Tamar Epstein: R Sholom Kaminetsky repackaged this from a normal shalom bayis case into annulment

In order to fully appreciate the corruption of the halachic process involved in the Tamar Epstein case - it is important to understand that it started out as a normal shalom bayis case.

1) As noted before there is nothing in Tamar's diary description of Aharon that indicates any inherent mental health problem - and surely nothing serious enough to warrant annulling the marriage because nobody could stand living with him (Rav Moshe Feinstein's requirement).

2) In addition to Tamar we have the Baltimore Beis Din - the only beis din authorized to deal with the case - they also viewed it as a run of the mill "she wants out of the marriage case."

Beis din can categorize a case as being one of four levels of dysfunction  1) nothing serious but one party wants out and the other doesn't 2) One or both party is irritating or abusive to the other - but nothing that counselling and good will can't fix 3) One party has serious problems such as being physically abusive or suffers from mental health or physical issues which make the marriage very unpleasant. In such a case the beis din can order the husband to give a divorce. 4) the existence of a pre-existing condition that was not known to the spouse which makes marriage impossible for most people such as severe mental illness. It is not fixable and as soon as the spouse found out about it - left the marriage. This is the basis for annulment of the marriage because it was a mistake - according to the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein.

For 5 years Tamar Epstein demanded a Get to end her marriage to Aharon Friedman. She became the number 1 Agnua. She was featured in the media including the NY Times. She appeared with Rav Herschel Schecter in a video about the problems of Agunas. She was supported strongly by ORA with public demonstrations against Aharon and his family. A campaign was mounted to have Aharon fired from his job. And finally her lawyer admits transferring $60, 000 to Mendel Epstein to take care of Aharon. Subsequently Aharon was physically attacked by several men as he returned his daughter to Tamar's family home.

However during these many rallies, interviews etc - there was never any mention made that Aharon was deeply flawed mentally or physically. For 5 years there was no mention that this was an example of kiddushei ta'os (a mistaken marriage) and that therefore no Get was needed. Why did Tamar and her supporters waste all this time and energy - if they could have simply pulled the plug with an annulment?

It is important to remember that during all this time - Tamar was strongly supported by the Kaminetsky's. Her father was the yeshiva doctor and one of its strongest supporters. There was no effort that was spared to obtain a Get for her. This included letters from Reb Shmuel against Aharon demanding that he give a Get. This included support of ORA's demonstrations to force a Get - even though the only authorized beis din said a Get should not be forced or pressured. Rav Herschel Schacter even wrote a letter saying he bowed to the authority of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in Tamar's case. In short the Kaminetsky's marshaled all the forces in Heaven and Hell to obtain a Get. But there was one exception - there was never a mention of an annulment.

The following is a letter I received from a reliable source regarding the view of the Kaminetsky's for 5 years as they battled for a Get for Tamar.

Both parties agreed to have the Baltimore Beis Din adjudicate the case under binding arbitration.   The Baltimore Beis Din held three sessions on the case with the participation of both parties.  The Baltimore Beis Din refused to order that a get be given. 

Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky testified (by phone) at one of the sessions held by the Baltimore Beis Din.  He argued that the marriage was over and that the beis din should not try to encourage reconciliation because Tamar had no feelings towards Aharon to make the marriage work.  He argued that there were basic issues between them and that the two were incompatible.  Upon questioning, he acknowledged that he had previously told Aharon that he thought the marriage could and should be saved.  However, he said that after talking further to Tamar he believed the marriage couldn't be saved because she had no feelings for the marriage from her perspective. 

When the Beis Din asked whether the marriage could be saved if Tamar would try to make it work, he said he couldn't tell.

At no point did Rabbi Kamenetsky even make the claim that there was some underlying physical or mental issue regarding Aharon such that Aharon was not marriageable.

Suddenly after 5 years of battle, Tamar and the Kaminetsky's changed tactics and used those of Senator Aiken regarding the ending of the Vietnam War. When America was hopelessly mired in a losing war in Vietnam - one which they could not afford to lose but had no way of winning - Senator Aiken proposed that the US simply declare that it had won the war and withdraw its troops.

That the Kaminetsky's followed this approach can be seen when Tamar suddenly announced - after 5 years of a war of attrition against Aharon - that she was free of the marriage. That she didn't need a Get. The Kaminetskys not only approved of this approach they were the driving force behind it. They drew up a suggested psak and solicited poskim to agree - without actually investigating the case - that the marriage was annulled as a mistaken marriage.

Bereishis - פרו ורבו - Was Chizkiyahu Hamelech decreed to die

The Gemarah Berachos 10a relates to us a conversation between Chizkiyahu Hamelech, and Yeshayahu Hanavi. Chizkiyahu was deathly ill, and the Navi Yeshaya came to be Mevaker Choleh (pay a sick visit).

Both being great Torah giants, they have a disagreement. Did Chizkiyahu still had hope of a full recovery, and he should continue praying... or was it too late, and Chizkiyahu Hamelech was about to die regardless... 

Ultimately, Chizkiyahu prevails, and we now rule אפילו חרב חדה מונחת על צאורו של אדם אל ימנע עצמו מן הרחמים    Chizkiyahu davens, survives, and marries Yeshayah hanavis daughter......

But, asks the Turei Even,  in the course of the discussion, Yeshayah hanavi said, that it was "כבר נגזרה גזרה". We know from Rosh hashanah 18a, that once a decree is made on an indavidual person, its NOT rescinded...

 

 

youtube

Stop the Presses!: Direct confirmation of my conjectures regarding the heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get

While I have been very involved in reporting the Tamar Epstein case - the understanding of some of the critical issues concerning the heter of kiddushei ta'us have been based largely  on conjecture. This morning I received a letter from a well known posek who directly confirmed what I suspected. While the posek doesn't want to reveal his identity, I know him and accept fully the truth of what he says. I am also getting solid information from insiders - which I am in the process of checking out - which provides further confirmation and names names.

 As far as I have established - the Kaminetskys did not actually pasken - they are not poskim - but they are the sole source of information that poskim including Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for their psak. The poskim rubber stamped what the Kaminetskys proposed. The poskim did not independently investigate the matter. In short the Kaminetskys went poskim hopping - to find someone who agreed with them. They provided not only the information but the description of the exact heter - kiddushei ta'us - they wanted. They did not ask for the independent view of the posek or for the posek to conduct an independent investigation. If the posek rejected their proposal, they went elsewhere until they found what they were looking for.

It is clear that many rabbis are disgusted by the distortion of halacha in allowing Tamar to remarry without a Get  - but are afraid of severe consequences for their futures if they openly condemn what the Kaminetskys have done.

This is the letter exactly as the posek sent me - with full permission to publish it.

In the summer of 2013, I was approached by a renowned rabbi and shown copy of a "Heter Nisu'in" for Tamar Epstein. If my memory serves me right, it was written by a student in a Kollel in Philly, and approved by a Rabbi Kamenetsky.

The reason I was given the "Heter" was so I can review it, and if I approve it - then I should sign on it.

I read the Teshuvah/Heter (was surprisingly short), and the whole basis of the Heter was based on some "eidus" by a professional (maybe a therapist?), and "eidus" of certain individuals (not named in the Teshuva), that the husband was "not normal", and it was therefore a "Mekach To'us." The examples cited of his behavior were pretty bad on a Shalom Bayis scale (if true), but nothing remotely strong to constitute a "Mekach To'us" even according to the most Meikel opinions.

Although I am a big Meikel by nature, after I reviewed the Teshuva/Heter I said that there is no way I can approve such a lackluster Teshuva/Heter, until I speak to the doctor, psychologist, etc. to ascertain if there is any valid reason to consider such a Heter, but the reasons in the Teshuva/Heter are not valid.

After I reviewed it and voiced my opinion, I gave it back to the rabbi and I didn't keep a copy for myself, so I can't tell you with 100% certainty what the "eidus" was, especially two years later, but what's written above is my recollection.

Kiddushei Ta'us (annulment) Rav Moshe' Feinstein's view - by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

Getora

Rav Moshe Feinstein's Extraordinary Ruling

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, E.H. 1:79) disagrees will all of the aforementioned authorities and argues that if a woman discovers a severe defect in her husband, she does not require a get. Rav Moshe writes that one should make all efforts to obtain a get, but a lenient ruling may be given ifthese efforts fail. He reasons that some defects are so severe that, clearly, no woman would have married this man.7 For example, Rav Moshe takes issue with Rav Yitzchak Elchanan and argues that no woman would marry an impotent man. Thus, just as a man who mistakenly marries an ailonit does not require a get, so too a woman who marries an impotent man does not require a get. Rav Moshe takes this exceedingly bold argument8 one step further, asserting that even Rabbeinu Tam would not require a get for a woman to remarry upon discovering a severe preexisting defect in her husband. As we have mentioned above, Rabbeinu Tam rules demands a get to dissolve the marriage if a man discovers that his wife is an ailonit. Rav Moshe argues that only a man might agree to marry a woman with a severe defect, because his ability to give a get assures him a relatively easy halachic exit from the marriage. However, it is obvious to all, Rav Moshe claims, that no woman would marry a man with a severe defect. She would never risk being unable to tolerate the man's problem, Kidushei Taut because she knows that she has no simple halachic mechanism to escape from the marriage. 

Limitations on Rav Moshe's Ruling

Rav Moshe suggested applying this ruling in five actual cases. They involved an impotent man (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, E.H. 1:79), a man who concealed that he had been institutionalized prior to the marriage (E.H. 1:80), a man who concealed that he vehemently opposed having children and later forced his wife to abort a fetus (E.H. 4:13),9 a man who concealed that he was a practicing homosexual prior to the marriage (E.H. 4:113), and a man who concealed that he converted to another religion (E.H. 4:83). In the last case, however, Rav Moshe hesitated to permit the woman to remarry without a get, as she did not observe Torah law. It must be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that the woman never would have married such a man. However, since this woman did not practice Judaism seriously, Rav Moshe questioned whether we can assume that she would never marry an apostate. 

Similarly, Rav Yitzchak Herzog (Teshuvot Heichal Yizchak, E.H. 2:25) appears to fundamentally accept Rav Moshe's premise. Nonetheless, Rav Herzog did not permit a Sephardic sixteen-year-old girl to remarry without a get after she married a man in his forties whom she thought was significantly younger. Although the girl had been deceived, Rav Herzog explained that one could not state unequivocally that a sixteen-year-old girl in such a community would never marry a man in his forties.

Rav Moshe issued his ruling about an impotent husband in 1951 and his ruling about an institutionalized husband in 1955. The present availability of psychiatric drugs allows for treating many psychiatric illnesses and casts  doubt upon whether he would have ruled this way today. Similarly, impotence can be treated and cured in most cases today. It is thus unclear if a woman today would undoubtedly refuse to marry a man with either of these ailments. Even some homosexuals, with the help of psychotherapy, can lead a healthy married life.

Moreover, Rav Moshe did not rely on the woman's testimony alone to verify the husband's impotence and mental illness. Rather, the rabbis involved in the case examined the medical records of the husbands, and the doctors even testified that they unsuccessfully tried to cure one husband's impotence. In today's society, it is highly unlikely that such information would be forthcoming from medical officials.

Conclusion

It is extremely difficult to permit either partner in a marriage to remarry solely based upon kiddushei ta'ut. Every effort should be made to obtain a get even when major defects are discovered in either spouse. For a defect to be considered as grounds for kiddushei ta'ut, it must be clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that virtually no one would marry a person with the defect. Moreover, the defect must already be in existence  before the marriage

Chief Rabbi warns against Open Orthodox speakers at synagogues

Jewish Chronicle

Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has warned United Synagogue rabbis to avoid inviting “inappropriate” speakers in a confidential memo sent to them and the chairmen of their synagogues a few days ago.

He wrote that it had been prompted by a number of recent developments in communities which had cause him “great concern”.

He said that he had previously made rabbis aware of the importance of not offering a platform “to speakers who are inappropriate” at his rabbinical conference in July.

Synagogues should not host speakers who represent an outlook “which encourages practices which run contrary to our normative United Synagogue approach”. [...]

International Beis Din for Agunos: Rabbi Krauss' attempted rebutal of critics

I just received the following letter from Rabbi Gordimer

Yasher koach to Rabbi Student for his superb response to Rabbi Krauss' attempted rebuttal. The sheer emptiness of R Krauss' piece, in which he had every opportunity to defend his position but was totally silent on the material issues and instead resorted to insult and emotion, is the greatest indictment of the IBD's legitimacy:

http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/10/response-to-critique-of-ibd-psak-105/

Tamar Epstein: Predictions of Mark Oppenheimer of NYT from 2 years ago

Blog December 20, 2013   NO, TAMAR EPSTEIN DID NOT GET A GET

Is Tamar Epstein free?

The Modern Orthodox, agunah-minded, and Jewish/religious/feminist blogospheres (a small and particular world, admittedly) were abuzz yesterday with the news that Tamar Epstein, whom I in the Times dubbed the country’s most famous agunah, or chained wife (that is, her husband has withheld from her a religious divorce) is now “free.” This news appeared on her Facebook page and in a press release e-mailed widely by activist group ORA, the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot.

But several people with intimate knowledge of the situation have confirmed for me that Epstein did not in fact receive a get, the writ of religious divorce. One could infer this from the wording that she is now ”free,” with no mention of a get. Rather — and I am a bit fuzzier on the details here — it seems that a beit din, or religious court, has anulled her marriage, ruling that it was never valid.[...] It seems that Epstein has finally found some grounds to persuade a beit din to annul the marriage. What were the grounds? Nobody is talking. [...]

This declaration could prompt a real schism between some Orthodox and other, more right-leaning Orthodox Jews. If this case sets a precedent, rabbinic courts may begin “freeing” more women, who go on to re-marry, while their husbands are convinced the old marriage is still in effect. Then, the children produced by the new marriages will be considered mamserim, or bastards — a huge stigma in Judaism. The children will be shunned, the mothers will be shunned, and the rabbis who performed the women’s second marriages will be written out of some precincts of Orthodoxy.

To which those women, and their rabbis, and their male and female supporters, could say: “Who cares?” And if they have a critical mass of support, it is they, not their ex-husbands and their supporters, who will be marginalized. I once asked a prominent Orthodox rabbi how many rabbis it would take to support new, more liberal measures to free agunot. “90 percent,” he answered. “If 90 percent of Orthodox rabbis were with us, the other 10 percent could scream ‘Mamersim!’ all they wanted, but they’d fall in line.”

Riverdale Synagogue Appoints Second Woman As Rabba

Jewish Week   Move at HIR seems to renege on Rabbi Avi Weiss’ promise; drives further wedge between centrist and ‘open’ Orthodoxy

While Rabba Sara Hurwitz of Riverdale’s Hebrew Institute (HIR) made headlines in 2010 as America’s first Orthodox “Rabba,” the negotiated title for female rabbi, she now has company.
In its newsletter last week, the 600-family Orthodox congregation in the Bronx welcomed the newly appointed Rabba Dr. Anat Sharbat, the second woman to assume the role in the congregation. In her part-time capacity, Rabba Sharbat, who holds a doctorate in Talmud from Bar-Ilan University, will be assuming all pastoral responsibilities, including counseling, lecturing, and presiding at lifecycle events. She could not be reached for comment.

Though the appointment met with a unanimous vote of approval from the synagogue’s board of trustees (with three abstentions), the move seems to renege on a prior agreement made between Rabbi Avi Weiss, rabbi emeritus of HIR, and the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the largest coalition of Orthodox rabbis, that Rabba Hurwitz would be the one and only “rabba.” Subsequently the term “maharat” was used, a Hebrew acronym for “leader of Jewish law, spirituality and Torah.”

In 2010, Rabbi Weiss, then a member of the RCA, backtracked from his near-ordination of female rabbis under extreme pressure from the Orthodox right, agreeing instead to the rabba designation. At the time, the RCA expressed satisfaction at the controversy’s resolution and support for “appropriate” leadership roles for women. [...]

Refuah Shleima needed for Rav Nota Greenblatt

This sign has been hanging in Lakewood Yeshiva for several day - and was posted on R Yudel Shain's blog R Yudel Shain's blog.

Does anyone know why it is not being publicized elsewhere?

Austria's obscene brand of justice: Holocaust historians condemn Austria jailing of Jewish writer

BBC    Holocaust historians have hit out at the Austrian government after a Jewish writer, who catalogued the state's failure to return properties seized by the Nazis, was jailed in Vienna.

Stephan Templ, 54, has begun a one-year sentence for defrauding the state.

He was convicted in 2013 after omitting the name of an estranged aunt in an application on behalf of his mother for the return of property seized in 1938.

But legal experts said it was not his responsibility to find other heirs.

The lengthy case has drawn widespread condemnation amid allegations Austria has not done enough to return property looted under the Third Reich.

Historian Efraim Zuroff, renowned for his efforts at bringing Nazi war criminals to court, told the BBC on Tuesday the jailing of Templ was "absolutely outrageous".

Meanwhile, Templ's lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, described it as "outright injustice".

Vienna prosecutors have not commented on the case. [...]

Meanwhile Efraim Zuroff, one of 75 Holocaust historians who signed a letter urging the government to cancel the sentence, criticised Austria's handling of cases relating to the Third Reich - including the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. 

"This a country that has a really very twisted way of dealing with Holocaust related issues," he said.

Tamar Epstein: Conjecture on how Rabbi Greenblatt decided that Aharon Friedman was not fit to be a husband?

Tamar Epstein has gotten remarried without a Get - the question is how? I would like to offer some conjecture on the matter since Rabbi Greenblatt has refused to explain the matter -  as has Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky and Rabbi Shalom Kaminetsky. I repeat that this is conjecture - and I welcome evidence that either supports or refutes it.

It is clearly on the basis of unknown rabbis paskening  - kiddushei ta'us - that her marriage to Aharon Friedman was viewed by them as a mistake and thus had no validity and she was therefore not an eishis ish. The question is on what basis did they determine this. The gemora does not provide such a solution nor does Shulchan Aruch. 

In recent years some rabbis have claimed to rely on the psak of Rav Moshe Feinstein to declare marriages to be non-existent. The most notorious of these rabbis was Rabbi Rackman - whose beis din and heterim were widely despised and discredited. As Rabbi Bleich wrote in his critique, according to Rabbi Rackman the mere fact that a husband refused to give a get was a sign that he was a cruel person and if the wife had known he was so cruel she would never have married him. Thus the marriage is a mistake. Thus any marriage where the husband refuses to give a Get is considered a mistake and there is no need for a get!

In general Reb Moshe requires the establishment of 3 factors. 1) The husband has a serious condition that preexisted the marriage that the wife did not know about- such as homosexuality or schizophrenia. 2) The condition has to be so severe that most women would not be able to deal with it 3) As soon as the wife discovered this condition she left her husband. 

Obvious number 3 is the most easy to establish. Did Tamar Epstein leave her husband upon finding that he had an impossible condition? For the sake of argument let us assume that at some point a rabbi or psychologist or friend or family member told her that he was never going to be capable of being the person she wanted. Upon hearing this she left him. That should be sufficient to fulfill this condition. She clearly did leave him - though it has not been established that that was the motivating factor. But let's assume it was fulfilled.

The difficult problem is establishing condition 1 and 2. We do have a list from Tamar about the good and bad points that she saw in her husband [Tamar's diary entry]. None of them fit the description of an impossible condition - not even the claim that her parents didn't like him. At most they can be described as disappointment that while he was a good man he was not as good as she had hoped and that she thought she could do better. Clearly implying that if she didn't think she had a choice she could have learned to live with him - and been happy. She obviously was getting feedback from her parents and others that she was still young and she could find someone better to spend the rest of her life with.

It thus seems clear that awareness of this impossible condition did not come spontaneously from Tamar - but it is something that an outside source must have told her. Otherwise she would have left him sooner. I was told by Aharon that he and his wife went to two different therapists. Were they the cause? One clearly stated that he thought the marriage could be saved. Perhaps the second therapist thought it couldn't.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the second therapist told Tamar that he thought that Aharon had a personality disorder or mental health issue that he didn't think was amenable to change or that the change would not be great enough to make him the man she wanted. Is that enough? The answer is clearly no unless it was very severe - such as bipolar or schizophrenia - that was not amenable to psychotherapy or drugs. It is important to note that Tamar never mentioned such psychopathology in her complaints about Aharon. It was primarily that he was shy and introverted.  Thus if he in fact had such a severe diagnosis - it was not likely that it prexisted the marriage and not likely that it preexisted the visit to this therapist.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that one therapist did in fact tell Tamar privately that he thought Aharon was suffering from an incurable and unpleasant mental health condition. Is that enough according to Reb Moshe Feinstein to declare the marriage a mistake? The answer is no - because there are many married couples in which one of the spouses has such a diagnosis - and they remain married. It has to be determined that most women would not be able to put up with such a condition - and from Tamar's own description of Aharon - that is clearly not true.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that she did accept the diagnosis of the therapist and changed her perception of her husband and that henceforth she decided she could not live with him and in fact left. Is that enough to invalidate the marriage? The answer again is no. She would need to convince a beis din that in fact that is why she left and they would have to agree with her.

It is clear from the Baltimore Beis Din - which is the only beis din to be authorized to deal with the case - that Aharaon manifested no such condition in their extensive and intensive dealings with him and his wife. So such a psak obviously did not come from them. 

So who issued such a psak. It clearly wasn't Rabbi Greenblatt who never spoke with Aharon because he says he relied on gedolim that Tamar was not married. So who is the source for paskening that Aharon was not marriageable? It most have been Rabbi Shmuel and Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky. But considering their considerable bias (because her father was a major supporter of the yeshiva as well as its doctor) in favor of Tamar getting a divorce - it would be rather unethical - though not against halacha - for them to issue such a statement.

It is reasonable that they tried being fair and consulted with therapists regarding the matter. But such therapists never spoke with Aharon and needed to rely entirely on the views of Tamar and the one therapist who had dealt with Aharon as well as the Kaminetskys. It is highly likely that such therapists were close with the Philly Yeshiva and wanted to please the Kaminetsky's. It is also quite possible that the therapists were friends of the Epstein family. 

Thus it is highly unlikely that that an unbiased professional with full knowledge of the the situation actually declared Aharon to be unmarriageable and that such a condition preexisted his marriage to Tamar. Without an unbiased authority - such an opinion in worthless. Finding a single therapist or therapists to make such a ruling is also worthless unless it can be established that most therapists would agree - something which is highly unlikely. In addition having spent significant time talking with Aharon as well as having many email exchanges - I as a psychologist do not see any evidence of a mental health problem that would preclude being a good husband.

To summarize. My conjecture - and that is all it is at this point - is that  Rabbi Greenblatt decided that Tamar could remarry based on  the psak of the Kaminetskys which was serverely biased because they were looking for a way to free Tamar from marriage. They have functioned from the beginning as her advocates and thus should not also serve as poskim. The psak was clearly not an objective evaluation of the full range of opinions of professionals in this matter but was a target drawn around the arrow after it had been shot. It is also not clear that whatever the blemish that they claim Aharon suffers from - is something that most women could not live with. It is also clear that Tamar would have been able to live with it - if her parents and friends had encouraged her to stay in the marriage - rather than to try for something better. In short - Tamar has no valid basis for viewing her marriage to Aharon as a mistake - and she is committing adultery in her second marriage.