Showing posts with label marriages do not vanish because the wife made a mistake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriages do not vanish because the wife made a mistake. Show all posts

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Proof that Philly Produces Mamzerim

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?