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

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

ברכי יוסף יורה דעה סימן רמג

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

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

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

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

=================================================================

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

 

---

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

Tamar Epstein's Heter: News flash - the therapists that saw Tamar and Aharon deny discussing Aharon with anyone - is R Shalom Kaminetsky lying?

Updated and expanded
One of the problems with R Shalom Kaminetsky's case against Aharon Friedman is the priviledged information about Aharon that one of the therapists is alleged to have shared with others without permission from Aharon. R Shalom claims that this information was shared with another therapist who then claimed that he also was certain that Ahron had two serious personality disorders that rendered him unfit for marriage.

Thus the discussion has been about the ethics of sharing the information, having a therapist make a diagnosis based on second hand information,  the validity of the diagnosis and whether in fact these diagnoses disqualify Aharon from marriage.  In sum, it has been accepted as fact that the information originated with one of the therapists who had actually met with Aharon.

I have been informed that R Shalom's report is in fact a fabrication and a fraud. Aharon and Tamar did in fact go to two different therapists. However both of these therapists have denied sharing information with anyone. Furthermore both of these therapists have Psy.D degrees and are not psychiatrists.

So apparently either the therapists are liars or R Shalom Kaminetsky is.

Rav Feldman mentions in his letter that Rav Greenblatt received a psychiatrists report on Aharon - but that psychiatrist never met Aharon. But Rav Greenblatt was also told by R Shalom that two other therapists had made reports that Aharon was incurable. The first one R Shalom claimed had met with Aharon and Tamar and had told Tamar that Aharon wasn't going to change and that therefore since that hope had kept her in the marriage she should leave the marriage. The second therapist never met with Aharon but basing himself on what Tamar and R Shalom told him - he produced a report that Aharon had 2 incurable serious mental problems - paranoia and OCD - that made him incapable of being a husband. There is no mention anywhere that Aharon gave permission to share the information - in fact the 2 therapists that he and Tamar saw deny discussing him with others - or that the therapists gave permission for their reports to be used

To summarize: It has been accepted as fact that the information about the purported 2 incurable mental conditions that invalidated Aharon from marriage originated with one of the therapists who had actually met with Aharon. This is apparently a lie. Nobody should have accepted this as fact.  It would have been completely against the legal / ethical obligations regarding confidentiality of the two therapists whom Tamar and Aharon visited.  There has been no reason to suspect the honesty / decency and ethics of these therapists.  On the other hand, there has been plenty of reason to question the same with regard to R' Shalom, including that R' Shalom's claims about Aharon are completely contrary to R' Shalom's own testimony to the Baltimore BD.

In addition, if the therapists Tamar and Aharon saw together actually believed that Aharon had paranoia or OCD, that presumably would have come up in therapy.  But that subject never came up, because those claims are completely without any basis whatsoever.  In addition, if these therapists thought Aharon had paranoia or OCD, Tamar would have mentioned this either in BD or in one of the many court cases that Tamar insisted on dragging the parties through. Tamar never did so.

Thus we can conclude that not only were the claims made in the name of various therapists an indication of gross incompetence, they were made without meeting with Aharon and at most were totally dependent on Tamar's and R Shalom's negative reports about him and thus they are clearly not true. Further proof is that Tamar never mentioned any concern about Aharon's mental health to anyone including beis din and the secular courts. Finally even if true the diagnosis was not justification for a ruling of mekach ta'os.

Tamar Epstein Heter: A lawyer in family law discusses mental disorders and divorce

Guest Post

I had a few thoughts about the recent scandal involving a married woman who was allowed to marry another man without having received a get. 

 

A word of introduction about my concern and involvement in the case: I am an attorney practicing family law, almost entirely in the religious/haredi communities, although I have non-religious and non-Jewish clients as well. L’affaire Kaminetzky, therefore, has major ramifications for me, on a professional level. 

Regarding the halachic issues – I’ll leave them to the dayanim and poskim to decide. As for the broader communal ramifications of allowing people to remarry without a get, the leaders of the respective Jewish communities will make their voices heard. I would like to present a few remarks from the perspective of a layman who has dealt with divorce as a legal professional. A word of caution: my comment here is not based upon scientific literature or academic studies, but, rather, on the many, many couples I have dealt with.

The underlying theory of the “psak” written by Shalom Kaminetzky is that the husband suffered two separate mental “illnesses” and that, taken together, the two “illnesses” are a “מום גדול,” a great defect.

This is all based upon a naïve and simplistic assumption about why people get married – and when and why they stay married. Marriage is mysterious: some couples stay together despite a spouse’s having serious personality flaws – and even disorders. Let’s take the example of a narcissist. While being married to a narcissist can be a nightmare for most people, there are some people that not only can deal with being married to a narcissist but actually seek out such people. We might be correct in saying that someone married to a narcissist is unhealthy, codependent, or self-destructive, but this doesn’t change the fact that the person is willing to remain with the disordered spouse.

A related point is that there are people who almost appear to seek out a disordered spouse or a spouse with what we might consider negative character traits. As absurd as this might seem, I have seen clients on a second or third marriage, where they married the same type of disordered spouse in each case – and in each case, it was the disordered spouse that wanted the divorce. One client in particular comes to mind: he was married to a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), who, after 4 kids and many years of marriage, sued for divorce. His next wife also had BPD – and he was, and is, happy to stay with her.

Human behavior and relationships are incredibly complex and can rarely be distilled to statements like “no one would have married to such a person.” People do get into relationships with flawed partners – and often stay with them, flaws and all.

My observations might appear to contradict the entire theory of מקח טעות, and, as a consequence, go against the basis for several teshuvos in the response literature. However, it should be pointed out that most of the flaws mentioned impeded the consummation of marriage (impotence or homosexuality). There are teshuvas about a husband with mental illness, yet - at least from the descriptions in those teshuvos - it appears that the illness made the marriage impossible, not simply difficult or not enjoyable.

Since I am not a posek, I will leave it to the our halachic authorities to decide if and when מקח טעות can form the basis of allowing a woman – or man – to marry without a get. In any case, it would be tragic to rely on views of marriage, predicated upon untenable assumptions, that purport to state objective claims about relationships.

A day in the life of the custodial parent - Dr. Michael Schlesinger

One of the more bizarre and irrational aspects of the Schlesinger case is why Beth lost custody. In what sense is the care provided by Michael to his sons superior to what Beth was providing. 

In this post I would like to describe what a day is like in Michael's home with the support of a non-Jewish woman who apparently is not fully fluent in German.

Actually to be more accurate Michael's plan for a home environment for his sons is not centered on the twin's parents, not even on Michael or his mother or sister. The most important person in their day to day lives is a non-Jewish Filipino. In essence the twins are being raised as orphans by a hired foster mother for which there is no sense of permanence or kinship in the relationship. In fact there were originally two Filipinos who took care of them - why this was changed is a story for another time. It is important to note that it was unrealistic to expect any significant help from either his mother or sister who are both divorced and have significant burdens of problems in their own lives - no matter what their good intentions are

 It doesn't take a deep understanding of Psychology to realize how harmful it is to not only have the family unit split by divorce - but Michael tries his best to minimize Beth's presence and influence in the life of the twins by arbitrarily cancelling scheduled visits. Of course due to the realities of being a doctor working in a mental hosptial with some very unpleasant cases [some so dangerous they need to be locked in cages] - he doesn't really have the time or the emotional ability to provide a warm and loving home atmosphere.

It is also strange that this arrangement was not what Michael told the court that the care plan would be. It is obvious if he had told the court that this was his plan that he would have been rejected automatically - especially since he was taking custody from a loving competent mother. He had originally claimed that he would care for  his children with the help of his mother and sister. [They in fact have little or nothing to do with caring for the twins].

It is clear that Vienna social services has no understanding of what is needed to raise children properly. The fact that the twins are functioning at all - is largely do to their native resilency that is aided by the visits with their mother.

Where is Michael in their lives? He apparently does not have much responsiblity in the hospital. How is Michael interacting with them when she is always there while they are awake?  What type of family life are the twins actually experiencing? In what sense is it psychologically healthy? What type of Jewish life is Rabbi Biderman encouraging?  [to be continued].[I welcome any communication from Michael explaining things from his point of view as well as corrections of facts]

A Jewish therapist or a therapist who is Jewish

Originally posted June 2008

A Jewish therapist or a therapist who is Jewish

What follows is a letter that I wrote together with my chavrusa of many years Dr. Baruch Shulem. I am posting it because it is relevant to the issue of mental health professionals and the role of religon and religious values in so call value-free therapies.

=============================================

We read with interest your special edition of IJP on religion and psychotherapy. We have been involved with these issues for some time and would like to share our observations with you. Dr. Buchbinder's article is an excellent summary of many issues and we would like to explicate an issue that was touched upon in his and other articles but was not clearly addressed. We are concerned with the relationship between the values of the therapist and the values of the model of therapy he uses. As you are aware, the issue of judgmental precepts of models has been a major concern of the professional literature in recent years. There is a growing acknowledgement that all models of therapy are highly judgmental and are inextricably entwined with personal, political and well as philosophical principles. Therefore the choice of any model is first and foremost a value-laden decision on the personal level. This was denied for years under the rubric of "non-judgmental attitudes". We are proposing that once a therapist selects a model, his subsequent therapeutic activities are determined primarily if not exclusively by this model irrespective of the therapists personal or religious values. As Dr. Buchbinder clearly showed that the model is at times influenced by particular concepts at certain points in therapy -- but it is in fact the model which sets the boundaries of therapeutic behavior. Otherwise why choose a therapeutic model at all? It follows then that a religious therapist might actually be using a therapy which is incompatible in part or in totality with his professed religious values. This issue was alluded to by the observations mentioned in your review articles, that Dr. Buchbinder would follow his religious values when there is a conflict with his therapy while Dr. Spero would allow the psychodynamic values to predominate.

This awareness that we can no longer claim that our professional activities are scientifically determined and therefore are value-free is relatively recent. It is obvious that many of us, however, are still influenced by this fallacy. In short, therapies must be first examined by all of us to whether they are compatible with our values and the values of our clients. In is unfortunately necessary to note, however that we are often not aware of our values. This problem is compounded for the therapist whose values are ostensibly determined by the religion he belongs to.

This lack of fit between personal and religious values and those of therapy has been a great concern to us. In our years as religious therapists we have found a significant difference between a religious therapist and a therapist who is (also) religious [1]. The therapist who is religious will be trained professionally but has learned to keep his religion out of his work. He will of course not openly violate Jewish law in this practice (e.g. encourage a client to marry out of the faith) but his therapy is not guided by religious values and goals. His basic view of man is based on his professional model and not those he learned in his religious studies. He may often find Jewish quotes which can be made to be compatible with his professional model. These he will readily use when needed as dictated by his professional model. The relation between religious beliefs and therapeutic behavior is basically pragmatic. The professional criteria determine when and if to utilize religious material. His understanding of his client, the language he uses (particularly with colleagues) and most important of all the goals of therapy are predetermined by secular theory.

In strong contrast, a religious therapist subjugates all aspects of his life and actions to Torah laws and values. Just as he would investigate the kashrus of the food he eats, and the potential conflicts involved in reading modern literature he will critically inspect the model of therapy to determine if it is consistent with Torah principals. In my own case (B.S.) I had to re-examine my professional model of working after I became an observant Jew. I had been originally trained in classic long-term individual psycho-dynamic therapy. After a serious evaluation, I found that it presents serious conflicts with traditional religious values.

The model I now use, developed by Michael White, is as far as I can see (and from the opinions of Rabbis I have consulted) seems to be much more fully compatible with Torah Values. A short but telling example is in order. Torah law prohibits talking negatively about others. The therapist who is religious will seek a blanket exemption from this injunction in order to delve into history, explore negative feelings, etc. because the model requires this type of behavior. The religious therapist would question the validity of the therapeutic need for such a (forbidden) activity on both empirical and religious grounds. This would lead the religious therapist to choose a model that attempts to avoid this type of forbidden activity. Both the therapist who is religious and the non religious therapist at this point are probably asking themselves whether this approach of religion first means that therapeutic effectiveness must be sacrificed in the name of religiously? This can be answered by the extensive research that indicates that most professional models (including White's) are equivalent in effectiveness. That being the case, a therapist should therefore focus on the match between his values and those of the therapeutic model he uses - as well as the values of the client.

In summary, it is important to look beyond the overt religiosity of the therapist when studying the interaction between therapist and client. We propose that it is no less vital to focus on the relationship between the therapist and his model of therapy in understanding value conflicts in therapy. We believe that the therapeutic model will predominate in shaping the ongoing therapeutic interaction for both the non-religious and the therapist who is religious. This is in contrast to the religious therapist who will choose a model of therapy which will support his values and the religious behaviors that emanate from them. Our religious/professional experience has shown us that by choosing a model carefully there need not be conflict between model / therapist / religion. Then all we have to do is worry about our clients...

 

Baruch Shulem Ph.D. Daniel Eidensohn Ph.D.

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Rav Sariel Rosenberg protests

Otzar Forums

Wikipedia

הרב שריאל רוזנברג (נולד ב-16 בינואר 1951) הוא ראש בית הדין של הרב נסים קרליץ ורב שכונת "רמת דוד" בבני ברק. משמש במקביל כאב בית דין בבית הדין הישר והטוב בירושלים.

Postscript to the Baltimore Beis Din letter of Tammuz

Yehoshua

A translation:

It is a clear matter that with regard to any woman who has been established as married, one cannot remove her status as a married woman without the clear ruling of an authorized beis Din, and no person in the world is relied upon to say that she may get married. Even a sole dayan is not relied upon. [She cannot marry] unless she has in her hand an court writ that is written and signed by the Beis Din as the halakha requires. I have been seized will trembling to hear that there are those who desire to permit a married woman to [marry one from] the world based on oral reports alone, that one person heard from another that she is permitted. This matter is the destruction of the religion and a breach of all the walls of holiness and purity in the vineyard of the Jewish people, that any person does as he sees fit. I support the hands of the Beis din and ge’onim who are standing firm to stop this breach. This should not be for us as a stumbling block, God forbid. Who is like them, who understand the matter clearly, as they had hearings with the two parties.

Tamar Epstein's heter: A well known frum psychologist's two cents

Guest post

I am following, to a limited degree, the saga of the “heter” of “Mekach To’us”. I do have some comments, though I have no clue about any of the facts of the case beyond the info presented online.

I found the Mekach to’us issue interesting, since a diagnosis was used without evaluation of the patient. That alone is a colossal violation of professional ethics, and casts major doubt on the veracity of the professional and the conclusion. As a professional, I have often developed an “opinion” about the family member who was absent from the office, but cannot ever reach a conclusion. It is obvious that a major psak din that has consequences cannot be based on an opinion, but on verifiable and conclusive fact. As far as I gathered from the reports, that did not happen.

Far more intriguing to me is the cloud under which batei din operate, with an assumption that there is Heavenly involvement in the Din “Torah”. We are admonished about utilizing arka’os, but we offer the halacha based alternative of beis din, which suffers from several handicaps. B”D’s tend to be biased, expensive (especially when toanim get involved), ineffective – having zero enforceability, often random in paskening, and keeping their deliberations top secret. Mentioned in a previous email, many who do not function as poskim, despite being talmidei chachomim, get involved in areas completely outside of their domain. These things frighten me greatly. I now understand a tad better why we are told that Dayanei Yisroel are the cause of the tzoros that occur to Klal Yisroel (Shabbos 138). Crime and dishonesty always existed, and will unfortunately be part of our lives. But these awful midos being the mainstay of those who wear the cloak of righteousness is most alarming.

Tamar Epstein: Protest from Rav Pinchus Rabinowitz' Beis Din

We were shaken to hear that lately there are men - who come to the aid of women whose husbands have refused to give them a Get - who pasken that they are free of the chains of being an Aguna. They do this by giving the women an invalid heter which is called mekach ta'os (mistaken acquisition) G-d forbid!

We are writing this letter to make known that under no circumstances can a woman rely on this "heter" which is based on finding defects in the husband which are not mentioned in the Talmud or Poskim in our present generation - which is a generation of orphans. Where do we have the power or authority to annul marriages and permit a married woman to remarry a new husband without first receiving a Get?! (The Achronim have already written about such problems)

One can not imagine fully the damage and breaches to the values of community which can result from this procedure in a generation which lacks proper restraint and because of our many sins people have started to make false comparisons regarding new types of illnesses that the doctors discover on a regular basis.

This letter is a protest against the disgusting case which recently has come to public attention. The woman - Tamar Epstein, the wife of Aharon Friedman, recently married a second husband without first receiving a Get from her first husband (G-d forbid!). Tamar and her husband Aharon original went to have their case handled by a beis din in Baltimore which they both signed an agreement to follow.

In the midst of the proceedings, Tamar left and went to a secular court without permission of the beis din. In addition she changed her residence and that of their daughter to another city - a move which was opposed by the beis din. Because of her moving away with their daughter, her husband Aharon is not able to visit with his daughter properly according to his rights and his wishes. Aharon has stated that unless she return their daughter to their original neighborhood, he will not give her a Get because she has interfered with his ability to be with his daughter.

Consequently due to the refusal of the wife to comply with the request of beis din, she remains without a Get. Tamar then began to complain to many askanim that she was an aguna. As a result of her complaints, those people who specialize in helping "Agunos" compassionately came to her aid and they searched for avenues as to how to help her. They thought they had found a way by means of a heter of kiddushei ta'os (mistaken marriage). In order to lay the foundation for this heter, they hired therapists, rabbinic pleaders and askanim to aid Tamar. They in fact produced a phony "heter" based on her claims utilizing psychiatric categories of mental illness utilized by psychologists and other mental health workers. These psychologists decided that Aharon was not considered a normal person to such a degree that the marriage to him could be considered a mistake and thus be annulled retroactively. The posek who actually gave the "heter" relied entirely on the therapists and the askanim to decide that this was in fact a case of kiddushei ta'os (G-d forbid!).

The original Beis Din from Baltimore was astonished at this development of this false "heter".This psak was even more astonishing because as far as we can establish the therapists did their "evaluation" of whether the husband was normal - without ever actually meeting with him! Their entire "evaluation" was based on what Tamar claimed her husband had done - but never did they actually examine the husband himself!

However even if the "evaluation" of these therapists was accurate, nevertheless according to the information we were able to obtain - there is still absolutely no basis for a legitimate heter to marry without receiving a Get first.  

We want to announce that the prohibition of a married woman to men other than her husband is one of the most severe transgressions possible. It is absolutely forbidden to allow a married woman to be free from her husband with the claim that the marriages was a mistake (kiddushei ta'os). It is an obscene and deceitful heter. Therefore Tamar Epstein is still married to Aharon Friedman and she is obligated by the Torah to leave her second husband. In addition, any children born by Tamar from her second husband prior to her receiving a Get from Aharon Friedman - are mamzerim and they can not marry other Jews.

We affix our signatures to the above Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5766

Rav Pinchus Rabinowtiz

Rav Moshe Eliezar Blum

Rav Yosef Weingarten

Rav Chanoch Zaltz

Steipler: There is no rebbe muvhak today since we learn from seforim - and not orally

פסקי תשובות סימן תקכט שמחת יו"ט ע' תלה #45

...ובס' אורחות רבנו ח"ב עמ' קי"ב מביא בשם הגר"י קניבסקי זצ"ל שדין מצוות קבלת פני רבו נהג רק בזמן שלמדו בע"פ וקיבל מרבו רוב הלמודו. אבל בזה"ז שלומדים מגמרא וספרים לא שייך ענין דרבו מובהק וחיוב הקבלח פניו. ובזה שמלמדו דרך הלימוד לא נעשה רבו כי יכול להתלמד דרך הלימוד לבד ועוד מי וידע אם הדרך של רבו היא האמת. וברבו שאין מובהק ליכא חיוב לקבל פניו. והא דילפינן משונמית שקבלה פני אלישע אף דל"ש אצלה רבו מובהק. כי אלישע היה רבן של כל ישראל וכולם חייבים לקבל פניו. עכתו"ד

In the sefer Orchos Rabbeinu (vol 2 page 112) it is stated in the name of the Steipler that the halacha requiring a person to visit his rebbe only applied during the time when learning was done orally and he received from his rebbe most of his learning. However in modern times where learning is from the gemora and seforim – the concept of rebbe muvhak and the obligation to visit him is not relevant. And this that a person learnt an approach to learning from him doesn't make him his rebbe. Thatis because it is possible to learn an approach to learning by oneself. Furthermore who knows whether the approach to learning of his rebbe is a valid? In contrast if his rebbe is not a rebbe muvhak there is no obligation to visit him. And what about the apparent contradicition to this assertion from the fact that the Shunamite woman visited Elisha even though it isn't relevant for him to be her rebbe muvhak? The answer is simply that Elisha was in fact the rebbe of all Jews and therefore eveyone was required to visit him.

Post of Tamuz letter from Baltimore Beis Din - removed at the request of the Baltimore Beis Din

update: just restored the original post - see here
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/11/baltimore-beis-din-tamar-epstein-is.html

I just received a call from Rav Mordechai Shuchatowitz of the Baltimore Beis Din saying that my post - regarding their letter that they had written in Tamuz - was insulting to major talmidei chachom and full of lies. He demanded that it be taken down and that I apologize for what I wrote. I was a bit taken back by the vehemence of his words.

I told him that I disagreed with his assessment but for the sake of shalom bayis I would take it down (disclaimer my son is married to his brother's daughter) and asked him if he was planning on issuing a more current letter? He said simply that there is nothing to discuss until I take down the post.

I sincerely apologize for upsetting him and the other members of the Baltimore Beis Din. I have in fact placed the post in draft mode for the time being. 

There is no question of the sincerity or competence of the Beis Din - but there clearly are diverging views of what is going on, goals and how to get there. However what is important is that it is not helpful to have unnecessary additional conflicts in this incredible situation - that hopefully will be resolved in the near future.

Rav Sternbuch:Husband should not be spiteful and should give a Get if there is no chance of reconcilliation and all issues are resolved

This is being reposted from 4/12/12

Additional teshuva of Rav Sternbuch

Rav Sternbuch (4:301): Question: I received a question from America where -  due to our many sins - it is common that women rebel against their husbands and afterwards go to secular courts - Gd forbid! The secular court makes a judgment in her favor - through coercion and not in accord with the law of the Torah. The judgment  obligates the husband to pay very high support payments and carries a penalty of prison for failure to comply. In addition she is typically awarded custody of the children. The husband is asking for a heter of meah rabbonim to be able to remarry without giver her a get since she is a moredes and has transgressed the religious laws. On the other hand she claims that the heter of meah rabbonim is not relevant since she in fact is willing to accept the get. She also claims that there are rabbis who support her position. So she wants to benefit twice by obtaining a get according to the Torah and also a judgment from civil court which steals money from from her husband even after the get.

Answer: In my humble opinion there is no validity to her claims and therefore the husband should be given a heter so he can marry another woman. The only limitation is that he needs to deposit the get with beis din as is the established practice. The reason for this is complex. 1) first of all since they are coercing him financially not in accord with the halacha regarding the support payments which are much higher than the halacha - that constitutes theft. Thus the get itself is a forced get. The gedolei poskim are worried about get me'usa. Thus the get is not actually valid and we have the problem that she is still a married woman who thinks she can remarry. Therefore it is necessary to exempt him from all financial obligations that were done against his will in order that the get itself be valid. Furthermore if the wife refuses to go to beis din, then that itself gives her the halachic status of moredes as is clear from Divrei Chaim (E.H. 51) and he cites the Chavas Daas who ruled that a woman who refused to go to beis din  was a moredes and the gedolim agreed with him. ... According to this if she goes with him  only to beis din then he is obligated to give her a get. However when she goes to secular court in addition to make monetary claims - she is not able hold on to both sides. In other words she can't go to the secular court with monetary claims and at the same demand that he give her a get in beis din. If she forces him to accept the rulings of the secular court in marriage matters he has no obligation to give her a get. We need to state in addition that the essence of the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom was for the benefit of the wife.  However this benefit is only available when she doesn't abrogate her halachic obligations. But in the present case she has created serious devastation in the marriage in that she has rebelled against him and went to secular court where she received excessive judgements concerning maintenance and also the custody of the children. Her husband must give her a get in beis din so that she can remarry. So in the case of moredes the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom which was meant to benefit women was not intended and the husband can remarry with the heter of 100 Rabbis and he deposits the get with beis din until the judgment of the secular court is nullified. When that happens- if he has not yet remarried - then it is prohibited for him to do so until he gives his first wife a get.

In reality your question is a local issue of America and it is the job of American rabbis to decide. However my view is in agreement with the rabbis there who permit the husband to remarry without any difficulty and he needs to deposit a get with beis din. But when the judgment of the secular courts has been nullified then it is prohibited for the husband to remarry until he has properly divorced the first wife.

You should be aware that we are obligated to fight against her going to secular courts and we prevent her from remarrying if she does and if the get is given under these circumstances there is a suspicion that it was coerced (me'usa). Nevertheless in a case where she claims she can't stand him (ma'us alei) and there is no reason to believe they can be reconciled and the man is simply being cruel to her and is being spiteful by not to giving her a divorce - then even though it is prohibited for us to exert any force- G-d forbid! - nevertheless it is correct to notify the husband that the view of many of the gedolim (e.g., Rambam, Ravad, Behag, Rashbam, Rashi etc) is that he is sinning and they would encourage him to give her a get. Because even these poskim are concerned about creating [an invalid get] which would leave her as a married woman even bedieved - so G-d forbid that we should use any type of coercion. Regarding the issue of tormenting her and leaving her an aguna - it is correct for him to be concerned for her claim that she finds him revolting (ma'os alei) and it is prohibited for him to leave her as an aguna - even if she is not correct. But we are not to coerce him G-d forbid with any type of coercion that would possibly bring about a get me'usa. Rather [once we have informed him that it is wrong for him to withold the get] he needs to come the the realization himself that he must conduct himself like a descendant of Avraham and the verse says that the ways of Torah are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace and that he will find happiness with someone else.

All of this we need to explain to the husband. That leaving her as an aguna is a transgression of a severe sin of onas  devarim - not to torment his wife. That refusing to divorce her serves no purpose except to get revenge against her. He doesn't want to live with her and he shouldn't think her life is worthless and he should be fully aware that in Heaven there is judgment and there is a Judge. He should also be informed that to many of the early gedolim it is correct even to force him to divorce. Unfortunately there are many beis dins that when they see that the husband doesn't want to divorce his wife they simply remain silent. But that is not acceptable. They must inform him that he is unjustifiably tormenting her and this is not correct. This of course is assuming that the beis din is convinced that there is no hope for reconciliation....
=======================================================

Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (1:389): Question: A woman has suffered for a number of years from her husband who refuses to divorce her - how can he be forced to give a get?  

Answer: It is an established halacha that if the wife refuses to live with her husband because she claims he is disgusting to her (ma'os alei) that it is impossible to force him to divorce her. This is explicitly stated by the Rema (E.H. 77:3). And even if it has been a number of years that they have separated and he is being spiteful and cruel in refusing to divorce her it is clearly stated by the Teshuvos haRosh (43:6) that if we force him to give the get there is the concern that it is a get me'usa and therefore invalid and it only serves to increase mamzerim. However while it is stated in the Rema (E.H. 154:21) that nidoi (cherem) is considered force and is prohibited, nevertheless he says it is permitted to decree that no Jew should do him a favor or should do business with him or even to circumcize his sons or to bury them - until he divorces his wife. But the Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 154:30) says there these shunnings (harhakos) are equivalent to nidoi (cherem) and are not permitted to be imposed today and the only recourse is to tell him that it is permitted to call him a sinner  and he says it is best to be strict according to this opinion. This is agreed to by the Chazon Ish (E.H. 105:12). He concludes in the name of the Rashba that it is not permitted to humiliate the husband or to torment him - examine this well.

However it appears that what is prohibited is to humiliate him and to shun him in a manner similar to cherem - i.e, not to do business with him and not to do him a favor - and that is not done today. (Chazon Ish understands the Pischei Teshuva differently). But when he is not actively humiliated but that he is only not given honors for example he is notified that he will not receive an aliyah in his shul or any other shul and that he will not be allowed to be the shliach tzibor - then this is not like cherem at all even though it causes some humiliation. The only pressure permitted is that he should know that the community does not approve of his conduct of being cruel to his wife - but this is not called force at all.

I recall witnessing an incident involving Rav Yechiel Weinberg (Seridei Aish) concerning a husband who spitefully refused to divorce his wife after a number of years and he directed that it be known and publicized that this husband was not to get an aliya in the shul. That is in accord with what I have written that this type of pressure is not called force. It is also done here in Yerushalayim to publicize notices in the street that a particular person is a sinner and has made his wife an aguna. In my opinion 1) if she has solid justification for her desire to be divorced then it would be possible and appropriate to force him  actively with humiliations to give her a get. We learn from Kesubos (71a) if it is clear that he hates her then he is obligated to divorce her. 2) On the other hand if there is no apparent reason for her being repelled by him we can distance him.  I am inclined to permit humiliation in such cases but it is necessary for beis din first to be very careful and thorough in evaluating the situation as to whether it is appropriate. Similarly one should not spare any efforts to encourage that she live with him when she requests a divorce and there is no clear reason except she says she doesn't like him. 3) But if there is a clear reason - then even if we don't force him with a beating we are accustomed to be lenient to pressure him with notices  in shuls as I mentioned above.

This that the wife creates pressure with the claim that he is tormenting her and she can not stand the situation any more and that she is ready to go to "rabbis" who are lenient in divorce - that is still not justification for us to make rulings against the Torah. The ways of G-d are hidden and some suffer physically while other suffering financially and some suffer in their marriage. We need to hope to G-d that the end of suffering has arrived and that he will divorce her. On the other hand, to force him with high payments for food or to humiliate him when it is not permitted - it doesn't help because this pressure only produces a get me'usa - G-d forbid - which has no validity. But concerning cruelty and spite which is characteristic of Sedom - only Heaven can punish him.