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

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

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

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

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

Therefore aside from the need to accurately present the facts as to what has happened and why it has happened for the sake of Truth - it is needed to present the facts in order to know what to do to rectify the problem. Furthermore as Santayana wrote (in The Life of Reason, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” or as eloquently and wisely expressed by Winston Churchill

“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

—House of Commons, 2 May 1935, after the Stresa Conference, in which Britain, France and Italy agreed—futilely—to maintain the independence of Austria. (My book* page 490).

Letter written November 3, 2015

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

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

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

  Procedural Summary

 It is important to know why Aharon Friedman is named as the plaintiff in the civil courts. it was not because of his desire to have the case handled by the secular courts [contrary to the assertions of the Beis Din's letter] but was the result of a psak he received from Rabbi Breitowitz that he needed to take action quickly in the secular courts to avoid losing his daughter. As the Summary clearly shows - he actually cancelled a trial in civil court in October 2008 in order to bring the case to beis din. He also ultimately agreed to entirely cancel the secular lawsuit when the beis din later ordered him to do that - but Tamar refused. In fact a major posek who has been deeply involved in this case stated recently that Aharon showed too much deference to the beis din and rabbinical adivisors and that he should have gone to the police when Tamar abducted their daughter and moved to Philadelphia in April 2008 and should not have canceled the October 2008 trial to being the case to Beis Din - for the reason that Tamar had established facts on the ground by relocating the child out-of-State that would effectively pre-determine the outcome of any court case (if postponed any further), and beis din, even with a binding arbitration agreement would have no legal ability to change that.

As both Rabbi Landesman's letter to Rabbi Feldman, and the letter from the Rabbi Rabinowitz's Beis Din Ezer Mishpat make clear, Tamar violated the Beis Din's  orders and brought the case to trial in civil court. Tamar's actions in this regard also violated the parties' mediation agreement (pursuant to which Aharon agreed to dismiss a pendete lite trial in October 2008), and violated the shtar beirurin [binding arbitration agreement] signed before the Beis Din, both of which bound the parties to have the case decided by the Baltimore BD.

It is true that Aharon participated in the civil court trial.  But once Tamar refused the Beis Din's orders and insisted on taking the case to trial in civil court, Aharon had no choice but to participate in that trial -- and even the Beis Din did not ask Aharon not to.  Although courts must generally respect binding arbitration agreements regarding other matters, if one party to a binding arbitration agreement regarding custody insists on the court deciding the case, the court may not defer to the arbitrator and must decide the case from scratch under the doctrine of parens patriae. 

This is the rule in Maryland under a case called Kovacs, which specifically ruled that the Maryland courts may not enforce a binding arbitration agreement before the Baltimore BD with regard to child custody where one party objected.

===============================================================
The Baltimore Beis Din is still the only beis din that has been authorized by both sides to deal with the issues. And they state they are willing to continue.

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

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

Letter written July 2015

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

בס"ד                                                                                                                                             

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

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

מרדכי שוחטוביץ

משה היינמאן

יעקב האפפער

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

אהרן פלדמן

English Translation of Rav Moshe Sternbuch's protest against heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get

Rav Moshe Sternbuch

Protest against heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get

This is in regards to the recently publicized psak of one of the gedolim (an American rosh yeshiva) together with an American posek. The psak freed a woman from marriage without a Get despite the fact that she had lived with her first husband for an extended period of time and she had born a daughter from him. But now a therapist claims that the husband suffers from mental illness that had existed prior to their marriage. Therefore these two rabbis paskened that they had determined that the marriage was a mistake (mekach ta'os) and that therefore the woman was free to marry immediately without needing a Get. And in fact they [the posek] officiated at a wedding for her without her receiving a Get.

And I saw the teshuva that "freed" her. I hate to say this but the teshuva is total nonsense. Taking the approach of this teshuva it is possible to destroy the whole framework of halachic marriage. For example, if a spouse is found to have cancer – something which begins to develop a long time before it is discovered by the doctors – it would be possible according to the logic of this teshuva to declare that the marriage is a mistake (mekach ta'os) and thus never existed. Similarly there are thousands of other cases of problems that develop prior to marriage but are only discovered after marriage.

In fact in many cases of divorce, the wife brings a therapist's opinion to beis din, that the husband suffers from mental illness that was a pre-existing condition. Therefore according to the view of these two rabbis there would be no need for a Get (G-d forbid!) in those cases! Such an approach is destructive to Judaism and uproots the basic laws governing Jewish marriage. And this that they claim that they are merely basing themselves on the views of Rav Moshe Feinstein – that is total nonsense. The present case is not comparable to Rav Moshe's cases. But this is not the place to go into the details.

When a certain Religious Zionistic rabbi declared the he had found a heter for  a person who had the status of a mamzer to marry, the Minchas Yitzchok (Dayan Weiss) gathered the people together and they sat on the ground and tore their clothing as a sign of mourning. It is explained in Kiddushin (13a) that when a married woman is declared to be free of her married status against the halacha, G-d becomes very angry and brings about punishment which is greater than that of the Generation of the Flood. To the degree that even the fish in the sea are destroyed.

It is important, therefore that it be publicized that the heter of these rabbis for her to remarry is totally worthless and has no basis. Consequently she is still married to the first husband in every respect and therefore any children born from her relation to the second husband are clearly mamzerim. I have no peace of mind because I have not heard protests against this false heter - which is against G-d's honor and His Torah.

I heard from the Brisker Rav that when there is a serious problem that it be  dealt with by  issuing a categorical prohibition without giving detailed explanations. That is because if a reason for the objections are given, then it is possible for someone to argue and say they are wrong. Therefore also in this case, I am not coming forth except to encourage he who protests the heter and sanctifies G-d's name.  His reward is exceedingly great.

Tamar Epstein: Translation of protest by R Shlomo Miller, R E B Wachtfogel, R Moshe Green and R Yechiel Tauber

This is concerning the uproar regarding the case of Tamar Epstein the wife of Aharon Friedman. He has refused to give her a Get for many years because of unresolved issues regarding custody of their daughter.  The facts of the case of been investigated and established by Rav Aharon Feldman. 

There is a "rav" [R Nota Greenblatt] who has given Tamar a heter to remarry without a Get. He  said the marriage was annulled retroactively because of the principle of mekach ta'os (mistaken acquistion). The reason for the mekach ta'os he claims is that the husband (Aharon) suffers from the personality disorders of Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD_ and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD).

However this explanation is not adequate justification for annulling the marriage - since it is obvious that there are many people who have such personality disorders and yet are still able to have a successful marriage. In fact I asked two psychotherapists about this and they both said that these personality disorders are not mental illness but are simply personality traits. Thus there is absolutely no justification to declare the marriage annulled because of mekach ta'os. Furthermore the Beis Din of Baltimore - which is the only beis din that has been authorized by both side and they both appeared before it - has said that there is no sign of mental illness in the husband.

And if as a result of this "psak", reckless and irresponsible rabbis permit other woman to remarry it would mean that there will never be a need for a Get again. That is because the wife will simply claim that she has discovered that her husband has a serious personality problem and that she would have never agreed to marry him if she had known about it before the marriage. As a result of this mistaken reasoning - G-d forbid- it will result in multiplying the number of mamzerim in the Jewish people.

 Besides the above objections to the heter, it is a fact that they remained living together for an extended period of time and she never claimed that her marriage was a mistake -mekach ta'os. And in addition even after the therapist wrote that her husband had these "incurable" personality disorders - she remained living with him for a period of 4 months. Given these facts it is obvious that even if in fact that her husband has this defect of mental illness  (but as we noted before it is not a defect that justifies annulling the marriage ) it is clear that she was able to accept him as a husband and therefore the marriage can not be considered inherently mistaken (mekach ta'os).

Today it is widespread that reckless and irresponsible people who want to resolve every case of aguna by simply saying that the marriage is a mistaken marriage (mekach ta'os). As a result of such an approach the Torah (G-d forbid!) will be deserted and no one will be concerned with the truth as to what the halacha really is. It will be sufficient for these people that they can find some sort of rabbi who will declare that they are free from their marriage and it doesn't concern them whether the rabbi is following the halacha or not.

Today when  the Jewish people is in mortal danger from the sword of the Arabs, we need to ask what sin has brought about these types of afflictions? I am not a prophet  or even the son of a prophet and I don't have esoteric knowledge - but I do know something about the words of our Sages. The sword comes to the world because of those who rebel against the Torah and distort its teaching against the halacha. There is no greater rebellion and distortion of the Torah than to say that it is permitted for a married woman to marry someone else without first receiving a Get from her husband.

In summary, this married woman Tamar Epstein is prohibited to her second husband because she married him without first obtaining a Get from her first husband. Consequently all children she has from her second husband are mamzerim and can not marry other Jews.

Signed in anguish because of the terrible destruction and the public chilul haShem

Rav Shlomo Miller
Rav E B. Wachtfogel
Rav Moshe Green
Rav Yechiel Tauber

Rav Moshe Sternbuch explains why Tamar Epstein's heter is so dangerous

The following is from Rav Sternbuch's parsha sheet for this week

 בשבוע שעבר עוררנו על ההיתר שניתן מאחד מהפוסקים באמריקה להתיר אשת איש לשוק בלא גט, ואחד מגדולי ראשי הישיבות שם הביע דעתו שאפשר לסמוך על הרב שהתיר (מתוך עדות הנמצא תתת ידי), והיא תקלה ופרצה גדולה. ובשעה שרב אחד בצרפת התיר נישואין על תנאי לפני יותר ממאה שנה, כתבו כל הרבנים ומנהיגים בכל העולם כולו שאין בו ממש, והדבר הועיל לבטל את ההיתר, ועכשיו עדיין לא נשמע קול מחאה כראוי, והסכנה עדיין בעינה עומדת, וחייבים לכתוב להדיא שהיא אשת איש גמורה ואין כאן שום מקום היתר, וגם המתיר יחתום שאסורה, ובזה תתבטל הסכנה בס"ד.ולפני כשנתיים רב אחד בצפת התיר גט בלא הבעל מדין זכיה, ויצאו כבגדו אבל כפי הנראה לא נשמע קול מחאה כפי הצורך, וכיון שלא הפקיעו אותו רבתה הפרצה ומינו אותו עכשיו כראש בית דין - בבית דין בירושלים. וכל לבב דווי בשעה ששמו של הקב"ה מתהלל בראש כל חוצות, וראש הממשלה כאן הודיע שיחזק הרפורמים בארץ , וכעת שנתפרסם פסק להתיר אשת איש בלא גט, הדבר עלול לשמש את הרפרומים שמחכים למצוא איזה קולא של גדולי ישראל כדי להיתלות בו ולומר שהם משורש "בית הלל" שמקילים יותר, והיא בכיה לדורות רח"ל, וחוב מוטל על יהדות אמריקה לבטל הגזירה...

Last week we protested the heter that was given from one of the American poskim to permit a married woman to marry without obtaining a Get from her first husband. One of the greatest rosh yeshivos  in America voiced his opinion that it was possible to rely on the rabbi who gave the heter to remarry. (I have clear evidence in my possession for this). This a a terrible stumbling block and breach in normative halacha.

More than 100 years ago when a French rabbi made a conditional marriage, the rabbis and leaders from all over the word wrote that there was no validity to such a thing. The protest was effect in nullifying his heter.

However I still don't hear an appropriate level of protest against Tamar Epstein's heter. Therefore the danger remains as dangerous as it was before. We need to write openly that Tamar Epstein remains fully  married to her first husband - and there is no basis for a heter in this case. Even the one who said the heter was a good should write that it is prohibited. In this way the danger will be eliminated with G-d's help.

Two years ago there was a rabbi in Tzfas who created a Get without the involvement of the husband by means of the principle of zichoi. There in fact was a protest against him but it seems it was not strong enough. Because it wasn't nullifed, there was an increase in the failure to observe the halacha and he in fact was appointed as a dayan in Yerushalayim.....

Currently there is another case which has been become known where a woman was given a heter to remarry without first receiving a Get from her first husband. The matter threatens to serve the Reform who have waiting to find a leniency from gedolim in order to claim that they represent a legitimate alternative like Beis Hillel who were more lenient. But this is a disaster for all time. Therefore the Jews in America have an obligation to nullify this decree...

Rabbi Akiva Eiger - like all gedolim - needed to make a mistake to show he was human

This is a first hand report that was sent to me by someone I know

I am reporting a story I heard from Rav Avrohom Turin shlit”a, mashgiach in Yeshiva Bais Moshe Scranton. There is a known question from Reb Akiva Eiger in which he inquires how it is that a man can be together with his wife when she is pregnant, if she is carrying a girl, then he violates אשה ובתה. Reb Akiva Eiger poses an answer, but doesn’t accept it in conclusion.

When the bochurim in Telshe in Europe were learning a related sugya, they encountered this tshuvah, and were perplexed. Firstly, they considered the question foolish, then they wondered how he offered the teretz he did, then how he remained inconclusive at the end. The bochurim attacked this with a vengeance. How did Reb Akiva Eiger consider this a valid question, what is the real teretz, and why did he not consider that teretz, etc. Needless to say, the bais hamedrash was buzzing with this issue for days. The Rosh Hayeshiva  came in to say shuir, and immediately acknowledged that the preoccupation with this issue needed to be addressed. Here is what he said.

"Reb Akiva Eiger was pronounced dead by his doctors some 15 years before he actually died. During that time, he wrote voluminous chidushei Torah, tshuvos in intricate areas of halacha, and said great shiurim. Observing this, one might conclude that Reb Akiva Eiger was not a human but a malach! That, proclaimed the Rosh Hayeshivah, would not be good. One cannot consider a malach a potential role model. Only a great human can serve as a role model. Every Yid has the potential to achieve greatness, and use of role models for this is a critical aspect of Avodas Hashem. In order to recognize that a great human is truly human, they must be known to have erred. Imperfection is uniquely human. So HKB”H arranges that every tzaddik makes one mistake so that we should know he is human. This was that mistake for Reb Akiva Eiger."

Even gedolim are required to keep the Torah

I just received the following email - expressing great disgust at my efforts to expose the terrible thing that the Kaminetsky's have done in collusion with Rav Nota Greenblatt. The letter writer obviously feels gedolim inherently are infallible and that anyone who says otherwise - you shoot first and don't ask questions. 

Unfortunately my view is not some warped fantasies of a blogger who harbors hatred towards Torah Judaism - something which is implied in his criticism. The opposite is true. My life has been devoted to preserving and enhancing the Orthodox Jewish community - for many years.The whole chain of events pains me greatly as I am a great admirer of Rabbi Kaminestky and Rabbi Greenblatt. So while I love and admire gedolim - I love Torah and truth more.

My view is actually held by the clear majority of rabbinic figures in the Orthodox world. These rabbis  are now trying to deal with the delicate and embarrassing situation of gedolim acting as Reform Jews in trying to ameliorate the unpleasant situation of a young woman they felt an obligation to use their full power to help.

The transgressions of normative halacha and halachic procedure done by these gedolim are so blatant - most high school students can fully understand the problematic halachic issues and the misuse of psychology to justify it. The only issue is whether to deny that the emperor has no clothes - in a vain attempt to preserve the illusion of rabbinic authority and infallibility.

I am thouroughly disgusted by both you and your daastorah blog. how dare you criticize rav Shmuel kaminetsky shlita, you don't even come to his toenails. I am ready to vomit from the comments you posted after the rav Ahron Feldman article. I hope the next article you publish will be asking mechila berabim from him and promising to close down your vile blog. You even attemt to claim he's not a Posek and attack his seforim while in the same breath admit you've never read them and rely on others for your opinion. What gall you have. Have a great week, I hope you'll think about what I am telling you.

Sent from my iPhone

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky: Why he erred in thinking the Maharsham was senile

Recently events have caused me to recall an interesting story I heard from Rav Yitzchok Berkowitz. I believe Rav Berkowitz said that this story was told by Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky at an Agudah Convention many years ago.

When Rav Yaakov Kaminetseky was a yeshiva bachur he happened to be traveling by train through the city that the Maharsham lived. Being a great admirer of the Maharsham , as well as other gedolim, he decided to take the opportunity to meet with the Maharsham - who at that time was a very old man. He said to himself, "Who knows if I will have another opportunity to meet him."

When he met the Maharsham, he raised a question in Yevamos that had been bothering him for a long time and which he had found no satisfactory answer in the standard commentaries. The Maharsham listened carefully to the question and then said, "You will find the answer in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim." He gave him the precise simon. Rav Yaakov thanked him for the answer and for giving up some of his precious time to talk with him.

As Rav Yaakov was walking back to the train station, he sadly thought to himself. "What a pity such a great man was suffering from senility. How absurd to say that I should look at Orech Chaim for the answer to a complex question from Yevamos. Everybody knows that Orech Chaim doesn't deal with such questions."

The more he thought about the tragedy of the loss of the Maharashm's mind, the more an inner voice struggled to be heard. It said, " If a gadol tells you something - you should take it seriously and don't be so hasty to dismiss it."

In deference to the inner voice he stopped in a beis medrash and looked up the source that the Maharsham had proposed. Much to his astonishment and shame, the source in Orech Chaim did in fact answer the complex question of Yevamos. 

With a feeling of great embarrassment and degradation, he ran back to the Maharasham's house to apologize for his terrible mistake in thinking the Maharasham was senile.

The Maharsham of course greeted him gently and told him not to be so upset about his misjudgment. He told Rav Yaakov to go to his bookcase and take down the first volume of his set of Shulchan Aruch. He then told him to open to the inside cover. There Rav Yaakov saw there was about 100 marks inscribed there. The Maharsham said, "Those marks are the number of times I have fully reviewed the Shulchan Aruch. You should know that even if I had become senile - because of my intimate familiarity with the Shulchan Aruch that has resulted from constant review - I still would have been able to give you the answer to your question.

Even though we know gedolim are fallible, woe is the person who points out their errors - Why?

I have been severely criticized for claiming that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and son have seriously erred in understanding modern psychology and how it relates to the din of kiddushei ta'us. I have been severely criticized for claiming that Rav Nota Greenblatt has seriously erred in blindly accepting the conclusion of the Kaminetsky's regarding the mental state of Aharon Friedman and paskening that he is incapable of being a husband.

Of course this isn't new. I have also strongly criticised gedolim in the Tropper case, Hirsch case, Kolko case etc etc. Sometimes I do this with the support of major rabbonim - as happened in the Tropper case, the Meisel's Seminary case and the Dodelson divorce and sometimes I rely on my own judgment.

The following are some thoughts which I hope to expand - perhaps into a book. The question is the degree which we must rely on ourselves and the degree which we must accept the views of gedolim.

As Rav S. R. Hirsch notes, the Bible does not cover up the mistakes of our forefathers and that this is one of the proofs of its validity. 

Rav S. R. Hirsch(Bereishis 18:24):  Moshe was not very perceptive in this area and this lack of talent was proof that whatever he did was from G-d's command. [Nothing is so instructive for us, as this information regarding the first legal institution of the Jewish State, coming immediately before the chapter of the law-giving. So little was Moshe in himself a legislative genius, he had so little talent for organizing that he had to learn the very first elements of state organization from his father-in-law. The man who tired himself out to utter exhaustion and to whom of himself did not occur to arrange this or some similar simple solution, equally beneficial to himself and his people, the man to who it was necessary to have a Jethro to suggest this obvious device, that man could never have given the People constitution and laws out of his own head, that man was only, and indeed just because of this the best and most faithful instrument of G-d.

Rav S. R. Hirsch(Bereishis 12: 10 – 13):.  The Torah does not seek to portray our great men  as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: “Here you  have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!” It does  not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which  we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we  must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a  model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust.  Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: “Look upon Me!  Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!” We are never to say: “This must be  good and right, because so-and-so did it.” The Torah is not an “anthology  of good deeds.” It relates events not because they are necessarily  worthy of emulation, but because they took place.    The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses  of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.  The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract  from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their  stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they  been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and  unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed  with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed  free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed  to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired  by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to  emulate.

The Talmud also mentions mistakes of great people.

Sanhedrin (52b): Imarta the daughter of committed adultery. Rav Chama had her surrounded by bundles of twigs and burnt. Rav Yosef said that Rav Chama erred in two laws. He erred in Rav Masna dictum and he erred in this braissa, “And you shall come to the cohanim and the leviim and to the judge that shall be in those days (Devarim 17:11). This verse means that only in the time that there are the priesthood is functioning in the Temple is capital punishment carried out. However when there is no priesthood in the Temple then there is no capital punishment.”

Similarly Barbara Tuchman has an interesting book, "The March of Follies" where she discusses errors major historical figures have made.  We also find mentioned in the Talmud and other rabbinic rights where the mistakes of major rabbinic figures are discussed. David Halberstam wrote "The Best and the Brightest" which describes the disaster of America's involvement in Vietnam as being the result of brilliant men who had had a lifetime of success after success - unable to face the reality of failure -  because they couldn't conceive  that they had errred

In our times however it is assumed that even though gedolim can make mistakes - but the masses are not supposed to think that they can identify them nor even be aware of them. This is interesting in light of the Chazon Ish who says that our leaders are no different than plumbers in that it is permitted to speak lashon harah about their faults in order to know when and how to rely on them.

Chazon Ish(2:133): Knowledge about a talmid chachom who shapes yiddishkeit is similar to that of an artisan. Just as one is permitted to convey accurate information about an artisan if there is to'eles so it it permitted to reveal information about a gadol if there is to'eles. Of critical importance is to be totally accurate otherwise it is slander. This implies that expressing negative information about others is relevant for those who are considered influential authorities – in order to understand the degree to rely on them.

Yad HaMelech (Hilchos Mamrim 1:2): …It is clear that according to the understanding of Rashi and the Mizrachi the intent of the Sifre [that one must listen to the rabbis even when it apparently involves Torah prohibitions] is against the view of the Babylonian Talmud and also against the Yerushalmi. Furthermore since the Rambam omits mention of this Sifre therefore we have only the halachic view that is explicit in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Thus all halachic rulings which appear to contradict the words of the Torah e.g., eating prohibited fats or killing an innocent man – irrespective as to the authority of the rabbi giving the ruling they are not to be accepted. It is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi and also the Bavli that if someone errs in this matter and thinks it is an obligation to listen to these rabbis to eat fat prohibited by the Torah because he thinks it is a mitzva to always obey the rabbis – this individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice as he would be for eating any Torah prohibited food in error.

Yerushalmi (Horios 1:1): You might think that you must obey the [Sanhedrin or Rabbinic authorities] even when they tell you that “right” is “left” and that “left” is “right” – but the Torah says that you are to follow after them “right and left”. Thus it is only when they tell you that “right” is “right” and “left” is “left” that you should obey them.

So the issue is do we assume that for all intents and purposes they are guided by ruach hakodesh and even when they err - it is the Will of G-d which must be accepted. Or do we say that these are great men with much greater holiness, intelligence and wisdom than the masses - but that they are capable of error which must be questioned, criticized and at time even opposed?

Ramban (Devarim 17:11): Left and Right. Rashi explains that even if the Sanhedrin tell you that right is left or left is right – [you must obey them]. Meaning that even if you are certain that the Sanhedrin has erred and it is as obvious to you as the difference between your right and left – you still must comply with their understanding of the Torah. In other words you can’t argue, “How can I eat that which is prohibited by the Torah or how can I execute this person when I know he has not transgressed?” Rather your attitude must be, “The absolute obedience to the rulings of the Sanhedrin is what G d has commanded me and I must observe the mitzvos exactly as the Sanhedrin (which is in G d’s presence in the Temple) says. The Torah was given to me according to their understanding – even if they err.” This is what happened when R’ Yehoshua had a dispute with the Sanhedrin as to what day was Yom Kippur. R’ Gamliel the head of the Sanhedrin ordered R’ Yehoshua to appear before him on the day that he thought was Yom Kippur (Rosh HaShanna 25a). The necessity for this mitzva is very great. That is because the Torah was given to us in writing and it is known that people don’t think identically in all matters. Therefore it would be natural for disputes over what the Torah means to continually multiply and it would end up that there would be many Torahs instead of one. That is why this verse tells you that one must obey the Sanhedrin which convenes in G d’s presence in the Temple – in everything they say concerning the understanding of the Torah. There is no difference in the requirement to obey whether this Torah understanding is part of the Tradition which goes back what G d told Moshe or what their understanding of the meaning or intent of a Torah verse. This requirement to accept their Torah understanding is because the Torah was in fact given to us according to their understanding. Therefore they must be obeyed even if their view contrasts with your understanding as left contrasts with right and surely if you agree with their understanding. That is because G d’s spirit is on those who serve in His Temple and He does not desert His pious ones. G d always protects them from error and mistake. The Sifri (Shoftim 154) says that you must obey them even if appears that they have reversed right with left and left with right.

Michtav M’Eliyahu (1:75): The Talmudic sages (Chazal) have told us to obey the words of gedolim – even if they tell us that left is right. This expression isn’t meant to imply that we must obey them even when they have actually erred. But rather that we must listen to them even when we - with our lowly understanding – think that we definitely have observed that they have erred. That is because our senses are totally nothing as if they were the dust of the earth compared to the clarity of their intellect and the Heavenly support they have. Thus our belief that they have erred has no practical consequences since there is a rule that a beis din cannot nullify the ruling of another beis din unless it is greater in wisdom and number. Even without this rule it is clear that what we think is awareness or experience is only a figment of our imagination and unstable moods. This superiority is Daas Torah within the framework of emunas chachom (faith in our sages).

Rabbi Avi Shafran(spokesman for Agudath Israel of America – N. Y. Jewish Week): Da'at Torah is not some Jewish equivalent to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Not only can rabbis make mistakes of judgment, there is an entire tractate of the Talmud, Horiut, predicated on the assumption that they can, that even the Sanhedrin is capable of erring, even in halachic matters.  What Da'at Torah means, simply put, is that those most imbued with Torah-knowledge and who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes are thereby rendered particularly, indeed extraordinarily, qualified to offer an authentic Jewish perspective on matters of import to Jews - just as expert doctors are those most qualified (though still fallible, to be sure) to offer medical advice.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Tamar Epstein: A gadol explains what a secret psak is and why it isn't taken seriously

One of the gedolim who was asked about the claim that there is a secret heter to remarry without a get that has been paskened by unknown rabbis - told the following story in response.

There was a heimishe hardware store in Williamsburg (- or was it Boro Park?) that was selling various electrical appliances for preparing food. As we all know such appliances need to be toveled or modified in some way before they can be used- unless they were produced by a Jewish factory. 

An avreich  went in to buy a coffee maker. Over the appliances was a large signed that all the appliances sold in the store could be used without immersing them in a mikve. The avreich was clearly puzzled when he noticed that all the appliances were in sealed boxes which were all clearly labeled as being made in China. He went to the store owner and asked how he could sell such as ready to use without first immersing them in a mikve?

The owner stroked his beard and said, it is simple - the rav he used had told him that all the appliances were fully useable without immersion in a mikveh. The avreich was very surprised as he had spent much time in learning the sources on this matter and there was simply no way a sealed appliance manufactured in a Chinese factory could be used straight out of the box.

He quickly hurried to the rav's house to ask him the basis of his psak. The rav greeted him warmly and listened to his learned discourse as to why the appliances needed to be immersed first. After the avreich had impressively recited all the sources from the gemora to the contemporary poskim including the Artscroll volume on kitchen halachos - he paused and waited for a response from this learned rav.

The rav stroked his beard a few times and then said. "The basis of this psak is secret and I have taken out a patent on it. I can not reveal it to anyone - you will simply have to take my word that I have found a heter."

Prominent Charedi Therapist: Rabbinic divorce decisions need greater involvement of mental health professionals

The following is a detailed comment by a well known chareidi therapist to a comment I made to a recent Tamar Epstein Post

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

I copied and pasted this quote above from the latest post on the Friedman/Epstein case.  I have zero knowledge of that case, though I recall there being quite an uproar about it several years ago.  I plead equal expertise in the sugya of kidushei to’us.  I was impressed with the information in the quote above.  The comment that follows is a sentiment I have shared with you previously.  Writing this now is as much to share it again as it is to get it off my chest.

My first question is – who makes the determination about the level of dysfunction?  I have yet to meet an average Rov or even Dayan who possesses this expertise.  Allow me to quote a dayan who is well known and a giant halacha expert.  This involved a case where a couple had been with me, where the wife withdrew, and claimed that her husband was the problem.  He was.  He was a professional schmatte, acceding to her abusiveness, which was physical, emotional, and constant.  In my office, she threatened him with arrest.  She openly stated that she hits herself to cause bruises so that she could get him locked up one day.  Well, she did precisely that.  Together with several askanim, we made sure he was released from central Booking that night.  She had his tallis/Tefillin.  She delivered then to a Rov where he could pick them up.  She was waiting there with her phone in hand to call 911 that he violated the order of protection.  He did not pick it up personally, but through another Rov.  2 days later, she had her brother-in-law follow him into mikva, and pickpocketed his driver’s license.  The quite renowned Rov was contacted, and was given the license.  Once again the wife had the Rov summon the husband to return the “lost” license.  Of course, she is waiting with her phone to call 911 to re-arrest the husband.  I met with this Rov a few days later, and he insisted that the children need an intact parental unit.  I told him that the line crossed was way too far for tolerance, and that once a wife fabricates a police report, I would never trust her again.  He debated the “leibedige yesomim” line, and I retorted that I would accept responsibility for that, while getting the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעך.  Bottom line, that Rov, with all his genius in halacha, was grossly incompetent to assess the viability of the marriage.

Now for the play-by-play.

1.    One party wants out but the other doesn’t.  I have no question about what halacha requires.  Torah provides ample leeway for the husband to determine what is unacceptable, כי מצא בה ערות דבר, with its many interpretations.  However, a Rov is also obligated to guide those he serves with guidance that is effective and productive.  To stay married to someone you want who doesn’t want you is akin to a life sentence.  A Rov needs to guide על פי הלכה, but needs to consider ישרות  as well.  Shamefully, this has become the exception.

2.   One party is irritating or abusive to the other – but nothing that counseling and good will can’t fix.  Not sure what this means.  And I am a therapist with lots of experience and training.  How on Earth should a Rov know what this is?  Counseling experience?  Evaluation skills?  Perhaps investigation of who is being truthful?  When batei din get into this, I trust their intentions as being holy (though oft times they may not be), but they are still way too often more damaging than helpful.

3.   Serious problems, physically abusive, mental health or physical issues.  See #2.  What dayanim are equipped to assess these issues or to verify truth?  The percentage of false reports of domestic violence exceeds 50%.  I recognize the need to be cautious, and I also know quite well that abusers deny having committed this.  But it is the exception when a Rov gives a “heter” to separate which includes having listened to the other side of the story.

4.   Pre-existing conditions.  Unfortunately, many shidduchim are completed with one side having been given a “heter” to withhold information.  I personally consulted to several cases where someone was taking serious anti-psychotic medications, and the parents had a story to excuse why they kept the information secret.  The wife had zero relationship with a husband who was close to catatonic, or so medicated that he was barely functional.  In one case, the boy’s father sat in my office telling me that girl had “social issues” that excused giving her a technically male adult for a husband.  Not only was this untrue as per my evaluation, but I was able to obtain information (with consent) from her mechanchos that she was a stellar girl without issues.  Another case, currently consulting, involves a young woman with a serious intestinal disorder that has already resulted in several hospitalizations, surgeries, and current issues of ostomies.  As per the family’s Daas Torah, the issue was only disclosed at date #7, when the boy was already pushing to propose.  I have no clue which poskim are advising to withhold such information, but it is commonplace, and almost always a recipe for disaster.  I also marvel at the statements from Rabbonim about the therapies for borderline personality, and the addictions, mostly devoid of empirical support or logic.

So, are batei din qualified to decide on these types of situations?  I wish they were.  My experience indicates otherwise.  My only remedy for the situation is to open up these issues to rabbonim who team up with the relevant, qualified professionals.

Ascertaining Ratzon HaShem: How do we know what G-d wants us to do?

Knowing G-d's Will  is a very deep and complicated topic which furthermore - while it has no clear answers - we are judged on how close we come to the right answer. I came across a very interesting and fundamental discussion in Minchas Asher of Rav Asher Weiss regarding last week's parsha. Below is some of the material from Rav Weiss (the first and last page). He deals with the issue of whether all our Torah obligations are included in halachos which are explicit in verses in derasha or whether we also have Torah obligations based on our inferences as to what G-d wants. 

You will note we are not dealing with Rabbinic ordinances of Chazal or contemporary gedolim. One example he discusses is the prohibition of tzar baalei chaim - unnecessary suffering of animals. It is agreed that this is in fact a Torah prohibition - but where is it stated? 

This is of course relevant to our discussion of the murder done at the Gay Parade. The murderer decided that it was Ratzon HaShem for him to randomly attack participants at the Parade. While it is clear that Shlissel is mentally ill - his decision making was based on his understanding of the Torah. Thus it is relevant to ask how applicable is his evaluation - to ignore the law of secular society not to kill as well as the Torah prohibition not to kill -  to the rest of us. To what degree can we assume that a mentally healthy adult will deviate severely from society's norms for the sake of higher principles i.e., the Will of G-d? What if any safeguards are there for an individual who is trying to ascertain what G-d's Will - not to harm others or themselves? Is there any restriction of determining G-d's Will to gedolim - or is it an activity that every Jew is required to participate in?

Let me make this a bit stronger. A number of years ago I participated in a series of meetings between religious and non-observant Jewish psychotherapists for the purpose of learning how to bridge the gap between religious and non-religious Jews. It was organized by an intelligent non-religious therapist whose grandfather - who he had known - had been the last religious member of his family. When we first met he was notably nervous. I asked him him what was making him nervous. He replied simply - "I am not sure the religious Jews won't kill me if they have a chance" He was referring to the religious members of this group - including me!

This fear of religious Jews - killing their non-religious brethen to fulfill G-d's Will - is not the limited to paranoid people and it isn't a rare phenomenon. Religious Jews can be scary people (I know charedim  who are uncomfortable going into Meah Shearim) - partly because they are beholden to a higher authority. The question is how are the requirements of that higher authority determined. Furthermore are there parameters such as that what we think is G-d's Will must conform to Darchei Noam i.e., be objectively pleasant? Not violate the law of the land? Not create a Chilul HaShem? Not harm others?

A personal Elul message for Dr. Schlesinger - "Have you no shame?"

A personal note to my obsessive reader Dr. Michael Schlesinger,

I want to note that your obsession with hurting your former wife and your children - is a disgrace not only for a human being and a father -  but especially as a Jew.  Our Sages say because mercy and kindness are inherently part of the nature of a Jew - that someone who lacks these qualities - is suspected of not being a Jew. Are you really Jewish?

As has been noted many times, divorce is painful and degrading - but that is no justification for your efforts to erase Beth contact with her children. It is clear from the police and court documents that despite Beth being an excellent mother - you and your associates have succeeded in taking custody away from her in a manner that would have brought shame and universal condemnation in any normal Western democracy. Unfortunately Vienna - especially the Jewish community - is an embarrassment to humanity and Torah values.

Your blocking of visitation as well as your attempt to punish Beth by arbitrarily cancelling court ordered visits is beyond disgusting. Your insistence on an arrangement that requires Beth to pay an unnecessary and burdensome transfer fee - can only be described as characteristic of Sedom - the most negative description given by our Sages for twisted, gratuitous behavior.

.

You have succeeded in not only severely disrupting Beth life - for no positive gain for your self - but your actions have the strong potential for causing your children permanent psychological damage. It is clear that they have already produced developmental delays.

I recently posted a number of comments by someone who signed herself "Beth". While I have no way of ascertaining the identity of the correspondent - I am sure that you either have or will be taking legal action against Beth because of it. You are one of my most devoted readers - because of your hatred and desire to destroy Beth. Sick!!!!

Our Sages talk about the dangers of "hatred in the heart" which poisons and rots all positive aspects of a person. That is what you are manifesting and you will reap the consequences if you don't wake up now to reality - including the psychological and spiritual

Michael - it is time for you to stop and think about what you are doing with your life. Do you have any concerns that are greater than hurting and showing hatred for Beth and your children? Do you really think that after 120 years your cathartic violence will be praised? Will your children thank you when they become adults - for hurting the one person that they love and crippling them psychologically? Or will you end up as a bitter old man who is shunned by everyone and dies without friends or family? Why is the purpose of your life to hate - and not to love?

We are in the month of Elul It is time for you to stop and reflect on who you are and where you are going in life. G-d put you here on Earth for something more praiseworthy than destroying the life and happiness of others. It is not too late to repent and start over with the sole guiding principle - "What is in the best interest of my children?"

 I would suggest that you and Beth go to an independent child psychologist and jointly work out a constructive program. I would also strongly recommend that you see an independent therapist and be evaluated as to how you can get your life together. The results should be shared with the court - which for some reason has failed to have you properly assessed.

I would also suggest strongly that you apologize to Beth and your children and devote your considerable talents to helping others - not hurting them. It is not too late - but at some point the damage you are causing will not be reversible. Wake up now!