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

Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss: Mill Basin beis din overrules Rav Moshe Feinstein, Gemora & Shulchan Aruch

One of the many problematic aspects of Rivky Stein's campaign against her husband is the "psak" she received from a beis din which calls itself the Mill Basin Beis Din. Despite the fact that nobody has come forth and said they know it exists and or even that they recognize its dayanim - there is a bigger problem. After sending Yoel Weiss requests to appear before them their "psak" claims he refused and therefore they heard one side - Rivky's - and on the basis of that "poskened" that Yoel was required to give a Get. If anyone one has sources that such a procedure is valid - please let me know.
=========================
Psak of Mill Basis Beit Din

Whereas the Beit Din, after three weeks since the respondent husband's refusal to appear for a Din Torah, sent the respondent as a courtesy a fourth Hazmanawhich provided him with a final opportunity to appear before the Beit Din at a convenient location situated in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and where the respondent husband was advised within the said Hazmana that should he again fail to appear that the Beit Din will proceed in his absentia; and Whereas the scheduled time set forth in the Hazmana passed, and the Dayyanim of the Beit Din after having allowed a sufficient grace period for the respondent husband to appear, and where the respondent husband again failed to appear before the Beit Din andlor request an adjoumed date; the Av Beit Din in the absence of the respondent husband called the Beit Din to order, and asked that the claims of the claimant wife be presented; and The Beit Din after hearing the claims of Rivka Stein, the claimant wife, and the Beit Din finding her claims credible, and there being no person appearing on behalf of the respondent husband to refute or contradict the claimant wife; the Beit Din rules as follows:

1. The respondent husband, Yoel Weiss is obligated (Chayiv)to issue immediately a Get to his wife, Rivka Stein, the claimant herein, with the entire cost of the Get process to be paid by the respondent husband, Yoel Weiss, and with the cost of said procedure set at no higher than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00); and

2. That Yoel Weiss, the respondent husband, within twenty-four hours after service of  this Beit Din Psakupon him by either personal service and/or via email, shall deposit with the Beit Din the sum of $1,000.00 for the Get cost in the form of a bank check [...]

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

While leafing through the Igros Moshe this morning I found a relevant teshuva.(C.M. 3:3)....Question: You ask regarding a psak which was given by a certain beis din regarding a dispute between two parties. After the psak was given, one of the disputants went to one or even before all three of the dayanim and claimed  that his opponent was not complying with the psak of the beis din. The judge or judges accepted this as true without even calling his opponent and asking him about it. Consequently they wrote a seruv against the one who they believed was not complying with their psak.

Answer: In response, it is obvious and self-understood that there is no justification or authority for the beis din to write a seruv under these circumstances. The halacha is explicity stated in Sanhedrin (7b) and explicitly paskened in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 17:5) [that a beis din can not pasken in a dispute without both parties being present]. Because this is blatantly obvious there is really no need to waste time in further discussion of this matter....

אגות משה (חושן משפט חלק ג סימון ג): - ברבר כתב סיריב שניתן במעמד צד אחר

בע"ה ר"ח כסלו תשמ"ג בנוא יארק,

למע"כ ידידי וחברי מחותני הרב הגאון מוהר"ר אהרן יפהן שליט"א, בברכת שלום וברכה וכל טוב סלה,

אחדשה"ט,

נצטערתי לשמוע על מחלתה של הרבנית שרה יפהן תחי' וכולנו מתפללים שהשי"ת ישלח לה רפואה שלמה, ונא להגיד להרבנית אודות דאגתינו ותפילתינו.

בקשר למה שכת"ר שאל אודות פסק דין שנתן איזה בית דין בדבר סכסוך שהיה בין שני צדדים, ואחר נתינת הפסק דין, הלך צד אחד לפני אחד או אפילו כל הדיינים, וטען שהצד שכנגדו לא ציית להפסק דין, והדיין או הדיינים קבלו טענתו בלי אפילו לקרוא להצד שכנגדו לשואלו אודות זה, ונתנו אז להצד שבא להתלונן, כתב סירוב כנגד הצד שכנגדו, הנה פשוט ומובן הוא שאין שום תוקף בדין לכתב סירוב כזה, דהדין מבואר בסנהדרין דף ז' ע"ב ומוזכר בשו"ע חו"מ סימן י"ז סעיף ה,' ומחמת פשטות הענין אין מה להאריך בענין זה,

ואסיים בתקוה שבזכות זהירות ושמירת כל מצוות ודיני התורה, נזכה כולבו בקרוב לקבל פני משיח צדקיבו,

בידידות והוקרה,

משה פיינשטיין

  
 Sanhedrin(7b): Again: Hear [the causes] between your brethren and judge righteously. This, said R. Hanina, is a warning to the court not to listen to the claims of a litigant in the absence of his opponent; and to the litigant not to explain his case to the judge before his adversary appears. Shamoa’ [hear], in the verse, can also be read, shammea’.   R. Kahana, however, says: We can derive this rule from the verse: Thou shalt not take up [tissa] a false report [referring to the judge], which may be read, tashshi.

Shulchan Aruch (Choshem Mishpat 17:5): It is prohibited for a judge to listen to the claims of one side of a dispute without his opponent being present. ...

See also Halachos of a summons from beis din

Weiss files motion to dismiss Rivky's remaining claims because they are lies

Uziel Frankel

Update - see Weiss supplement to motion to dismiss Feb 11 2015

At this point Rivky has failed to produce evidence for any of her claims against her husband or his family. Most of the claims have beenr rejected by the courts. It has clearly been shown that her beis din is not an actual beis din and the seruv and the psak that were issued are not authentic.

 This document asserts bluntly that her claims are lies and provides evidence to support this claim. Furthermore it alleges that Uziel Frankel is the mastermind behind Rivky's campaign against Yoel Weiss and his family. 

Rivky's Face Book Picture

It is now up to the judge to decide whether to throw out Rivky Stein's case and thus vindicate Yoel or to accept the possiblity that the charges are valid and proceed with a trial.

This is the 6 page filing. It does not include the supporting documents which will be published later.



==========update Feb 3 ==
SEE Rav Menashe Klein's teshuva  that states the majority of achronim(including the Maharsham and  Rav Moshe Feinstein] pasken that if the wife goes to secular court without the permission of beis din - the husband does not need to deposit a get with beis din - unless he wants a heter meah rabbonim [as stated by Rav Moshe Sternbuch]. She only receives the get when she renounces all rulings of the secular court

 Weiss filing 

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.