Vaad has refused to retract its letter attacking Aharon. 

It should be noted that the rav giving this shiur is new to Silver Spring, and is not on the Vaad.  But lest anyone get their hopes up that this shiur might address the corruption and conflicts driving the Kamenetsky-Greenblatt, it should also be noted that the rav is a member of a kollel headed by Shimmy Glick’s nephew.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Weiss Dodelson: Rav Dovid Feinstein pasken's agreement to arbitration means R Avraham Meir Weiss can not be considered a mesarev or me'agen

This letter from Rav Dovid Feinstein son of Rav Moshe Feinstein is a comment on the letter from Rabbi Ronald Greenwald - who was selected by both Weiss and Dodalson families to arbitrate the get. Rav Feinstein states  - that despite the disagreement of whether there was a valid seruv against R Avraham Meir Weiss - the fact that they both went to Rabbi Greenwald to arbitrate the dispute removes him from that status according to everyone. The letter originally appeared on the blog of Rabbi Yudel Shain and a number of other places on the internet. I was assured by a member of the Feinstein family that the letter is genuine. 1     Facebook     Rabbi Yehuda Shain

Monday, April 23, 2012

Friedman-Epstein: What halachic justification?!

Despite all the fanfare and international publicity about the "aguna" Tamar Friedman, the halacha basis  for the conduct of her rabbinic supporters as well as the aguna defense organization Ora's tactics against Aharon Friedman is  embarrassingly anemic and simply unsupported by any elementary reading of the sources. Briefly the case involved Tamar's decision that she didn't want to remain married to Aharon. She has never made any claims of abuse or misbehavior just she thought she might find someone better. She left their home taking their daughter without his consent. There was the Baltimore beis din which they both agreed to abide by its decision. Its work was not brought to a psak. Secular court was involved and a secular divorce. There was some involvement of the Washington beis din - but that was incomplete and it never heard both sides. Finally there was a hazmana from the beis din of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis which Aaron did not respond to. That beis din issued a seruv signed by Rav Kaminetsky, Rav Belsky, Rabbi Ralbag and also Rav Schachter. The seruv states that whatever can be done to bring about a get should be done. ORA - with Rav Schachter's support and encouragement has gotten involved and has had public demonstrations and repeated distribution of posters demanding a get which targeted Aharon and his family. They also had a strong publicity blitz in all the major secular newspapers as well as a conference at Stern College and a major campaign directed at Aharon's boss Congressman Camp - all with the stated goal of forcing Aharon to give Tamar a get. So far there has not been a beis din that heard both sides and issued a psak that Aharon must give a get.

My concern has been to try and find a halachic basis for use of public humilation in a very weak case of ma'os alei - where Tamar has apparently never said anything stronger against her husband than that she realized that she didn't want to spend the rest of her life married to him. When I spoke with the head of ORA I asked him about this and he said that Tamar had a right to privacy and didn't have to explain why she wanted to leave. Aharon has apparently never said he wanted to end the marriage. Thus the case consists of Tamar's assertion of ma'os alei because she doesn't want to remain married. She is also a moredes who left their home. She turned to the secular courts - a huge problem - and as a result a custody arrangement was set up and a civil divorce was obtained.

A basic summary of the halacha is found here:
Be'er HaGolah (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 77:6): In the case where the wife claims ma’os alei and therefore refused to have sexual relations with her husband] The view of the Shulchan Aruch [which modified the language of the Rambam that "the husband can be forced to give a get" to "if the husband wants to divorce her"] is that of the Ramban and Rashba that one cannot force the husband to give a get [in the case of ma’us alei]. The husband can only be forced to give a get in those cases where Chazal said force can be used. [Which is either from a prohibited relations such as a cohen to a divorcee or a major defect such as severe disease or disgusting skin condition]This is stated in the Magid Mishna (Hilchos Ishus 14:8]. The Tur says the same thing in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and his father the Rosh. The source of this view is Kesubos (63b), What is the case of moredes (a rebellious wife) ? Amemar said it is a woman who says she wants to stay married and she want to torment her husband. However a woman who says ma’us alei (he disgusts me) we don’t force her to be with her husband. Mar Zutra said she should be forced and there was an incident in which Mar Zutra forced the wife to be with the husband and they had a child R’ Chinina Mesura. But that is not the normal consequence – they had special assistance from Heaven and we can’t learn from that case.

A review of the recent teshuva literature, inclduing the rulings of  Rav Eliashiv, Minchos Yitzchok, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Tzitz Eliezar, Ben Ish Chai and Rav Sternbuch as well as the various public shiurim that Rav Schachter has given on the topic of aguna, - have indicated that there is not a single source that allows the type of public humiliation ORA is using in order to force a husband to give a get. There are sources which allowed indirect pressure such as preventing the obtaining a civil divorce unless a get is given. But not a single use of direct pressure because of the universal concern in the Achronim for a get me'usa (an invalid forced get). Sources such as Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Rav Chaim Pelaggi were also studied - but they also do not provide a ready and acceptable basis for what is going on with ORA.

[update reply to James in Comments section]

James you obviously have inside information - the beis din issued a seruv for not appearing in which they poskened that a get had to be given. They did not explain their reasons nor did Friedman participate - so they only heard one side. Is that correct? Simple question is how can a beis din posken without hearing both sides? And if it isn't a psak but only a seruv for not showing up so how can they issue a ruling that it is a mitzva to give a get? Besides that level of confusion Rav Shachter has written clearly that he is totally relying on Rav Kaminetsky for his understanding of the case. So apparently it is irrelevant to him whether there is a psak or just a seruv. The only issue is the daas Torah of Rav Kaminestky. He then authorized ORA to attack Aharon and his family. Correct? The Beis din did not say anything about ORA nor do they appear on ORA's list of rabbis. Thus you are insisting that everyone involved agrees that ORA is doing the right thing. I am simply asking for some evidence that ORA actions are approved by Rabbis Belsky and Kaminetsky and what the basis of the psak of the beis din was. It is not clear that saying that it is a mitzva to give or obtain a get justifies what ORA is doing.

So we are still discussing this because of the apparent bizarreness of this case on the level of halacha. It doesn't require a gadol to understand the halachic issues or the halachic rulings going back to the gemora. I simply want to know what halachic understanding justifies the chain of events leading to ORA's demonstrations and pressure. It shouldn't take a talmid chachom more than 5 minutes to rattle off the necessary information. The fact that that ORA through Rav Shachter based on this beis din - has been producing a disturbing spectacle in the secular media - justifies me asking an explanation. If ORA wasn't involved then this would have remained a private issue. But it clearly isn't and I'd like to understand. this is Torah and I need to learn.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Summary: Does a gadol have to give permission to protest against Rav Shmuel Kaminetky's heter

Question: Regarding my posts about the terrible perversion of Torah and halacha that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has engineered with his production of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter - how could I publicize this matter without a psak from gedolim (i.e. Daas Torah) that it was permitted and also being told explicitly what kind of publicity should be done?


1) Rav Sternbuch in his letters regarding this matter has made it clear that we are required to  publicize and protest this perversion where a woman was allowed to remarry without first receiving a Get. He does not mention anything about remaining quiet unless you personally receive a psak to protest.
November 2015 letter
          November 2015 parsha sheet
January 2016 letter

2) However even without Rav Sternbuch's explicit statement as well as the many public letters of major rabbis attacking this heter - there is no halachic source which requires a person to ask a person viewed as a gadol or even ask a rabbi. Obviously if the determination that something wrong has been done comes from a single individual it is a good idea to confirm with a competent rabbi that his evaluation is correct. But in the case of this "heter" there are many strong letters of condemnation from major rabbis and there are no dissenting voice that the heter is valid - that is simply not an issue. The consensus is that Tamar is an eishis ish who is living with a man who is not her husband.

phony seruv against Aharon Friedman by R Shmuel Kaminetsky

R Herschel Schachter:Beat Aharon Friedman with baseball bat - rely on authority of R Kaminetsky

R Shalom Kaminetsky asking for heter in name of his father

R Shalom Kaminetsky asking for heter and Rav Greenblatt's reply

Summary of the facts regarding the Heter

Rav Herschel Schacter: Mekach ta'os - making a farce of the halacha

Rav Greenblatt states he did not check facts but relied on what R Sholom Kaminetsky told him

Rav Shmuel Feurst revealed as signer on heter

How Tamar destroyed her marriage with the assistance of the Kaminetskys

Wohlmark gang false seruv and Epstein lawyer Goldfein

Therapists that met with Aharon Feldman - deny discussing him with others

R Shmuel Kaminetsky to Rav Weiss - agrees to psak of Rav Dovid Feinstein

Who should be honored with Sandek for the mamzer?

Tamar's diary clearly showing Aharon has no mental illness

Tamar's own words refute psychiatric claims of mental illness

psychologist says the psychiatrist report used is invalid

lawyer in family law : even if psychiatric report was accurate - the conclusion of mekach ta'us are not

Dr. Baruch Shulem - illegal and invalid to write report about someone therapist didn't meet

Pamphlet with most of the protest letters

Rav Gestetner English translation

Baltimore Beis Din first letter with Israeli gedolim agreement

R Shalom Kaminetsky's letter asking for the heter and Rav Nota Greenblatt's teshuva giving the heter

Baltimore Beis Din revised letter Nov 2015

Baltimore beis din apologizes to Aharon Friedman + Rav Reuven Feinstein and Rav Miller jan 2016

Rav Aharon Feldman      English translation of Rav Feldman's letter

Rav Aharon Feldman Only talmidei chachomim can decide this issue

Letter to Rav Aharon Feldman

Rav Malinowitz criticzing Rav Feldman for indicating this a macholes haposkim

Rav Landesman

Open letter to Rav Aharon Schechter regarding his attempt to save Rav Kaminetsky

Rav Shmuel Auerbach

Rav A C Sherman

Rav Avraham Yehoshua Solveitchik can not learn by Rav Kaminetsky

Open letter to the Moetzes of the Aguda

Washington area rabbis shun Aharon Friedman with feminist justification

Rav Herschel Schacter recording - heter no good

Rav Sternbuch letter November

Rav Sternbuch parasha sheet

Rav Sternbuch letter

Rav Sternbuch criticized by R Brodsky for calling for protests

Assertion that layman can't criticize crimes of rabbis

Rav Pinchus Rabinowitz

Hisachdus HaRabbonim of USA and Canada

Hisachdus letter posuling Rav Greenblatt

Rav Shlomo Miller Rav Wachtfoget et al

Refutation of support of heter from Yevamos

Rav Chaim Kanievsky and other Israeli gedolim

Eidah Chareidis

Rav Rominek's teshuva

Rav Feivel Cohen and Rav Shlomo Miller

R Sholom letter saying he and his father accept Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak
=============================Critical of those who made the heter ------------

Rav Shlomo Miller - Rav Greenblatt is referred to as "rav"

Rav Sternbuch criticized by R Brodsky for calling for protests by the masses

Hisachdus letter posuling Rav Greenblatt

Rav Avraham Yehoshua Solveitchik can not learn by Rav Kaminetsky

3) An additional question is whether a gadol is different and that a gadol can never be publicly condemned.

Rav Moshe Feinstein says it is permitted to publicly disagree with a gadol even as big as the Chazon Ish - and even in his community
Diasgreeing with the Chazon Ish in Bnei Brak
From one of the letters (2:133) of the Chazon Ish it is clear that he permits criticizing gadolim because they are influential - but not people who no one pays attention to.
Criticizing Gedolim
Mo'd Koton (17a) is clear that one can publicize the misdeeds of gedolim. We in fact pasken like this gemora.

if a disciple ‘separates’ someone in [defence of] his personal dignity his ‘separation’ is an [effective] . For it is taught: ‘One who has been "separated" [as under a ban] by the Master is [deemed] "separated" from the disciple; but one who has been "separated" by the disciple is not [deemed] "separated" from the Master’.1 [That means], not ‘separated’ from the Master; but in regard to everybody else he is [‘separated’]. [Now let us see; ‘separated’] for what [offence]? If [it was imposed] for some offence towards Heaven, then there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord!2 Therefore [presumably] it is only so3 [where a disciple had pronounced it] in [defence of] his personal dignity. R. Joseph said that a Collegiate4 may enforce his own rights in a matter where he is perfectly certain [as to the law]. There was once a certain Collegiate whose reputation was objectionable. Said Rab Judah, How is one to act? To put the shammetha on him [we cannot], as the Rabbis have need of him [as an able teacher]. Not to put the shammetha on him [we cannot afford] as the name of Heaven is being profaned. Said he to Rabbah b. Bar Hana, Have you heard alight on that point? He replied: ‘Thus said R. Johanan: What means the text, For the priest's lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts?5 [It means, that] if the Master is like unto a messenger of the Lord of Hosts, they should seek the law at his mouth; but if [he be] not , they should not seek the law at his mouth’. [Thereupon] Rab Judah pronounced the shammetha on him. In the end Rab Judah became indisposed. The Rabbis came to enquire about him and that man came along with them. When Rab Judah beheld him he laughed. Said the man to him: Not enough for him that he put upon that man [me] the shammetha, but he even laughs at me! Replied he [Rab Judah]: I was not laughing at you: but as I am departing to that World [beyond] I am glad to think that even towards such a personage as you I showed no indulgence. Rab Judah's soul came to rest.6 The man [then] came to the College [and] said, ‘Absolve me’. Said the Rabbis to him, There is no man here of the standing of Rab Judah who could absolve you; but go to R. Judah Nesi'ah7 that he may absolve you. He went and presented himself to him. Said he to R. Ammi: ‘Go forth and look into his case; if it be necessary to absolve him, absolve him’. R. Ammi looked into his case and had a mind to absolve him. Then R. Samuel b. Nahmani got up on his feet and said: ‘Why, even a ‘separation" imposed by one of the domestics in Rabbi's house was not lightly treated by the Rabbis for three years; how much more so one imposed by our colleague, Rab Judah!’ Said R. Zera, From the fact that this venerable scholar8 should just now have turned up at this College after not having come here for many years, you must take it that it is not desirable to absolve that man. He [R. Judah Nesi'ah]9 did not absolve him. He went away weeping. A wasp then came and stung him in the privy member and he died. They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Pious’, but they admitted him not.10 They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Judges’ and they received him.11 Why was he admitted there? — Because he had acted according to the dictum of R. Il'ai. For R. Il'ai says, If one sees that his [evil] yezer12 is gaining sway over him, let him go away where he is not known; let him put on sordid13 clothes, don a sordid wrap and do the sordid deed that his heart desires rather than profane the name of Heaven openly.14

Additionally we have Berachos (19) that to stop a chilul haShem we don't show respect to a rav. And this corruption of halacha to allow a woman to remarry without a Get is clearly a chilul hashem as well as something that the poskim says sets a dangerous precedent.
 R. Judah said in the name of Rab: If one finds mixed kinds in his garment, he takes it off even in the street. What is the reason? [It says]: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord;4 wherever a profanation of God's name is involved no respect is paid to a teacher.

ש"ך יורה דעה סימן שג ס"ק א
א ואפי' היה רבו. דבמקום שיש חילול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב וע"ל סי' רמ"ב סכ"ב: 

4) Finally the Rambam is very clear about what to do. He makes no stipulation that his psak is dependent upon going to a rav or gadol to get permission to protest. He clearly indicates that if private protest doesn't work then protests should be escalated to public degradation of the person sinning.

Rambam(Hilchos De'os 6:8):At first, a person who admonishes a colleague should not speak to him harshly until he becomes embarrassed as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him." This is what our Sages said: Should you rebuke him to the point that his face changes [color]? The Torah states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him." 
From this, [we learn that] it is forbidden for a person to embarrass a [fellow] Jew. How much more so [is it forbidden to embarrass him] in public. Even though a person who embarrasses a colleague is not [liable for] lashes on account of him, it is a great sin. Our Sages said: "A person who embarrasses a colleague in public does not have a share in the world to come." 
Therefore, a person should be careful not to embarrass a colleague - whether of great or lesser stature - in public, and not to call him a name which embarrasses him or to relate a matter that brings him shame in his presence. 
When does the above apply? In regard to matters between one man and another. However, in regard to spiritual matters, if [a transgressor] does not repent [after being admonished] in private, he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Rav Schachter: Problematic Seruv of Meir Kin

Guest post of Rabbi Tzadok     Here is the text of the Seruv for those interested, 

I'm posting the English translation below:
The three of us sat together on 11 Tammuz 5770 (June 23rd, 2010), and we deliberated on the dispute between Mr. Israel Meir Kin and his wife, Lonna, and his repeated refusal to arrange a Get (writ of Jewish divorce) for his wife in accordance with Jewish law. Despite extraordinary attempts to appease him and to mediate between the two sides, Mr. Kin adamantly refuses to divorce his wife in accordance with Jewish law. 
Therefore, we determine that he is considered a “Sarvan” recalcitrant) and does not comply with Jewish law, and the ramifications of this status are elaborated in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah siman 334. It is incumbent upon anyone who is capable, to influence him to free his wife from an agunah’s chains and comply with Jewish law.
Problems with this Seruv:

1) Meir Kin deposited a Get with a B"D
 Update: Unfortunately both Rav Yitzhak Peretz, head of the Rabbinut Rabbinic courts, and Rav Shlomo Amar, chief Rabbi of Israel, say that this particular Beit Din, and the Rabbanim that run it, are not qualified to judge Gittin nor are they recognized by Rabbinute. A Get that is not universally recognized is pointless, which is what this discussion is all about.
IF the State of Israel will consider the children Mamzerim if she remarries using this Get, surely the majority of Chareidim, at least within Israel, will as well. Which puts us in no better a position that with a Get Meusah.
However, that of course does not mean that Nidui is at all justified. .
2) There is no B"D Kavua in the US so no B"D has the right to judge a person in the US without his consent(at least according to Rav Moshe Feinstein).

3) Basing a seruv on Y"D 344 in a divorce case is absurd, it's the hilkhot of Nidui

4) Since they are proclaiming Nidui(I have no other reason to think that they would be invoking those halakhot) any resulting Get would be possul Get Meusah according to all opinions.

5) The B"Y Eh"E 134 says that it is impossible to kasher the Get until it is no longer in the power of the those forcing him to force him... That is highly problematic.

Above the blog owner says,
"Rav Schachter and his supporters keep insisting that Rabbeinu Tam allows all actions which are not physical and are not nidoi."

However it would appear that is not the case, Rav Schachter also does Nidui when it suits him.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

R' Broyde's Coerced Get & Protesting - a critique

Some Thoughts on Rabbi Michael J Broyde's Article on a Coerced GET and Protesting When a Man Withholds a Jewish Divorce

by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Rabbi Broyde's article about protesting to help Agunahs is filled with errors, which I display here. It is part and parcel of the new Torah emanating from the modern YU rabbis. Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, head of BDA Beth Din, sent away a couple seeking a GET with no GET by annuling their marriage on the grounds of a ridiculous claim of MEKACH TAOSE when after I spoke to him I am convinced he had no grounds for that. Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at YU and major posek for the OU, invented a new Torah to permit physical and unbearable emotional coercion in the case of MOOS OLEI with his vivid imagination, as he airly blows away the Rashbo, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Radvaz, Shach and Chazon Ish with a logic that was invented in Gehenum. He quotes nobody who agrees with him, and doesn't display any rabbonim of today who agree with him, but he has helped Agunoth! Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit”o told me that any Beth Din that invents new ways to help Agunoth outside of accepted halacha that he takes away from them the Chezkas Beth Din, the authority of being a Beth Din. Thus, we have a situation where modern Orthodox divorces may not be recognized by others, and the children of these invented “help” for Agunoth may be mamzerim.

Let us begin.
The article begins by assuring us that “the use of social pressure – picketing, boycotting, withholding aliyot, and the like – in such a situation...there is no problem of a coerced get in such a case.”
This is completely wrong, as we will show, because it is obvious from the great Poskim I will quote with nobody disagreeing that it is a coerced GET and invalid GET to picket and humiliate a husband in MOUS OLEI especially when this is done in public. In fact, even to shame him not in public is a problem of a coerced and therefore invalid GET. This is stated clearly by the Chazon Ish.

The article then begins with the PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam, whereby Rabbeinu Tam permitted a passive ostracizing of a husband who refused to give a GET. The article quotes a rabbinical council of great rabbinical judges who permitted ostracizing the husband. Therefore, says Rabbi Broyde, we see that one may ostracize a husband who does not give a GET. But this is false advertising, as we will explain. The case of the rabbinical council involved a couple where the man was unable to have children and the wife demanded a GET so she would not be left in her old age with nobody to care for her. In this case, the Talmud clearly teaches that there must be a GET. On the other hand, Rabbi Broyde is talking about the common problem of wives demanding a GET often after they had children from the husband, called MOUS OLEI (my husband is repulsive to me). This is different, as we will explain.

The Shulchan Aruch EH 77 talks about a woman who demands a GET because her husband repels her. Nowhere is any coercion allowed or mentioned there. Even Rabbeinu Tam is not mentioned there, even though he permits only passive ostracizing. In EH 154 we find the laws of husbands who are commanded by the Torah to divorce their wives. There are two categories of these. One is where the Talmud commands that we force the GET, such as when a person marries a woman forbidden to him. Another category is when the Talmud does not talk about coercion, but merely says the husband must give a GET. The latter case of a sterile husband is what the rabbinical council ruled, when the wife demands a GET. In such a case the Talmud clearly demands a GET but does not command coercion. The Ramo suggests that we use the passive coercion of Rabbeinu Tam. But the Ramo does not allow passive ostracizing in chapter 77 for a woman who is repulsed by her husband. Thus, the implication is clear: passive ostracizing is forbidden unless the Talmud clearly demands a GET, such as when the husband is sterile. But with MOUS OLEI, there may not be any coercion, even passive coercion.

The greatest authorities, the Shach and the Chazon Ish, forbid even passive ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam, even in the case of the sterile husband, claiming that in latter generations such an ostracizing was too strong a coercion and constituted an invalid GET. Maharabil states that nobody ever heard of rabbis permitting this. Therefore, for MOUS OLEI, when even the Shulchan Aruch does not permit even passive coercion, surely it is forbididen to do the passive PIRUD or ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam. But in the case of the sterile husband, the Ramo permits it, and the Gro and others agree, therefore, the rabbinical council mentioned above permitted it for the case of a sterile husband. This has nothing to do with Rabbi Broyde's article which is about the common “agunah” who left her husband often after having children and demands as GET. Such a husband may not be given the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam, at least, by the proof that I cited from the Shulchan Aruch and supported by Shach and Chazon Ish and Maharabil.

We now come to Rabbi Broyde's brazen misquoting of the Gro. He leaves out the key phrase, and thus makes it sound as if the Gro supports ostracizing all husbands, such as in MOUS OLEI. But the GRO as we mention before, is commenting on the Ramo in EH 154 that does not deal with MOUS OLEI but only with husbands who are commanded by the Talmud to divorce. The Gro explains why PIRUD of Rabbeinu Tam is permitted with someone commanded clearly in the Talmud to divorce: “(154:67) because he can be saved from this by going to another city. And whenever we don't do something to him physically it is not called ISUI or coercion. And all of this we do to him because he transgressed on the words of the sages.” Thus, the final phase says that this PIRUD is only permitted when the Talmud clearly commands a divorce. But in MOUS OLEI we don't assume that the husband is wrong and he must divorce his wife and lose his children. Therefore, it is forbidden to ostracize him.

But let us ask Rabbi Broyde, even according to your abridged version of the GRO, the ostracizing is only permitted because the husband can find another city where nobody will ostracize him. But today what city is free from the protestors sent by Rabbi Schachter and ORA to torment a husband? Therefore, what ORA is doing is forbidden by the GRO, and as we explained, it was never permitted by the Ramo in the case of MOUS OLEI to begin with.

But let us return to the ruling of the sages of the above rabbinical council ruling. What kind of ostracizing did they decree on the sterile husband? ONLY PASSIVE THINGS such as not honoring him and ignoring him. But who permitted ORA to publicly demonstrate and humiliate a husband? And especially in a case of MOUS OLEI? This is the brazen invention of Rabbi Broyde.

Now we come to another brazen invention, this time a bald lie about HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l. In Igres Moshe EH III:44 Reb Moshe discusses a broken marriage where the wife will not return to the husband, but the husband won't give a GET. May Beth Din coerce the husband to give a GET? Rabbi Broyde quotes Reb Moshe that this is permitted, because “Compulsion in a case where divorce is truly desired does not create an invalid GET.” But Reb Moshe there says just the opposite. Although he does mention the idea and says it has some merit, he refuses to use it saying, “we must not rely on this.” 

So Rabbi Broyde slithers along while we are gasp in admiration for his proof, and then, some lines later, he slips in “While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors...” Hurry, he is wriggling out of his lie. 

Here is his full statement there: ““While it is true that Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant to rely on this rationale absent other lenient factors, it is clear that in cases where no real coercion is used – but only harchakot d'Rabbeinu Tam – Rabbi Feinstein's reasoning is fully applicable.” First, note the weasel words. He doesn't say that “Rabbi Feinstein would permit it.” Even he is afraid to invent such a statement in the name of Reb Moshe. But what he does is to apply his own logic that surely that which Reb Moshe rejected would not be rejected for the mild coercion of Rabbeinu Tam's ostracizing.

But wait. He wriggled in the wrong direction. Because Rabbi Broyde was obviously not aware of another teshuva of Reb Moshe whereby he consigns Rabbeinu Tam's pirud to the status of a very serious coercion, more so than coercing with money which most poskim consider very strong coercion even invalidating the GET. (EH I:137) If so, Reb Moshe surely would not agree with Rabbi Broyde to permit the Pirud of Rabbeinu Tam because it is a minor coercion.

Incredibly, Rabbi Broyde concludes “the use of social pressure to encourage the giving of a get in a situation in which the couple has already separated, a secular divorce has been granted and the marriage is over for both of them – and even more so where a bet din has issued a seruv against the husband – never creates a situation of Get Meuso.” He permits active public humiliation of the husband, even though public humiliation is considered murder in the Talmud.

Note that he never mentions that Rabbeinu Tam permits only passive ostracizing, and that the Chazon Ish EH 108 forbids even passive ostracizing and considers active humiliation such as that practiced by ORA to make an invalid GET. Nor does he even mention the Rashbo VII:414 that it is forbidden to coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI at all, and that even the sterile husband may not be humiliated, certainly not the husband of MOUS OLEI. Also Rabbi Yosef Caro in Bais Yosef, 154, Radvaz שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ד סימן קיח quote the Rashbo. The Shach at the end of GEVURAS ANOSHIM forbids even passively ostracizing the husband to obtain a GET at all. 

Just brazeneness matched only by his ignorance. But without the ignorance, even the brazeness would have a hard time.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Campaign to have father fired from Artscroll for supporting son

With the apparently successful boycott against Artscroll to have the father and uncle removed from their jobs  because they supported R Avraham Meir Weiss - the question is what was the halachic justification?
We also turn to Artscroll (where his father and uncle who support him work) to protest against his family and to remove them from their positions, for it is not fitting that Torah should be transmitted through them. 
There are a number of major problems with this statement.  Their sin was to support the husband. The Kol Koreh claims that the husband is in nidoi and apparently they hold that those who support a person  in niddoi should themselves be placed in niddoi.  However the sources that are cited in the Kol Koreh to ostracize the husband (Y.D. 334) are  1) Refusing a summons of a beis din (CM 11). However that only applies if he refuses to go to beis din at all not even one of his own choosing (C.M. 14). That wasn't true here and he had a beis din nullify the seruv. 2) They claim he went to a secular court without permission (C.M. 26) - but he did get permission from a posek to do so. 

Therefore if there is no justification to place the husband  in niddoi - then obviously those who support him can not be placed in niddoi. Furthermore Rav Dovid Feinstein said even for those who believe that there had been justification for a seruv - it no longer applied in this case. That is because the husband had been working together with the Dodelson's to negotiate a binding agreement to give a Get.Therefore Rav Dovid Feinstein paskened that he was not guilty of being in contempt of bein din [Rabbi Greenwald's letter doesn't contract this and Rav Dovid Feinstein was fully aware of the nature of Rabbi Greenwald's efforts].

Therefore the campaign to fire the Weiss brothers seems to be a serious miscarriage of justice.  I would appreciate enlightenment by those who think they have a justification for depriving the family of parnossa.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

ORA vs. Rav R' Feinstein's grandson

Jewish Press  article taken down - thanks to Rabbi Tzadok for alternative
The letter and the seruv below - were part of the Jewish Press Article
Please note the disparity between Stern's claim for support for public demonstrations and the actual letter which just says to publicize the matter  - which can also be done with a letter on a bulletin board. 
 Jewish Press Archive  JP: Your latest case is against Rabbi Reuven Feinstein’s grandson. Are you afraid of going toe-to-toe with some of these leading rabbis?

JS: We don’t see it as us vs. them. It’s not ORA that’s doing it. We are the enforcement agent of the Beis Din and these rabbis are coming out and instructing the community to take a stand. Rav Reuven Feinstein, the grandfather of Avrohom Meir Weiss, is supporting him, but every rabbi is on the other side. We have Rav Malkiel Kotler, Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav [Hershel] Shecheter, Rav [Mordechai] Willig and Rav [Notta] Greenblatt — all these rabbis from different yeshivas are all coming together. We’ve tried to resolve this dispute but the community has to take a stand. It is unique to have such broad support.