Followup letter to Rav Aharon Feldman regarding the Open Letter to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah

In correspondence with the spokesman of the וועד להצלת כלל ישראל , he sent me the following letter he wrote to Rav Aharon Feldman as a followup to the Open Letter to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah that I published today. When I asked him about identifying who he is he responded:

I do not fear publicizing my name. I do feel, though, that it may take away somewhat from the message we are attempting to convey. How many naysayers  will emerge from the woodwork dissecting our network, our Rabbis, and our leadership with claims such as "who licensed you to represent our nation?" or "your Rabbis don't have Daat Torah, only my Rabbi does" etc. etc. 

Perhaps sign it Abraham S. without my last name. Anyone really interested can call and/or email and find out whatever there is to know.

Feel free to edit as you see fit.

thanks,

AS 

           914-340-4210

guardianofthenation@gmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Klal Yisroel" guardianofthenation@gmail.com
Date: Dec 30, 2015 11:44 AM
Subject: Follow up to conversation Friday Dec 25
To: raf@nirc.edu

Rav Feldman Shlit"a,

By way of introduction, we are a group of people, numbering as of the now in the hundreds, whom this tragedy has brought to the realization that כלל ישראל in the US is headed down a slippery slope and if drastic action is not taken immediately, will reach a point of no return in the near future ח"ו. Our ranks are swelling daily, with people from all walks of life joining. Chassidim, Misnagdim, Sefardim, Yeshivaleit, Roshei Yeshiva, Rabbanim, lawyers, doctors, professionals in all fields, are all part of our group.

I write this correspondence in response to the three objections you raised to the "Moetzes letter" in a conversation we had this past Friday erev Shabbos Vayechi. I will address them one by one;

   

 1) You stated you were unsure whether you had looked Reb Shmuel in the eye whilst questioning his involvement in the Tamar Epstein Heter, to which I respond; is poetic license a phenomena frowned upon by Halakha? To the best of my knowledge, and that of our organization's Vaad haRabanim , the opposite is true, as anyone with knowledge of the rich history of the פייטנים the Jewish Nation has had throughout the years will attest to. Indeed, even שופרא דשטרא would fall into this category. So please excuse the possible inexactitude of that particular articulation. My apologies!

  

 2) I will address your third point before I get to the second one. Lest you suspect me of ignoring the words of Chazal in מסכת אבות פ"ה מ"ז and publicly declaring myself a גולם, this issue was also placed before the Vaad haRabanim. They all unanimously agreed that clarity of the message in so vital a correspondence, one that entails the משניות immediately following, i.e. the repercussions of המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה  in משנה ח'  about which it is written כי רבים חללים הפילה, the reason why גלות בא לעולם, גלוי עריות, etc., far outweigh the considerations of being perceived as a גולם. May that be part of my personal מסירות נפש for the הצלה of  כלל ישראל.

ארור מכה רעהו בסתר, EVEN IF Rabbi Kamenetzky is considered to be עושה מעשה עמך  and בכלל רעהו and that's a big if, is clearly not to be understood as someone who withholds his name whilst publicly attacking someone about whom לשון הרע is permitted, and if it is an instance where הלכות לשה"ר would not allow the attack to be made, disclosing the identity of the attacker makes not the slightest difference.

 3) As far as point number 2, that Reb Shmuel didn't lie to you, I am reminded of an episode I witnessed in Court when an attorney called the opposing litigant “a big fat liar". His opposite number objected. The judge sustained the objection on big and fat, however he overruled the objection on the word liar stating "if your client isn't lying somebody ought to teach me the new meaning of the word liar". I, as well as the hundreds of members of the group I represent, feel the same. Without delving into the exact definition of the word, if Rabbi Kamenetsky was not lying to you when he allayed your fears and reassured your esteemed self as well as Rav Schuchatowitz that he had no part in Tamar's heter, he wasn't exactly being truthful either. Was not the purpose of your trip from Baltimore to Philadelphia to ensure that the tragedy beginning to unfold in front of your eyes was fiction rather than truth? That it was surely impossible for a man of the stature of Rabbi Kamenetsky to allow this abomination to occur a couple of blocks away from the very room where you were sitting, engaging him in conversation. Were your greatest fears not dispelled by the Rosh Yeshiva's glib assurances? Did his slick tongue and persuasive talk not convince you that he was indeed innocent as hoped rather than guilty as suspected?

Surely you didn't leave that room still suspecting that Rabbi Kamenetsky was allowing an אשת איש to be מזנה on his watch, with his approval, for if suspicion still lurked in your mind how could you leave? No, you were convinced by Reb Shmuel's integrity and forthrightness as much as by his convincing words. Of course we were mistaken, how could we have even been חושד a גדול of such stature!

Rav Feldman, look yourself in the mirror. Do you still have those same thoughts and feelings? Or have they changed, at least somewhat? If they are different today than on that night in תמוז, how mistaken can our claim that Reb Shmuel lied be? If, however, your thoughts and feelings are the same today as they were then, perhaps you are being shielded, or maybe shielding yourself from the evidence that has come out in public, smoking gun after smoking gun, tying Reb Shmuel to this sordid affair, staining his hands and sullying his reputation for all eternity. Just some of the evidence;

1)       A letter written by his son, Sholom, sent to a number of Dayanim arguing for a Heter, ending with the following 

כל זה נכתב על ידי שלו' קמנצקי, והראתי את הדברים אל אאמו"ר הג"ר שמואל קמנצקי שליט"א, והסכים על הדברים, [וגם הוא שמע כל עדותו של הרופא המומחה יר"ש הנ"ל] וביקש ממני שאציע את הדברים לפני הגהר"ר נטע גרינבלאט שליט"א שהוא בקי בענינים אלו, הצעתי את הדברים לפני הגאון הנ"ל שליט"א ועבר על כל הנידון וגם על דברי שהצעתי לו, והסכים עם הדברים, וגם כתב תשובה להתיר האשה תמר תחי' לינשא, ושוב הצעתי את הדברים לפני אאמו"ר שליט"א ואמר: כדאי הר"ר נטע שליט"א לסמוך עליו להתיר אשה זו מכבלי עיגונה, והרשה לי לכתוב כן בשמו

2)      Another version of the same letter ending in

 ולכן כדאי ונכון להתיר העלובה הזאת לצאת מצרתה ומחבלי עיגונה, ומכיון שכעת אין הבעל מוכן לכתוב לה גט, אף שאין מן הצורך ע"פ דברינו הנ"ל, מותרת היא להנשא מטעם קידושי טעות.

כ"ז נכתב ע"י שלום קמנצקי והראתי את הדברים אל אאמו"ר הגאון ר' שמואל קמנצקי שליט"א ואישר אותי לחתום על הדברים שאכן כנים הם

3)      Testimony from a prominent Dayan whom Reb Shmuel approached, in person, over 2 years ago, and implored him to assist in being מתיר Tamar to remarry without a Get ר"ל

4)      Testimony from a chavrusa of another Dayan who was sitting in the room when Reb Shmuel called begging the Dayan to add his signature to Rabbi Greenblatt’s היתר.

This is just some of the evidence in our possession irrefutably tying Reb Shmuel to this outrageous scandal, there is plenty more in our possession which, due to its sensitive nature we are not disclosing at the moment. If however the need shall arise, we will not hesitate to put it out in the public arena.

 בכבוד רב

 Abraham S.

Spokesman

וועד להצלת כלל ישראל

I publicly challenge any of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky's supporters to defend his actions in a guest post!

This scandal is becoming sicker and more disgusting by the day. The Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter gave Tamar Epstein permssion to commit adultery by remarrying without a Get. The embarrassing defense of the heter has been "we are gedolim how dare you insult us by asking for an explanation" It doesn't conern them that many gedolim have publicly denounced what they have done as a direct assault on the kedusha of the Jewish people because "we are gedolim". 

Rav Aharon Feldman - who initially led the campaign against the heter - now has taken a detour. He attacks the public discussion of this scandal - especially on blogs. But more pathetic -  instead of the cogent arguments he used when he criticized the heter - he is now saying that public exposure of the scandal is itself worse then committing adultery?! An assertion that has no basis in halacha. ( yes I know BM 58 - but that is clearly not relevant see Rambam hilchos de'os 6:8)

Now a letter has been released with the signatures of some of the many talmidim of Rav Kaminetsky. But instead of addressing the serious charges - they simple repeat "he is a gadol". As if that is a valid excuse for any questionable behavior.

I hereby challenge any of the great rabbis (or even little ones) - who are either supporting Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt or are remaining silent - to produce a coherent teshuva regarding the facts and halacha of the heter. No more "I am a gadol and therefore don't need to explain" defenses.

If a husband doesn't give a Get does he transgress Lifnei Ivair if his wife commits adultery?

The claim was made recently that Tamar's husband is transgressing the prohibition of lifnei ivair (putting a stumbling block before the blind) by not giving Tamar a Get when she is committing adultery with her second husband. The claim seems ridiculous but what evidence is there in this matter?

The first point is what exactly does the prohibition (Vayikra 19:14) include? The verse is understood to mean to not give something to another person who will sin with it.  (If the person would be able to commit the sin anyway it is not the Torah prohibition of lifnei ivair - but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree.) Thus a nazir should not be given wine. If the person is not going to say a beracha -do not give him food (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 169:2). If he is a drug addict - don't give him money that will enable him to buy drugs. It also includes a prohibition about doing something which causes a sin as a reaction - such as a parent hitting an adult child when there is a possibility the child will react by hitting the parent. Finally there is a prohibition of giving bad advice.

Second points is - what if there is a loss by not giving the person the object. For example, if your business partner comes to your house and asks for food but you know he will not say a beracha or wash on bread(Chullin 107b). While the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 169:2) says not to give food - however Rav Moshe Feinstein (OC 5 13) says that if you stand to lose money because of not giving him food - there is no prohibition against giving it. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says that if it causes hatred - then the food should be given. Rav Moshe also permits it if not giving causes a chilul hashem. Clearly we see in a normal situation that if it causes a loss by not giving it to the sinner - then it is permitted to give. Other example include: If someone steals your car - there is no obligation to give him the car to prevent him from sinning. If a person says that he will eat a ham sandwich if he isn't allowed to cut off someone arm - there is obviously absolutely no obligation to save him from sin at that price.

Third point: In the literature about divorce, I haven't found anyone who says that there is an obligation to give a divorce in a case where the wife threatens to commit adultery. There are clearly rabbonim who are worried about that happening - but this is not expressed as a concern that there will be a violation of lifnei ivair. Similarly if someone threatens to violate Shabbos if he isn't given an expensive present - there is no requirement to give in to the extortion to prevent sin.

Bottom line, I have not found any examples in the literature that lifnei ivair is invoked to require someone  to suffer a loss in order to prevent another person from sinning. If someone has such a case - please let me know. Rav Moshe Feinstein compares it to tochacha. One does not have to be beaten up or even be yelled at in order to prevent someone from sinning - and surely you do not have to suffer financial loss.

The only defense being presented for the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter is to attack me personally

It is obvious at this point that the only defense being made for the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter for Tamar Epstein to remarry without a Get - is to attack me personally. It is incredible that the disgusting reality that a young man and woman are committing adultery as the result of the guidance of two major talmidei chachom - is being ignored. The reality of the gross misuse facts and a psychological report does not concern them nor the danger to the proper halachic observance of marriage and gittin.

What clearly concerns the supporters of the the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt is , "How dare I insult gedolim?" How terrible it is for me to publicly agree with a wide range of gedolim condemning this heter. What a terrible person I am because I don't accept someones mistaken understanding of Daas Torah and comply with every word and imagined word that is claimed to have been said by a godol. How dare I write anything which offends anybody? How dare I provide legitimate sources and proofs which contradict gedolim?

I am giving notice that henceforth - I will not be publishing comments that personally attack my frumkeit, my editorial policy or anything else about me. I will no longer  be spending many hours defending what I am doing in the vain hope that the enraged supporters of the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt actually might learn about the plague of corruption and lies that that his heter has set off.  

As in the Tropper scandal - when a similar approach was tried to defend Tropper - all complaints about what I am doing should be referred to Rav Moshe Sternbuch. While I don't want his precious time wasted - it is clear that there is no chance that anyone on a lower lever is capable of responding properly.

Rav Aharon Feldman's latest official letter regarding the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter

Update: I personally found Rav Feldman last 2 letters to be incoherent and lacking a basic lack of understanding of  what is going on. They are in such utter contrast to the first letter that if it weren't for his specific validation of the letters as being genuine - I would say (and did say they were written by a different person. 

While trying to decide the appropriate reaction to these letters, I received the following note from a major talmid chachom and posek. He is viewed in the Torah world as being Rav Feldman's clear superior in psak halacha and Torah knowledge. He has independently investigated the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and has declared it worthless. This is his reaction to Rav Feldman's letter:

We are doomed.

May the good Lord have mercy on us.

I have searched and re-searched--I am looking for the bizayon haTorah.

There was bizayon haTorah here--but he's mixed up about who perpetrated it.

And to say that bizayon haTorah in this case is worse than aishes ish---

We are doomed,doomed,doomed.

Outrage over Tamar Epstein's Heter continues: Letter signed by Rav Chaim Konievsky and other gedolim against heter

;
Rav Chaim Kanievsky 

Rav Sariel Rosenberg 

Rav Yehuda Silman 

Rav Nissim Karelitz

Rav Chaim Wosner 

Rav Shmuel Eliezer Stern 

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein







Received this from Machon Taam V'Daas

This has appeared in a large number of Hebrew publications (Including a second version of the letter that appeared earlier)

bhol       .ladaat.info/     kooker     kikar

היהדות החרדית בארה"ב ובעולם סוערת בתקופה האחרונה בעקבות 'היתר' שניתן לאשה בארה"ב להינשא לשוק בלא גט פיטורין כדין מבעלה הראשון, בטענה שהקידושין הראשונים התבטלו מדין 'מקח טעות'. תקופה קצרה לאחר נתינת ההיתר, רב סידר לה קידושין בארה"ב עם יהודי.

כזכור, גדולי הפוסקים וראשי הישיבות פרסמו מכתבי מחאה חריפים כנגד ההיתר, כאשר את המאבק מובילים מרן פוסק הדור הגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א, ואתו עמו הגאון הגדול רבי אהרן פלדמן שליט"א חבר מועצת גדולי התורה בארה"ב וראש ישיבת נר ישראל בבולטימור.

בחשיפה ראשונית, מתפרסם כעת מכתבם של מרנן ורבנן גדולי ישראל שליט"א - מרן הגר"ח קניבסקי שליט"א, ומרן הגר"נ קרליץ שליט"א, ומרנן הגאונים רבי יצחק זילברשטיין שליט"א, ורבי חיים מאיר וואזנר שליט"א , שהוסיפו את חתימתם על מכתבם של הרבנים הגאונים רבי שריאל רוזנברג שליט"א ורבי יהודה סילמן שליט"א, שכתבו דברים חריפים ביותר כנגד ה'היתר'. (המכתב מצורף).

במקביל, בארה"ב פורסם בימים האחרונים מכתבם החריף של גדולי הרבנים בארה"ב וקנדה, אשר כתבו בתוך דבריהם שעפ"י מקורות חז"ל יתכן ש'היתר' זה עומד בעוכרינו וגורם לסכנה גדולה מחרב בני ישמעאל המונף על בני ישראל - "כהיום יש סכנה לכלל ישראל מחרב בני ישמעאל, ויש שואלים על איזה חטא בא צרות כאלו, ולא נביא אנוכי ולא בן נביא, אנא מתניתא ידענא, חרב באה לעולם על המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה, ואין לך מורים בתורה שלא כהלכה יותר מזה שמתירים אשת איש לעלמא בלי שום גט"

על המכתב חתומים הגאון הגדול רבי שלמה מילר שליט"א ראש הכולל בטורונטו, הגאון הגדול רבי אלי' דב וואכטפוגל שליט"א ראש ישיבת זכרון מנחם סאוט פאלסבורג, והגאון הישיש משה גרין שליט"א ראש ישיבה דמאנסי.

Tamar Epstein's Heter: Was Rav Greenblatt negligent for paskening solely on therapists' conclusion endorsed by Rav Kaminetsky? What is Psak?

 yybt sent me the following letter. It is clear from all of the rabbis protest letters that  Rav Greenblatt was severely criticized for issuing this psak and relying on it to marry Tamar to a second husband. Rav Greenblatt insists however that he did nothing wrong. Were Rav Greenblatt's actions clearly wrong and irresponsible? What was he required to do in establishing the facts.

Does the posek have a responsibity to ascertain that the facts are true or does a psak mean - "assuming the facts are true  - then this is the halacha?" 

If the latter is the answer - what happens when it is clear that the facts are not true - does that automatically invalidate the psak? Was Rav Greenblatt's heter always null and void because it was based on a lie? Or does it require a statement of retraction or nullification after he examines evidence that the facts are not true. 

If the posek does need to ascertain the truth of the facts  - when can he rely on experts and when does he need to know himself? 

If a posek declares the husband dead, is he in fact halachically dead - even if in reality he  is alive?

Additionally is there a different answer depending on the case? Are cases involving a gain to one person and a loss to another different than cases involving only the person himself? Or is it different when there might be a serious sin or great financial loss, but not for minor issues or insignificant financial loss? What if he knows the psak he received is wrong - can he rely on it anyway?

Finally, when a person sins as the result of relying on a psak - does he need to do teshuva? Does the posek who errs need to do teshuva? Or this to be viewed as an example of hashgocha protis and therefore the posek and the receiver of the psak are not responsible.

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

 I think I might be part of the younger generation. But I always had this daas Torah dilemma, are you supposed to be totally mekabel or can you question respectfully?  I personally think there is a healthy balance,  meaning naaseh vnishma. First be mekabel and then try understanding.

But with this tamar heter I had a query.  There are 2 types of ways rabbanim answer shailas. One is whatever you ask that's what he answers. The other trys to probe every detail and is very careful to answer. I have seen and heard stories with both these approaches.

I have a very hard time questioning big talmidei chachamim. They actually know and I don't. And they have a life of experience and shimush. So with R Nata it's definitely like that since I know his gadlus and wouldn't doubt it. But I do have questions. It seems R Nata answered whatever was asked to him. Thats not as hard to understand. But I do have trouble understanding how R Nata could have married her off without properly investigating to know for sure she was able to marry bheter?!

To end off, Do rabbanim have to probe every detail to answer or is it the questioners responsibility?

I was thinking of that "famous " story of R Moshe on the bracha for pizza. Someone asked on bread with cheese and sauce and he poskened hamotzi, and the other asked on a cracker with sauce and cheese and R Moshe answered mezonos. By here it doesn't seen R Moshe asked further or investigated the matter. 

Also by the inyan of electricity R Shlomo Zalmon investigated thoroughly and R Elyashiv didn't so they came out with different psakim. don't think R Elyashiv himself studied electricity. 

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.