Tuesday, October 6, 2015

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.


  1. I have some "problems" with some of the assertions in this post.

    a) Although RSK is both pictured and named, we would like to see hard evidence that he has issued the psak nullifying the marriage. In the past, controversial cases, eg R' Goren, R Rackman, have issued either teshuvos or psak BD (whether they are accepted or not). Here , there is no such thing yet available.

    b) We also don't know for sure on what basis the the alelged psak has been made.

    c) You write that if it was indeed RSK who issued the psak, it would be unethical but not against halacha. My understanding is that it might be against halacha. The Rambam writes that not only does monetary bribe invalidate a judge, also a "davar", which means a thing or object. In other words, any kind of personal involvement could invalidate a judge to issue a psak on a matter.

    None of my comments support or oppose the persons in this case, nor do i have any inside knowledge on what has occurred.

  2. @Eddie I clearly stated that these were conjectures - they are not assertions

  3. Conjectures? Joe Orlow spoke to Shalom Kaminetsky who proposed that he date Tamir and Joe asked him if she needs a GET and Shalom answered only lichatchilo but not really. Furthermore, when the two major poskim who went to Rabbi Kaminetsky and protested what he was doing and he signed a paper that he would not be involved any longer with getting her rmarried without a GET, I was told that Shalom refused to recant saying that he had rabbis to rely on. There have always been a rabbi here and there that believes in women more than marriage. This is nothing new. Call them "Gedolim" and ignore the vast majority who disagree, including Reb Nissim Karelitz and many others, and you have an excuse for an annulment. But what do you do with the problem that the majority of poskim disagree and that annulments are unheard of? The major posek in this matter the head of a Beth Din told me that Tamir's children will definitely be mamzerim. How can anyone bring children into the world to be frumeh Jews and get married? Who will marry them? Shalom Kaminetsky?

    I surely would advise any parent not to send their child to Philly Yeshiva, because the Kaminetskys may just advise them to marry the mamzerim coming from Tamir.

  4. Where does RMF write that schizophrenia or bipolar invalidate a marriage? Homosexuality, yes.

    Aren't there halachic criteria for mental illness, such as to determine a person is incapable of giving / receiving a get? Shouldn't those criteria be the minimum for advocating mental illness to invalidate a marriage?

    Shouldn't the husband be entitled to present arguments to a bet din before a determination as to his mental condition is made?

    Wouldn't a determination that he has a mental condition invalidate any previous agreed, or determined, property settlement?

  5. And doesn'tn't schizophrenia and or bipolar prevent any visitation?

  6. “ 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.” I agree.

    King Solomon says: “Now, I find woman more bitter than
    death; she is all traps, her hands are fetters and her heart is snares. He who
    is pleasing to God escapes her, and he who is displeasing is caught by her” Ecclesiastes

    Yevamoth 63b:

     “Raba said: [If one has] a bad wife it
    is a meritorious act to divorce [גרש] her, for it is said, "Expel [גרש] the scoffer and contention departs, Quarrel
    and contumely cease.”(Proverbs 22:10)

  7. She just found out that he is shy? Did it interfere with his job in any way, socially or otherwise, or only when she was seeking chametz after the facts, like putting down ten crumbs, so that her get quest should not be a bracha levatala, Huh? Isn't Bayshonim one of the 3 simanei muvhak of Bnei Yisrael?

    The theory of had she known if she asks for a Get and he would refuse, she would never have married him, sounds like the chicken and the egg theory. If her grandmother 'hetech petech' would have had wheels she could have been a wheelchair. Seriously, had she known that she will ask for a Get, why would she marry him in the first place. Besides, did she have any valid reason to ask for a Get something that he can't refuse. Suppose he asks her not to ask for a Get, and she refuses, which in turn makes her a cruel machsheifah, especially if there are children involved, then not only have you voided her first marriage, but she also remains unmarriageble material ever after so that no kidushin would ever work for her. Should any future prospect be willing to wave this fault, he immediately is also declared insane according to the same chicken and Get philosophy. So where does it end. It is quite clear that this whole 'maysse' is a bluff. Free, Free, free my foot. All players had a negiah, therefore they invented and concocted a whole bunch of shtussim, that anyone sane can smell it from far, resulting in matir eishes ish lashuk, marbeh mamzerim beyisroel. What a dor ikesh ufsaltol. Hakol shkarim, hakol mutorim lach, ein kaan lo chicken velo batata, velo klum. Ze misosi (my Mrs.) veze kaporosi, witch can only be useful for a shlak on the sukkah. Please Moshiach, leiz unz shoin auss, veil mir halten ess nisht auss.

  8. Her name is Tamar, not Tamir.

  9. Rabbi Eidensohn: I was looking for the article you had with Tamar's diary entry - pro's and cons. Do you have it handy?

  10. http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/tamar-epsteins-feelings-about-aharon.html

    type tamar and diary into search window

  11. The very fact that RSK was involved in this case implies that he must provide a clear explanation regarding his position on this matter. Otherwise this may well be a form of agreeing to this marriage.

    Further more, this can be a precedence for future baseless heteirim that some 'Rabbi' would be willing to supply on demand so just a clarification from RSK is absolutely essential.

  12. Eddie,

    You must know that there are many ways to communicate the same thing. Some believe that in current circumstances, the message coming out of Philly is in support of Tamar's actions. We just want a clarification. It is only expected that some frum people will cross the line and marry whilst still being married so I would leave Tamar alone but RSK must be clear.

  13. I hear that a chareidi rabbi in Lakewood is offering support to rabbi nota Greenblatts actions

  14. I hear that there are Orthodox rabbis around the world who would like to condemn it - but they are waiting for some recognizable authority to start the ball rolling.

  15. I spoke with a respectable rabbi over Yom Tov. He had not even heard about this. (But he found it believable...) Other than here, is the word about what was done spreading?

  16. RDE, which rabbis are investigating this case and are leaning towards publicly coming out that Tamar is an eishes ish and this is adultery?

  17. I must confess, one thing about this discussion disturbes me greatly. Gedolei Yisroel shlit"a must be given great deference. Their halachic knowledge and practice is far greater than any of our own. (And of all the rabbonim being discussed, Rav Shmuel is undoubtedly in this category.) If anyone needs to take them to task, it must only be other great rabbis. Certainly not laymen like us and not even regular run of the mill rabbis, whether shteeble rabbis or local shul rabbis or kollel guys or cheder rebbis or the like. And definitely not the internet bloggeratti and social network pundits like us.

  18. Nice explanation but what about dan lecaf zechus a gadol reb shmuel kaminetsky especially since you are just assuming these things. Even if you are right who are you to write these things. You wrote to ziggy that rabbbis around the world want to condemn it but they are waiting for.... Maybe you should also wait

  19. אמת ויציב, אבל דוקא עבור המונים כמונו נאמר בכגון זה 'הסר ממך עקשות פה ולזות שפתים הרחק ממך'. מי יתן והיו הרבנים נותנים לנו להבין מה זה ועל מה זה. ובכהאי גונא ודאי צריך לאודועיה משום והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל (ע' תוס' ב"מ סט:).

  20. @ David

    With all due respect to Gedolei Yisroel, as per the Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) a rabbi is not allowed to permit something that people perceive as being prohibited. The Shach, in his commentary, formulates a leniency, in a case where the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.

    A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "eishes ish" to remarry without having received a Get, qualifies as an "unusual ruling". As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for their leniency (as per the Shach).

    Without casting aspersion, the public is waiting to hear the defense of this unusual ruling. The burden to explain such a ruling lies on those who made it. As of yet, no rabbi has publicly explained this ruling. By default, the alleged "mesader kiddushin", whose actions speak louder than words, carries the primary need to explain his actions.

    I note, that even being a card-carrying member of the "Gadol Club" does give one a free pass to ignore the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch cited above. In fact, the ruling of the SA is particularly directed to the "Chacham" (AKA Gadol):
    "יש מי שכתב שאסור לחכם להתיר דבר התמוה שנראה לרבים שהתיר את האסור".

  21. David,
    If Rabbi Kaminetsky has such advanced learning, why is he silent on the question why he supports this unheard of thing? Also, he is a Rosh Yeshiva, and Rosh Yeshivas teach Talmud and are not involved with the laws of Gittin. Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky once was talking to me and said, "You learn Gittin. Where does it say about how to spell the names?" I told him, but it was amazing to me that a Rosh Yeshiva who has written hundreds and hundreds of Kesubose, doesn't know where the laws of writing a name in Gittin is.

    The freeing of a Jewish woman from marriage because of problems with the husband is not a new thing, it has centuries of literature. And it is nearly all negative. Therefore, anyone who comes out with a decision that a woman can just walk away from marriage has a burden to explain. But I have spoken to many Gedolim and poskim and all of them feel that the child born from Tamir Epstein Friedman will be a mamzer. Why does nobody care about that? If the mamzer can't get married and goes to Rabbi Kaminetsky or his son, what will they say? Have they no pity? Recall, the husband wants to give a GET, but he wants certain corrections. Why was this not even discussed? These people think they can produce people almost everybody considers a mamzer, and get away with it. But they are wrong. This blog proves it. And Gedolei HaDor have thanked me for the important work my brother and I are doing. Get this straight: If Tamir Epstein can walk away from a marriage successfully, and nobody complains, thousands of women will go to these same "gedolim" and become freed. And their children will be mamzerim, as that is the consensus of the great rabbis of Israel and America, other than R Greenblatt and R Kaminetskys. Have some feeling for the children born from these ladies who will have great humiliation and problems marrying. Obviously, R Kaminetsky doesn't care about the children. Maybe he plans to marry them to students of the Philly Yeshiva. If so, nobody should send their child to that Yeshiva.

  22. Ziggy,
    It is known that a rabbi here and there can believe many things. But does that change the reality that the vast majority of major poskim consider Tamir Epstein's next child to be a mamzer? Don't you care about the children? And why does that rabbi or any rabbi who permits this not care about the children who will face the vast majority of rabbis who consider him a mamzer?

  23. In short you are accusing reb shmuel of letting a eishesh ish marry ?

  24. Shmuel - the din of tochacha applies even to gedolim.

    It would be nice when the Aguda, Bedatz and RCA came out with a public condemnation - but until that happens the matter needs to be publicized. This story is not being carried in any of the public media.

    I asked a posek before publicizing the matter and he said to go ahead

  25. "And Gedolei HaDor have thanked me for the important work my brother and I are doing."

    Gevaldik. Which Gedolei HaDor, specifically?

  26. Can somebody please direct the readership to a source for the oft-stated premise that either R' Shmuel or R' Shalom Kamenetsky stated publicly that she is allowed to remarry? It seems that people are assuming that the heter came from them, but I have yet to see anyone cite the origin of this report.

  27. A posek who agrees fully with what I have written but insists on not being identified because he doesn't want to get involved in public disputes and their consequences.

  28. So, in short, there are no prominent rabbis on record opposing this?

  29. @David as far as I know there is no one in the world who has publicly opposes this - except for my brother and myself.

    There are definitely rabbis who oppose it but wont say anything public and there are many rabbis who have not heard anything about this case at all

    On the other hand I am not aware of rabbis who approve of this either - except for the Kaminetskys and RGreenblatt

  30. Joe Orlow spoke with R Shalom Kaminetsky as has been mentioned a number of times on this blog

  31. I have seen that claim. That is why I wrote "stated publicly." Before accusing someone of giving a heter to an eishes ish, it might be prudent to have something more than a second-hand report to base oneself on.

  32. What do you feel you are going to gain by posting your "assumptions" ? What facts do you know ?

  33. Tamir is a man's name.
    Tamar is a woman's name.

  34. You don't know the facts. How can you go on a war path not knowing details. Reb shmuel and reb nota are "pretty" bright people one being a leading rosh yeshivah and one a master of halachah theydidn't just make this up out of thin air

  35. Yeshoshua - your scolding is out of place. I have strong evidence from various relatiable sources for what i wrote. All the Kaminetskys need to do is to say what I have written is a bunch of lies. They will not because I can prove everything I have said and they know it is true.

    On a more basic level - the Kaminetsky's have been Tamar Epstein's halachic and personal guide for a number of years. Aharon Friedman has told me that he hasn't given a Get. Tamar Epstein got married. If the Kaminetsky's disagreed with what she did they would have stopped it and issued a public protest.

    You seem to have trouble understanding the obvious reality of the situation and want everything spelled out in detail and signed by all parties involved. That is not the way real life is. If it is too hard for you to follow then I suggest you stay away from it.

  36. Philly Yeshivah has been around since 1953. They have thousands of supporters . If they needed a million dollars reb shmuel can get it in 5 mins. He has access to the greatest donors in the jewish community . To suggest he would go this far knowing what a ruckus it would cause for one supporter of the yeshivah is ridiculous ! absurd!

  37. Shmuel - Are you a major posek? Are you even familiar with the case? You obviously view that I am not qualified to raise important issues and present the necessary information to the public. What make you competent to judge me?

    If you don't understand why it is necessary to publicize when gedolim are involved in encouraging adultery - there is not much I can do to enlighten you.

  38. Shmuel - you are the one who doesn't know the facts.

  39. I am not scolding anyone. I am suggesting that first-hand information should be obtained. It is not to hard to find either of the Rabbis Kamenetzky, they are both in the phone book. It happens to be that I heard from someone who said that R' Sholom told him that her heter did not come from him. I am not saying that that report is more reliable than that of Mr. Orlow, but I don't see the harm in picking up the phone and asking R' Shmuel and/or R' Shalom what they hold.
    You say all that they have to do is say that what you have written is a bunch of lies. That may be the case, but some people are not in that habit of countering every blog post wirtten against them. Specifically with regard to R' Shmuel, if he did so, he would not have much time for anything else.

  40. Shmuel - a simple way to resolve our disagreement is for you to contact R Shmuel or R Shalom and ask them to deny what I have written and label it a pack of lies. They are not going to do it because what I have written is true

  41. I am a grandson of a major posek who did 100s of gittin including a lot of major agunah cases. He told me never judge a case when you are not involved beccause 90 percent of what you hear about the story is not true . So I'm asking what gives you the right to judge ? Where you in the rooms by those meetings?

  42. Yehoshua - R Kaminetsky has been called a number of times already and has refused to divluge any information - just as R Greenblatt is refusing to name the gedolim he is rely on.

    I have other sources for my information that I view as reliable.

    The accusations made on this blog are not simple a blog post of rants against them and Charedi Jews. At some point there will be enough public outrage that they will have to confirm or deny what I have written.

    However they are hoping that this will all be forgotten in the same way that the Tropper scandal was kept quiet in America. Did Rav Shmuel ever explain why he supported Tropper? Do you know who Tropper is how he bought the gedolim of America?

  43. Shmuel what your grandfather told you is true for you. I have multiple sources that are not available to you

  44. 1: If you in fact have other sources that you find reliable, great. All I had seen until now was a second-hand report by Joe Orlow.
    2: When you say "refused to divulge information," do you mean that he says she is mutteres, but refuses to divulge why? That he refuses to divulge whether or not he thinks she is mutteres? Please clarify if you can.
    3: I know who Tropper is. As you know, it was not only R' Shmuel that supported him.

  45. now I understand your strategy DT - very good.
    A while back , in another controversy, accusations were made, and somebody did not deny them. R' Shternbuch brought a Gemara which says when one does not deny such accusations, he is guilty. So, you are trying to smoke out RSK and RSK jr!

  46. Well until you share those sources with the public it is pretty much worthless . If i had to choose between you and reb shmuel all though your profile is impressive it dosen't come to the feet of reb shmue or reb nota. .

  47. Shmuel - you are making a rather fundamental error. The issue is not my credibility or honesty it Nor is it whether I am come to the feet of these rabbis. is the fact that Tamar Epstein - with the continued support of the Kaminetskys and R Greenblatt just got married without a GET. The burden is on them to explain that fact

  48. can I just play the advocate in this discussion:
    Is there a concept (which is more widely accepted in hareidi than MO circles), that if a Gadol says something, and he says left is right and vice versa, we should accept it.

    MOs and other rebels usually point to the Yerushalmi which takes on a different view, namely we don't accept it.
    So ~if~ this is being said by a big RY, then perhaps we shoudl accept it even if we don't understand?

  49. I would like to know what DT and his brother think is the reasoning being employed to be Matir these women. It must be based on something.

  50. So that means that publicly, there are more supporters than opponents (if we are counting recognised Poskim).

  51. Chaim - I have described the rationalization - what is it that you don't understand?

  52. Chaim - who are the supporters? Someone who doesn't publically protest is not a supporter.

    Do you think that Rav Herschel Schachter is a supporter because he hasn't publically objected? Or Rav Sternbuch? or Rav Chaim Kaniefsky?

  53. abbi eidensohn, I heard about you from your useful index on rav moshe. I never would have dreamed how brazen you are from ur blogspot. You obviously are ignorant about Rabbi Greenblatt. Rabbi Greenblatt is one of the preeminent talmidim of Reb Moshe. LOOK throughout the Teshuvos how rav Moshe refers to him- with utmost respect. He is widely considered the biggest authority on Hilchos gittin and even haezer in the United States. To write that was about him is bizui talmidim Chacham. What credentials do you have that you feel you deserve a response? You are not a recognized Talmidim Chacham- all you wrote is an index, why would Rav Nota feel he need to explain his psak to you or to some of your cronies, people who look to slander gedolim. Speak to talmidei rav Moshe and you'll hear the awe in which they speak of him. It's so sad to see so called "chashuv" people like you act like dirt. Shame on you.

  54. Well, then, let the matirim tell us what that "something" is. People, whether gedolim or not, who are matir an eishes ish need to write a teshuvah to explain their reasoning.

  55. A little background on joe orlow:

  56. Lubmen - it is unfortunate that the best defense of Rabbi Greenblatt is an adhominem attack on me as not being big enough to question him.

    If you took the time of reading through the blog you will see that gedolim have been criticized - and unfortunately I have been proven to be correct.

    The best defense of these rabbis is not to attack the messenger but to provide - as halacha demands - an explanation for their astonishing decision to marry a woman who has not received a Get from her first husband

  57. @ Lubmen

    You have obviously confused the two Rabbi Greenblatts who live/lived in Memphis. The תלמיד mentioned dozens of times in Iggros Moshe was R' Ephraim zt"l, a nephew of R' Notta. As far as I know, there are eight teshuvos in Iggros Moshe (YD 1:180) to R' Notta. In 7 out of 8 of these teshuvos, he is not referred to as תלמידי, rather as ידידי. In the one exception (OC 1:55) he is referred to as תלמידי ידידי.

    As for your argument that Rav does not need to explain his psak to people like RDE, you obviously have missed the halacha in Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) that a rabbi is not allowed to permit something that people
    perceive as being prohibited.

    The Shach, in his commentary, formulates a leniency in a case where the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.

    A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "eishes ish" to remarry without having received a Get, qualifies as an "unusual ruling". As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for their leniency (as per the Shach).

    The burden to explain such a ruling lies on those who
    made it, especially the alleged "mesader kiddushin", whose actions speak louder than words.

    You write that R' Nota "is widely considered the biggest authority on Hilchos gittin and even haezer in the United States". I do not debate his greatness, however he too is bound to the halacha Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh De'ah (ibid.). In fact, the ruling of the SA is particularly directed to the "Chacham" (AKA Gadol):
    "יש מי שכתב שאסור לחכם להתיר דבר התמוה שנראה לרבים שהתיר את האסור

    So even if his "hetter" is 100% valid (which I strongly doubt), but to not to explain his actions is 100% wrong.

  58. May I ask why you are trying so hard to ruin a woman's life? A recognised posek has made a decision. He Paskened and as far as halacha is concerned that it was goes. That means you can stop worrying about mamzerim. If he made a mistake, it is between him and God; either way she is allowed to marry. Just stop trying to ruin lives and move on.
    It is very sad to see such hatred in this blog. This isn't some academic study; you are actively trying to drive out a family from klal yisrael after their posek has declared them kosher. Who are you to take such destructive steps? Such thoughtless sinas chinom.
    Will you also start posting about how a certain gadol thought many from chabab are heritics? Or perhaps how people from certain areas are using a non kosher eruv and breaking shabbos? or is a woman and her (potential?) babies easier to pick on? Will you also go to their chuppa and protest outside it?
    You seem very dedicated to halacha, perhaps follow it where the rema says not to disclose even if you think someone is a mamzer.

  59. Do you mean the (over)extension of R' Moshe's Psak?

  60. I'm a bit confused - didn't you once cite R' Schechter on this blog saying כבר הורה זקן about RSK?

  61. Can anyone with access to 'pacer' check if the sentencing for the ME case is still scheduled for next tuesday 13 october rosh chodesh in trenton federal court. Or has it been postponed?

    And can DT post the date, time, and place, for those who wantto attend.

  62. david may I ask why ruining a man's life by falsely labeling as unmarriageable doesn't both you?

    Tamar Epstein decided her husband wasn't good enough and she could do better. She ran away without their daughter - apparently that doesn't both you.

    She was told that if she wanted a get she should move back to Silverspring for a year - she refused.

    She was told if she made some concessions in custody arrangementts she would receive the Get - she refused.

    So instead of making a compromise to receive the Get she decided to destroy her husband's reputation as being so messed up that she didn't need a Get from him.

    Regarding your claim that once a posek decides something it establishes the reality - is total nonsense. Even the Sanhedrin is acknowledged to be able to err.

    According to you when a rabbi allows a woman to remarry because he decides he husband is dead - that means the husband is dead?!

    The rest of your post is also nonsense. Instead of dealing with reality - she married without a Get and the poskim are required to explain how that could be - you are attacking those who have noticed the emperor has no clothes.

    Your understanding of the Rema is wrong.

  63. R' Moshe's psak was revolutionary on its own, but had a halachic grounding.

    In order to be able to invoke R' Moshe's precedent setting leniency, you need to prove that you have a parallel case. This requires meeting the criteria that the factors present in R' Moshe's case are also present here. Has that in fact been established?

  64. It's time to recognize that the game is OVER
    A mainstream hareidi gadol!!!!! Recognized this hetter
    Even if some minor hareidy rabbis will issue a proclamation against it, it will mean nothing, it will be no more then machlokes haposkim, as is common amongst poskim
    NOT ONE posek has come out against rabbi Greenblatt
    They all know that they don't come close to him in halakhot of gittin and kidushin

  65. Interesting claim - you mean that if there is no public outcry within a week or two - there is a statute of limitations in which the error can no longer be pointed out?!

    Not sure where you learned Torah but it is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch

  66. Too bad that R' Kamenetzky and R' Greenblatt are not Open Orthodox - at least then we could be confident that R' Gordimer would attack them :)

  67. The more relevant question is the view of Rav Herschel Schachter who was a major supporter of Tamar Epstein - directly and through ORA. Who bowed down before the views of Rav Shmeul Kaminetsky. However since Tamar started claiming she didn't need a Get - there has been not mention of him.

    I had been told that in fact he doesn't approve of the declaration that this the first marriage was a halachic mistake.

  68. Not what I said, what I'm saying is that other rabbis, rabbi eliyahu levin of Lakewood has already voiced his support for rabbi Greenblatt

  69. It isn't merely between him and G-d. This ruling affects the original husband as well. By causing the wife to commit adultery, she is now prohibited to him, even in the wild possibility that she would reconcile with him.

    This isn't "sinas chinom". We don't hate anybody. We're merely calling out a halachic outrage for what it is.

    You may have missed the halacha in Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10)
    that a rabbi is not allowed to permit something that people
    perceive as being prohibited, unless the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling (Shach, s.v. 17)

    Therefore, this is about maintaining the integrity of the halachic process, which has a system of checks and balances. If anybody can make halachic "pronouncements" without basing them on halacha, then the entire halachic process is at risk, which in turn affects our ability to marry, or our children's ability to marry.

    The Rema you cite, is referring to an unknown mamzer; not where the woman was known to have committed adultery. I also refer you to the Rema (YD 365:4) who rules that at a mamzer's bris we publicize the fact of his tainted lineage.
    "ומפרסמין בשעת מילתו שהוא ממזר"

  70. Jonathan orlow rabbi eidenson vs Rabbis kemenetsky and Greenblatt !!!!!
    On who's side would you be

  71. A forced get in many cases is almost as problematic as no get according to Halakha
    Nonetheless is has become common practice enforced by mainsream rabbis such as israel belsky and others
    The dissenter's are a minority of fringe ppl at best and at worst just plain crazies
    Hence nothing will ever change
    Put ur efforts in something else, something that can make a difference such as medicine, and let the rabbis destroy klal Yisroel from within

  72. It's been postponed for over six months already since the original date. Any idea what why?

  73. Who told you so?

  74. What did he say? Does he know the facts of the case or is he simply saying whatever Rabbi Greenblatt does is fine with him?

  75. Ziggy - why are you repeating your ad hominem arguments. Unless you want to claim that rabbis are infallible than you have to acknowledge that the decision of right and wrong needs to be based on facts - not that he is a gadol

  76. Ziggy - you are giving up on halacha and truth and say we should simple follow anyone who can get away with violating halacha?!

  77. Rabbis are not infallible, but let other senior rabbis with similar credentials come out and say something

  78. Well presumably the Matirim believe that it has!

  79. @ Ziggy
    "A forced get in many cases is almost as problematic as no get according to Halakha".

    I posit that a forced Get is WORSE than no Get.

    Prostituting halacha is worse than breaking halacha.

    When there is no Get, everybody knows that people are sinning. But in the case of a forced Get, then the halachic lines are blurred and distorted, and the sin is coated with a veneer of respectability.

  80. @Ziggy
    It ain't over until it's over. It's far from over. It is "ad ki ya'asfi kol hoadorim" and see the backlash. Look at the sha'arurya it caused the first time around, the makot retsach R' AF suffered when ambushed, and yet M. Ep.... upcoming sentence. The same rabbis that have been involved in beating up of innocent virtual people shelo bau leolom and posek for a chiyuv get asher lo haya velo nivra and executing a get asher lo hoyu dvarim meolam, have been involved in this Heter eishes ish lashuk. And you tell me of coming close in hilchot gittin vekidushin. Minor Hareidi Rabbis as you try to belittle them, is in the eyes of the beholder. Machlokes haPoskim as is common amongst each other, is when they put everything considered on the table without secrets as in uforsu es hasimlo le'einei hashemesh. Not so, when ping ponged back and forth, he said she said, kvar hora hazoken, sod H' lireiov, wait until kimishlosh chadoshim Chas vesholom when the Sod haIbur R'L' would show ukreisoh bein shineho. If you have enough "breite playtses" of a Godol caliber, it is unbecoming not to disclose reliable sources with mechanics and dynamics of operation. It is closer to harotse leshaker yarchik eduso. Ever heard of "Yelamdenu na Rabeinu, meheichan dantani?" Because of custody differences, she didn't settle for a Get, rather declared R' AF insane in absentia retroactively, veoker hakidushin lemafrea, vechozru btileha, hence they sing the famous song of "Chanale hitbalbelah". Show me one true Godol in History that ever gave heter for eishes ish lashuk al pi sod meachorei hapargod, hush hush and not open up the cards of Koiche deheteira on whose shoulders they lean. There is no such thing! My dear friend, you ain't seen nottin' yet.

    She claimed she can do better, does anyone know the background of Mr. Tamar as far as marital status has been in the past?

  81. It is his fault he is unmarriageable. What woman would ever marry someone who refuses to grant his wife a get?
    What tamar did or didn't do isn't mine or your business. Not in any way. Completely irrelevant. It is not for us to judge if a couple should remain married or get divorced. She wants a divorce, he needs to give it. Why on earth do you feel that it is your right to even consider whether she has a justified reason for divorce? Would you like a say in all marriages? Only jewish ones? Who do you think you are?
    It doesn't matter if the sanhedrin err. It is still law. Halacha is decided in this world; ask Rabbi Yehoshua. In this case the fact that they are not sharing information with you does not mean there is an error. Usually they should publicise their rationale in public cases but in the case of a get? this is a private psak between two people and none of our business.
    I find it so ironic that in the name of halacha you are trying to tear down those considered the elite in the world of halacha when you don't even know their reasoning.
    And for what? because you are worried one of her kids will be a mamzer and marry another jew? Keep your family away from hers and let other jews follow the gedolim.
    This is not the first and won't be the last time a godol has ruled extremely leniently regarding a get case. Maybe they just understand the spirit of halacha better than you. As they say, anyone can forbid something but it takes a true expert to permit. Sometimes you just have to dig around for the most lenient opinion in halacha in order to right the wrong of a woman being forced to remain single for the rest of her life. (Again, irrelevant of whether she was justified in your big eyes to want the divorce to begin with.)

  82. If the necessary criteria for invoking R' Moshe's "hetter" are present, then why is everybody so shy about publicizing the basis for this alleged marriage? All they have to do is to say, "We relied on R' Moshe's psak, based on the following criteria...".

  83. Usually, these postponements are because the defendant is ''ratting out'' on someone else.

    Expect fireworks in a few months.

    Speculation: wives who hired him. (I doubt it. The FBI is not interested in getting involved in marit disputes.)

    More probable: tax and or money laundering of yeshivot / mosdot. As a rav, he probably has knowledge of this he can give. A sting operation is probably going on rught now.

  84. david - more nonsense. A person who has a legitimate reason for not giving his wife a get is not unmarriageable.

    What Tamar did is in fact subjec to the laws of tochacha. If she falsely claimed he molested his duaghter -would you make the same claim

    The rest of your comments are simple ranting. Poskim I have talked with say that this is a mistaken psak and that she is committing adultery and future children are mamzerim.

    your crude campaign to make this into gedolim versus the unwashed masses - simply is false. You basically are taking the view of Reform, Conservative ,Open Orthodox and Blu Greenberg - that halacha can be twisted to produce any outcome you want.

  85. What I'm saying is that the war is lost either separate yourself and create a Torah true community run by Torah true rabbis, or give up on all of it because it's not a winnable

  86. @ David
    "What tamar did or didn't do isn't mine or your business. Not in any way.
    Completely irrelevant. It is not for us to judge if a couple should
    remain married or get divorced".

    I think that by the same token, what RDE decides to post on his blog shouldn't be any of your business. Completely irrelevant. It is not for you to judge if someone should post what he wants to post.

  87. Ratting out agreements for reduced sentences are typically made before trial not after conviction.

  88. Could it be it needs more lubrication? Last time he waited out Chodesh Av not to mazeldig. Maybe this time around he waits for mazel Mar Cheshvon.

  89. A husband does not have to give his wife a Get (divorce) simply because she wants one. A divorce needs to be by mutual consent and agreement and one spouse cannot decide to get divorced without the other's agreement. Either spouse has the halachic, legal, moral and ethical right to choose to remain married even if the other spouse wants a divorce.

    This is Torah and Halacha.

  90. לא עליך המלאכה לגמור, ולא אתה בן חורין לבטל ממנה.

  91. A mainstream hareidi gadol!!!!! Recognized this hetter

    What heter? They have not seen fit to say what the heter is based on.

  92. Wow, he took advantage of a tax break by buying a goat. You really know how to dish the dirt, Bob!

  93. If senior rabbis aren't willing to speak up for truth, then laymen need to speak up.
    משנה מסכת אבות פרק ב משנה ה
    ...ובמקום שאין אנשים השתדל להיות איש.

  94. The original ORA post of 'tamar is free', taken down in hours.

    And they no longer put her on their 'agunah' or 'seruv' list.

  95. If he has good info, they'll take it later.

    2. I reread moe g's comment. Is he saying its postponed six months from september / october (in which case my response stands; he is ratting on someone) or does he mean six months from march, in which case is the hearing still scheduled for next week, and my request to DT to post a reminder to everyone to come to trenton on tuesday.

  96. Neighbors also want to know. They may not want to socialize with the new couple. They may not want their children to be friendly with future children or even the current daughter (whose mother is an eishet ish later.)

    Perhaps not so much in memphis, but if / when they move out of town, all bets are off.

  97. Its not a private psak. Not after the ex wife goes public, demonstrating, threatening his job, his lifestyle, hiring ORA to threaten him (and i say, to have him beaten up , per court testimony.)

  98. That would seem to indicate that RHS supports ORAs decision to consider Epstein to not be married to Friedman, demonstrated by their removal of her from their agunah list.

  99. Rabbi Mendel Epstein is ratting some people for lighter sentence? Who? They talk of the wives! Plainly Tamar Epstein paid $60,000++ to
    Mendel Epstein to beat up her husband.

    Are all the wives that hire Mendel Epstein going scot
    free? Is it possible that the rabbis
    that support Tamar Epstein remarrying without a get are thinking of defenses of
    the wives that hired Mendel Epstein that may face prosecution from Mendel
    Epstein’s ratting? The defense would be
    for these women that, look, the halacha is so crazy and impossible, we just
    give a light punch and a very short kidnapping to these very bad husbands,
    because crazy rabbis give no alternative…

    Pacer states:

    Filed & Entered:

    Set/Reset Hearings

    Docket Text: Reset Hearings as to MENDEL EPSTEIN:
    Sentencing set for 12/15/2015 11:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 5E before Judge
    Freda L. Wolfson. (jg, )

    I bet after 12/15/2015 the rabbis involved will annul
    the remarriage of Tamar Epstein.

  100. He said that there is a mokom gadol in halacha that mekach taut applies here based upon arens observeble behavior, and that reb nota is a odom gadol

  101. The contention that RSK x2 and RNG suddenly became irrational is highly unlikely.
    I think a far more likely explanation is that this marriage is a charade and there are eidim to that effect. The purpose is to induce Aharon to give a get either to protect Tamar from the Avaeira of Eishes Ish or to prevent his own childs future half sibling from being a mamzer.
    Granted this seems far fetched but the alternative is far more improbable.

  102. Chaim - there was a similar explanation given by Rabbi Belsky to one of his cases that was widely opposed by gedolim

  103. Maybe the criteria in this case are of a private nature and should not be divulged in public?

  104. Good points -
    I have a question - if Rav Moshe, who was the leading Posek in his generation could "innovate", then why can't

    today's leading American posek also innovate further?
    Indeed this was what R' Rackman was proposing, ie to expand what R' Moshe had done. He (RER) also predicted that some would take this path and expand the RMF psak, whilst others would try to shut it down altogether.

  105. RDE, what were the details of the case by Rav Belsky?

  106. @Chaim
    First of all, there is nothing about this case that is private anymore. Everything is in the public domain.

    Furthermore, I'm sure that a creative way could be found to publicize the general basis of the ruling, without revealing extraordinary information. If they need help, I'm sure that RDE can help them out.

    Finally, I note, that since Aharon, the husband, is the subject of any allegations, and whose marriage is affected by the same, he therefore has a halachic right to present his side of the case in any forum that his case is being discussed. As far as we know, this did not happen with this so-called "anullment".

    People must realize that unilateral pronouncements, which disenfranchise a person without having been granted due halachic process, have little Torah value.

  107. Oh the irony. So listening to the orthodox gedolim and accepting what they say is now reform, conservative and oo.

    Actually a husband can technically divorce his wife for any reason without her consent and she can divorce him for a number of issues that she can make a claim against him in beis din for. (Not including more recent decrees which attempt to even the playing field.) That is torah and halacha.

    This whole issue sickens me. I don't know those involved but the current situation is that a woman received permission to marry from a recognised posek and this blog is bringing out the pitchforks in order to stop any kids she might have from marrying into klal yisrael. Do you really think the poskim didn't learn what you learnt? This isn't an example when someone made a quick mistake but it is a long thought out halachic decision which for some reason you are all self righteously trying to overturn without the same information they have.

    What goes on between husband and wife is most certainly private; I don't care if she shouted her grievances so loud that people in australia heard them. A beit din has a duty to keep confidentiality and you demanding that a beit din share intimate information with you to ease your personal overblown consciences is just sick.

  108. @David - your screed shows know understanding of the issues - halachic or otherwise. It is obvious that you are responding to something other than concern for Tamar Epstein.

    The fact that this whole issue sickens you - is not relevant. The question of concern is the facts and the correct halachic response

    David contrary to your repeated attacks on me - I am not involved in a vendetta against Tamar Epstein nor against the Kaminetskys or R Greenblatt. If Tamar Epstein is openly committing adultery her children are mamzerim . You don't like that but don't blame me - I didn't write the Torah and i am not the sole person in the world who accepts this reality.

    Your concern for confidentiaty is touching but it has nothing to do with the case. Tamar Epstein has been running a major campaign against her husband for years. Most of the relevant information was presented in court and is part of the public record. Your total insensitivity to what Tamar Epstein refusal to compromise on the issue of custody and has mounted a public campaign - including having him declared as incapable of being married to anyone - shows massive hypocrisy.

    Has someone female in your family undergone a painful divorce - so that all you can understand is the pain of the woman - but not that of the man?

  109. david: A husband may have been able to divorce his wife for any reason under strict Torah Law, but the rabbonim, particularly Rabbeinu Gershom, severely restricted husband's ability to divorce his wife. Per the cherem, a husband cannot divorce his wife if his wife doesn't want to get divorced. The wife has the right to insist the marriage continue even if the husband wants to divorce her.

    The husband has this same right. Except his such right comes directly from the Torah itself. He can decide the marriage should continue even if his wife wants a divorce.

    Now, under exceptional circumstances, for example if he is physically deformed or if he is violent and beis din has proof that he beats his wife even after they warned him to stop, then under those very limited exceptional circumstances beis din can require he divorce his wife even if he doesn't want to.

    But by default, if there are no exceptionally unusual circumstances such as violence or the other few limited exceptions, then either spouse can insist the marriage continue and no divorce be issued even if the other spouse demands a divorce.

  110. This pamphet is strongly against Rabbi Belsky. I had heard that he claimed that his psak that she could remarry without a Get was a trick to convince the husband to give a Get -


  111. @Eddie read Reb Moshe introduction to the Igros Moshe. He said his authority came from the acceptance of his sevora.

    If someone wants to propose an innovation all he needs to do is write a teshuva and have a signfificant number of poskim agree with it

    Saying Rackon was just expanding on R Moshe is like saying that robbing a bnak is just extending the idea of borrowing from others

  112. The supposed letter in that pamphlet from Miriam Belsky is clearly a forgery. No wife would dare write like that against her own husband.

    Which makes me question what else in there might be forged.

    (BTW, I'm with you on your position on this entire overall issue.)

  113. As I said the pamphlet is clearly against Rabbi Belsky - but the letters from the gedolim are clearly authentic. He was widely condemned for his heter for her to remarry without a GET

  114. Did the gedolim signing heavily publicize their letters against Rav Belsky's action, and this issue when it was still ongoing was discussed amongst the general public, or was it mostly handled behind the scenes?

  115. I fail to understand how you continuously ignore the fact that respected poskim have ruled on this yet accuse me of being the one with no understanding of halacha.
    Halacha is not black and white and different circumstances call for more lenient or stricter rulings. Rabbeni gershon enacted his get criteria in order to protect women even though it wasn't previously in halacha. The fact that you don't understand this is why thankfully you are not a posek in these matters.

    I am not interested in what tamar did or didn't do and i don't have any divorced family members. Let us assume that tamar is the devil herself - this does not give you an excuse to go out of your way to disrespect and disregard gedolim and try to make anyone into an adulterer and (possible?) children into mamzerim. Can you not see what you are doing?
    Even if you are technically right, it is not your place to now rip apart a family.
    Do not argue that tamara ripped her family apart, that is on her. This is on you.
    As someone who has absolutely no regard for the rulings of gedolim whose job it is to decide halcha, you have no comment on my knowledge. I am making no rulings; perhaps go tell them they should go study a little more. I'm sorry that they don't feel they need to explain themselves to you but i can't believe you actually think a beis din would publish confidential files because some bala batim think they made a mistake.

  116. David which poskim have ruled on this? R Greenblatt says he relied on unnamed gedolim. Who are they? I have talked with poskim who have said there is no basis in halacha for allowing Tamar to marry without a Get. Please produce gedolim/ poskim who say otherwise. Your nonsense about halacha ignores the facts in this case - which you are ignorant of as well as the halacha - which you are also ignorant of.

    There is no requirement to accept a psak simply because a gadol said it - Rav Belsky similarly produced a nonsense heter to remarry without a Get - non one respected that decision - accept perhaps for you.

    Again I am not making anyone into an adulter nor am I making any children into mamerzim - that is the elementary facts and elementary halacha. As Reb Moshe repeatedly stated - psak is sevora. There have been no sevoras offered in this case.

    What an absurd statement - Even if I am right about the halacha but you say I can't follow the Torah because it will rip a family apart. A person who declares he except the entire Torah and except for one halacha is called an apikorus

    So makie up your mind - is it halacha or is something that must be obeyed because a rabbi said so - even though it is against the Torah? I think you have the wrong religion. Gedolim are not above the Torah.

    Your last statement also shows you have no understanding of the case nor how a beis din works. It is time for you to be quiet and stop wasting our time with your ignorance.

  117. But will he (or rav n g , orany other mainstream rav) allow his son to marry mrs t e / f?

  118. Just to point out that I, the regular Chaim on this blog, did not write the above comment.

  119. I find your arguments convincing - but on the other hand, I find it highly implausible that great Tamidei Chachamim would abuse the halachic system in the way that DT and his brother are claiming. I therefore remain confused. Besides which, I strongly suspect that we are dealing with a מילתא דעבידא לאגלויי...

  120. “This pamphet is strongly against Rabbi Belsky. I had
    heard that he claimed that his psak that she could remarry without a Get was a
    trick to convince the husband to give a Get -

    www.israel613.com/books/DINTOR...” The last page is undated and has 6 rabbi
    stamps, including Rabbi Belsky, Rabbi Steinberg and Rabbi Mendel Epstein.

    Did Rabbi Israel Belsky really permit an אשת איש to marry without a get?

    Miriam, Mrs. Israel Belsky writes, February 19, 2003:
    “I told him that he not concede to anyone that the psak is against halacha,
    just he better somehow see to it that his name is not involved.”

    To Miriam, Mrs. Israel Belsky I apply Proverbs 14:1; 31:
    12, 23: The wisest of women builds her house, But folly tears it down with its
    own hands. 12She is good to him, never bad, All the days of her
    life. 23Her husband is prominent in the gates, As he sits among the elders of
    the land.

  121. By the way, how was that issue resolved? Did Rav Belsky retract his position? Did that woman accept she was still married to her first husband?

    Yes and yes. It is claimed that she forked over a cool mil for besmirching his name in such a horrible way.

  122. The letter from Rav Aaron Schechter and Rav Feivel Cohen states that they know for a fact that the woman had been relying on Rabbi Belsky's annulment.

    It also fits into his general practice of seeking to stubbornly find or concoct heterim for things that he determined are right...

  123. Well, I am glad my ignorance is the same as that of Rav Greenbaltt and every rabbi who is prepared to accept his authority. You must truly feel blessed that you have risen above them in your knowledge and understanding of when to apply certain leniencies in halacha.
    The gemarah accepts the process of absolving marriages under certain conditions; it is up to a beis din to decide if the conditions are met. If they decide they have been, it is not your job to go on a crusade and try to rip it apart. If they are wrong, it is between them and HaShem. If you personally don't trust the ruling then don't marry into the family.
    I am not making any halachic rulings or claiming any knowledge of this specific case. You however are doing both even though those on the beis din have a) more halachic knowledge than you and b) more detailed knowledge than you concerning this case.
    Shabbat shalom.

  124. You keep repeating your smae arguments - the only problem is they are incorrect. Poskim err - you can not ignore the truth simply because a poskim told you something wrong.

    again you are making the false accusation that I am going against all the poskim. As word gets out more and more rabbis are in a state of shock that such a corruption of halacha transpired.

    read my latest post


  125. That so-called letter from Miriam Belsky is clearly a forgery.

  126. david: NO Beis Din, none at all, ever decreed Tamar Epstein's original marriage was nullified or annulled.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.