Friday, December 18, 2015

Is There Any Valid Reason For The Posek In Our Case To Rely Entirely On What He Was Told?


Guest Post by Ploni


I believe that there are several solid reasons why in our case there is absolutely no צד whatsoever to allow a Posek to rely on what he was told. My hope is that this comment will be מעורר Talmidei Chachomim to be מעיין בדין זה עד שיצא לאורה. At the end of the comment, please see several מקורות on which this comment is based

לפענ"ד the whole question of being able to rely on what a שואל relates to a Posek without fact checking would ע"פ דינא דשו"ע not apply here for several reasons:

1) The נידון here is at the very least one of דיני ממונות (assuming RMF's comparison to מקח טעות). The possible exclusion from due diligence is only by איסורים. This would mandate that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF.

2) The נידון here is a question of being פוגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו of AF. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים is only when nobody's כבוד is נפגם. This would also mandate that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF.

3) the נידון here is one of a דין מרומה - There were and remain now many "red flags" about the involvement of certain people, the fact that the diagnosis wasn't brought up earlier, contradictions to TE's testimony and diary notes, etc. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים like עגונה is only when there is no חשש דין מרומה. This also mandates that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF. Additionally, this would mandate דרישה וחקירה, and according to many (and perhaps most) Poskim "pleading the fifth" or saying "I don't know" (which is happening בנידון דידן) would of itself be a reason לבטל הדין.

4) Furthermore, if we take the stance of those Rabbonim who believe that the הפקעת קידושין is in error, but that AF nevertheless has a חיוב לגרש (like the YU Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivos and many in Silver Spring), there seems to be a fourth issue here: the נידון here is one of לאסור אשה לבעלה, since by virtue of this Psak TE is now אסורה לבעלה. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים is only where there is no question לאוסרה על בעלה, which according to most Poskim would require both בפני בעל דין and also דרישה וחקירה, as mention in paragraph. #3.

The aforementioned is לפענ"ד in large measure the result of a single but terrible mistake arising from a mistaken belief in the VALIDITY of psychological diagnosis.

Everyone here agrees that the linchpin of נידון דידן depends on a DSM diagnosis, and the defense of the מתירים is (as RNG said) the belief that the psychologist's report is exactly like any matter where medical professionals have נאמנות. Under this assumption, psychology is like other areas of medicine, where certain illnesses can be diagnosed without ever meeting the patient. Had this belief been correct, many of the aforementioned problems might possibly not have applied.


It has, however, become abundantly clear from the very most authoritative sources in psychology, including from the architect of the DSM themselves, that forensic evaluations are extremely subjective and therefore require a whole slew of safeguards in order to be acceptable. THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DISSENTERS TO THIS FACT IN THE UPPER ECHELONS OF THE FIELD , although clinicians vey often ignore it. See, for example the posts at: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/...
and 


Especially enlightening is the four published papers (links at the "secular evaluations post) regarding the six most important question in psychology, in which TWENTY FIVE of the top experts in the field participated, and not a single one attempted to equate psychology to objective medicine.

Therefore, ANY possible היתר to continue without קבלת עדות לפני הבעל דין and without דרישה וחקירה are extremely questionable, to say the least.
מקורות - כמובן רק מעט מזעיר ....
א) בדין קבלת עדות בדיני ממונות שלא בפני בע"ד, ע' חו"מ ס' כ"ח סט"ו, שאם קבלו אין דנים על פיו לדעת הב"י בשם רבי מנחם וכן הוא במהרש"ל, אמנם לדעת ר"י ומרדכי כשר בדיעבד. ולפי הכרעת המהרא"י דוקא בגבר אלם שא"א בענין אחר מקבלין, ופשוט שטעם זה אין שייך כאן בנד"ד. (וודאי יהי' כאלו שירצו לתרץ מטעם מש"כ ברמ"א שבקטטות ומריבות מותר כדי להשקיט המריבה, אבל כבר דן בזה המהרש"ל בנידון הדומה לשלנו שעושים ההיפוך ומרבים מחלוקות, ובין כך אין היתר לפגום בכבוד אדם משום זה כמבואר לקמן, ואכמ"ל).
ב) לענין פגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו ע' בשו"ת המהרש"ל סי"א בנידון הדומה הרבה לשלנו ר"ל שכ' המהרש"ל שגביית עדות לפסול איש מחזקת כשרותו ופוגם בכבודו וכבוד אבותיו .. פשיטא ופשיטא שאף בדיעבד אינו כשר והעדים והבית דין עברו משום לא תשא שמע שוא וכו

ע' מש"כ בשו"ת המהרש"ל סי"א במעשה שהי' שם הדומה קצת לנידון דידן שבי"ד גבו עדות שלא בפני בעל דין "להורידו מחזקת כשרות בעידי כיעור", וז"ל:
אבל גביית עדות לפסול איש מחזקת כשרותו לפגום בכבודו וכבוד אבותיו ... פשיטא ופשיטא שאף בדיעבד אינו כשר והעדים והבית דין עברו משום לא תשא שמע שוא וקרינן בי' לא תשיא וראוים להשליך לכלבים כדאיתא במסכת שבועות והסמ"ג הביאו (הגמ' בשבועות לא מנין לדיין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין (חבירו) קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר תרחק מנין לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר תרחק רב כהנא מתני {שמות כ-ז} מלא תשא לא תשיא): וראה נא ראה עד כמה חשו עמודי עולם על כגון דא

ג) לגבי דין מרומה ומקום שיש לחוש לערמה, הנה אפי' לענין להתיר עגונה מבואר באהע"ז סי"ז סכ"א ברמ"א בשם רי"ו שצריך דרישה וחקירה , ולענין דיני ממונות מבואר בחו"מ ס"ל ס"א וגם בס'' ט"ו ס"ג, ולאסור אשה על בעלה מבואר באהע"ז סי"א ס"ד.
ולגבי גדר דרישה וחקירה, עמש"כ ברמ"א סט"ו ס"ג בשם ריב"ש דאף דדין מרומה צריך דו"ח כדיני נפשות אינו ממש כדיני נפשות, שאם אמר אחד "איני יודע" מכ"מ אין הדין בטל , אבל בפתחי תשובה אהע"ז סק"צ הביא מהר"ב אשכנזי בשם כמה וכמה ראשונים, דהיינו רמב"ם, רמ"ה, ר"י, ור"ן שדין מרומה הוא ממש כדיני נפשות ואם אמר אחד איני יודע הדין בטל, ומצטט שם לדברי הש"ך בחו"מ ס' ל"ג סקט"ז שמסביר שהיות שכל הטעם שלא בעי דו"ח הוא מטעם כדי שלא תנעול דלת, ממילא במקום שיש חשש דין מרומה אוקמוה שוב אדאורייתא, וצריך עדות שיכול להזימו וממילא אם אמר איני יודע כל הדין בטל.
ובכלל יש לע' שאפי' בדיני ממונות הרי הטעם שביטלו חז"ל דין דרישה וחקירה רק כדי שלא תנעול דלת לפני לוים, וכ"כ הסמ"ע בס"ל סק"א זה דוקא בדיני ממונות השכיחים אבל לדון בחבלות דלא שכיחי ולית בהו חסרון כיס אפשר שצריך דו"ח, ובנידון דידן הוצאת הלעז דומה לחבלות שאין בהן חסרון כיס ואף שאיסורם גדול מאוד שמבואר חומרם בחו"מ ס"א ס"ו, סכ"ז ס"ב, ס' רכ"ח ס"א, ס' ת"כ סל"ח וסל"ט. ואם אמרו שצריך בהם דו"ח לדון בהוצאת שם רע כדי להוצאי ממון וודאי פשוט שכש"כ שמוטל על בי"ד גופא שכדי שיהיו מותרים הם גופא לבייש יהי' מקודם דו"ח. וחוץ מזה עמש"כ בח"ח הל' רכילות רפ"ט בבמ"ח שכמו שגרמא בניזקין אסור אע"ג דפטור מתשלומין, כן הוא בהוצאת שם רע, הרי היו צריכין ליזהר בזה הרבה.
ד) לאסור אשה לבעלה:, ע' בב"ש אהע"ז סי"א סקט"ז בשם מהרשל סי"א דלאסור אשת איש לכו"ע לא מהני עדות שלא בפני בעל דין אף בדיעבד, ובפ"ת שם כמה דעות דכדי להפריש מאיסור אפשר דמותר שלא בפני בע"ד משום דזכות הוא להפריש ישראל מאיסור, ונמצא לפי"ז בנד"ד שעשו גם בזה היפוך הדין, כי לאסור על בעלה הראשון לא נמצא היתר לקבל שלא בפניו כשאינו אלם וכו', משא"כ כדי לאסור על בעלה השני מותר לת' הרמ"א בשם מהר"ר הירץ מבריסק ולדעת המאירי.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Outrage over Tamar Epstein's Heter continues: Letter signed by Rav Chaim Konievsky and other gedolim against heter

;
Rav Chaim Kanievsky 
Rav Sariel Rosenberg 
Rav Yehuda Silman 
Rav Nissim Karelitz
Rav Chaim Wosner 
Rav Shmuel Eliezer Stern 
Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein







Received this from Machon Taam V'Daas

This has appeared in a large number of Hebrew publications (Including a second version of the letter that appeared earlier)

bhol       .ladaat.info/     kooker     kikar

היהדות החרדית בארה"ב ובעולם סוערת בתקופה האחרונה בעקבות 'היתר' שניתן לאשה בארה"ב להינשא לשוק בלא גט פיטורין כדין מבעלה הראשון, בטענה שהקידושין הראשונים התבטלו מדין 'מקח טעות'. תקופה קצרה לאחר נתינת ההיתר, רב סידר לה קידושין בארה"ב עם יהודי.

כזכור, גדולי הפוסקים וראשי הישיבות פרסמו מכתבי מחאה חריפים כנגד ההיתר, כאשר את המאבק מובילים מרן פוסק הדור הגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א, ואתו עמו הגאון הגדול רבי אהרן פלדמן שליט"א חבר מועצת גדולי התורה בארה"ב וראש ישיבת נר ישראל בבולטימור.

בחשיפה ראשונית, מתפרסם כעת מכתבם של מרנן ורבנן גדולי ישראל שליט"א - מרן הגר"ח קניבסקי שליט"א, ומרן הגר"נ קרליץ שליט"א, ומרנן הגאונים רבי יצחק זילברשטיין שליט"א, ורבי חיים מאיר וואזנר שליט"א , שהוסיפו את חתימתם על מכתבם של הרבנים הגאונים רבי שריאל רוזנברג שליט"א ורבי יהודה סילמן שליט"א, שכתבו דברים חריפים ביותר כנגד ה'היתר'. (המכתב מצורף).

במקביל, בארה"ב פורסם בימים האחרונים מכתבם החריף של גדולי הרבנים בארה"ב וקנדה, אשר כתבו בתוך דבריהם שעפ"י מקורות חז"ל יתכן ש'היתר' זה עומד בעוכרינו וגורם לסכנה גדולה מחרב בני ישמעאל המונף על בני ישראל - "כהיום יש סכנה לכלל ישראל מחרב בני ישמעאל, ויש שואלים על איזה חטא בא צרות כאלו, ולא נביא אנוכי ולא בן נביא, אנא מתניתא ידענא, חרב באה לעולם על המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה, ואין לך מורים בתורה שלא כהלכה יותר מזה שמתירים אשת איש לעלמא בלי שום גט"

על המכתב חתומים הגאון הגדול רבי שלמה מילר שליט"א ראש הכולל בטורונטו, הגאון הגדול רבי אלי' דב וואכטפוגל שליט"א ראש ישיבת זכרון מנחם סאוט פאלסבורג, והגאון הישיש משה גרין שליט"א ראש ישיבה דמאנסי.





Open Letter to Rav Nota Greenblatt: Why your comparison of Psychology to Medicine to justify not investigating the facts behind the heter - is a tragic mistake!

Dear Rav Nota Greenblatt,

You have acknowledged that you provided the heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without first receiving a Get from her first husband. You have also said that you have no knowledge of the facts but based yourself on therapists that Rav Kaminetsky said were experts and reliable. You stated that based on the facts that you were told – Tamar’s marriage to Aharon Friedman was a mistake and was null and void according to your understanding of the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein. The therapists claimed that Aharon was suffering from  severe mental health issues. In particular they stated that he is suffering from two major incurable personality disorders – either of which is so debilitating that no normal woman would want to marry him. It is claimed that Tamar stayed in the marriage with the hope that these conditions were curable. Finally it is claimed by the report that Tamar left the marriage when she was bluntly told that there was no cure for these disorders. There is apparently no one who disputes these statements.

However as Rav Aharon Feldman, Rav Shlomo Miller , Rav Landesman, the Baltimore Beis Din and others major rabbis have stated – the reports are in fact not trustworthy for several reasons. 1) only one of the therapists actually met with Aharon Friedman and he only said that Aharon was not going to change - not that he was severely mentally ill 2) the therapist who wrote the report received his information from Tamar who paid for his services and there was no input by Aharon or opportunity for Aharon to defend himself from the negative accusations 3) it is a well known fact that psychological reports are highly subjective 4) It is acknowledged by experts in psychology that the categories of the DSM diagnostic system include normal behavior as well as pathologies – and thus receiving a label of paranoid or OCD does not by itself mean that the conditions are outside of normal behavior. 5) Only one of the two therapists is frum and he did not speak with Aharon himself. Thus there is only one frum person claiming that Aharon has severe mental issues and he is testifying only from second hand information that he received from Aharon’s wife – hardly a reliable basis for establishing the truth. 6) Perhaps the biggest refutation of the reports claim that Aharon has severe incurable mental illness is that Tamar made no such claims against Aharon to either the Baltimore Beis Din or to the secular court. It is inconceivable that Tamar who is intelligent, sensitive and knowledgeable about modern psychology would not notice the claimed paranoid or obsessive compulsive behavior even after many months of marriage – until a psychologist informed her! Furthermore Tamar made no reference to the mental illness in her diary where she specifically discussed Aharon's good and bad points. Tamar’s most serious  claim was that Aharon was not sociable enough for her.

Given the above strong basis that the facts you were given a false  – it is a major puzzle why you don’t retract or even investigate whether the facts you used are true. You are quoted as justifying your inaction by saying that this is no different than a case in which a person comes and says a doctor told him that it is a danger for him to fast on Yom Kippur. You say – “Just as I am not qualified to investigate the medical condition of this person but I rely on expert testimony – so here I am not an expert in Psychology and relied on expert testimony that Aharon has 2 incurable mental health problem that prevent him from being a normal husband.” In addition you have said that even if 6 psychologists disagreed with the diagnosis – you would not retract the diagnosis because it has been established by two experts. You claim you are simply applying the halacha to the data given by experts – who would not lie because of the assumption that they would not do something to ruin their reputation.

Unfortunately your explanation is a severe misunderstanding of the nature of Psychology and the value of an expert's diagnosis - especially one made based on an opponent's statement. A better model for understanding what has happened here is the following: 

Tamar has been diagnosed with a potentially fatal heart disease. The doctor tells her that her heart will fail unless she stops indulging herself with a diet consisting mainly of pizza, coke, french fries, burgers and candy bars. Despite the warnings, she makes no effort to change her life style because her parents and friends say – as they always have - she is entitled to eat whatever she wants – and no one can tell her what to do.  

Consequently her heart is on the verge of failing and she is told the only way to save her life is to get a heart transplant. The problem is there are few  transplants available and because of her poor health she is on the bottom of the recipient list.

She goes to her rebbe Rav Shmuel with her problem and he tells her that he knows a heart surgeon who has exclusive access to hearts from men executed for crimes in China. He acknowledges that the morality and legality of the use of such hearts is questioned by many but says – “This is pikuach nefesh! You may surely rely on Rav Nota to save your life. While he doesn’t know anything about cardiology he is the world’s best surgeon and transplant man.” 

Rav Shmuel urges her to hire cardiologists to describe her heart condition as terminal and that there is absolutely no other solution than a heart transplant. She finds an expert who is willing to write a report totally based on what she tells him - because she told this expert that her previous doctor said she has very little time left and there is no more time for additional testing. 

She makes sure to leave out any information that indicates that life style changes would improve her condition and she distorts all test results to make her condition look as bad as possible. The cardiologist motivated not only by the fat fee he receives but the belief that he is saving her life - writes a detailed report that paints the darkest picture of her condition. He says there is no alternative to an immediate heart transplant and makes up a couple factors to make it even more powerfully urgent.

The next week Rav Nota transplants a heart from a recently executed human rights dissident. He relies on the reports of two doctors in China that the heart is healthy. With great satisfaction he observes Tamar miraculous recovery from heart failure. She is a new woman and she is very grateful to Rav Nota and to Rav Shmuel for suggesting his services. She returns to her life and her lifestyle with great happiness to be given a second chance.

But rumors start circulating on the Internet and even the mainstream media. There are apparently problems. Reports smuggled out of China indicate that the heart “donor” had a horrible disease. A disease that produces horrible disfigurement and muscle debilitation not only in the heart recipient but also in all her future children  - as well as ruining her husband's health. Various concerned doctors contact Rav Nota to inform him that there is a good chance that the heart is diseased and that it needs to be removed as soon as possible. Rav. Nota is well acquainted with the disease in question, and knows that its incidence in China is much higher than average. In spite of these dangers, he eschews all questions about whether this heart has been adequately confirmed to be free of the disease, and did the operation on the basis of the say so of people he doesn't know - but were described as experts.

Rav Nota replies to his callers, “I am not a cardiologist and I relied on the expert American doctors who wrote the report that she was sick and I relied on the expert Chinese doctors that certified that the heart was healthy. I don’t want Tamar to be upset by these reports. I am going to deny that there is any problem and tell her she shouldn’t worry about these rumors. Since I am relying on experts –  there is nothing to worry about! While these rumors might very well be true – but I will not consider the possibility unless the certifying doctors themselves say they were mistaken. My conscience is clear since I am simply following the rules and I have been guided by the experts  - as well as the beracha from Rav Shmuel himself. Stop bothering me and please don’t say anything to Tamar!”

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Tamar Epstein's heter: Rav Yechezkeil Roth posuls Rav Greenblatt as posek and Mesader Kiddushin and Gittin




מדור מגן וצנה Letters regarding Tamar Epstein's Heter




Banning a posek who errs and tells a married woman she can marry another man - Does it matter if the facts presented to the posek are not true?

There has been some claims that an established posek who errs and permits a woman to remarry when she is still married to her first husband - should be treated with respect and not be banned. Even if he is told by many respected rabbis that he has erred and yet he refuses to retract his heter or even consider that it might be wrong. One of the sources brought was a Birchei Yosef (Y.D. 243:4) which seems to support such a claim.

ברכי יוסף יורה דעה סימן רמג
ד. מי שהוחזק להוראה וטעה אפילו בדבר ערוה, לא זו שאין מנדין אותו אלא אין מורידין אותו מגדולתו ואין מכלימים אותו. הרב מהרש"ל בים של שלמה יבמות פי"ו סימן י"א.

However the Birchei Yosef is simply a summary of the Yam Shel Shlomo. In the original source it says if the posek made a mistake concerning a halacha that bedieved is mutar he should not be shamed or put in nidoi. Clearly if he made a mistake which is prohibited even bedieved - he can be banned and embarrassed - and surely if he refuses to retract or even reconsider the matter despite world wide outrage. 

The posek  Rav Greenblat says he gave the correct halacha to the case presented to him. The problem is that the facts presented were lies. In response to that claim Rav Greenblatt said he takes no responsibility for the facts - only the halacha. Since he wasn't concerned with the truth of the facts, his psak stands independent of reality!

According to his logic the solution to all the aguna issues is simply to lie to a posek and get a heter for remarriage! We can stop wasting time with beis din or be concerned with a careful investigation of the facts - just have people manufacture fairy tales and have a posek issue his ruling of the fairy tale- totally independent of whether the facts are true. Truly an outrageous enterprise.
=================================================================

Yam Shel Shlomo [1](Yevamos 15:11): A rabbi who is an established posek – even if he errs concerning prohibited sexual relationships such as permitting a wife to remarry if the husband disappears in a sea without visible end or similar issues which are valid only b’dieved – we do not put him in nido (ostracize) or shame him and he is still assumed to be a compentent posek.

Yevamos(121a):[[ Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end24 or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again];25 so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: [If he fell into] water that has [a visible] end,24 his wife is permitted [to marry again],26 but [if into water] that has no [visible] end27 his wife is forbidden [to marry again].28         What is to be understood by has [a visible] end? Abaye replied: [An area all the boundaries of which] a person standing [on the edge] is able to see in all directions.29

Yevamos(121a):[[ R. Ashi said: The ruling of the Rabbis [that where a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. applies only to an ordinary person but not to a learned man for, should he be rescued.39 the fact would become known.40 This, however, is not correct; for there is no difference between an ordinary man and a learned man. Ex post facto, the marriage41 is valid; ab initio, it is forbidden.

Yevamos(121b):[[         A man once went about saying, Who of the family of Hasa is here? Hasa is drowned! [On hearing this] R. Nahman exclaimed, By God, the fish must have eaten Hasa up! Relying on R. Nahman's exclamation, Hasa's wife went and married again, and no objection was raised against her action.61                 Said R. Ashi: From this62 it may be inferred that the ruling of the Rabbis63 that [if a man had fallen into] water which had no [visible] end, his wife is forbidden [to marry again] applies only ab initio, but if someone had already married her, she is not to be taken away from him.

Yevamos(121a):[[ Once a man was drowned in the swamp of Samki, and R. Shila permitted his wife to marry again. Said Rab to Samuel: Come, let us place him under the ban.30 Let us first, [the other replied,] send to [ask] him [for an explanation]. On their sending to him the enquiry: [If a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end. is his wife forbidden or permitted [to marry again]? he sent to them [in reply], His wife is forbidden And [they again enquired] is the swamp of Samki regarded as water that has [a visible] end or as water that has no [visible] end? It is, he sent them his reply, a water that has no [visible] end. Why then did the Master [they asked] act in such a manner?31 I was really mistaken, [he replied]; I was of the opinion that as the water was gathered and stationary it was to be regarded as "water which has [a visible] end", but the law is in fact not so; for owing to the prevailing waves it might well be assumed that the waves carried [the body] away.32 Samuel thereupon applied to Rab the Scriptural text, There shall no mischief befall the righteous,33 while Rab applied to Samuel the following text: But in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.34




Meiri[1](Yevamos 121a):[[


[1] מאירי (יבמות קכא.): זה שביארנו בטבע במים שאין להם סוף שאשתו אסורה דוקא שלא לינשא לכתחלה אבל אם נשאת לא תצא ואין גוערין בו כלל וכמו שאמרו למטה מאן איכא בי חסא טבע חסא ואינסיבא איתתיה ולא אמרו לה ולא מידי וכתבו גאוני ספרד דהוא הדין לכל שנפלו במקום סכנה העשוי למות שם אלא שאנו חוששין שיצא אבל חכם שהורה לינשא לכתחלה מנדין אותו
 


[1] ים של שלמה - יבמות (טז:יא): ... שהרב המוחזק להוראה, אפילו טעה בדבר איסור ערוה, כגון שאם התיר מים שאין להם סוף, או כל כיוצא בזה, שבדיעבד מותר, אין מנדין אותו, ולא מכלימין אותו, והרי הוא בחזקת כשרות:


Mendel Epstein sentenced to 10 years in jail for forcing men to give a Get

NJ.COM    A prominent Lakewood rabbi convicted of helping to arrange the kidnapping of Orthodox Jewish men who refused to grant their wives religious divorces was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Tuesday.

The sentence for Rabbi Mendel Epstein, 70, is less than what the federal government had requested for a man prosecutors said was the head of a well-organized operation that kidnapped and beat men. But it also was more than what his defense attorney argued was deserving of a man who devoted his life to good deeds and charitable acts.

The sentence was one, though, that U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson said was necessary to deter others in the Orthodox Jewish community from continuing what federal prosecutors called "paid vigilantism."

"No one is permitted to commit acts of violence against another," Wolfson said during the three-hour sentencing proceeding in Trenton. "It is not the law of our society and what we live under."

R Shmuel Kaminetsky to attend AJOP Convention in Baltimore January 24-26


Tuesday, December 15, 2015

R Shalom Kaminetsky rumored to be coming to Jerusalem soon for a student's chasuna

Just received a call that R Shalom Kaminetsky is coming to Jerusalem and that there is talk about demonstrations against him. Don't have any more information now - will post it as it comes in.

Mendel Epstein trial: Tamar's lawyer Ephraim Goldfein ordered to testify and it won't be held against him



Mendel Epstein Torture for Get ring: Martin Wolmark sentenced to 38 months in jail


An Orthodox rabbi was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison for his role in a ring of Jewish men who used brutal methods and tools, including handcuffs and electric cattle prods, to torture unwilling husbands into granting their wives religious divorces.

Martin Wolmark, 57, of Monsey, New York, had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit extortion. Ten men in all were convicted for their roles in the plot.

Rabbi Nota Greenblatt will be in Silver Spring today to do conversions

 Just received this email

Rabbi Greenblatt will be in Silver Spring today to officiate over conversions.  (Guess that Barry Freundel is not available today.)  The mikvah is at 8901 Georgia Avenue.  He will be leaving from BWI airport at 3:15.  I was told that there will be protestors at airport at that time and was asked to help publicize