Rambam's view that sacrifices were commanded to wean the Jews from idolatry

 Contrary to the mistaken claim Rambam based himself not on Vayikra (17:7) but on rational argument

Rambam (Moreh haNevuchim 3:30) On examining these old and foolish doctrines we find that it was most generally believed by the people that by the worship of stars the earth will become inhabited, and the ground fertilized. The wise, pious, and sin-fearing men among them reproved the people and taught them that agriculture, on which the preservation of mankind depended, would become perfect and satisfy man's wishes, when he worshiped the sun and the stars. If man provoked these beings by his rebelliousness, the towns would become empty and waste. In the above-named books it is stated that Mars was angry with lands, that form now deserts and wastes, and in consequence of that anger they were deprived of water and trees, and have become the habitation of demons. Tillers of the ground and husbandmen are praised in those books, because they are engaged with the cultivation of the land in accordance with the will and desire of the stars. The idolaters also held cattle in esteem on account of their use in agriculture, and went even so far as to say, that it is not allowed to slay them, because they combine in themselves strength and willingness to do the work of man in tilling the ground. The oxen, notwithstanding their great strength, do this, and submit to man, because it is the will of God that they should be employed in agriculture. When these views became generally known, idolatry was connected with agriculture, because the latter is indispensable for the maintenance of man, and of most animals. The idolatrous priests then preached to the people who met in the temples, and taught them that by certain religious acts, rain would come down, the trees of the field would yield their fruit, and the land would be fertile and inhabited. See what is said in the Nabatean Agriculture in the chapter on vineyards. The following words of the Sabeans are quoted there: "All ancient wise men advised, and prophets likewise commanded and enjoined to play before the images on certain instruments during the festivals. They also said--and what they said is true--that the deities are pleased with it, and reward those who do it. They promise, indeed, very great reward for these things; e.g., length of life, protection from illness, exemption from great bodily deformities, plenty of the produce of the earth, and of the fruits of the trees." These are the words of the Sabeans. When these ideas spread, and were considered as true, God, in His great mercy for us, intended to remove this error from our minds, and to protect our bodies from trouble; and therefore desired us to discontinue the practice of these useless actions. He gave us His Law through Moses, our teacher, who told us in the name of God, that the worship of stars and other corporeal beings would effect that rain would cease, the land be waste, and would not produce anything, and the fruit of the trees would wither; calamities would befall the people, their bodies would be deformed, and life would be shortened. These are the contents of "the words of the covenant which God made" (Deut. 28:6-9). It is frequently expressed in all parts of Scripture, that the worship of the stars would be followed by absence of rain, devastation of the land, bad times, diseases, and shortness of life. But abandonment of that worship, and the return to the service of God, would be the cause of the presence of rain, fertility of the ground, good times, health and length of life. Thus Scripture teaches, in order that man should abandon idolatry, the reverse of that which idolatrous priests preached to the people, for, as has been shown by us, the principal object of the Law is to remove this doctrine, and to destroy its traces.

Rambam (Moreh haNevuchim 3:32) Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make the Israelites a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God. Comp. "Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest know that the Lord is God (Deut. 4:35); "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord is God" (ibid. 5:39). The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service; comp. "and to serve him with all your heart" (ibid. 11:13); "and you shall serve the Lord your God" (Exod. 23:25); "and ye shall serve him" (Deut. 13:5). But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a temple; comp. "And they shall make unto me a sanctuary" (Exod. 25:8); to have the altar erected to His name; comp. "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me" (ibid. 20:21); to offer the sacrifices to Him; comp. "If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord" (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being; comp. "He who sacrificeth unto any God, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exod. 22:19); "For thou shalt bow down to no other God" (ibid. 34:14). He selected priests for the service in the temple; comp. "And they shall minister unto me in the priest's office" (ibid. 28:41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts, called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing: as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary object? What prevented Him from making His primary object a direct commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the object would then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which win cure your heart of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have pointed out to you. There occurs in the Law a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: "God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea," etc. (Exod. 13:17). Here God led the people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original object. In the same manner God refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him among the people, and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real giants. It was the result of God's wisdom that the Israelites were led about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse is the source of faint-heartedness: besides, another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine commands through Moses; comp. "At the commandment of the Lord they rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed; they kept the charge of the Lord and the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (Num. 9:23). In the same way the portion of the Law under discussion is the result of divine wisdom, according to which people are allowed to continue the kind of worship to which they have been accustomed, in order that they might acquire the true faith, which is the chief object of God's commandments. You ask, What could have prevented God from commanding us directly, that which is the chief object, and from giving us the capacity of obeying it? This would lead to a second question, What prevented God from leading the Israelites through the way of the land of the Philistines, and endowing them with strength for fighting? The leading about by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night would then not have been necessary. A third question would then be asked in reference to the good promised as reward for the keeping of the commandments, and the evil foretold as a punishment for sins. It is the following question: As it is the chief object and purpose of God that we should believe in the Law, and act according to that which is written therein, why has He not given us the capacity of continually believing in it, and following its guidance, instead of holding out to us reward for obedience, and punishment for disobedience, or of actually giving all the predicted reward and punishment? For [the promises and the threats] are but the means of leading to this chief object. What prevented Him from giving us, as part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects? There is one general answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same character: it is this: Although in every one of the signs related in Scripture the natural property of some individual being is changed, the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in accordance with this important principle that God said, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me," etc. (Deut. 5:26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in our works: I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary, it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it never will be. If it were part of His will to change at His desire the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the Law would have been altogether superfluous.

Abaye banished demons

 Pesachim (112b) ‘And do not go out alone at night’, for it was taught: One should not go out alone at night, i.e., on the nights of neither Wednesday nor Sabbaths, because Igrath the daughter of Mahalath, she and one hundred eighty thousand destroying angels go forth, and each has permission to wreak destruction independently. Originally they were about a day. On one occasion she met R. Hanina b. Dosa [and] said to him, ‘Had they not made an announcement concerning you in Heaven, "Take heed of Hanina and his learning," I would have put you in danger.’ ‘If I am of account in Heaven,’ replied he, ‘I order you never to pass through settled regions.’ ‘I beg you,’ she pleaded, ‘leave me a little room.’ So he left her the nights of Sabbaths and the nights of Wednesdays. On another occasion she met Abaye. Said she to him, ‘Had they not made an announcement about you in Heaven, "Take heed of Nahmani and his learning," I would have put you in danger.’ ‘If I am of account in Heaven,’ replied he, ‘I order you never to pass through settled regions.’ But we see that she does pass through? — I will tell you: Those are the narrow paths which they frequent, whence their horses bolt and come into civilized places bringing them along.

Kotzer Rambam's psak eliminated demons #670

Kotzker Rebbe (Emes v’Emuna #670) The Kotzker reconciled the contradiction between the view of the Rambam who wrote that shedim (demons) don’t exist with that of Chazal  who mention the existence of demons in many places in the gemorah - by saying originally demons did in fact exist but that after the Rambam paskened that they don’t exist Heaven agreed and similarly paskened and that is why they no longer exist.

 

Avoda Zara is an attempt to concretise abstact religious belief

 Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21): It is said about the Jews that they are believers the descendants of believers (Shabbos 97a). However Taanis (5b) notes that non‑Jews have stronger religious beliefs than Jews - even when their religion is utter nonsense. “The Kittites worship fire and the Kedarites worship water, and even though they know that water can put out fire they have not yet changed their gods but My people hath changed their G‑d for that which doth not profit.” And even if you want to answer that the faith that is being praised, is believing in things that will happen in the future such as the resurrection of the dead - non‑Jews also have strong faith in events that will happen in the future. To explain the distinction between Jewish and non‑Jewish faith, one must note that the appreciation of things such as love, beauty and power are all inherent in a person. The ancient peoples sanctified all these natural powers and placed high value on them and described them as resulting from specific gods. Thus they had a god of beauty, a god of power and a god of love as is well known. A person who personified one of these natural attributes was described as a godly person. Even today, the peoples of the world make images and sanctify these tangible - directly experienced characteristics. Even the Moslems have sanctified the grave of their savior in Mecca and done other things. Consequently, we see that the emotions and senses directly support their faith which is built upon experience and imagery. Thus, non‑Jewish religious faith is essentially just an extension of natural emotion. That is not how G‑d conceives religious faith…. In fact, all tangible existence is totally separate from the one Creator. All this is such pure abstract intellectual awareness that Chovas HaLevavos (1:2 Shaar HaYichud) asserts that true service of G‑d is for either the philosopher or prophet. Nevertheless, all Jews - even without reaching the levels of prophets or even philosophers - truly believe in these pure abstract thoughts of His existence and His unity and they scoff at all that which is entirely based upon natural emotional experience. They understand that faith based entirely on innate human feelings and thoughts is worthless and transient representing only conjecture  -  G‑d in the image of man. This is why Chazal state, “How did the Jews merit to recite the Shema which extols the unitary of G‑d? Because they were descendants of Abraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov.” Because of this knowledge gained from their forefathers - Jews understand this profound abstract philosophical issue and scorn emotion based faith...

Avoiding Christianity

Avoda Zara (16b)   Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, ‘How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?’ He replied, ‘I acknowledge the Judge as right.’ The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, ‘Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.’ When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Akiba to him, ‘Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?’ He replied, ‘Say it.’ ‘Master,’ said he, ‘perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?’ He exclaimed: ‘Akiba thou hast reminded me.’ I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot . . . into the house of the Lord thy God. May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught by Jesus the Nazarene, For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return.’ they came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostacy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, Remove thy way far from her — which refers to minuth — and come not nigh to the door of her house, — which refers to the ruling power.

Jews used to have magic beds

 Sanhedrin (20a) Mishna If a relative of the king dies, he does not emerge from the entrance of his palace [palterin], as it does not befit one of his stature to accompany the deceased. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he wishes to follow the bier, he follows it, as that is what we found with regard to King David, who followed the bier of Abner. As it is stated: “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31). The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: The matter was only to appease the people, so that they should not suspect David of ordering Abner’s death. And when the people comfort the king with the meal of comfort, all the people recline on the ground, and he reclines on the dargash.

 The gemorah asks what is this "dargash"? § The mishna teaches: And when they comfort the king with the meal of comfort, he reclines on the dargash. The Gemara asks: What is a dargash? Ulla says: A bed of fortune, which would be designated in houses for decoration and for good fortune, and no one would sit on it.

Rashi explains 
דרגש ערסא דגדא - נוהגין היו לערוך מטה ושלחן בבית ולא היו משתמשין בהן כלל אלא למזל הבית מונחת משום ניחוש גדא מזל ודומה גד גדי וסנוק לא (שבת דף סז:): 

 The normative custom was to set up a bed and table in the house which were never used for anything at all but it was to help the mazal of the house (good luck) and for magic...

Moshe why did he married Yisro daughter?

 Rabbeinu Bachye (Shemos 2:21): What was the reason that Moshe got involved with an idolater like Yisro? The explanation is that Moshe was a fugitive from Pharaoh and was afraid of being killed because of someone being pressured into informing against him. Therefore he decided it would be best to marry into one of the families of the priests of idol worship since all their property was theirs - Pharaoh could not threaten them by taking it away. That is why Moshe wanted to marry into one of these families after the daughter converted. The reason why he chose Yisro amongst these priests was because he had many daughters and thus it would be easy to convince him quickly and he wouldn’t be too particular. That is why the Torah informs us that Yisro had seven daughters. The only reason for mentioning this detail was because that was the reason Moshe was interested in the family and was able to get them to swear to keep his secret.

Jealousy can only be removed by G-d

 Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emes L’Yakov Bamidbar 5:15):The reason for this whole procedure of Sotah  is that when a man suspects his wife of adultery only if G-d directly assures him that she is innocent, even though this isn't so for any other sin but rather 2 witnesses alone establish the facts, because the husband will not believe them. Because the husband would not believe even a prophet therefore for the sake of shalom bayis G-d allows His name to be erased and it is as if G-d is directly stating she is innocent therefore the foundation of the law of sotah is not to punish the wife but to ensure the husband believes she is innocent which is the basis of Chullin 141a Great is the peace between man and wife, for the Torah has permitted the name of G-d which is to be written in all sanctity, to be washed away in the waters of bitterness,

Honoring parents when a parent acts like a child

 A young seminary student once came to me for advice dealing with her father. He was a very successful man in his field of work but was constantly under high pressure. When he came home after work he would angrily yell and scream. Her problem was she could not respect him because of this behavior and she felt this was wrong because she had a Torah obligation to respect him. I asked her what would happen if she would hug and kiss him when he lost it? She said he would stop yelling and be nice. I asked her so why don’t you do that? She said the issue was that she was the child and he was the adult. I told her that at some point most children need to act as the adult when dealing with parents and that if this solved the problem that was the way she needed to show respect and honor.

Marriage is incompatible with greatness

 Ksav Sofer (Vayikra 10:1): And they offered before G‑d an unauthorized fire which He had not commanded them. Question: The Tanchuma (Achrei Mos #8) says that Aaron’s sons died because they didn’t get married and didn’t have children. Furthermore it says that they walked behind Moshe and Aaron and said, “When are these old men going to die so that we can take over the leadership of the community?” It is necessary to understand this medrash since it does not seem to fit in with the Torah which gives the explicit reason for their death as being punishment for offering an unauthorized fire before G‑d?  It is also astounding that these righteous men - who were in fact greater than Moshe and Aaron according to Rashi (10:3) – should transgress G‑d’s command and not fulfill the mitzva of having children and also that they would speak in such an arrogant manner – “when are these old men going to die?” Answer: It appears to me that the reason that they didn’t get married is that they saw that Moshe’s children did not turn out properly as is well known. If Moshe’s sons were not fit then they felt that a lesson could be learned that surely would apply to the masses. They ascribed the failure of Moshe’s children to the fact that Moshe was constantly preoccupied with the problems of the community and therefore he didn’t have the ability to properly supervise his children. 

 Avraham ben haRambam (Hamaspik L’avodas Hashem)   Regarding a person who is considering marriage before becoming proficient in Torah study the gemora (Kiddushin 29b) expresses amazement at such an absurd idea by saying with a millstone on his neck, he is going to study Torah?! When one scholar refrained from getting married (Yevamos 63), he explained his reason “My desire is for Torah” Yakov did not get married  until he was 83 years old. Similarly we see that Eliyahu and Elisha never got married. Here it is relevant to note the fact that all the prophets  broke off all contacts with their families as we see when Elisha decided to follow after Eliyahu.  It seems to me that in order not to nullify the mitzva of having children that we find that some acted like Moshe who married and had children before separating from his wife. And also because they didn’t want their conduct to become followed by everyone.

English translation of Rav Aharon Feldman's detailed letter to Torah scholars and poskim - regarding Tamar Epstein's heter - and asking for a response

October 20, 2015

To all great Torah scholars and poskim,

A very serious matter occurred a number of weeks ago that threatens to undermine the sanctity of Jewish marriage. Since the details are known to me and I feel a strong responsibility to Heaven to do all which is in my power to correct the matter - I am turning to you with this letter to present the details before you in order that I might receive your views on the issue.

The subject is the case of Tamar Epstein - the wife of Aharon Friedman. For many years he has not agreed to give her a Get because of a dispute between them concerning custody of their daughter. A few weeks ago, one of the most authoritative and distinguished rabbis in America [Rav Nota Greenblatt] permitted her to marry another man - and even performed the ceremony himself - without her receiving a Get from her husband.

I asked this great rabbi what was his justification? He responded that the basis of his ruling, that she could marry another man, was an expert psychiatrist's report that had been given him. The psychiatrist had concluded that the husband (Aharon Friedman) suffered from the personality disorders of Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) from the beginning of their marriage. Furthermore the psychiatrist claimed that these personality disorders were incurable. On the basis of this information, the distinguished rabbi concluded that the marriage was retroactively annulled based on the halachic principle of mekach ta'os (mistaken acquisition).

I have a number of objections to his conclusion which I will now present one at a time.

First concerning the claim that the husband had these personality disorders from the time of marriage

1) I have determined that this woman had gone before the Beis Din of Baltimore a number of years ago to obtain a Get from he husband. This beis din carefully questioned her as to why she wanted to get divorced. At no time did she claim that the reason for her request was because her husband suffered from personality disorders. In fact the opposite is true. She only claimed before the beis din (according to the testimony of two of the members of the beis din - the third is no longer alive) that she wanted to divorce him because he was not socially adept. 

In addition during the proceedings concerning custody of their daughter, she agreed that their daughter could be given to her husband for specific periods of time. This clearly implies that she did not view her husband as not normal. In addition according to the official report of the secular court  regarding custody which was produced afterwards - she never claimed that he was not normal. 

All of this demonstrates that he in fact did not have mental health issues. And even if you want to claim that he did have personality disorders - she clearly felt that she could live with them [as she made no mention of them in the proceedings to either the beis din or the secular court]

2) Secondly one of the members of the Baltimore Beis Din told me that Tamar told the beis din that at the beginning of the marriage she was taking birth control pills - but that after 8 months she decided that she wanted a child and she stopped taking the pills and she consequently she gave birth. This clearly shows that even if there were personality disorders that she was able to live with them. Concerning this claim that she obviously had decided she could live with his problems Rabbi Greenblatt answered: "It is true that she thought she could live with the personality disorders but that was only because she thought there was medicine that could cure him. That is why she did not immediately try to get out of the marriage. However the moment that the therapist told her that there was no cure for his condition (even after many years of treatment) this established retroactively that the marriage had been a mistake."

However the truth is that there was another expert therapist who had treated Tamar and had notified her in December of 2007 that there was no cure for these personality disorders. But it wasn't until March 2008 - 4 months later - that she decided to finally leave her husband (this is mentioned on page 6-7 of the report of the expert psychiatrist). This clearly demonstrates that she was willing to live with these disorders even after she had been notified that her husband was sick with a condition that had no cure. However the psychiatrist attempted to prove that this did not mean that she was willing to live with these disorders. He wrote, "My impression is that the best explanation of why she did not leave her husband immediately on finding on that there was no cure for his condition was because of her lack of self-confidence, pressures and inability to make up her mind." It is clear that "his impression" is insufficient to provide a justification for her to remarry without a Get in the face of  the evidence before us that she did in fact feel that she could live with this condition.

Furthermore in my humble opinion, even if the reality is that at the moment that she was informed that the personality disorders were incurable she had finally decided to leave him (something which appears to me as highly questionable) we need to deal carefully with the claim of Rabbi Greenblatt that retroactively she did not accept his condition.

Even though concerning purchases there is a concept of mekach ta'os (mistaken acquisition), but the acceptance of the purchase  - can't be uprooted based on a claim of mekach ta'os. Consequently when the purchaser is notified about the defect in his purchase and he agrees to it and decides to live with it - then he can no longer claim afterwards that he didn't know that he would not be able to live with the defect.

 If this principle is not true then a person could always claim that he can not live with a product because he says he can now not tolerate its defect. This is clear from the Mishna in Kesubos (77a). [If a woman marries a man with an unpleasant medical condition or an occupation which makes him smell and she states that she can live with it. But later she says that despite her belief that she could live with it - she in truth can't - the beis din forces him to divorce her.

However nowhere does it mention that the marriage should be annulled retroactively because she had mistakenly thought she could live with the condition. She is only free of the marriage from the time she receives the Get. ]

Concerning the credibility of the psychiatrist's report

1) I saw the report that Rabbi Greenblatt relied on for his psak This expert therapist acknowledged that he never met with the husband but only with the wife. His report (according to what he writes) was based on the testimony of the first therapist who treated the wife (and perhaps also the husband but this is not clear) in the past. The psychiatrist made his determinations based on incidents that the wife reported about the husband such as his anger, his stinginess, his fears, his worries etc. and said that these proved that the husband had the disorders mentioned before and that they were incurable.

Aside from the question of the credibility of therapist based on the limited information he had available - he clearly received money in order to report his views. And he was well aware that the wife's purpose in meeting with him was in order for rabbis to retroactively annul the marriage. (This was told to me by the man who obtained the report from the psychiatrist). And it is obvious from the report as we mentioned before.

2) It is possible that Tamar received instruction from another psychologist as to how to present her husband and his actions that the psychiatrist reported - in order to succeed in having the marriage annulled.

3) Many of the incidents that the psychiatrist used to prove that the husband Aharon wasn't normal and was incurable happened after they were married. How did he know that the mental illness - if in fact it exists -  didn't develop only after they were married? Because if it did develop after they were married there is no basis for annulling the marriage.

The psak itself is questionable

1) The psychiatrist who wrote the report is not an observant Jew. His credibility is entirely based on his concern that he would be damaged professionally if it was discovered he was lying. Is this presumption sufficient in the face of the fact that we mentioned before that he was consulted with the avowed purposed of freeing Tamar from marriage and to remove her status as a married woman?


2) Wouldn't it have been appropriate for Rabbi Greenblatt to request the views of other psychologists who actually met with the husband in order establish whether he suffered from these personality disorders? Isn't it very possible that another psychologist would not reach the same conclusion as the first therapist -as is well known that this is a frequent occurrence in the deliberations of beis din as well as those in secular courts?

Because of all these considerations, in my humble opinion, the heter of Rabbi Greenblatt mentioned before can not be relied upon at all. Consequently Tamar retains the status of being a definitely married woman. Therefore she is prohibited in marriage to all men until these matters are dealt with in beis din according to the halacha. And in the mean time she needs to leave her second "husband" and if she becomes pregnant from him the children are viewed as mamzerim - unless the beis din says otherwise - according to the halacha applied the facts. If there is anyone who disagrees with me - he needs to brings his claims before beis din in order that they be carefully considered.

I now request that  you join me in my protest against the heter  - if you think what I said is correct. While I feel it is important to protest this heter to stop adultery,  but doing it by myself without the support of a group of talmudic scholars  my protest will not be accepted and effective.  My urgent concern is that this heter will open the floodgates for the ignorant in our country to decide to annul marriages in a similar problematic manner to this one. That will result in the destruction (G-d forbid!) of the holiness of the Jewish people. As you know, up until now there have been various attempts of certain rabbis who are basically ignorant of Jewish law and who have not served an apprenticeship with expert rabbis. However they have been stopped by the protest of the rabbinic leadership of our communities. However this heter is different. Since it has been issued by Rabbi Greenblatt - who is recognized as important and expert Torah scholars in these matters - the opposition to improper heterim will fall apart if there is no protest.

In addition to the danger posed because the heter has been produced by Rabbi Greenblatt, in the eyes of the public Rabbi Greenblatt  is viewed as being supported in producing the heter by one of the senior rosh yeshivos (Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky) of the present generation as well as his son ( Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky) who is also a distinguished Torah scholar. Despite the fact that the Kaminetskys deny this, there is no question that many will rely on these rumors to permit the nullification of the status of being a married woman by means of this heter. That is because they think gedolim have clearly supported this heter.

I close with a blessing that G-d stop these breaches and dwell in our midst and that we should not be shamed or transgress.

Aharon Feldman

p.s. If you agree with what I have written, I request that you inform me at the address listed at the top of the letter.