Book:: Philly Scandal of Remarriage without a GET

Table of Contents




Question from Joe Orlow

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky has released Tamar Epstein from her marriage to Aharon Friedman.

Aharon has not given Tamar a Get. My research indicates that the Halacha does not provide a way for Tamar to remarry under these circumstances. Many Rabbonim have told me Tamar may not remarry.

Yet Shalom Kamenetsky says Tamar can remarry because he has unnamed Rabbis who permit her to remarry.

May I ask the Rav to please provide a framework within the Halacha to explain how we deal with a case where a lone Rabbi, possibly backed up by a few or even many Rabbonim, allows a woman to remarry, when many other Rabbonim say there is no possibility within the Halacha for her to remarry without a Get?

In other words, is Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky to be followed? This question has larger implications. If the answer is that we must respect Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky, this may mean that many Jewish women in America will over time leave their husband and declare themselves "free" in the manner of Tamar Epstein.

Joe Orlow

Looking at the Shulchan Aruch and Tamir Epstein’s “Remarriage”

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

We posted a previous attack on those in Philadelphia who want a married woman to remarry without a GET. It seems that certain nameless rabbis permit this, although at least those “rabbis” are smart enough not to let anybody know who they are. Let us look at the Shulchan Aruch and the idea of letting a woman remarry without a GET. The only reason somebody could permit a woman to remarry without a GET and her husband lives is because there was a condition attached to the marriage and it was violated. So, let us look at this and see how it applies to those who simply rubber stamp a “not-married” sign on any woman who wants it.

See gemora Yevomose 94b that one may make a condition about getting married and if the condition is violated the marriage is negated. But this applies only to Erusin, or Kiddushin, the stage of marriage when people agree to be husband and wife but they did not have Chupah and may not be together. The second phase of marriage, when the couple are together and certainly when they have relations, are different. When the couple comes together in marital embrace, generally, violating conditions don’t negate  the marriage. Why not? Once a man and woman have relations it is not customary to continue with the conditions that may make the marriage negated. Because if the marriage is negated the husband and wife are living with zenuse which is a disgrace. Therefore, in general, one may make a condition in stage one of marriage. Kiddushin, when the two are not together. For instance, they can say that the marriage will only be valid if the wife is without a serious physical blemish. And if she has such a blemish, the marriage never took place. But once they are together, the general attitude is to refuse living with zenuse, and therefore the conditions are cancelled and the marriage remains.

Tosfoses there D”H but nisuin says that a condition may apply even after the couple is together, but this is rare because of two reasons: One, if the marriage is cancelled after the couple has been together it would retroactively have been a relationship of zenuse, so it is disgrace for a Jewish man and woman to be together without marriage which is zenuse.

Another reason that people refuse to cancel a marriage after they have relations is that the pleasure of being together in intimacy cancels their interest in negating the marriage. These two factors usually operate to cancel any conditions when the couple has relations. And yet, if the couple made a condition and they made it clear that being together will not cancel the condition but it will cancel the marriage if violated, then we could discuss about the fate of the marriage. But the lady in Philly never made any conditions to negate the marriage if such and such happened. Therefore, she has no grounds for negating the marriage. And furthermore, even if she did make a condition before having intimacy and afterwards, and really wants to break the marriage, she is obviously in violation of the standards of most Jews, and is thus a lowly woman.
Only a clearly stated condition made before the stage of marital intimacy can cancel a marriage. And once the condition is violated, the wife must leave the house immediately as she lives without kiddushin in sin. Did any of this happen to the lady from Philadelphia?

The Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 38:35 says that “one who makes kiddushin, the beginning phase of marriage, with a condition, and then has relations, and at the time of the relations was silent and did not promote the condition, the marriage is not cancelled even if the condition was violated.”

See the lengthy study of the Beis Shmuel in EH 38:59. There are discussions and opinions about when a marriage can be negated, when it is not negated but the woman needs a GET to remarry, when the condition creates a doubt and when it is negated, etc. Thus, anyone who seeks to remarry without a GET has an obstacle course to run, and afterwards, no normal person would want to marry her. First of all, the Philly lady taught by Shalom Kaminetsky to rely on a condition to cancel the marriage shows that bias zenuse is something she accepts, and is a lower person in violation of the proper standards Jews traditionally accept. Second of all, she never made a condition that anyone knows about, and nobody knows who permitted her to remarry. What normal Jew who believes in the Torah would marry such a person? And this woman comes from fine stock, as her father was a close friend of the Philly Yeshiva. Is this what he is seeing from his place in Gan Eden, that his daughter refuses my offer to make a GET with her husband, and instead, she makes a circus that would shame almost any Jew?

For shame on her. For shame on Shalom Kaminetsky for helping her remarry and produce mamzerim. And shame on Shmuel Kaminetsky for knowing what is happening and he does not stop it. And obviously, people suspect that the son would surely not do anything without his father’s permission. If so, he has a lot to answer for.

Again, I have spoken with the husband and he wants a GET. But he wants to settle certain things such as custody for his daughter. And yet, Shalom Kaminetsky is helping this lady completely married to remarry without a GET. This can only lead to mamzeruth, something that I intend to strongly publicize. Again, if this woman remarries without a GET, I will strongly publicize the fact that the children are probably mamzerim. And I will let the husband know exactly what I plan to do. I will make him famous, along with the wicked ones who encourage a woman without a father to destroy her life and that of her children.

This woman has no father and is like a yesoma who needs rabbis who will help her, and I am here to get her a completely kosher and normal GET after certain minor things are settled. Why does she insist on following Shalom Kaminetsky along a path that can dissuade any normal Torah Jew from wanting to marry her? This is a major mystery.

I don’t understand the whole story. The husband Aharon Friedman delivered the child he brought back from Washington in 2012 to his mother-in-law’s house, and was pounced on by a group of goons and beaten, but he escaped. Two years later, the FBI arrested a group of Orthodox goons. And a month after the FBI arrested the group of Orthodox goons, Aharon’s wife announced that she does not need a GET, and is free to remarry. A friend of mine was solicited by Shalom Kaminetsky to marry her, even without a GET, which Shalom declared was not necessary.

Why did the wife decide she doesn’t need a GET only after the goons were arrested? And why is Shalom Kaminetsky doing something, to help a married woman remarry without a GET, something that every child knows is wrong, when doing this will invite me and others like me to publicize that he is a creator of mamzerim? And does Shalom not realize that many people, such as me, suspect his father of being involved in all of this? Does he not care about the honor of his father?

I think I have made my point. If they don’t stop now, I won’t stop either. I have the backing of gedolei Yisroel who want me to pour on the heat. It won’t go away. I say to you Shalom, stop now. Call me and let’s settle this with a nice peaceful GET and restore quiet to Philadelphia. I have better things to do than to sit and write articles about mamzer producers. But if they are here, I am also here. And I am in the process of talking to more and more major authorities, who are shocked at this story and want me to fight as I am fighting. And who is the rabbi who told you, Shalom, to marry a married woman to somebody else without a GET? I want him on my list, right up front. And of course, you will supply that rabbi’s sources to disagree with the gemora and the Shulchan Aruch and the accepted policy of Beth Dins never to permit a married woman to remarry without a GET. This is pure rishuse. But there must be a reason for doing this pure rishuse, when it is not necessary in order to get a GET. Surely there is another reason why this woman is claiming that she does not need a GET, and there is surely another reason why Shalom Kaminetsky  publicizes this.

 This is such an interesting case. Rachmono litslon. I feel sorry for the poor woman who is being advised to destroy her life. But I also feel sorry for Shalom Kaminetsky, because what he is doing is obviously related to hidden things I did not mention. But maybe the hidden  things are worse than anything I can write. Who knows?

Making Mamzerim in Philadelphia

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/Monsey, NY 10952/845-578-1917
I strongly protest the incredible and unheard of sin committed by Shalom Kaminetsky of Philadelphia, probably with his father’s approval, to help a woman remarry without a GET! For years I have strongly protested the actions of Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky who tells people to coerce husbands to force a GET from them, in utter defiance of the Shulchan Aruch and poskim. But now his son probably with his approval has decided to sin even further with helping a married woman to remarry without a GET! Incredibly, we don’t hear a roar of condemnation about this from every mouth. It is quiet. Well, now it is not quiet. I hereby protest the hideous sin of the Kaminetskys: Shmuel’s sin of coercing Gittin and Shalom’s sin of encouraging a woman to marry without a GET. Upon remarriage with a coerced GET or no GET, a woman produces children who may be mamzerim, the ultimate child abuse.

Reb Shmuel Kaminetsky has long called for coercing husbands to give their wives a GET upon the wife’s demand when the marriage is broken. This is in utter defiance of the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3. There the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas Mechokake and Gro clearly forbid coercing a GET based upon the wife’s demands that she cannot stand the husband. The Gro there #5 says that nobody disagrees. So how can Shmuel Kaminetsky disagree? And furthermore, when Shmuel Kaminetsky signed letters calling on everyone to torture husbands because the wife was tired of them or whatever, did he talk to the husband and hear his side? See Choshen Mishpot 17:5  And did Shmuel Kaminetsky sign these treifeh letters as a favor to his good friend the father of the woman who wants a GET? Is this not highly questionable, to posken for a friend against her enemy? See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpot VII:6  that both sides in the Din Torah must be equal in the eyes of the Dayan. So how could S. Kaminetsky pasken against the husband when he is a best friend of the father of the wife?

And Shalom Kaminetsky’s efforts to get this lady married without a GET without mentioning what rabbis permitted it is also unheard of.  I say this: This woman, if she remarries without a GET, will be forbidden to her old husband and her new husband and will be a soteh living in zenuse. Her child will be a mamzer vadai. And if some rabbi does say that a woman can remarry without a GET, the vast majority of rabbis in the world and the greatest ones are completely convinced that the woman without a GET may not remarry.

It is a great mitzvah that everyone call Shalom Kaminetsky and his father and ask them what source they have or what rabbi they have to permit a woman remarrying without a GET. If they remain in their position of being poskim against the Shulchan Aruch we call upon all parents not to send their children to the Philly Yeshiva of the Kaminetskys and not to support the Yeshiva, and to protest to the Kaminetskys that they are making a chilul HaShem and mamzerim.

The idea that one rabbi or two rabbis can permit a woman to remarry for reasons nobody else ever heard of has no place in halacha. See teshuvose Mahari ben Lev IV:19:3 “Even if most rabbis permit dovor shebierva (if a woman is permitted to marry somebody) but some forbid it, we are stringent and forbid the woman to remarry.” And even if we can understand following the majority of poskim who permit her to remarry as we usually follow the majority in pesak, if we have a majority who forbid the woman to remarry and some rabbi or two claim she is permitted, we surely must follow the majority. If so, how can the woman remarry?

The Philadelphia woman is not an Agunah. I speak to the husband regularly and he is happy to settle with a GET but he wants to organize the visitations of the child and perhaps some other things, as in every GET. Shalom Kaminetsky is destroying this woman’s life. He should convince her to contact me and get a GET and settle with the visitations like every divorced woman.  This way she will not be a zona and her children will not be mamzerim. And if she does remarry without a GET, will the Kaminetsky family accept the child in marriage or will they fear to take a mamzer in marriage?

Dovid Eidensohn

ORA - the Mamzer Producing Organization

ORA, the organization to torture husbands and force them to give a GET, has a list of recalcitrant husbands featured on its blog. It supplies the SIRUV and other information about them. It also demonstrates and humiliates them to force them to divorce. Such a coerced GET is usually invalid. If the woman remarries with an invalid GET she is living in sin and her children may be mamzerim. ORA follows the teachings of Rabbi Herschel Schachter, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University. He is adamant that we must force husbands to divorce when the marriage is broken. That is, every woman who wants out can just leave the house and call ORA and they will humiliate and harrangue the husband until he gives a GET. Thus, of the many husbands broken by ORA, there are probably many mamzerim by now from the invalid divorces due to ORA's coercion. But Rabbi Schachter stands beyond this.

Therefore, it is important to recognize a huge divide among rabbis and Beth Dins in the world today. Some, especially the Modern Orthodox, but also many Haredi rabbonim, feel that a woman who really wants to leave her husband must be supported and the husband must be humiliatd and forced to divorce. Others, such as the Gedolim in Israel, say that any rabbi or Beth Din that coerces Gittin in such a manner just because the wife wants a divorce is not only wrong, but loses its chezkas Beth Din. All divorces done with that Beth Din are not accepted. The woman needs another GET. If she remarried and has children, a senior Beth Din recognized by the Gedolim must check if there is a way to save the GET.

Here we are interested, not in protesting what ORA has done, and not in defending husbands, even though they may have been treated the wrong way. We want to show something much more important. We want to show how the halacha about divorces are split in the world. And since Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt"l told me that any Beth Din that makes coercions he takes from them Chezkas Beth. And since the living Gedolim in Israel have agreed to this in a sefer Mishpitei Yisreol, we must establish the fact that a large number of functioning Beth Dins make invalid Gittin, and women divorced by them are not considered divorced by Gedolim. Of course, if such a Beth Din issues a summons, it is not accepted as a Beth Din, and it is probably a sin to go to it.

We hope to do here what we have done elsehwere many times: Show that the halacha is clearly that in the vast majority of cases the woman has no right to sue for a GET, and if she leaves the house, she may leave, but we cannot coerce the husband or pressure him to give a GET.

Let us take a look at the Siruv published by ORA against a man M. Kin. Again, we are not here interested in who was right. We are interested in the process of the halacha as understood by ORA and its rabbi. And we want to show that this is wrong and not accepted by Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt"l and lihavdik bain chaim lichaim, living Gedolim. Here is the text of the Siruva.
בית דין צדק

כתב סירוב

במותב תלתא כחדא הוינא ב , יום י"א לחודש תמוז שנת תש"ע לבה ,ע" ועייננו
בדו"ד בין מר ישראל מאיר קין לאשתו לאנא ועל סירובו החוזר ונשנה לסדר
לאשתו גט פיטורין כהלכה. ולמרות מאמצים אדירים לפייס אותו ולתווך בין
הצדדים, מר קין הנ"ל מסרב בכל תוקף לגרש את אשתו כדמו .י"
ועל כן, יצא מאיתנו לפסוק את דינו כדין "מסרב" ואינו ציית לדינא , ודינו מבואר
בשו"ע יו ס ד" ימן .ד"של וחובה מוטלת על כל מי שיש בידו להשפיע עליו לשחרר
את אשתו מכבלי העיגון ושיהא ציית לדינא .
"וע ז באנו על החתום בעיר נו א יארק:(Free translation)
Order of Contempt (Seruv)
The three of us sat together on 11 Tammuz 5770 (June 23rd, 2010), and we deliberated on the dispute between Mr. Israel Meir Kin and his wife, Lonna, and his repeated refusal to arrange a Get (writ of Jewish divorce) for his wife in accordance with Jewish law. Despite extraordinary attempts to appease him and to mediate between the two sides, Mr. Kin adamantly refuses to divorce his wife in accordance with Jewish law.
Therefore, we determine that he is considered a “Sarvan” (recalcitrant) and does not comply with Jewish law, and the ramifications of this status are elaborated in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah siman 334. It is incumbent upon anyone who is capable, to influence him to free his wife from an agunah’s chains and comply with Jewish law.
We hereby affix our signatures in New York City:
(Rabbi Hershel Schachter)
(Rabbi Nachum Sauer)
(Rabbi Avrohom Union)

We make here one point. The letter of SIRUV says that he is being held in contempt and will be banned from the public because he has not given a GET. But this is a violation of the SIRUV. A SIRUV is not about the particular claim somebody has on another. A SIRUV is about refusal to go to Beth Din. The Beth Din in this letter clearly states that the SIRUV and the subsequent banning of the husband is to force him to give a GET. And this is a violation of the SIRUV itself.

Rabbi Schachter has openly declared that a husband is to be forced, beaten, and if he still refuses to divorce, he should be beaten until he dies! This is absolutely wrong.  Rabbi Schachter not only believes this. He made a tape stating this that was featured on Yeshiva University's blog until the FBI sting about rabbis who beat people to force them to give a GET when it was taken down. But many people have copies of the original.

A Beth Din that threatens to kill a husband who will not give a GET  is the ultimate GET MEUSO or coerced GET. The Beth Din is plainly in violation of halacha as taught in the Shulchan Aruch and the Gedolei HaDor.

But there is another problem with this SIRUV. The SIRUV clearly states that the Beth Din itself demands a GET. Even if there was no other coercion involved, the very fact that a Beth Din orders the husband to give a GET, telling him that the Torah requires it, can itself invalidate the GET. The Chazon Ish writes, EH 99:2 If a husband is coerced by the mitsvah to obey the rabbis and therefore divorces, the get is invalid because it is forced, and because it is a mistake. Had the husband realized that the rabbis on the Beth Din made a mistake, he never would have issued it. So the GET is botel by Torah standards for two reasons: It is coerced by the mitsvah to obey the sages and if the husband had realized that the Beth Din made an error he would not have written th GET so it is a mistaken GET.

The Rashbo in VII:414 states clearly that when the wife demands a GET because she hates the husband no pressure can be brought upon the husband to divorce. Rather, "If he wants, he gives a GET. And if he doesn't want, he doesn't give a GET." This is brought down as halacha in EH 77 paragraph 2 and 3 in all of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramo, Beis Shmuel and Chelkas Mechokake. The Gro there #5 says that nobody disagrees [of the present authorities.] Of course, Rabbi Schachter does disagree. He even says the husband should be killed. So, what kind of Beth Din is that? It is without value, of without Torah identity. It is simply a rebellion against the Torah. I always ask the Beth Dins and the rabbis who coerce husbands: I have all of the sources mentioend above, and what are your sources? That is usually the end of the conversation.

Incidentally, the Rashbo mentioned before says that there is a class of complaint by the wife that does compel the husband to give a GET, but we may not coerce with a strong pressure. Meaning, we may not humiliate him, beat him, or put him in cherem. This is the husband who has a physical problem and cannot be a man in marriage. We coerce him by telling him that the Talmud demands a GET and if he refuses to issue a GET it is permitted to call him a wicked person. Now, this is only mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch regarding this one kind of case, where the Talmud clearly states that the husband is obligated to give a GET. But in all of the average cases of divorce demands, there is no mitsvah from the Talmud or the Torah to divorce. "If he wants to divorce he divorces, and if not he does not." And if humiliation is forbidden even for a husband who is not a man and cannot maintain a marriage and the Talmud demands he divorces, certainly a husand who has not obligation from the Talmud to divorce may not be humiliated.

This law of not humiliating the husband even one who is not a man and certainly others who are healthy is quoted by the Radvaz  IV:118,, Beis Yosef  EH 154, and Chazon Ish 108:12. Nobody disagrees. But Rabbi Schachter disagrees.

See Teshuvose Maharshal 41 that a woman who is very upset with her husband because he is clearly not religious and may even be interested in another religion may leave the house but cannot force the husband to divorce.But Rabbi Schachter disagrees. What is his source? I asked one of his disciples to get me his source and he told me, "Rabbi Schwartz head of the RCA Beth Din and rabbis in Washington DC." Now, I spoke to Rabbi Gedaliah Schartz and he told me that he let a couple who came to him for a GET leave without a GET because he just blew away their marriage. And the Washington rabbis humiliate a husband who doesn't give a GET because Rabbi Schachter told them that!

Of course, Rabbi Schachter allows murder to force a GET, so why not humiliation? After all, didn't he once tell somebody to kill the Prime Minister of Israel because he did something that R Schachter opposed? But decent Jews who don't murder and don't tell other people to murder don't talk that way. And any organization that accepts such a person utterly devoid of Torah learning until he disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch and all of the commentators with no source of his own except Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz, who himself has invented a new Torah, is a disgrace.

I just mention that Rabbeinu Yona in Shaarei Teshuva III:139 says that "humilition is worse than death." If a GET forced by the threat of killing is invalid, so is a GET forced by humiliation, especially the ORA humiliation that never ends, and involves protests in public so that everyone should despite the victim. This surely makes an invalid GET.

Of course, Rabbi Schachter might feel he doesn't have to obey the Shulchan Aruch, because he knows better than the Gro and all of the commentators. But what does he do with a gemora in Berochose 23A that a Talmid in a Yeshiva killed himself after being humiliated? Maybe Rabbi Schachter has a different text for that.

We have finished our discussion today, but I just mention as an aside that should be covered in a different post, that when a husband is summoned by Rabbi Schachter or his disciples to come to a Beth Din, the first thing to do is to call the FBI.

The Philly Lady Who Wants to Remarry Without a GET

The Philly lady looking to remarry without a GET has been so advised by her rabbinical adviser that she does not need a GET. Now, why does every woman in the world who is married and needs a divorce need a GET, and why does the Philly lady not need a GET? Well nobody has openly stated that they permit it. But she is still looking for somebody to marry, without her GET. And nobody has protested, other than this blog. 
If this woman doesn’t need a GET it must be that the marriage doesn’t exist. But she was married. She had a child with the husband. What happened to the marriage? Those who permit her to remarry without a GET must hold that the marriage vanished. That could happen if the husband married her and then it was discovered that the marriage was conditional and the condition was not fulfilled. But in this marriage, there were no conditions.
Furthermore, when somebody makes conditions to their marriage, and the conditions are not met, the marriage can vanish retroactively, but this holds true only if all that was done was Kiddushin. But once the couple marry fully and are together, even if one makes a condition and it is not kept, there is a serious problem whether or not the marriage is valid. See Even Hoezer 38:35 and 36. It seems that people make kiddushin with conditions and they want them fulfilled. If the conditions are not fulfilled the marriage vanishes. But after Kiddushin when they are together already in marriage through Chupa or biah they negate the conditions. Thus, even if we assume that there were conditions that were not met in the marriage of the Philly lady, once she had a child she surely negated the conditions and is married and needs a GET.  This holds true whether or not there was kiddushin and then a chupa, and certainly if there was marital intimacy [and certainly if there was a child because most Jewish women don’t want children to be born from zenuse]. Once they are together with chupa or biah, they are mochel conditions so that the being together will not be bias zenuse. 
But for some strange reason this lady is considered different than all of this, and she is judged as one who does want bias zenuse. How did her rabbinical adviser know that? Or maybe her “rabbinical adviser” never saw the Shulchan Aruch EH 38:35 and 36 where it is stated, “All of this [that conditions destroy the marriage] is only valid until the two are together [chupah or biah] but if they are together she is certain married, because we assume that when they were together in chupah she negated the conditions. Therefore, she is married and he has to give her a kesuboh.”
Now, if this couple not only married but had a child, even if there was a proper condition and the condition was not met, there is a serious issue whether the marriage vanishes. Because “nobody makes his marriage into zenuse.” If the woman claims that she is free, she is claiming that she lived with her husband and had a child from him with znuse, something that is strongly frowned against, and that runs against the feelings of good Jewish people. Whether such a condition survives intimacy and surely having a child is a serious question. We might want to go into that serious question another time. But for now, let us keep it simple. The wife claims that her marriage vanished. If it vanished, she had a child with no marriage. The child is born out of wedlock, and she had a child out of wedlock. If she is happy with that status, is the child happy with it? When the child comes of age and the child looks for a shidduch, will someone want a child born out of wedlock, from zenuse? This now becomes an issue for Beth Din, because “Beth Din is the father of orphans.” Children whose parents claim falsely that they were born out of wedlock invite the censure of Beth Din. 
Well, we will supply a complaint to hasten the process. We will stand up for the honor of the child, who is a pure child, born from a pure marriage, from a mother who is being advised by some nut of a “rabbi” that she is not married. And that nut job obviously does not care about the child. Maybe the child is not paying him, or maybe… But we will state which is obvious to any rabbi who is not a nut job. This woman is married. If she remarries she is sinning with not zenuse but niyufe mamosh. If she has a child it is a mamzer. And yes, just as Beth Din, or responsible people if there is no Beth Din, have a moral duty to speak out to help a helpless child, so do you and I  have an obligation to publicize to the world that if this woman remarries, her new children will be mamzerim. And the child she had with her real husband is completely kosher. If her “rabbi” has it reversed, it is probably because his “daas Torah” is in reverse. But we will speak up for the two children. The one born already is a pure child from a pure marriage. And the one who cholila vichass will be born from this lady who claims that she is not married now, her child or children will be mamzerim. Not doubtful mamzerim, but definite mamzerim.
Philly lady. Give my regards to your “rabbi.” You will be hearing more from me. But I don’t blame you. I blame him. The K people in Philly are behind all of this. And I won’t stop mentioning it. Now, let me talk to you.

Your husband wants to give you a GET. But you have to settle with him, not loads of money, not loads of burdensome things but improved visitation from the daughter who left Washington to live in Philadelphia. Even though you played pretty rough with him for years, he is not looking for revenge. I am in touch with him and anyone from your side who wants to settle things, contact me at 845-578-1917. And know this: If you have a child without a GET, the child will be hearing from me. And it will never stop. Maybe whoever told you how to behave will call up the people sitting in jail now who tried to beat up your husband, but failed. Maybe they will beat me up and shut my mouth. Maybe.

MAMZERUS in Philadelphia?

The recent effort by the Kaminetskys of Philadelphia Yeshiva to “help” Mrs. Friedman, a married woman, to remarry without a GET, is a hideous rishuse. Somebody told me he was asked by Shalom Kaminetsky if he wanted to marry Mrs. Friedman. He asked if she had a GET. He was told no, and that she doesn’t need a GET, only lichumroa. When asked what Rov permitted her to remarry without a GET, the answer was that when he will marry her he will be told what Rov permitted it.

Let us assume that somewhere, in some hole in the ground, there is a Rov who permits a married woman to remarry without a GET, because she wants a different husband, etc. May the woman remarry based on that one Rov? If the Shulchan Aruch and all of the poskim forbid it, what Rov can permit it? But, perhaps, somewhere, there is a “rabbi” who permits it. May the woman remarry because some rabbi or even a few rabbis permit it? That is our question.

The Rashbo in Teshuva I:353 elaborates on the laws of pesak halacha. He says that if there is an argument between two rabbis and one is greater than the other in wisdom and number of students, we never are permitted to do as the opinion of the smaller rabbi, even if there is great urgency. If there is an argument among rabbis who are equal in wisdom and number of students, we follow the majority usually, but if there is a great urgency we can sometimes do as the minority.  But if it is generally known and accepted that the halacha is as the teachings of the majority, we don’t accept the teaching of the minority even if there is a great urgency.

If there is a doubt because the arguing rabbis are equal then if the question is a Torah issue we must be stringent. But if the issue is a rabbinical issue we may be lenient. If the community accepts a rabbi to adjudicate their Torah issues, everyone in the city must follow that Rov whatever he says. If the community does not have a single Rov who rules on all Torah issues for the community, but the community has decided to follow the Rambam or some similar Posek in all that they do, this is permitted. But if a Rov in that city brings proofs to differ with that particular posek, he may follow his own logic. Because the Rambam is not a real Rov for the community and therefore a Talmid Chochom may disagree with him if he is worthy to argue with the Rambam in general. But if the Rov is appointed by the people of the city and is alive everyone must obey him even a Talmid Chochom who disagrees.

If there are two scholars who disagree and they are equa,l in Torah questions they must be stringent. But if two scholars disagree with one scholar who are all equal, we go according to the majority.

Let us now turn to our case of the runaway married woman. Not a single rabbi in the world has openly taken credit for this pesak. So, as far as the world is concerned, the woman who remarries is a SOTA and her children are mamzerim. A man who dates the woman should ask a question of his rov if he is doing the right thing, otherwise, he should stay away from her. And if he does not stay away from her, and marries her, even after hearing the name or names of the “rabbis” who permit it, he is sinning with a married woman according to the opinion of the vast majority of the rabbis and the great rabbis who have never permitted such a thing.

We, all of  us who are truly Torah Jews, follow the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch has various cases where a woman was tricked into marriage by a bad person and she finds out what happens and she is very bitter. She wants out. The Shulchan Aruch says that we force the husband to give a GET, because there must be a GET. The fact that the woman has changed her mind about marriage even for very good reasons does not change the fact that she is married. See the previous post with sources.

Another source we mention here is the Laws of Kesubos Even Hoezer 77:3 that quotes from the Rosh in teshuva 35:2: A woman was tricked by a wicked person into marrying him. He told her lies and she believed him. But once married, she realized they were lies. The Rosh says that although he does not allow coercion of husband to force a GET in most circumstances, in such a case he permits it. However, he clearly states, that even in such a case where it is clear to all that the husband is a liar and lowly person and the woman would never have married him had she known about him, the Kiddushin remains and there must be a GET.

If so, how can we assume that Mrs. Friedman, who never said her husband was a liar or horrible, just that she had some small complaints, how can she unravel kiddushin?

Bottom line: The Rosh is brought down in Shulchan Aruch above. The Gro paskens like that. Who is this “rabbi” who disagrees and permits Mrs. Friedman to remarry without a GET? And why are the Rosh Yeshivas who screamed at Aharon the husband for not giving a GET not attacking the Kaminetsky attempt to marry a married woman? And why are the rabbis in Washington still torturing Aharon Friedman as if he was unworthy to enter their shull? If Mrs. Friedman says she doesn't need a GET, why is Aharon being tortured to force a GET? And why are the rabbis in Washington tormenting Aharon after he obeyed the Baltimore Beth Din, while his wife ran away from it?

Leaving Without a GET: "Daas Torah" in Philadelphia


In our previous posts here, we have discussed the problem of the modern Yeshiva and its invention in halacha, especially the laws of Gittin, where women are helped by forcing the husband to divorce, which makes an invalid GET and mamzerim. But just when we thought that things could not get worse, we find that in Philadelphia a married woman is going on dates. She, it is said, has stated that she is "free" and she has Shalom Kaminetsky to support her and help her remarry. He told somebody that I know and trust that although she has no GET, she doesn't really need one. He refused to say what rabbi said that a married woman doesn't need a GET. However, since Shalom's father is Reb Shmuel Kaminetsky, we assume that he works with his father's permission. The girl and her family are known to be close to the Kaminetskys.

In our previous posts we showed proof that the Roshei Yeshiva who permitted humiliating a husband have no proof or opinion to support them, as they defy open teachings of the Rashbo in teshuva VII:414, Radvaz Volume II:118, the Beis Yosef author of the Shulchan Aruch in Tur 154, and the Chazon Ish in Gittin 108. Furthermore, the true gedolim in Israel have written in letters and a new sefer published on the subject that anyone who receives a GET from a Beth Din that practices coercions in defiance of halacha must have another GET, as the first one is not recognized. I heard personally from HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l that a Beth Din that coerces a GET in violation of halacha loses its chezkas beth din, meaning as the present gedolim have said, that the woman needs a new GET from a kosher Beth Din.

Surely, a Beth Din that allows a married woman to remarry without a GET entirely is an invalid Beth Din, and all Gittin that it makes are invalid unless a reliable Beth Din investigates carefully and approves the GET.

Of course, the Philadelphia inventors of halacha have no source for what they say. But there are plenty of sources that disagree, as we will bring here. First of all, Maharshal in teshuva 41 says that even a wicked husband who converts to another religion and cannot do anything positive for the wife in marriage, the marriage is still valid, and the issue is whether to coerce him to give a GET. But the Philly Rosh Yeshivas disagree with the Marshal, whom the Ramo considered to be greater than he was, and they have ruled that such husbands allow the wife to remarry without a GET.

And what if the wife becomes wicked and leaves the house? Is the husband free to remarry without a GET? The Posek HaDor of his time Reb Yitschok Elchonon zt"l in AYIN YITSCHOK I, the first few teshuvose, has many cases like this, and in all of the cases, the marriages stood, and the husband had to give a GET or have HETER MAYO RABONIM. See also teshuva 36 the husband became insane, and yet, she is not free to remarry until it is known that the husband died. See also teshuva 61 a wicked man gave a ring to a girl and uttered You are mikudeshes li and she obviously did not want to marry him. It is obvious from the teshuva there that if she did hear all of his words even if she immediately afterwards rejected him there would be a serious problem of her being married to him. But the Philly rabbis, if she would have had a father close to their Yeshiva, would have taken care of her that she was free to remarry.

Also, throughout history there have been women whose husbands turned wicked and left them and they are Agunose. Why did the rabbis of those times not say that since the husband is so wicked as to leave his wife and become a rosho that the wife would never have married him in the first place had she known how evil he was, and therefore, the marriage never took place? But the rabbis throughout history have never ruled that a woman whose husband has turned wicked can say that she never would have married a wicked person and therefore the marriage never took place.

Furthermore, in the worst case scenario, when a woman has a wicked husband and it is known that had she known about him she never would have married him, we find clearly that the marriage is not ended and she is still married. See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 154:1 in Ramo that a husband who marries a woman and then becomes a member of another religion, that the marriage is still valid and the wife is not free to remarry without a GET. There is even a question whether such a person can be coerced to divorce. Now, according to the Philadelphia inventors, why can't the woman simply say that she never would have married such a person who changes his religion, and then remarry?

The Ramo says there that if the husband is known to have relations with strange women, some permit to coerce such a husband to divorce. But we see that if the husband is not coerced to divorce, the woman cannot just leave because she never would have married such a wicked person and the marriage was a mistake. Indeed, where do we find in the Shulchan Aruch that a woman is married, maybe has children, and the husband becomes wicked and the marriage disappears? There is no such thing.

Furthermore, the lady in Philadelphia has never claimed that her husband is wicked or anything of the sort. She simply says that she could find a better husband, even after she had a child from the first husband. The first husband is a very respected person with a very good job in Congress. So how can the inventors in Philadelphia come up with a reason to remove the marriage after she had a child with the first husband especially as even she never said he did anything hideous?

Without going into further proofs here, we see that the "Daas Torah" Rosh Yeshivas who invented the permission to coerce husbands because the wife was a cousin or friend of a Rosh Yeshiva, which is pure corruption, now have invented the removal of marriage entirely, despite the fact that nobody in Jewish history ever said such a thing. And if it is true, that whenever a wife regrets marrying the husband the marriage is removed, what marriage is there that hasn't been removed at one time or a hundred times over as people always have moods and disagreements and even worse, but who assumes like the Philly rabbis that the marriage disappears simply because the wife wants the marriage to disappear so she can marry somebody else?

Some years back the Rosho Rackman invented this idea, that any woman whose husband did not give a GET, can remarry, because had she known that he would not give her a GET, she never would  have married him. And all of the rabbis, including and especially the YU rabbis, blasted him out for this, and eventually, he pulled back somewhat. For sure, all of the women who remarried from Rackman lived in sin and their children from the new husband are mamzerim. And the Philly lady if she remarries, will have mamzerim for children. BE WARNED! The Philly rabbis who encouraged a married woman to remarry without a GET are wicked and have no place in halacha. Nobody should ever ask them an opinion in Torah, because they just invent what they want and call it "Daas Torah" as we explained. How anyone can send their child to the Philly Yeshiva is beyond me. If the Yeshiva rabbis there told people to eat treifeh, would anyone send their child there? So how can anyone send a child to that Yeshiva, and how can anyone contribute to it, when the Yeshiva rabbis encourage mamzerim and women sinning with other men who are not their  husbands?

Yes, there are some "rabbis" who encourage the remarriage of married women without a GET. One is the head of the RCA, the same Beth Din that issued a siruv to the FBI's fake husband. If you want fake husbands, and fake halacha, go to the RCA and the rabbis of the Philly Yeshiva. At any rate, in the Philly situation, to my knowledge no rabbi has openly permitted the woman to remarry. Obviously, the Kaminetkys are aware of what she is doing and Shalom's active help is proof that he and probably his father approve of her remarrying without a GET. Both of them are deserving of CHEREM. They are producing mamzerim, and if a mamzer is produced, they are the child molestors. Please, don't send your child and do not support a Yeshiva run by child molesters!