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 letterNovember 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
Bedatz protest against heter
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 Friedman - 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?
Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Rav Eliahu Rominek's teshuva explaining why it is worthless
==============================================
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 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 Friedman - 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?
Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Rav Eliahu Rominek's teshuva explaining why it is worthless
==============================================
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 Hebrew
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 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 Sholom Kametsky 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 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
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/11/tamar-epstein-translation-of-protest-by.html
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
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/02/kaminetsky-greenblatt-heter-putting-to.html
3) An additional question is whether a gadol is different and that a gadol can never be publicly condemned.
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.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-reuven-feinstein-proposes-takanah.html
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
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.
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
Disagree with Gadol Hador
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2024/12/disagree-with-gadol-hador.html
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 GedolimMo'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.
“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?”
ReplyDeleteRight now, Mendel Epstein et al are preparing their appeal, Pacer (July 11, 2016):
“WHEREFORE, the appellants request an extension of 21 days, to an including August 5, 2016, for filing their opening briefs and joint appendix.”
Mendel Epstein was convicted only of the FBI sting, where no one was hurt. The jurors saw photos of Mendel Epstein’s victims, beaten up, are these photos admissible? Won’t they influence the judge to say heinous, as Judge Freda say? Seems to me that Mendel Epstein has to explain and to defend those photos. How? The male victims were well deserving Mendel Epstein tough guy approach. Nothing else would work. They tried everything else first.
This relates to Rabbi Kamenitzky. Mendel Epstein is planning a big defense. Rabbi Kamenitzky and supporters, their hearts goe out to Mendel Epstein. Their only thoughts are how to help Mendel Epstein et al.
Once you're quoting gemara don't forget סוטה דף י, where it says that its better to commit safek adultery than be מבזה someone. As for Rav Moshe and the Chazon Ish, they don't hold you can denigrate the man by comparing him to esav ect. So once again we come back to your Rambam. Nothing new there.
ReplyDeleteSorry as Rav Malinowitz and others have stated - that is simply not accepted as halacha
ReplyDeletePlease cite authoritative sources that if a person has a choice between sofek aishes ish and mevaze someone that he needs to do sofek aishes ish?
Your sole objection is that he was compared to Esav? All other criticisms are acceptable to you? The Rambam says that the person can be degraded etc. He doesn't say state any restrictions or parameters. So why are you making up restrictions?
My point was, that really in essence you are still falling back on the Rambam and that you hadn't brought anything new to the table to justify denigrating Rav Shmuel. I don't need Rav Malinowitz to know that we don't pasken off Rambams without others concurring. Quote me one authoritative posek that uses this Rambam in such a scenario
ReplyDeleteA number of lessons can be learned from the various documents posted above. I would say that one of the most important of them all is the fact that Rav Feldman does not mention any of the rabbonim by name, is extremelly careful of his loshon and focuses ON THE ISSUE on not on the rabbonim involved and still addresses them as HaRav HaGaon, one of the foremost poskim of America and then one of the great Roshei Yeshivot of America.
ReplyDeleteIn no other letter have I found any personal attacks on any of the rabbonim involved.
Again Reb Daniel, with the greatest respect, I do not disagree with your stand on the ISSUE but I continue to disagree with your method of targetting the rabbonim in this way and I do think that all the material you've provided today actualy strengthen my point.
Best Rgds and much respect.
Are you seriously denying that there has never been a case of a talmid chachom being publicly degraded - with the participation /consent of rabbis - because of his psakim or views?! Are you seriously denying that a talmid chachom has never been publicly degraded or placed in nidoi because of what he has done?!
ReplyDeletethanks - will add the letters which address not only the deed but Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky
ReplyDeleteKey words being "with the participation /consent of rabbis "
ReplyDeleteDo u need permission from the fire department to extinguish a fire
ReplyDelete“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.”
ReplyDeleteJudge Freda declares Mendel Epstein’s behavior “heinous” and sentenced him to 10 years in jail. What Mendel Epstein did for 30 years was to force a mesarev get to give a get, after a qualified Beis Din who duly analyzed the entirety of the case and paskened that the husband fits the category of mesarev get. The supporters of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter felt zero patience for Aaron:
(internet 2012):
“Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the bullets have been fired."
We must show patience and tolerance for the mesarev get. Be interesting to see the thinking of the appeal court.
Firstly, they have no heart. And if they meddle enough they will be caught into the sting-net just as well. The trio have been working in conjunction from Adam. RHS scratching the backs of the K's, approving mafia tactics, granting absolute power for acting as judge, jury, executioner with Sod H' Lireiov, in spite it was outside of his jurisdiction, where as a shoshvin and recipient of financial toivas hana'ah, they should have never got even close to it, al pi SA. When that didn't fly, it has been declared worldwide that TAMAR IS FREE, *shehakol doshin bah kidveilo*, on his website where he is Posek, on his time, and his watch. Judge Freda warned them not to go that way, Dina deMalchusse Dina rules. If they care to adjoin Guilty by Association, sheyevussam lahem. This is a riptide bemayim she'ein lohem sof, sinking into bottomless sinkhole.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the new letters... again, none of them mentioned any of the rabbanim involved by name, even though we all know who they are talking about. There is fierce criticism of them as regards the issue at hand, which is the reason for the outcry.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the letters call upon Rabbonim anad Roshei Yeshivos to wage war over this issue, it doesn't call on the general public to do so...
It is an incredibly sad perek!
Notwithstanding that, if you search the online archives of the rabanut in Israel you will find several piskei dinim, going back years, claiming Mekach To'us... it's not unprecedented then...
Rabbi Greenblatt is specifically criticized and declared incompetent. Rabbi Kaminetsky is specifically declared not to be the source of teaching students Tporah. Not sure what letters you read but it is there. Rav Sternbuch's letter is a call to the general public to get involved in protesting - that is why he was criticized by one of R Kamenetsky's reletives - R Brodsky.
ReplyDeleteEither you didn't read the letters or you have different letters than I do.
I am not questioning the validity of mekach ta'us. The Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter is a clearly phony psak. The facts are lies and even if they were true it doesn't justify annulling a marriage.
I thank you for your incredibly complete answer, for taking the trouble of presenting so many sources. I'm sure it was time consuming and probably emotionally draining as well. I've come to the conclusion that I personally would use a different method but I cannot question your method anymore.
ReplyDeleteRgds!
glad to see we have reached agreement as to the facts. Thanks for taking the time of reading through the material
ReplyDeleteRav Feldman had to back down. The letters which are short of insulting the perpetrators, (example as you mentioned, not calling them by their first name or not mentioning their name ,followed by wild epithets,) are due to for the need or perhaps, perceived need for diplomacy....to NOT be POLITICALLY INCORRECT. ...
ReplyDelete“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 ”
ReplyDeleteThe supporters, aiders and enablers of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter are the same as supporters of Mendel Epstein et al. Pacer 7/13/2016:
“TEXT ONLY ORDER (Clerk) granting Unopposed Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief and Appendix filed by Appellants Jay Goldstein, Binyamin Stimler and Mendel Epstein. Appellants' briefs, appendix and presentence reports, if applicable, must be filed and served on or before August 5, 2016., filed. [15-4053, 15-4094, 15-4095] (DW)”
Makkoth 23a
Our Rabbis taught: It is written, “He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more [לא יסיף], lest being flogged further, to excess [מכה רבה], your brother be degraded before your eyes.”(Deuteronomy 25:3). (He shall not exceed . . .) to excess [מכה רבה]. From this I gather that only to excess [מכה רבה] [is forbidden]; whence do I learn that [not even] a slight beating [in excess of the determined number of strokes] is permissible? From the instructive words, but not more [לא יסיף]. If so, what is the import of the phrase to excess [מכה רבה]? This phrase implies that the former [imposed number of] strokes were [in themselves] to excess [מכה רבה]. [Heavy, forcible strokes].
We should address the perversion of Torah and halacha that supporters of Mendel Epstein et al and the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter did.
Thanks for sharing. First time ever I hear that Rav Feldman had to back down about anything... tremendous chiddush.
ReplyDelete“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 ”
ReplyDeleteA watershed event occurred 10/9/2013:
Rueters: “The Goldsteins and several other men traveled to a warehouse in Edison, New Jersey, on Oct. 9, 2013, where they were met by two FBI agents posing as an Orthodox Jewish wife and her brother in a sting operation, prosecutors said. The pair were to pay $10,000 up front and another $50,000 for men who would beat her husband, they said. Agents arrested the group at the warehouse.”
Maybe after the appeal court rules on Mendel Epstein et al, only then will rabbis down in America (that have zero tolerance for the mesarev get) and will Greenblatt and Kaminetsky supporters, agree that beating a person is a Torah violation, as is adultery. The adultery has the fig leaf of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter.
“When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths. They heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the man and his wife hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. The Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” He replied, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” Then He asked, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?” The man said, “The woman You put at my side—she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done!” The woman replied, “The serpent duped me, and I ate.’ ” (Genesis 3:6-13)
All this stonewalling that supporters of Greenblatt and Kaminetsky do, is a brush aside:
“Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants, man or maid, When they made a complaint against me? What then should I do when God arises; When He calls me to account, what should I answer Him?” (Job 31:13-14).
Mendel Epstein et al brushed aside for 30 years complaints on mesarev get beatings. After the 10/9/2013 watershed event, the brushing aside changed to stonewalling.
You should see Rav Malinowitz's condemnation when that happened. .
ReplyDelete“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.”
ReplyDelete“When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished.” (Exodus 21:28).
Baba Kama 40a:
“Raba in his conversations with R. Nahman used to praise R. Aha b. Jacob as a great man. He [R. Nahman] therefore said to him: When you come across him, bring him to me. When he [R. Aha b. Jacob] later came to see him he [R. Nahman] said to him: You may put problems to me, whereupon he [R. Aha b. Jacob] asked him: If an ox of two partners [kill a person] how is the payment of kofer to be made? Shall this one pay kofer and the other one kofer? But one kofer is mentioned by Divine Law and not two kofers! Shall this one [pay] half of the kofer and the other one half of the kofer? A full kofer is commanded by Divine Law and not half of a kofer! … He [R. Nahman] said to him: Leave me alone; I am still held prisoner by your first problem [that has not yet been answered by me].
Are Greenblatt and Kaminetsky to be punished for their parts in the adultery? What is their responsibility in the adultery? We have here two partners in approving the adultery. Kaminetsky approved the heter and later took that back and stonewalls us. Greenblatt married the adulteress based on the heter and stonewalls us This is like an ox of 2 partners that gored, how to exact punishment, if any, from the partners?
“Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Summary: Does a gadol have to give permission to protest against Rav Shmuel Kaminetky's heter”
ReplyDeleteThis week’s parsha in Israel we read: “Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion.” (Numbers 25:11).
The Seforno says: “by displaying among them his passion for Me” Because he did revenge on my behalf before them all in order that they all see what he does and not protest. This will atone for that which they [the Israelites] did not protest to the sinners, with this he [Pinhas] “has turned back My wrath from the Israelites”
This is a proof that Rabbi Eidensohn is right to protest the public sinning of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter. This was the sin of the Gold Calf: the Israelites didn’t protest. The Israelites should’ve protested and protested loudly to the business of the Golden Calf. “This he took from them and cast in a mold, and made it into a molten calf. And they exclaimed, “This is your god,O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” (Exodus 32:4).
We, in this blog, protest, over the adultery in the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter. I say that failure to protest, is a sin. There was failure to protest, among American Jews and lefties over Mendel Epstein et al beatings for 30 years.
A watershed event occurred 10/9/2013:
Rueters: “The Goldsteins and several other men traveled to a warehouse in Edison, New Jersey, on Oct. 9, 2013, where they were met by two FBI agents posing as an Orthodox Jewish wife and her brother in a sting operation, prosecutors said. The pair were to pay $10,000 up front and another $50,000 for men who would beat her husband, they said. Agents arrested the group at the warehouse.”
A wife cruelly angry at her husband paid tens of thousands of dollars to Mendel Epstein, to ORA, to Agunah International etc “for men who would beat her husband.” There was little protest over this down in America. Those that could’ve protested and didn’t are complicit, much as the Israelites that didn’t protest over the Golden Calf are complicit in the sin of the Golden Calf. I say that Kaminetsky-Greenblatt are complicit in the sin of adultery of Tamar living with her boyfriend when her husband is alive and well and refuses to divorce her.
“ there is no halachic source which requires a person to ask a person viewed as a gadol or even ask a rabbi.”
ReplyDeleteFrom Wall Street Journal 7/18/2016:
“Revolutions don’t require majorities, but rather angry and excited minorities that are willing to act violently to take power.”
Mendel Epstein, ORA, Agunah International etc advocate beating to force an Israelite to leave alone and not be anymore with his Israelite properly married wife. I say that angry and excited wives and supporters show willingness to act violently (which Judge Freda calls heinous) to take power. We saw in the Mendel Epstein et al trial that Tamar Epstein’s lawyer paid $60,000 to Mendel Epstein and that Mendel Epstein sent his men to beat Aaron, Tamar’s lawful husband. Anyone (other than the angry and excited minorities that are willing to act violently to take power) would say that’s heinous:
(internet 2012):
“Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the bullets have been fired."
The angry and excited minorities failed to seize power to force Aaron to divorce his wife. They moved to the next level of sin, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt fake heter, the adultery of approving Tamar living with her boyfriend.
I've just seen the poster of the Tisha Be'Av annual presentation by the Chafetz Chaim Heritage Foundation. Guess who's one of the keynote speakers and the first one mentioned? Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky...
ReplyDeleteIt looks like this online campaign is not even scratching the surface of his image...
What next?
Pacer:
ReplyDelete08/01/2016 Open Document ECF FILER: Joint Motion filed by Appellant Mendel Epstein to File Appendix in Uploaded Digital Format Only, with Video Portions Provided on Digital Media. Certificate of Service dated 08/01/2016. [15-4095, 15-4053, 15-4094]--[Edited 08/02/2016 by CJG] (PG)
“…The total print job would approach 43,500 sheets of paper. Due to the voluminous size of the appendix, the amount of paper, packing, shipping and unloading effort, and physical storage space that would potentially be saved, and the ease of accessing searchable PDF documents by the Court and counsel alike, the parties ask to be relieved of the obligation to file paper copies.”
I prefer a print job that Pacer makes available. Why? Some light on the $60,000 Tamar’s mother paid Mendel Epstein to beat Tamar’s husband Aaron etc.
Pacer:
ReplyDelete“If the husband refuses to provide a get, the wife is unable to divorce within the Orthodox Jewish faith. Even if she obtains a civil divorce, she is unable to remarry and is otherwise severely disadvantaged in her community. See, e.g., 2A678, 680, 692, 745, 759. 900, 1902, 3A3629. She becomes an agunah, a Hebrew term meaning “chained woman.” 2A1902; see also 2A680. Worse yet, were she to remarry without a valid get, any children she has in that later marriage are
4
Case: 15-4095 Document: 003112373809 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/05/2016
considered “mamzers or bastards,” 2A1901-02, who are themselves ostracized and not permitted to marry. The consequences of a husband’s refusal to give the get are thus catastrophic and far-ranging.”
Looks to me the tact Mendel Epstein et al are using is vigilante doing a social good. I bet now we’ll see strong support from Greenblatt-Kaminestky, Agudah, Agunah International, etc. Catastrophic---sudden great disaster, if the man refuses to divorce his wife. Really? What if she feels she could do better, like Tamar in the Greenblatt-Kaminestky heter?
An Agunah is a term for someone that the fate of the husband is unknown and the woman becomes so called as if chained and not allowed to marry. A husband that is present, the wife must receive a Get Piturin from the husband, and she must be qualified to earn such according to SA. Until that happens, she is called a mechusser Get! That is *not* called an Agunah. To claim that she can do better is not a good enough reason.
ReplyDeleteDid Tamar do any better, having tangled up tween two husbands and in need of 2 Gittin each? With all the defamity she earned, while living in sin and her rabiner don't give a hoot about her agony. Yes, either *Agony* or as they would like to call it *Agunos* in plural, would be politically more correct. Epstein's agunah victims are still Mechusser Get, eishes ish living in sin, if any children they are mamzerim limehadrin. His social good is as good as Robin Hood's, taking away the wife of this and giving it to the needy. Lo Tignov and Lo Tinof is equally just as bad. Epstein truly deserved what he got, and they should also throw away the key. It is time to do a recall of his Agunos's and charge them for aiding and abetting kidnapping's and the whole nine yards.!!!
Not if it's a nure debei rav.
ReplyDelete“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” The Mendel Epstein et al opening brief is a terrible perversion of Torah and halacha. Besides adultery, stealing too. I quote:
ReplyDelete“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing deceitfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow, or by finding something lost and lying about it; if he swears falsely regarding any one of the various things that one may do and sin thereby—when one has thus sinned and, realizing his guilt, would restore that which he got through robbery or fraud, or the deposit that was entrusted to him, or the lost thing that he found, or anything else about which he swore falsely, he shall repay the principal amount and add a fifth part to it. He shall pay it to its owner when he realizes his guilt.” (Leviticus 5:20-24)
There’s a Biblical commandment: והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל “would restore that which he got through robbery or fraud.” Mendel Epstein et al and Susan Aranoff’s Agunah International got millions of dollars through robbery or fraud. With Mendel Epstein in jail, his children, his school and shuls have the obligation to return money he fraudulently took. Susan and Susan’s children have an obligation to return what they fraudulently took from me, e.g. $825 monthly, 55% of my pension, the $10,000 inheritance, my house etc.
Baba Kama 67a:
“R. Hisda stated that R. Jonathan said: How do we learn [from Scripture] that a change transfers ownership? Because it is said: “when one has thus sinned and, realizing his guilt, would restore that which he got through robbery or fraud, or the deposit that was entrusted to him, or the lost thing that he found” (Leviticus 5:23). What [then] is the point of the words, “that which he got through robbery”? [It must be to imply that] if it still is as when he took it violently he shall restore it, but if not, it is only the value of it that he will have to pay. But is this [text] “that which he got through robbery” not needed to exclude the case of robbery committed by a father, in which the son need not add a fifth [to the payment] for robbery committed by his father? [I.e., that the son should in this case not be subject to Lev. V, 24-25]. But if so, the Divine Law should have written only “he shall restore it” Why should it further be written. “that which he got through robbery”? Thus we can draw from it the two inferences [no penalty of a fifth theft committed by his father and may return the value of the theft and not the item stolen.].”
“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.”
ReplyDeleteI praise Judge Freda’s March 19, 2015 Opinion part of Mendel Epstein’s opening brief in Pacer. I’m expecting similar in the prosecutor’s coming rebuttal papers and in the Third Circuit’s final ruling. Shame shame on Mendel Epstein et al and Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Hershel Schacter and ORA and Rabbi Goldfein. I praise Rabbi Edidensohn. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/11/tamar-epstein-heter-understanding_25.html
“So --- the Beis Din with jurisdiction and that heard the case with the participation of both parties concluded that Aharon has no obligation to give a get. In addition, the Washington Beis Din sent Aharon several hazmanos, but concluded, as Aharon had argued to them, that they had no right to intercede in the case. And, at least according to Rabbi Jeremy Stern and ORA, the Beis Din of America also refused to intercede in the case against Aharon despite being requested to do so by the Epsteins. Eventually Goldfein found a thoroughly incompetent and corrupt criminal enterprise led by the criminal Martin Wolmark to purport to issue a “seruv” against Aharon with the participation of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. The criminal enterprise did not even bother to issue even a single hazmana [summons] against Aharon. And yet, other than Rabbis Eidensohn and Rabbi Gestetner, very few would publicly defend Aharon against these criminals, and their associates such as Rabbi Hershel Schacter and ORA who made a mockery of halacha, beis din, and the frum community. Is it any mystery why the Kamenetskys would believe that it would also be perfectly accepted if they were to organize a “kiddushei taos”?”
My wife asks who reads what I write? I bet Judge Freda reads my stuff and many others. Thanks, Rabbi Eidensohn.
ReplyDeleteWall Street Journal “Catastrophe bonds were invented in the early 1990s to help insurance companies mitigate the risk of disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes.” Mendel Epstein in his opening brief: “The consequences of a husband’s refusal to give the get are thus catastrophic and far-ranging.”
Really? The husband’s refusal to divorce his wife is a sudden, calamitous disaster similar to hurricane and earthquake disasters. Couple know the awful statistics of divorce, yet, at the time of marriage generally make the commitment to marriage. Why? They think they won’t get divorced. What are the statistics on wives that are ultimately grateful that their husbands refused their demand for a divorce?
No you do not need permission. Sometimes common sense wins the day. It's not like you are protesting Moshe Feinstein here. All American born rabbis are suspect as are all born after 1935. Keep up the good work Mr. Eidensohn.
ReplyDeleteNice, but Rav Shmuel is not American-born and was born before 1935. I'd say you're suspect.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm suspect. I'm American. And so is he. Where did he grow up? Reb Yaakov came to American in 1937 when Shmuel was 2. Try doing your homework.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing I read every 4th/5th post of yours. But it's also true that I quit reading once your post transitions from the blogpost subject to your personal life.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I understand how this works. The blogpost is date-marked "Thursday, January 23, 2020", yet the Comments below are all from 3-4yrs ago.
ReplyDeleteit is simple i recently republished an old post
ReplyDelete"Rabbi Leib Tropper, dean of Yeshiva Kol Yaakov, called the
ReplyDeleteconference "a monumental achievement by daas Torah
throughout the world." He added: "We are well on the way
towards adopting universal standards for conversions in
intermarriage. We will be sending a strong message that when
it comes to geirus in intermarriage, there is only one
halochoh.""
http://www.chareidi.org/archives5766/VYK66aflorida.htm
So did Daas Torah support Tropper/EJF proselytisation?
These articles often include messages of support from Rav Elyashiv!
Is rav Shmuel Kamenetsky now the leading Gadol for misnagdim around the world?
ReplyDeleteA question regarding conversion -
ReplyDeleteas far as I am aware, there is no chiyuv for a woman to marry and have children, that only pertains to the man. it is not a mitzvah or aveir for a jewish woman to marry, so if a prospective convert does marry a Jewish man, it is not a "motive" - the motive could be to keep kosher, Torah, Shabbes, and taharat mishpacha in case she does marry. Just like there is no chiyuv for her to eat meat, but if she so wishes, it has to be kosher shechita and cooked in separate dishes.
So my question - how can the motive of "marriage" disqualify a convert if they are intending to keep the Torah either way?
https://jewishaction.com/cover-story/rabbi-nota-greenblatt-ztl/
ReplyDeleteGreat article about reb Nota ztl
A big man, who made a HUGE mistake.
ReplyDeleteMany other great men also made mistakes. It's just that admitting it became difficult after the Old Testament was completed.
ReplyDeletehttps://mishpacha.com/the-humblest-mountain/
ReplyDeleteInteresting to read how rav Moshe bestowed honor on him
Big deal.
ReplyDeleteThat didn't give him a lifetime pass to permit married women to marry someone else, without having received a kosher Get.
Sure, if you are gadol, you have a lifetime pass. His issue was that he was not the greatest gadol hador.
ReplyDeleteWhen did the Testament become "old"?
ReplyDeleteז זְכֹר יְמוֹת עוֹלָם, בִּינוּ שְׁנוֹת דֹּר-וָדֹר; {ס} שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ, זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ. {ר} 7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy father, and he will declare unto thee, thine elders, and they will tell thee.
ReplyDeleteThis distinction is meant to say that Judaism was supplanted- chas v'sholom
ReplyDeletethat may be what the xties say, but it is Old in the sense of ancient and timelessness.
ReplyDeleteחֲדָשִׁים גַּם יְשָׁנִים דּוֹדִי צָפַנְתִּי לָךְ״ — אָמְרָה כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הַרְבֵּה גְּזֵירוֹת גָּזַרְתִּי עַל עַצְמִי יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁגָּזַרְתָּ עָלַי, וְקִיַּימְתִּים
ReplyDeleteEruvin 21b
I know the Xtian reason for using the phrase. I'm just surprised that a religious Jew would fall prey to using a blatantly Xtian phrase.
ReplyDeleteAncient is old, but timeless is not.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah is timeless. and is as fresh and relevant today, as when it was given to us at Sinai.
History peaks of the past, but the Torah was never supplanted by a "new" version.
ReplyDeleteYochana Koen Gadol, was a High Priest for 80 years, and then became a Sadducee.
ReplyDeleteHe was called out for it.
In the days of the prophet, Yirmiyahu, there was a true prophet who became a false prophet - Hananiah ben Azur. He is called out for it.
Our Sages said, don't believe in yourself until the day you die. Our Sages knew that every person has weaknesses, and anyone can make a mistake. NO ONE should get a free pass.
It's old, 3400 years old, depending on how you calculate.
ReplyDeleteI think in English and often type completely in English, so I couldn't think of an English version of tanakh other than OT.
Nt is sheker, although for them it might hold some basic value _ see rambam and Meiri.
It's interesting that the Torah tells us davka to remember the days of old, and to ask our elders. Nothing pejorative about the word Old. Perhaps the Beatles said its hip to be young, but just look at what the Torah tells us.
ReplyDeleteI never suggested that it was supplanted by a "new" version. The xtians call their stuff new, so the Old is the original true Bible. They thought the Torah was too machmir for them, so they wrote some mumbo jumbo and justified their distance from the Torah.
ReplyDeleteBut Torah is called Pentateuch in English. Tnkh is not translatable in English as far as I know, other than Hebrew Bible or OT.
Ignoring the commonly accepted understanding of words is not helpful for communication
ReplyDeleteI looked at a few google results. They don't claim (at least not today) that the Hebrew Bible us no longer valid, but that it's the Brit that the Jew's have. Their new t. Is just for them.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in the inquisition they tried to persuade us to accept their claims. A good test of this concept would be to talk to an archbishop, and use the term OT. if he were to exclaim that my mere use of the OT designation is proof that I accept the NT, then you have a valid argument. But I've never come across such a triumphant charge from any xtians.
Of course that is their claim - the fact that no one has told you this directly is not proof of the validity of your position
ReplyDeleteThey misread this pasuk in Yirmiyahu 31:30 which talks of a Brit Hadasha.
ReplyDeleteSo does correctly reading this posuk entail accepting that man's distorted tumah?
I also think in English, and when I see the term "Old Testament" used, I instinctively think that it must be an Xtian who is speaking.
ReplyDeleteWhen I want to refer to the Tanakh, I use the term, "Hebrew Bible".
When I want to refer to the Xtian book, I refer to it as the "Greek Testament".
The greater a Gadol a person is, the harder it is to call them out.
ReplyDeleteThere was a controversy about Artificial Insemination donors, and a lenient psak by the preeminent gadol hador. Had a middle tier posek come out with this, he would be finished. The same goes with nullification of gittin - such that Rav Elyashiv disagreed with RMF , but he was even greater than Rav Elyashiv, so RMF could not be assailed. Had it been Someone like R Goren or Tzitz Eliezer, the Hareidi world would wash their hands of them.
Using "new" and "old", gives undeserving legitimacy to those who coined these terms.
ReplyDelete"Tanakh" or "Hebrew Bible" should work just fine in this forum.
I am not disputing the principle of what you say. Some posts I type on my old smartphone, and I am thinking in English, which is how it comes out on the typepad.
ReplyDeleteHowever, no current translation suffices -
Bible is just Biblios, a book. Septuagint (ignore the variations) refers to the 70 elders who translated it to Greek.
Using the OT notation does not imply that one accepts the NT. Using BC, is less problematic than "AD". If there was a phone book 2000 years ago, his name would be J. Christ, so it simply means before his birth.
BTW, you presumably use the name Tammuz for last month, and refer to the Taanith of Tammuz, even though Tammuz is a babylonian god, which is decried in the book of Yechezkel? So you have to be consistent. Practice what you preach and abandon the idolatrous names of the current hebrew calendar.
I accept the second part of your statement, I will avoid that OT notation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it gives no legitimacy to them at all.
"Etymology
From Middle English [Term?], from Latin Vetus Testāmentum. Old refers to ancientness, not to obsolescence. Equivalent to a retronym, by comparison with the New Testament."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Old_Testament#:~:text=Etymology,comparison%20with%20the%20New%20Testament.
I was unable to paste this earlier when using my "ancient" smartphone