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

Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Rav Reuven Feinstein proposes a Takanah - How does it deal with the disaster of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter?

This letter was written as an approval of the 3rd Baltimore bais din letter and is clearly critical of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter though it doesn't mention it.

Rav Reuven makes several important points. 
1) that a takanah should be made that no one is allowed to get involved in a case when there's a reputable bais din presiding on a case, otherwise the koach of bais din gets diminished and causes anarchy.
Meaning that since the Baltimore Beis Din was already dealing with the case.  The Kaminetsky Beis Din had no right to get involved and usurp its right to deal with the case. To prevent this from happening in the future a Takana needs to be made and agreed by the rabbonim not to take over cases that are already being dealt with by a competent beis din
2) that no letter should be signed without listening to both sides.
This again is a criticism of the high handed tactics of Rav Kaminetsky (that was endorsed by a letter by Rav Herschel Schachter) and the Kaminetsky Beis Din which issued a false seruv and demanded that Aharon give a get and called for demonstrations against Aharon -- without hearing his side of the story and furthermore directly contradicting the ruling of the Baltimore Beis Din that there was no requirement for Aharon to give a Get at that time
3) that in this case only the Baltimore bais din has the full picture.
This again is a direct criticism of the Kaminetsky and the Kaminetsky Beis Din - which only heard Tamar's side of the story. It is a refutation of the Greenblatt heter - which was based on a phony psychiatric report written by a therapist who did not speak to Aharon on the allegations of Tamar. It is also a criticism of the  Kaminetskys who went heter shopping with a letter which contained false and distorted information which did not seek out Aharon's perspective on events - which they ran around the world to find poskim who would agree to it. Finally getting Rav Greenblatt and Rav Feurst to agree to the heter - even though neither consulted the Baltimore Beis Din but relied entirely on the lies and distortions provided by the Kaminetskys








========================================================
Questions regarding Rav Reuven Feinstein's proposal (by a number of readers)

1) Why is there a need of a Takana when what he is proposing is stated in the Shulchan Aruch?

שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות דיינים סימן יז סעיף ה
אסור לדיין לשמוע דברי בעל דין האחד שלא בפני בעל דין חבירו. הגה: ודוקא שיודע הדיין שיהיה דיין בדבר, אבל אם שמע טענת האחד ואחר כך נתרצה השני לדון לפניו, מותר להיות דיין בדבר (תשובת מהרי"ל קצ"ה). ולא יכתוב שום חכם פסק לאחד מבעלי הדינין בדרך א"כ, או שיכתוב לו דעתו בלא פסק, כל זמן שלא שמע דברי שניהם, שמא מתוך דבריו ילמדו לשקר; גם משום שאח"כ יטעון השני בדרך אחר ויצטרך לכתוב להיפך, ואיכא זילותא לחכם. (רשב"א וריב"ש סימן קע"ט /ה'/). וכן הבעל דין מוזהר על כך. ותלמיד שיש לו דין לפני רבו, לא יקדים לבא קודם בעל דינו, שלא יהא נראה כמקדים כדי לסדר טענותיו שלא בפני חבירו. ואם יש לו עת קבוע לבא ללמוד לפניו, ובא העת ההיא, מותר.

2) While Rav Reuven obviously means well his proposal, he ironically undermines the beis din system. It is a letter calling for total hefkerus!
a. If a duly constituted BD ruled—it should be over. Of course that BD should be supported in every which way.
b. Acccording to what he writes anyone can now say—and if so, you can be sure that anyone will now say—if they on one party’s “side”—that the BD’s pesak “is a din me’uvas”!
c. It is illogical to call for any person who wants to help when there is already a pesak BD to first hear both sides— that is what the BD did! Why would this person do a better job than the BD? How will this person ensure that HE will “hear “all the facts” from “all the parties”...? And if he comes to a different conclusion—he should help defy the BD?

3. Let’s be clear---The problem with the false seruv in the Epstein case was that it was anything BUT a duly-constituted BD!! But if it is a duly constituted BD?Absolutely support the pesak—or you are part of the evil!

4. The basic issue is that if you refuse to mention that there is a current problem then you need to pretend that the system itself needs fixing instead of the particular incident

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Rabbi Kaminetsky-Rabbi 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? Answer:

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


Bedatz protest against heter

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 Friedman - 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?

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Rav Eliahu Rominek's teshuva explaining why it is worthless
==============================================
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 Hebrew

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 Sholom Kametsky 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

https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/02/kaminetsky-greenblatt-heter-putting-to.html
3) An additional question is whether a gadol is different and that a gadol can never be publicly condemned.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-reuven-feinstein-proposes-takanah.html

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.

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

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.

Tamar Epstein's heter: A summary of the case


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

Here are the undisputed facts:
Dr. David Epstein was an active supporter of the Talmudical Academy of Philadelphia[2]. He was close to the roshei hayeshiva, especially Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky, and later Rav Sholom Kamenetzky.
When his daughter Tamar left her husband Aaron Friedman, it was the Kamenetzkies who rallied for her support. A seruv of the Aggudas Harabbanim against Mr. Friedman was uncharacteristically signed by Rav Shmuel, although he is not a member of that Bais Din, simply because he was active in the case.
The parties brought their case before the BD of Baltimore. At one point they left BD and ended up in court. The BD insists that the case is still pending and retains jurisdiction on it.
Later, after a protracted campaign - spanning over five years – to pressure the husband to give a get was unsuccessful, a new idea arose: to nullify the marriage based on mekach ta'us[3]. Subsequently, it was announced that "Tamar is Free", and about two months ago she married one Adam Fleischer. When it became known that the mesader kiddushin was Rav Nota Greenblatt of Memphis, he was questioned by Rav Aharon Feldman as to the basis for the heter.
Although many suspected that Rav Shmuel and Rav Sholom were somehow behind the heter, and at the very least supported the heter, they insisted all along that they had nothing to do with the heter. When approached by Rav Aharon Feldman and others, Rav Shmuel wrote a clear declaration "I was never matir…" All the blame was put on Rav Nota.
However, the documents speak for themselves. The paper trail of this saga is available on the internet. Although Rav Shmuel was indeed not matir her to marry without a get[4], he did advise her to go to Rav Nota Greenblatt to be matir.[5] Rav Sholom wrote letters to many rabbanim, detailing the grounds for annulling the marriage. As far as is publicly known, only one posek, Rav Nota Greenblatt, was matir and even officiated at the marriage ceremony.
Rav Nota Greenblatt has told a number of people, and penned a letter to assert that, never did he independently investigate the facts relating to the husband's condition that were the premise for the mekach ta'us, nor was he ever informed that a Bais Din had been involved, a factor that he says might have precluded him from getting involved. Even the psychiatric report, so crucial to the basis of the heter, was not properly read by Rav Nota. All fact-finding in this case was supplied by Rav Sholom Kamenetzky, upon whom Rav Nota relied blindly.
Rabbi Mordechai Willig tried numerous times to reach Rav Sholom unsuccessfully. Rav Chanoch Saltz spoke to Rav Sholom, who told him that he refuses to discuss the case with anyone who has negius, only with someone like Rav Dovid Feinstein.
According to Rav Sholom's family, Rav Dovid told Rav Sholom that Rav Nota is a bar-samcha. However, this only helps if the question is halachic. Rav Nota, however, is claiming that the facts were never determined by him, but by Rav Sholom. What does it help that Rav Nota is a bar-samcha if he was not the one who determined the facts?
It is clear from Rav Sholom's letters to Rav Nota that:
1.      More than merely "sending the woman to Rav Nota", he actively pursued Rav Nota until he procured from him a heter in writing.
2.      He writes clearly that his father saw all that he had written as a basis for the heter, and "approved him to sign his name", which clearly gave the impression to Rav Nota and others that Hagaon Rav Shmuel was already mattir.
3.      Rav Nota in his first letter to Rav Sholom writes that he understood that Rav Sholom was relaying a message from Rav Shmuel to state his opinion on the matter. Rav Nota in his reply is clearly being "mitztareif" to other "baalei horaah" who are matter. This indicates that Rav Nota was under the impression that Rav Shmuel was mattir and was only approaching Rav Nota to be "mitztareif".  
The obvious conclusion from this should be that Rav Nota was mattir only based on the facts provided him by Rav Sholom, and only because he understood that Rav Shmuel was mattir.
Another important point: Rav Sholom wrote specifically to Rav Nota that "it has already been paskened that he must give a get", an extremely controversial assertation, considering that the Baltimore Bais Din, the only BD accepted by the parties, refused and still refuses to pasken such. Rav Sholom is referring to a psak written by the Agudas Harabbanim, at the request of Rav Shmuel, against all standard halacha, to write such a psak without having met the husband.

The question now is:
Rav Shmuel is either mattir or not. If he is matter, let him come out and say so, and let him explain what he meant when he insisted all along, and even put it in writing that he was never mattir[6]. If he is not mattir, then he should say that clearly too, so that Rav Nota can then decide if he wants to retract from his heter or not.
The same is for Rav Sholom. He should either:
(a)    deny Rav Nota's claims that Rav Sholom, and only Rav Sholom, determined the facts upon which the psak is based,
(b)    acknowledge that he determined them and accept responsibility for the psak,
(c)    shift the blame for the fact-finding on someone else whom he relied on.
But hiding is not going to work.
Rav Nota has been forthcoming; Rav Shmuel and Rav Sholom is hiding. Whom do we believe?
Whoever can must ask the Kamenetzkys and anyone else who has an influence over Tamar:
1.      Where is the maaseh bais din and gvias edus establishing that she is muteres?
2.      Who met the husband and established his mental condition?
3.      Who determined that this mental condition existed before the marriage?
4.      Why did tamar never mention Aaron's mental health disorders in Bais Din, or in court, when she could have challenged his custody rights based on mental illness?
5.      Where is the makom igun that warrants such an extreme and rare psak according to the Igros Moshe, when the sole bais din that was agreed upon by the parties never paskened that he is obligated to give a get?
6.      Was she savra v'kibla?
7.      Why did Rav Shmuel lead this poor woman to do such a foolish move which would predictably end in such controversy, making her problems even greater than before?
How can we remain silent, when the Torah is being undermined by those who are supposedly protecting her? Is the Torah any less an agunah than Tamar?


[1] See Mishlei 6:27-29
[2] Philly.com archives
[3] According to Rabbi Willig, the idea was the brainchild of her lawyer Goldfein.
[4] As he has insisted numerous times, and even wrote (see below).
[5] Heard from a Kamenetzky family member
[6] Bearing in mind that a talmid of Philadelphia who cheats on his Regents exam is expelled because a shakran is the worst.


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].

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
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-reuven-feinstein-proposes-takanah.html


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.  http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/03/aide-to-top-republican-refuses-to.html

 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.

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/baltimore-beis-din-apologizes-for-many.html

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).

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. [http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/10/tamar-epstein-is-rabbi-hersehl.html]

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 --  http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/12/tamar-epsteins-heter-money-can-metaher.html --- 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, [http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/baltimore-beis-din-apologizes-for-many.html] 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.