Thursday, January 23, 2020

Righteous Outrage Goes International:

BS"D

Righteous Outrage Goes International:

Jewish Outrage Over the Israeli Drafting of Girls Overflows Onto the International Stage


26 Teves, 5780 °° Jan. 23, '20


By Binyomin Feinberg,

FeinbergBinyomin@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~

To check for updates, on first view of this article, as well as throughout the week,  please visit https://saveHischildren.blogspot.com -


or/and see updates for month of Teves '80:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LDLjvECWQExYoGjqIrbZtWALp6MpkHq22ihNz2BLuYM/edit?usp=sharing

~~~~~~~~~

This morning we reported on today's international Israeli summit against antisemitism held in Jerusalem (see
"Never Again??" at: http://firstamendmentactivist.blogspot.com/2020/01/never-again.html ).

We've since received reports of the demonstration held there by concerned Orthodox Jews against the Israeli government, over their drafting of girls into the notoriously exploitive and immoral Army, and over the often brutal religious-persecution of religious objectors, particularly the girls currently languishing in Military Prisons Four and Six.

Well over a dozen protesters demonstrated at a location about a five-minute walk away from where world leaders were being hosted in Jerusalem, to address increasing antisemitism, on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.  Demonstrators prepared multiple "provocative" signs, e.g. protesting antireligious Army racism against Jews of color, and imploring President Putin to seek the freedom of an incarcerated victim of IDF antireligious persecution (Lital bas Miriam). 

Nevertheless, B"H, the protest remained peaceful, because, in full view of international media, the police employed noteworthy restraint this time, allowing free expression of dissent without stealing signs, or targeting demonstrators for "disciplinary" beatings and incarceration. 

Protesters held signs protesting the decades-old Israeli policy of forcing girls into the promiscuous military environment from about 4pm to 7:30 or 8pm, and reported a vibrant media presence (including YNet). One poster identified the co-ed Army as "The Largest Open Human Trafficking Network in the Mideast."


It was a wonderful Kiddush HaShem to see that Jews truly care. It's tragic that the Israeli government requires concerned Jews to appeal to the broader international community in order to save our sisters from religious persecution - by other Jews.

Context of the Rav Soloveitchik Transcription

https://www.jewishlinknj.com/letters/30336-context-of-the-rav-soloveitchik-transcription


This article is a powerful essay based on a speech delivered to the rabbinic alumni of Yeshiva University in 1975. But because you did not provide the context and purpose of that speech, the general reader may have been confused by the impassioned uncompromising tone of the piece.
This talk was delivered by the Rav as a response to proposals by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman to resolve the problems faced by women whose husbands refused to grant them a Jewish divorce. Rabbi Rackman was also in line at that time as a top candidate to become president of Yeshiva University.
Rav Soloveitchik’s strident remarks in the piece that you published characterized (without spelling this out) that the innovations that Rabbi Rackman wanted to make in divorce law were (1) heretical and (2) liable to “destroy yahadus (Judaism)” and (3) “methods of self-destruction and suicide.” Harsh words indeed.

 

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Rav Dovid Feinstein says it is worthless

Matzav  just published the following letter from R Sholom Kamenetsky acknowledging and accepting that Rav Dovid Feinstein's beis din had declared the heter totally worthless. He also indicated that his father has already stated that he would accept the ruling of Rav Dovid Feinstein.

Unfortunately I have not seen the psak itself. It had been expected that Rav Dovid Feinstein would reject the heter - after all it was obvious that it was a sad joke. The question remains did Rav Dovid Feinstein criticize those who had said the heter was valid? In addition will Rav Nota Greenblatt accept the psak? 

Without the criticism of those who produced the heter and without the retraction of Rav Greenblatt - the heter now becomes simply a dispute between poskim and Tamar obviously will chose Rav Greenblatt. 

Of greater importance, without the criticism of those who produced the heter  and its retraction - the heter will remain a viable option for all those who want a quick and simple end to a marriage without having to worry about the Get process. All they need is to pay a therapist to declare their husband to have an incurable personality problem i.e., to certify they don't like them and that they can do better with another husband. The therapist doesn't have to even waste his time talking to the husband - he will simply accept what the wife tells him.


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

 update: added transcript of Rav Greenblatt's psak

I received the letters of R Shalom Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt with permission to publish them. They are not the sharpest copies but ocr doesn't work.  There apparently are a number of different versions. Will publish the variations as I receive them.

I just received a set of letters from a different source today with full unconditional permission to publish them -  so I will be publishing them without the disclaimer required from the first person. The first person also said he could not send the letters from Rav Greenblatt while the second person could.

 It is clear from these letters that R Shalom Kaminetsky was shopping for a heter of mekach ta'os as requested by Tamar Epstein. It is also clear that Rav Greenblatt accepted without question what he was told were the facts of the case and he agreed to give a heter of mekach ta'os. There were no conditions - despite what Rav Greenblatt wrote last week in the letter I published (It is the last letter in this posting).

This letter of R Shalom Kaminetsky also makes an anonymous claim that Aharon was not only mentally ill but had threatened a girl that he had been engaged to before Tamar. Anyone who knows Aharon will realize the claim is a lie. He is not violent nor has he been violent. In all the years this divorce has been in beis din and courts and the public media - there has never been a claim that he is violent. They should have added that he steals candy from babies and throws old ladies down the steps for entertainment. The level that the Kaminetsky's and Tamar's allies stooped is really sickening.

Letters  of Rav Shalom Kaminetsky claiming Aharon is incurablely severely mentally ill and asking for a heter of mekach ta'os




Letters of Rav Nota Greenblatt accepting as fact what Rav Shalom Kaminetsky said and giving a heter for Tamar to remarry without a Get


Transcript of Rav Greenblatt's letter above
  
כ"ו תמוז תשע"ג



לכבוד הרב הגאון מגדולי מרביצי תורה מוהר"ר שלום קמנצקי שליט"א



ע"ד העגונה מרת תמר אסתר שתחי' שיושבת כן כה' שנים אחר שהרופאים החליטו שאין תרופה למחלת רוח של בעלה ומיד התחילה לעזבו ולעבור לבית אמה והבעל מסרב לתת לה גט עד עתה וכבוד אבי כת"ר הגאון שליט"א רוצה לדעת חות דעתי אם אפשר להתירה לינשא בלא גט משום דבודאי לא היתה מרוצה להתקדש לו אילו ידעה מזה.
הננני מסכים מצטרף להצטרף לעוד רבנים בעלי הוראה שיתירה. הרי רוב בעלי הוראה שבדורות האחרונים, שנשאו את אחריות ההוראה על שכמם, נזקקו לסברא של מקח טעות בכגון זה, וכמו שכת' כת"ר מכמה ספרי שו"ת כי קידושין כמו בכל קנינים בעינן דעת מקנה. האחד מגאוני ההוראה והוא מרן הגרי"א הנקין זצ"ל לא נזקק לביטול קידושין בשום מקרה וז"ל בספרו (פירושי איבר"א ס"א אות מ"ז) שהכל נכנסין לספק ונו' אפילו היה מבורר המום והצד השני לא ידע ממנו, וכתב עוד (וכן בעוד מקומות) צא ובדוק בש"ס רמב"ם וטוש"ע ולא תמצא בשום מקום למעשה ביטול קדושין משום מומין אפילו להצטרף לספק אחר יעו"ש, והנה חוץ מזה שלא מצינו אין ראי' שאין הדין כן, נ"ל שיש טעם לזה והוא דבזמנם כמעט לא היתה מציאות שכזו דהיינו למצוא מום אחר הנשואין שלא היה נראה מקודם שיוכל לבטל את הקידושין (אשר לאין לו גבורת אנשים ... הרבה פעמים מתרפא אחר זמן ואופן שלא שייך להתרפאות לא שכיח' ושלא כבזמננו וענינינו מחלות רוח שהרופאים מרפאים לכמה ויודעים למיני מחלות שאין להן תרופה כזו של הבעל - הנידון. חרי לא שייך שתדור עם נחש שמצער לה הרבה ובודאי לא חיתה נישאת לכזה.
והנה בחיי הגר"מ זצ"ל אירע כאן בעירי שאחד נשא אשה ושנה שנתים אח"כ חלתה האשה במחלת לב אנושה והבעל ברח ממנה, שהרופאים אמרו שהמחלה הזו היתה לה כבר כמה שנים אעפ"י שהיתה נראית בריאה ולא תוכל לחיות רק בניתוח מסוכן מאד מאד. בעזה"ש אחר הניתוח הוטב לה וחיתה כמה שנים. ומרן זצ"ל אמר לי שיש לדון משום מקח טעות דאין אדם שיתחתן למסוכנת שכזו, (אבל היו לו עוד צירופי היתר) ומקרה זה כגון בדידן לא שייך שיקרה בימים הקדמונים.

ה' יהיה בעזרה, שלא תשב בדד ושיהיה לח נחת רוח מבתה שתחי'.

והנני בזה דו"ש וכ"ת

נטע צבי גרינבלט

 



Letter from Rav Nota Greenblatt claiming the heter was only  theoretical and conditional
See post with translation and discussion of this letter

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

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

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

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

Rav Shmuel Feurst revealed as signer on heter

How Tamar destroyed her marriage with the assistance of the Kaminetskys

Wohlmark gang false seruv and Epstein lawyer Goldfein

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

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

Who should be honored with Sandek for the mamzer?


==============================================
Tamar's diary clearly showing Aharon has no mental illness

Tamar's own words refute psychiatric claims of mental illness

psychologist says the psychiatrist report used is invalid

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

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

Pamphlet with most of the protest letters

Rav Gestetner English translation

Baltimore Beis Din first letter with Israeli gedolim agreement

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

Baltimore Beis Din revised letter Nov 2015

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

Rav Aharon Feldman      English translation of Rav Feldman's letter

Rav Aharon Feldman Only talmidei chachomim can decide this issue

Letter to Rav Aharon Feldman

Rav Malinowitz criticzing Rav Feldman for indicating this a macholes haposkim

Rav Landesman

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

Rav Shmuel Auerbach

Rav A C Sherman

Rav Avraham Yehoshua Solveitchik can not learn by Rav Kaminetsky

Open letter to the Moetzes of the Aguda

Washington area rabbis shun Aharon Friedman with feminist justification

Rav Herschel Schacter recording - heter no good

Rav Sternbuch letter November

Rav Sternbuch parasha sheet

Rav Sternbuch letter

Rav Sternbuch criticized by R Brodsky for calling for protests

Assertion that layman can't criticize crimes of rabbis

Rav Pinchus Rabinowitz

Hisachdus HaRabbonim of USA and Canada

Hisachdus letter posuling Rav Greenblatt

Rav Shlomo Miller Rav Wachtfoget et al

Refutation of support of heter from Yevamos

Rav Chaim Kanievsky and other Israeli gedolim

Eidah Chareidis

Rav Rominek's teshuva

Rav Feivel Cohen and Rav Shlomo Miller

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

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

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

Hisachdus letter posuling Rav Greenblatt

Rav Avraham Yehoshua Solveitchik can not learn by Rav Kaminetsky


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Why the psychiatric report is irrelevant can not be used to justify the heter

Just received the following email
 ==================================
Regarding:



I think someone has to get the following information to Rabbi Feinstein: even if a psychiatrist diagnosed Aharon as mentally ill (and even if this is retroactive), there still can be no heter.

I believe I wrote this to you in the past: According to her own version of the story, Tamar Epstein discovered her husband's issue and decided that getting married was a mistake two weeks after the wedding.



See from 37:44 of the video.

She became pregnant with their daughter a few months later.

Under these circumstances, Rabbi Feinstein's father would never have granted a heter, even if a psychiatrist had diagnosed a disorder in the husband.

Baltimore Beis Din: Tamar Epstein is still married to Aharon Friedman and is forbidden to remarry without first receiving a Get


update: Just added a letter written November 3 by the Baltimore Beis Din which addresses many of the short comings in the original letter which was written in July
============================================

update: I had removed this post a week ago at the direct request of Rav Mordechei Shuchatowitz of the Baltimore Beis Din. See Removal of post of Baltimore Beis Din

I did this for the sake of shalom bayis. That is to avoid side disagreements that would distract from dealing properly with the main issue of the phony heter. However it has become clear that whatever benefit for shalom bayis might have resulted from its removal - it is outweighed by the loss of critical information that is needed in the resolution of this crisis.

As this crisis winds down to the "end game" - it has become clear that various individuals feel a need to present the facts in a new more flattering way which smooths over certain difficulties.

Therefore aside from the need to accurately present the facts as to what has happened and why it has happened for the sake of Truth - it is needed to present the facts in order to know what to do to rectify the problem. Furthermore as Santayana wrote (in The Life of Reason, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” or as eloquently and wisely expressed by Winston Churchill
“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
—House of Commons, 2 May 1935, after the Stresa Conference, in which Britain, France and Italy agreed—futilely—to maintain the independence of Austria. (My book* page 490).

Letter written November 3, 2015





------------------------------------
The following letter written in Tammuz from the Baltimore Beis Din was posted on Otzar Forums. 

After reading all the other letters against the heter of mekach ta'os - this one is clearly not a protest against a heter. In fact it doesn't acknowledge that there was a heter or a remarriage. It simply says the Baltimore Beis Din knows nothing about a divorce  either that they were involved in or that others did. Consequently according to their level of knowlege Tamar Epstein is still married to Aharon Friedman. It is a letter which shows extreme reluctance (timidity? or cowardice?) to even acknowledge that something has happened and therefore it refuses to criticize directly or indirectly Rabbi Greenblatt, the Kaminetskys and Tamar Epstein



Because the description  of events in the Beis Din's letter is truncated and missing critical information - a detailed description of events is available here  in this revised Procedural Summary.




 It is important to know why Aharon Friedman is named as the plaintiff in the civil courts. it was not because of his desire to have the case handled by the secular courts [contrary to the assertions of the Beis Din's letter] but was the result of a psak he received from Rabbi Breitowitz that he needed to take action quickly in the secular courts to avoid losing his daughter. As the Summary clearly shows - he actually cancelled a trial in civil court in October 2008 in order to bring the case to beis din. He also ultimately agreed to entirely cancel the secular lawsuit when the beis din later ordered him to do that - but Tamar refused. In fact a major posek who has been deeply involved in this case stated recently that Aharon showed too much deference to the beis din and rabbinical adivisors and that he should have gone to the police when Tamar abducted their daughter and moved to Philadelphia in April 2008 and should not have canceled the October 2008 trial to being the case to Beis Din - for the reason that Tamar had established facts on the ground by relocating the child out-of-State that would effectively pre-determine the outcome of any court case (if postponed any further), and beis din, even with a binding arbitration agreement would have no legal ability to change that.
As both Rabbi Landesman's letter to Rabbi Feldman, and the letter from the Rabbi Rabinowitz's Beis Din Ezer Mishpat make clear, Tamar violated the Beis Din's  orders and brought the case to trial in civil court. Tamar's actions in this regard also violated the parties' mediation agreement (pursuant to which Aharon agreed to dismiss a pendete lite trial in October 2008), and violated the shtar beirurin [binding arbitration agreement] signed before the Beis Din, both of which bound the parties to have the case decided by the Baltimore BD.
It is true that Aharon participated in the civil court trial.  But once Tamar refused the Beis Din's orders and insisted on taking the case to trial in civil court, Aharon had no choice but to participate in that trial -- and even the Beis Din did not ask Aharon not to.  Although courts must generally respect binding arbitration agreements regarding other matters, if one party to a binding arbitration agreement regarding custody insists on the court deciding the case, the court may not defer to the arbitrator and must decide the case from scratch under the doctrine of parens patriae. 
This is the rule in Maryland under a case called Kovacs, which specifically ruled that the Maryland courts may not enforce a binding arbitration agreement before the Baltimore BD with regard to child custody where one party objected.
===============================================================
The Baltimore Beis Din is still the only beis din that has been authorized by both sides to deal with the issues. And they state they are willing to continue.

It simply affirms that Tamar Epstein still retains the status of being the wife of Aharon Friedman and can not remarry with first receiving a Get.

Since the copy is not very clear I retyped it, in what I hope is the correct text. Any corrections will be appreciated. It is signed by the dayan hak'vuah Rav Mordechai Shuchatowitz, Rav Moshe Heinemann and Rav Yaakov Hopfer. Rav Aharon Feldman added a note that Tamar Epstein is clearly still married to Aharon Friedman and signed as well.

Letter written July 2015


THE BALTIMORE BAIS DIN -       בית דין קבוע מטעם ועד הרבנים דבאלטימאר 



בס"ד                                                                                                                                             
נשאלנו בעת על דעת הבית דין אודות המעמדה בהלכה של מרת תמר (עפשטין) פרידמן שתחי', אשתו שלר' אהרן פרידמן שיחי', והנה זה כבר כמה שנים מאז באו הצדדים הנ"ל לפנינו בשנת תשס"ט וחתמו על שטר הבוררים שלנו לדון בעניני נישואיהם וגירושיהם כולל החזקת הבת שלהם וביקוריה והמסתעף,וטענו דבריהם בשלשה מושבי הב"ד במשך שלשה חדשים, והורינו אז להם שלדאבוננו אין עוד תקוה עלשלום בית ומוכרחים הם להתגרש לאחר שיסתדרו עניניהם ובפרט הענינים המתייחסים אל בתם,והשתדלו אז לסדר ענינים אלו אצל יועץ ומתווך מסוים, ושוב פנו אל הערכאות שלא ברשות בית דין ועלאף שהתרינו בהם שצעדם זה הוא שלא ושלא כדין, ולאחר שיצא משפטם שמה הודיענו להם שאף שלא יזדקקו הב"ד לדון שוב בדיונים שקבלו עליהם הכרעת בית המשפט, תיק הב"ד עדיין פתוח לדון עלמה שלא הובא שמה, דהיינו גירושיהם כהלכה ושום תביעות ממוניות שביניהם, אמנם מאז ועד עתה לאהגישו לא זה ולא זו שום בקשה לב"ד דידן, וגם לא הודיעונו לא הם ולא אחרים על סידור גט פטוריןביניהם ולא שמענו ולא ריאנו שום היתר נשואין מאיזה בית דין אחר כלל, ולכן כפי ידיעתנו אשה זועומדת בחזקת אשת איש גמורה ואסורה לכל אדם עד שתקבל ג"פ כדת וכדין.

ואמנם אם יש לשום אחד איזה ידיעה שלא ידענו או איזה טענה בהלכה שלא שמענו, הננו מוכניםומזומנים להושיב ב"ד מיוחד לדון על דינה דהאי איתתא לאמתה של תורה, ומי בעל דברים יגיש דבריואליהם, ובזה נזכה להסיר מכשול מביננו ולהרים קרנה של תורה ולתרבות שלום בעולם בעזה"ש ית"ש.ועכ"ז בעה"ת ביום ששי בשבת תשעה ימים לחדש תמוז תשע"ה לפ"ק

מרדכי שוחטוביץ
משה היינמאן
יעקב האפפער

הנני מצטרף לנ"ל ושפשוט שהאשה הנ"ל אשת איש גמורה
אהרן פלדמן