The Horror of Tamir Epstein Freidman Making Mamzerim

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Tamir Epstein Friedman of Philadelphia has left her husband without a GET. Rabbi Notto Greenblatt of Memphis, Tennessee, re-married her although he knew that she did not have  a GET from her husband. Tamir’s real  husband Aharon wanted to arrange a GET, but the Rabbis Kaminetsky claimed that they have proof that Aharon, the husband, has serious mental illnesses that cannot be cured and she is therefore justified in leaving him and remarrying without a GET.

We will bring sources here to show that even if this claim that Aharon Friedman had mental problems that can’t be cured and no woman could live with it was true, and it surely is not at all true, she would still not be free. These are the words of the Gadol HaDor in America before Reb Moshe and during some of Reb Moshe’s life, the Gaon RavYosef Eliyohu Henkin, in his work The Writings of The Gaon Rav Yosef Eliyohu Henkin (Volume I in the section Pirushei Ivro page כג  45): “We have not heard and have not known from Talmudic times that a Kiddushin can be negated because of a blemish, and certainly after a full Marriage [when the couple was together] or [have we heard] that it was ruled that she is free without a GET. And we have seen these kind of questions in all places and at all times, and in all of these instances they required a GET! We see from this that no matter what the circumstances of the blemish and problem, it was at best still a doubt and it was impossible to negate the Kiddushin at all. Even if the blemish was proven and even if the other side did not know about it previously. And look at the Teshuva of the Noda Biyehuda II number 80…”

The Noda Biyehuda there discusses many cases of women who were trapped in terrible marriages and were Agunose mamosh, and some wanted to claim that “for such a husband she did not accept marriage”.  But the Noda Biyehuda rejects this and shows that even many women who were unable to tolerate their husbands and were Agunose and were tricked into marriage could not negate the marriage. The Gaon Rav Henkin in his two volume collection of writings devotes much time to explaining these laws and basically says that when a couple marries even if great problems and blemishes are found the marriage cannot be negated without a GET, similar to what the Noda Biyehuda says. If there are physical problems that render a woman AILENUSE or incapable of serving as a woman in marriage, or if a man had a similar problem, there may be a possibility to negate the marriage. But if someone is a normally structured male or female, and has serious problems, what Rav Henkin says is true. He also treats in his work at length about Ailenuse. See also Tosfose Kesubose 72b d”h על מנת. Rav Henkin devotes much to these kind of questions in Volume I page 39 – 50.                                                                                                                                                                HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt'L  disagrees and with certain extreme cases will consider the woman unmarried because had she known about the husband she never would have married him. But I heard from Reb Moshe’s gabei and the Gaon Rav Avigder Miller zt”l that Reb Moshe refrained later on in his life from doing some of the more extreme findings in his teshuvose about Gittin.  If so, we can probably doubt if Reb Moshe would want the teshuvose about remarrying without a GET to be done today. This is because even Reb Moshe accepts that nobody who dealt with these issues ever agreed with him, going back generations. The greatest authorities such as Kovneh Rov and Bais HaLevi the Rov of Brisk and father of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik clearly forbid negating a marriage regardless of blemish or such problems. And their refusal to accept this is a statement of the gemora Kesubose 73b based on a Mishneh Kesubose 72b and a gemora that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch EH 39:5 with no disagreement.  From the Gro and Beis Shmuel there it would seem that the obligation for a GET is a Torah obligation not just rabbinical obligation. See also Even Hoezer 117 3-4.

  And even if Reb Moshe did want marital negation done today, he makes it clear that he only permits this if there is absolutely no chance for a GET.  Everything, everything, must be done to get a GET otherwise he does not give permission for the woman to remarry without a GET. Aharon Friedman told me he would give a GET but wanted better visitation rights. Reb Moshe would thus never permit Aharon’s wife to remarry. Thus the two Gedolei haDor of the past generation, Rav Henkin and Reb Moshe, would both forbid Tamir from remarrying without a GET. The Noda Biyehuda, one of the greatest poskim of the past centuries, makes it clear that in the case of much worse problems than what Tamir faced, he forbids her to remarry without a GET. And we mentioned before that the Kovneh Rov, Gadol HaDor and the Bais HaLevi Rov of Brisk and father of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, also required a GET. So Rabbi Greenblatt and the Kaminetsky crew disagree with Reb Moshe, Rav Henkin, the Noda Biyehuda, the Kovneh Rov, the Bais HaLevi and the fact that Reb Moshe himself says that throughout the generations, when these questions come up, the rabbis always refused permission for the woman to remarry. But Rabbi Greenblatt disagrees with centuries of clear pesak based upon a teaching in Shulchan Aruch which is based upon an open gemora in Kesubose 73b and a Mishneh 72b.

Those who dealt with Aharon and Tamir in their marriage problems say that the whole Heter of Rabbi Greenblatt is completely wrong, and that any child Tamir will have with her new husband are mamzerim. The sin of this falls on Rabbi Greenblatt, and those who tricked him with clever deceptions will answer in this world and the next.

1.       See EH 39:5 – If one marries a woman with Kiddushin alone, and does not make a condition but finds that she has a blemish most people refuse to accept, it is a doubt if the Kiddushin is negated and so the woman must have a GET.

2.       If one marries a woman with Nisuin and makes no conditions, but finds that she has a blemish most people refuse to accept, it seems that she is married and needs a GET  but does not get any Kesubo money. EH 117:3-4

3.       See Kesubose 172b the Mishneh and the gemora on 173b about if a marriage is negated because somebody had a problem.  One opinion is that we need a GET dirabonon and one holds it is a doubt and we need a GET from the Torah. The Beis Shmuel and Gro rule in Shulchan Aruch 39:5 that the GET is a Torah obligation (see Tosphose על מנת 72b, which is the opinion of Rovo in the gemora).

4.       In the event that the blemish or problem was that the male or female were physically unlike normal men or women, this may produce a situation when if this is discovered after the marriage that the marriage is negated. See Rav Henkin’s sefer Volume I page 41 about a woman who had a structural problem and men who lacked the ability to procreate, etc. See 41-50 there.

5.       A prominent Dayan went to Israel and talked to Rav Nissim Karelitz, who told him that Tamir needed a GET to remarry. The Head of a Beth Din said that without a GET her children will be mamzerim.

6.       What is the halacha when rabbis disagree about a woman being able to remarry? The rebbe of the Beis Yosef, Reb Yosef ben Leiv the מהר"י בן לב states that if rabbis disagree the woman should not remarry. And even if the majority of rabbis permit the remarriage but some forbid it, the custom of the rabbis in his time was for the woman not to remarry.

7.       This has a source in Tosfose Kesubose 2a that when somebody deals with a possible sin that will last for a long time, such as a marriage to a woman who is forbidden to him, we reject the usual standards that would create leniency, and are strict. This is because a sin that lasts for a long time and occurs many times must be treated in a strict matter.

8.       If rabbis disagree and the question is a Torah sin not a rabbinical sin, we must take the stringent side. See Ramo Choshen Mishpot 25:2 in Ramo.

The question now is, what is next? How many women will apply for negation of marriages that produce mamzerim? How many rabbis will be influenced by Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky to invent new laws about freeing women from their husbands?

Another question is, what do we do when we want to marry off our children? Who can we trust?

We have to find responsible rabbis and Beth Dins and check out each person if they had a GET or not, if it was coerced or not, if it is valid or not.

The next generation will have mamzerim. We must be aware of this, and make sure that we check as carefully as we can not to marry people ruined by Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky.

Remarrying Without a GET: The Halacha and the Problems - Unit Two

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

When the news came out that Tamir Epstein Friedman remarried without a GET, nobody knew why and how this could happen.  Little by little from speaking with Rabbi Greenblatt and other sources an idea of what happened emerged.  But this itself that a rabbi should remarry a woman without publicly explaining a) why he did this and b) what rabbis signed with him to permit it - is a very strange thing. The vast majority of rabbis who heard of this are strongly opposed to the remarriage and fear that a child born from it would be a mamzer.  A prominent rabbi from Yeshiva University called me and was so much opposed to the remarriage of Tamir  that he started to sputter with fury.

I am writing this for a variety of reasons. One, since prominent rabbis arranged this remarriage without a GET, many other women will follow Tamir and get annulled marriages from Rabbi Greenblatt and Rabbi Kaminetsky. And since the vast majority of rabbis say that babies born from the remarriage of a woman without a GET are mamzerim, we will have a crisis when these problem children reach marriageable age, and even before, when the terrible label is known. I therefore, number one, want to show that there is no reason whatsoever to rely on what Rabbi Kaminetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt did, and they remarried a woman who is still married to her first husband. Furthermore, since the second marriage is not recognized, the remarried woman now becomes forbidden to her first  husband and also her second husband. And if she stays with the second husband, her children will be mamzerim, and she will be known as a woman sinning with adultery.

Let me say this immediately. I do not blame Tamir Epstein Friedman for what she did. She has always, as her father before her, turned to the Kaminetskies as her Rov. Her father died before all of this started, and she is simply doing what the Kaminetskies tell her. Her mother gave her lawyer sixty thousand dollars to pay for a gang to kidnap and beat the husband Aharon and force a GET out of him. The gang attacked after Aharon had dropped off his daughter at his mother-in-law’s house. Aharon managed to escape the attacking goons and eventually the FBI proved that the mother’s lawyer, Goldfine, had sent a sixty thousand dollar check to the goons to kidnap and torture Aharon until he gave the GET. This has nothing to do with Tamir Epstein Friedman, although her mother and her mother’s lawyer are surely in deep legal trouble, as kidnapping is a capital crime in America. The Kaminetskys father and son will answer for their sins in the next world, a process begun now in this world, as people are furious at them for doing such a thing and making mamzerim.

I called up Rabbi Notto Greenblatt and told  him that he performed a marriage on a married woman. He replied that “Gedolim” permitted the marriage and whoever disagrees has Chutspah.” I responded that the Chazon Ish says that if a Beth Din requires a husband to give a GET when he is not obligated to do so, and the husband writes it, the GET is invalid for two reasons: One, the Beth Din pressured him with their authority, and the pressure of honoring Beth Din when the Beth Din has no legal right to pressure invalidates the GET by the standards not of the rabbis but of the Torah. Furthermore says the Chazon Ish, if the husband had known that the rabbis spoke without the authority of the Torah and had erred, he never would have given the GET. Therefore, the GET is invalid as a mistake, by Torah not just rabbinical standards.

Rabbi Greenblatt hung up on me.

Anyone who reads the Shulchan Aruch or gemoras knows this. Even if “Gedolim” ruled on something but were mistaken, their ruling is cancelled. Not only do we have an extensive coverage of this in Choshen Mishpot 25, when the mistakes of great rabbis are cancelled, and when the rabbis have to pay for their mistakes, but we have an entire trachtate in the Talmud Huriyuse about the mistakes not of just great rabbis but of the greatest rabbis, the Sanhedrin, who cause all of Israel to sin and sacrifices must be brought to atone for this.

And now Rabbi Greenblatt has done a strange thing to marry a married woman without explaining why, and he considers all of the prominent experts on Gittin to be “chutzpah.”

Well, Rabbi Greenblatt, a lot of chutzpah is out there, because all of the senior rabbis that I spoke to are furious with those who made this ridiculous  marriage and maybe mamzerim. And since the story broke recently, people  who are familiar with all of the great authorities on marriage and what they hold about annulling marriages have been hard at work, and no Gadol has been discovered. Precisely the opposite. Senior rabbis have signed against the second marriage;  the major rabbis of America, Israel and Canada. Even prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis such as Rabbi Herschel Schechter are disappointed with the Kaminetsky invention.

 Months before Tamir remarried, a prominent Dayan went to HaGaon Reb Nissim Karelitz of Bnei Braq to discuss this, and Reb Nissim said that the woman may not remarry without a GET. That Dayan told me that when he was in Israel Dayanim came to him with disbelief that anybody could perform a marriage for a woman who is already married and has no GET. Yes, what the Kaminetskies did is unbelievable, but it happened. And what we have to do now is to make sure that everyone understands that what the Kaminetskies did is pure rishuse that will produce mamzerim. As for Rabbi Greenblatt and his “Gedolim” he refuses to name them and nobody has discovered a “Gadol” who agrees with him.

There are those who point to Reb Moshe Feinstein that he permits some women to leave their husbands without a GET only if no GET at all is possible. But since the husband Aharon Friedman wanted to give a GET if the custody could be improved and perhaps other things as with all divorces, Reb Moshe would forbid Tamir from remarrying without a GET.

Second of all, Reb Moshe’s ruling is in defiance of the major poskim generations before him and also in defiance of Rav Henkin who was the older Rov and probably greater than Reb Moshe. Furthermore, there is an open gemora forbidding the woman to leave her husband without a GET in Kesubose 73b.  How can anyone permit a woman to remarry even with a husband who is truly a monster, when this conflicts with open gemora, a ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and the Gro and the Beis Shlomo, that we pasken like Rovo and the woman needs a GET because it is a doubt of the Torah, and the fact that the greatest gedolim forbade a woman to remarry without a GET even when the husband was truly a monster.

I also heard from HaGaon Rav Avigder Miller zt”l that some of Reb Moshe’s leniencies he retracted as he got older and the world got more frum. I was told by the Gabei of Reb Moshe clearly not to use a certain leniency mentioned in Igeres Moshe. If so, we cannot rely on Reb Moshe, especially when we know that Rav Henkin, who lived at his time and was older and more senor to him, forbids this. Rav Henkin says that some did want to make conditions even after marriage that could free the wife, but four hundred rabbonim attacked this leniency and ruled that no conditions can free the woman once she is in the state of Nisuin or intimacy and surely when she has a child from her husband, as Tamir did.

Thus for generations rabbis here and there invented the right to toy with marriage, but the were greatly outnumbered by rabbis who were much greater than they were. As Rav Yosher Ber Soloveitchik said of one suggestion to make a change in marital law: All of the Ends are Ended

Why Tamir's Remarriage Produces Mamzerim - Unit One - Gemora and Shulchan Aruch

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

I am writing this on Rosh Chodesh Marcheshvon, October 13, 2015. The Yeshiva world is in a turmoil because of the report of a woman remarrying without a GET. The rabbi who performed the ceremony, Rabbi Notta Greenblatt of Memphis, Tennessee, does not publicly reveal his reasons for this, nor do the Rabbis Kaminetsky of Philadelphia, who were the main influence on the woman to accept a remarriage.

I had heard previously about Tamir’s declaration that she no longer needed a GET. In my blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com, I attacked the Kaminetskys for backing this. I said that if she marries and has a child I will declare the child to be a mamzer. When she did marry without a GET, I called up a Rov who was the most involved with the couple for several years and knew all of the aspects that pertain to their marriage. I asked him if there was anything that he noticed in the husband that would qualify for the woman to declare that her marriage was a mistake and nullified. He said there was nothing. He also said that if she has a child the child will be a mamzer.  I have spoken to major heads of Gittin Beth Dins, and they are universally opposed in the strongest terms to this remarriage. And yet, some of them will not sign against it, for various reasons. This leaves the impression that the remarriage isn’t so terrible, and maybe there is a reason to be lenient. I am therefore writing this to show that there is no excuse for the remarriage and if she has a child the children are mamzerim.

A woman who married and found out that her husband had serious problems, or a man who married and found out that his wife has serious problems, is a field with a lot of literature on it, from the Talmud, Tur and Shulchan Aruch, and poskim. Keep in mind that marriage takes place first with Kiddushin, when the wife is not in the house of the husband and not in a Chupah, but perhaps in her father’s house. Then there is a complete marriage called Nisuin, when the wife goes to the  husband’s house, or to a Chupah, or has intimacy.

A condition made before the woman went to the house of the husband is very strong. If somebody violated the condition by Kiddushin and not by Nisuin, the marriage is negated. But if the couple made a full marriage or Nisuin and it was determined that the condition made by Kiddusin was violated, we reject the condition. This is because once a couple completes the marriage and are together, we assume that they negate any condition that could negate the marriage. Perhaps because being together with a negated Kiddushin in Zenuse. Also, the pleasure of intimacy can somehow cause somebody to cancel any conditions that would destroy the marriage. We will soon quote the Shulchan Aruch in these matters.

First, a Mishneh in Kesubose 72b: “A man who takes a woman with Kiddushin on the condition that she not have oaths] and he finds out that she has oaths, the marriage is negated. If he marries her [full marriage] without conditions and she is round to have oaths she leaves him without a Kesubo [meaning she must have a GET]…If he married her  [full marriage]without conditions and finds that she has blemishes she must leave  him [with a GET] but no Kesubo.”

The gemora discusses if “He married her with Kiddushin and then married her completely without a condition: Rav says she needs a GET.” The Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 38:35 says, “One who marries Kiddushin on a condition, and then had intimacy with her, or took her into his house without a condition, she needs a GET. Even though the condition was not fulfilled [we fear that] maybe even though the condition was not fulfilled, perhaps he cancelled the condition when he slept with her or brought her to his house.”  Ramo adds, “And if somebody else gave her Kiddushin she needs a GET from both of them.”

See Shulchan Aruch EH 39:5 “One makes Kiddushin without conditions, and then discoverers a serious blemish, the woman has a doubtful marriage [meaning she must have a GET].” Beis Shmuel there quotes Chelkas Mechokake that as soon as the person realizes the problem he complains and wants to break the marriage. But if he procrastinated and delayed, the marriage is valid.

The Beis Shmuel then says that if the Kiddushin and the Nisuin were done without making conditions, and it was discovered that a major blemish, etc. was there, the marriage is valid. Meaning, perhaps the blemish negated the marriage and perhaps not. The Torah requires the couple to divorce with a GET or else the woman is considered married, at least,there is a doubt  if she is really married.

The gemora discusses this in Kesubose  73b: “One who makes Kiddushin and the Nisuin without a condition and it is discovered that the woman [or the man] has a serious blemish, she leaves the marriage [with a GET] but no Kesubo.” The gemora says, “She needs a GET but does not get money for the Kesubo.” One opinion is that the GET is only a rabbinical requirement, but it seems that Rovo feels that it is a genuine doubt, and the Torah requires a GET.

The Beis Shmuel says that the Rambam and the Tur rule like Rovo, that the woman needs a GET by the Torah standard not just rabbinical standards. It seems that the Gro agrees that we rule like Rovo. The Gro also suggests that we look at EH 38:35. There we find “One who makes Kiddushin with a condition, and had intimacy or came to the house of the husband without a condition, she needs a GET, even though the condition was not fulfilled [there was a bad blemish or similar thing that called for the cancelation of the marriage] perhaps the man cancelled the condition when he had intimacy or brought his wife to his house.”

 “Ramo writes, “And if another man makes Kiddushin with this woman she needs a GET from both of them.” We thus see the process of making a doubt if the marriage is cancelled. But the doubt leaves a Torah level doubt that must be dealt with strictly.

We thus have learned of two cases that are doubtful negations of the marriage: if the man made a condition and it was violated but he also had intimacy or brought the wife to his house; another case is that with no conditions made it was discovered that a bad blemish exists. If so, there is a doubt if the person suffering from this blemish cancelled the marriage, and we must be stringent and give the woman a GET. She cannot just leave.

See also EH 117:3-4 “A man marries a woman without conditions, and it is discovered that she has oaths  as taught in 39, she should depart from the husband without a Kesubo [but she must have a GET.]

Also, one who marries a woman without conditions, and it is discovered that she has serious blemishes as mentioned in chapter 39, and the husband did not know about this blemish, she should leave without a Kesubo.”

We have shown so far the gemora and the Shulchan Aruch ruling that if people marry and find problems the marriage is not cancelled. And even if they did make a condition before they achieved full marriage and intimacy, we assume that the full marriage caused the husband to cancel his conditions, at least, there is a doubt about this.

If so, what happens when somebody has a husband like Aharon Friedman, a person who has achieved a high position in the National Congress in Washington, DC for years, a person who is admired by many people. What grounds are there to negate the marriage?

We understand that somebody went to some rabbis and said that Aharon was mentally ill and cannot be cured. The rabbis believed these somebodys, which is a grave error. When two people differ and argue, and a rabbi or a Beth Din gets involved, they must talk to both side of the case equally. Did  this happen with Aharon? End Unit One in this Discussion

Family Problems Audio - Part One

Family Problems Audio - Part One

A series of audios about Family Problems, the recent scandal of a woman remarrying without a GET, and a discussion of where things are and where we are going and what to do about it.

Mamzer Maker Talks about "Gedolim"

The Mamzer Maker  Talks about "Gedolim"

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

In my previous post I described my phone call to Rabbi Greenblatt of Memphis when I challenged him why he performed a marriage on a woman married to somebody else. His response was that what he did was an act of Gedolim. He said further that any Beth Din that disagreed with him was a mechutsof, because once Gedolim have ruled nobody can disagree. When I quoted for him a Chazon Ish that a Beth Din that rules differently than the Shulchan Aruch is to be ignored and if they made a GET it was invalid for two reasons by Torah not only rabbinical ruling, he hung up the phone. What I gained from this phone call was very important, not just for me, but for everyone. We now know the problem of “Gedolim.” In this letter I will talk about Gedolim and if others may challenge their decisions. Hopefully, our next post will be to explain what reasons Rabbi Greenblatt may have had to do something that everyone I spoke to who knows the laws of Gittin feels is wrong and that children born from this marriage would be mamzerim. And because the problem of rabbis ruling about Gittin in defiance of the Shulchan Aruch is a major problem, we have made posts on it in my blog at torahhalacha.blogspot.com and will produce more. The growing violation of  the Shulchan Aruch is a problem even a crisis, especially for the children born from it.

Let us return to the subject at hand: May a rabbi who considers himself a Gadol and has found other rabbis who consider themselves as Gedolim, rule on taking somebody’s wife away without a GET, and then claim that anybody who shows that their procedure is not proper according to the Shulchan Aruch and poskim is a mechutsaf.

The Chazon Ish clearly states that a husband who is not supposed to be forced to divorce his wife and Beth Din tells him he must give a GET and gives it because of the command of the Beth Din, that the GET is invalid by Torah ruling. One, it was forced by the command of the Beth Din, and two, it was given by mistake, because had the husband known the Beth Din was wrong, he never would have given the GET. If so, people can surely challenge  rabbis because everyone can make an error. People who set themselves  up as Gedolim and therefore impervious to error are violating the Shulchan Aruch and the Torah. Let us show this.

The subject of great rabbis, even the greatest rabbis in the world, making an error, is found in the Talmud.  In Moed Koton 19A we find that a thief was stealing the fruit from the orchard of Reish Lokish, one of the greatest scholars of the Talmud. Reish Lokish found him stealing and shouted at him to stop but he refused to stop. Reish Lokish then pronounced the ban upon him, called SHAMTO, a very serious curse. The  thief replied, “You pronounced the ban on me for stealing from you. But if I stole from you I owe you money, but I don’t deserve such a terrible curse. The curse is therefore not on me, but on you.” The man then left and Reish Lokish went to the authorities to ask about what the man said. The Beth Din said, “His curse is valid and  your curse was not.” From here we see that a thief, a lowly man, can criticize the work of a great rabbi in such a matter. If a rabbi makes a mistake, he can be corrected. And if the rabbi does something wrong, he can be told so. And the rabbi cannot respond, “But I am a Gadol.”

The Talmud has an entire section on great rabbis making mistakes, called Huriyuse. There on 4b there is a Mishneh that the entire Sandhedrin, the leaders of the generation in Israel, can err with a mistake or even by deliberately declaring a wrong opinion. In another Mishneh there we have a Sanhedrin, the greatest rabbis, deciding a case, and one rabbi tells them they are mistaken. That disqualifies the entire ruling. Thus, it is possible for dozens of great rabbis to make a mistake that is noticed only by one rabbi, and that negates the entire power of the ruling of the Sanhedrin, although in ordinary lower courts majority rules. But people at the highest levels do make mistakes. Being great is not a guarantee that you are right. And when somebody offers a correction, you must listen and be ready to change your mind.

Furthermore, for a rabbi to rule on negating a marriage, something unheard of in the Torah community, he may only do such an invention after he asks permission from the greatest rabbis in the world.

I was involved in a case of a doubtful mamzer whereby the greatest rabbis in Israel had a certain innovative plan to permit him to remarry, but although it was mentioned in ancient books it was not done today. They therefore sent me to HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein for his opinion, that is, if he would approve of what they wanted to do. He told them that they had his permission to do what they proposed, but he hinted strongly to them that he wanted them to give him the question, and they did. The Israeli rabbi who told me to give the question to Reb Moshe and not the Israeli gedolim was the senior rabbi in Israel, Reb Shlomo Zalman Aurebach. But to do something new you have to have backing from everyone, and Reb Moshe solved the problem with nothing new.

For a rabbi living in Memphis Tenn. to negate a marriage and remarry her  without asking all of the great rabbis their opinion is a major chutzpah that I never heard of. And nobody it seems knows who the Gedolim are, other than Rabbi Greenblatt and probably one other rabbi who is not at all an expert on the laws of Gittin but a Rosh Yeshiva. Why don’t we have a list of the “Gedolim” who permitted this and their reasoning? What we do know is that the vast majority of Torah rabbis who know the laws of Gittin are completely opposed to the remarriage of a married woman. If so, this itself creates a situation whereby most rabbis almost all of them will consider the children born form this couple to be mamzerim. So who will the children marry? Isn’t this an incredible cruelty? 

All of this could have been avoided if any of the people on the wife’s side had responded to my request that we make a GET by approving some deal with the husband about custody so he can see his daughter more often. The husband wanted to give a GET but only if the wife will improve his custody instead of fleeing to Philadelphia and making him travel many hours to see his daughter.

The story of the husband and his suffering is hideous, and is another story, a story that tells a lot about the level of rabbis and their dealings with women who demand a divorce. The entire process of a few individuals who are closely associated with certain people and certain ideas who just pronounce a woman free from a marriage with no proof and no list of who are the “Gedolim” involved, is an outrage. And Rabbi Notto Greenblatt Makes Mamzerim when? In Tishrei the same time of Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, and Succose. That tells us a lot about what is holy to Rabbi Greenblatt. 

We have a lot of material to add from the Shulchan Aruch on how Rabbi Greenblatt mishandled this very sensitive and serious matter. Much material on this exact case is on my blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com . I wrote there to protest the Kaminetsky family in Philadelphia encouraging Tamir Epstein Friedman to remarry without a GET. I brought down proofs from the Shulchan Aruch and the Talmud that there is no way to  permit her to remarry without a GET. This position was taken by the Gaon Rav Nissim Karelitz when he was asked by a prominent Dayan. The Dayan told me that he was inundated in Israel with questions by other Dayanim how anyone can allow a married woman to remarry without a GET and nobody had ever heard of such a thing. The Rosho Greenblatt and the Rosho Kaminetsky thus are doing something that is considered completely wrong by everyone this Dayan spoke to and those that I spoke to. Is this not cruelty to the babies born from them? How heartless are they to do such a hideous thing.

This whole thing could have been settled with an improvement in custody for the husband. But no. The Kaminetskies encouraged Tamir to declare she doesn’t need a GET and she began dating, and now is “married” to somebody while she is really married to Aharon. And when Tamir has children from her new “husband,” and nearly all rabbis consider her children to be mamzerim, who will they find to marry?

Rabbi Greenblatt Makes Mamzerim

Noto Greenblatt Makes Mamzerim

By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Today Thursday Chol HaMoed Succos I received a call that Rabbi Notto Greenblatt  of Memphis marriedTamir Epstein Friedman to somebody although she had no GET from her  husband Aharon Friedman.  I called Rabbi Greenblatt and he said that he had performed the ceremony. When I told him that great rabbis forbad the remarriage without a GET he replied that Gedolim had permitted her to remarry. He told me that if Rabbi Elyashev zt”l would disagree it would not change his mind, and that the rabbis who disagree with his “Gedolim” just have chutzpah. He asked me what a person like me has to do with this that I disagree with him. I told him that  the Gaon Rab Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l gave me a semicha to have a Beth Din for Gittin and further he gave permission for me to use his name for it.

 I called up a Rov who was intensely involved in the couple when they discussed their marital problems, and I asked him if there was any chance that the husband has some kind of defect that could have cancelled the marriage and thus allowed her to remarry. He told me there was no such defect and that if the woman has any children they will be mamzerim.

I quoted to Rabbi Greenblatt the pesak of Chazon Ish EH 99:12 that if the Torah does not require a husband to be coerced to divorce his wife but a Beth Din told the husband he is worthy of being forced to divorce and he gives the GET because of that statement, the GET is invalid. First it is invalid because the Torah did not require a coercion and the Beth Din did require a coercion. Thus, the Beth Din coerced the GET in violation of the Torah and the coercion is invalid and the GET is invalid. Secondly, the husband gave the GET under false pretenses thinking that he must be coerced to give a GET. Therefore, the GET is invalid by the Torah not just rabbinic level.  Anyone who learns carefully the laws of Gittin regarding this issue knows that there was no source to permit a married woman to just remarry and the “Gedolim” like Rabbi Greenblatt who permit these things are just making mamzerim. I wonder how many mamzerim Rabbi Greenblatt has made. Any woman married with his special inventions should ask a proper Beth Din if she is permitted to remain with her husband and if her children are mamzerim.

But the main problem is that married women cannot remarry without a GET or the death of their husband. Reb Moshe Feinstein was asked about a husband who was discovered to be strongly addicted to homosexuality and the wife ran away. He said that the great authorities of all generations had refused to permit her to remarry for various reasons. But he showed that in this extreme case there is room for leniency but since the great authorities disagreed with him he ruled that the woman must do everything possible to get a GET. Only if all fails does he permit this. And this only in this extreme case and with the understanding the no other great authority in centuries permitted it.

In this case of Mrs. Friedman, I spoke to the husband months before and he told me he would give a GET if the wife would allow him proper custody rights. Therefore, Reb Moshe would never have permitted her to remarry. Therefore, in this case, not only do all of the great rabbis of the generations forbid the woman to remarry without a GET, but even Reb Moshe would forbid it until she gave in to the custody demands.

On my blogspot torahhalacha.blogspot.com I have many posts on these topics and in the leading Book Section there is a collection of many of them.

I can be reached at 845-578-1917 or eidensohnd@gmail.com.

Dovid Eidensohn

 בית דין אביהם של יתומים

  אסרו חג יום הכיפורים תשע"ו

ממני דוד אליהו אידנסון

ע' גמרא ב"מ כב' ע"ב יתמי דלאו בני מחילה נינהו. ומעשה היה בהגאון רבי שלום מרדכי הכהן שוודרון זצ"ל שפעם בימים נוראים ישב אצלו ילד שעסק כשאר הילדים בבילבול וגם חשדו הרב להילד שאפשר שאינו נקי וגירש אותו. ואמרו לו שהוא יתום. אמר הנה יתמי לאו בני מחילה נינהו ואין הבקשה שימחול שייך בקטן. מה עשה. המתין עד הבר מצוה של הילד והביא לו מתנה גדולה וביקש ממנו סליחה.

וע' גמרא פסחים קיג ע"ב ד' אין הדעת סובלתן כו' ויש אומרים אף המגרש את אשתו פעם ראשונה ושניה ומחזירה ותנא קמא זימנא דכתובתה מרובה אי נמי יש לו בנים הימנה ולא מצי מגרש לה עכ"ל הרי שמיירי באשה הראוי להתגרש ומגרשה ומחזירה ומגרשה ומחזירה שהוא בעצם דבר שאין הדעת סובלתו. האמנם היות שעשה מחמת שיש לו בנים ממנה הגם הראוי לגרשה אין הוא בכלל מי שאין הדעת סובלתו. שכן הדעת סובל מי שמגרש ומחזיר הגם שאולי הוא פשוט שונא האשה ואפשר שהיא אשה רעה עדיין אם עושה כן להציל הילדים הדעת סובל זאת והצלת הילדים הוא דבר של עיקר טוב.

וע' במהרש"א וז"ל ולא מצי מגרש כו' פי' דלא מצי קאי בגרושין עכ"ל פירוש שהוא שונא לאשתו אבל אוהב את בניו שלכן לא יכול לסבול שלא להיות עם הילדים ומחזירה. ולכאורה אם שונא לאשתו ומחזירה יוליד בנים מבעל ט' המדות. ואפשר היות שהכונה שלו היה להציל הילדים הגם שהוא שונא לאשתו מחמת רשעות שבה או עוד דברים שראוי לשנאותו ולגרשה בכל זאת הטובה של הילדים מכריע וא"כ גם כלפי שמים אפשר שלא גוזרים על הילד הנולד מזיוג זו של צער ושנאה שלא יהיה הילד טוב.

וע' פסחים פז' ע"א שהושע הנביא היה גדול שבד' נביאים של זמנו שהם היו הושע ישעיה עמוס ומיכה. אמר לו הקב"ה בניך חטאו לי כו' אמר לפניו רבש"ע כו' העבירם באומה אחרת ע"כ אז הקב"ה אמר לו להושע קח לך אשת זנונים וילדי זנונים כו' והולידה הזונה בנים להושע. בסוף אמר הקב"ה שהושע צריך להדמות למשה שהוא פירש מן האשה כאשר קיבל השראת השכינה. אמר הושע להקב"ה איך אפרוש מאשתי ויש לי בנים ממנה. והקב"ה השיב להושע אם אתה לא רוצה לגרש אשה זונה ואפשר שהבנים שלה אינם ממך אלא הם ממזרים, איך תאמר לי החליפם באומה אחרת והם הבנים שלי. אז הבין הושע שחטא ומיד התחיל לשבח לישראל לנבא עליהם טובות. והנה הפשטות מן הגמרא שזה היה מעשה ממש הגם שלא יובן כלל והגמרא מפני הכבוד היה צריך לפרש זאת תיכף שהוא משל והוא פלא. על כל פנים מוכרח בבעלי הגמרא שרצה לפרסם מעשה הזאת שהוא קשה בתכלית בכדי להראות להכל החיוב לאהוב הילדים יהיה מה שיהיה.

היצא מכל זאת שיש לאב זכות בבית ויש לאם זכות בבית ויש גם לילדים זכות בבית. וכאשר באים ח"ו לפירוד בבית צריך שהבית דין יתעורר שכן החיוב שלהם שב"ד הם אביהם של יתומים. וילדים כאלה  הנדחים מבית של ב' הורים לבילבולי הגט אפשר ודאי שב"ד חייב לטפל בהם ולגלות זכותם של הילדים שהצער גדול מאוד אצלם בפירוד או מן האב או מן האם.

בדידי הוה עובדא שהייתי אצל גט אחד שנעשה פירוד והילד הלך עם האם והיא לא היתה דתיה. והלכתי להגאון רבי יוסף שלום אלישב זצ"ל ושאלתי איך הותר לעשות גט ולמסור הילד שלו לאשה שאינה דתיה. ואמר לי הגאון זצ"ל שהוא מסכים עמי בתנאי שהאשה שומרת טהרת המשפחה. זהו דעת תורה ואמרתי זה לב"ד מפורסם אחד ואמר הראש ב"ד שלדעתו הפסק של מרן זצ"ל דבר פשוט שודאי אין לו לגרש ולמסור בנו לאשה שאינה דתיה ואם רק תשמור טהרת המשפחה ישאר אצלה ויוליד בנים ובנות.

והנה אם הילד חושב שאחד מן ההורים עזבו אותו מרצון הצער שלו אין לו דמיון. והיתום ממש יש לו תנחומים והוא זוכר האב או האם באהבה, אבל אלה שנפרדו בחיי ההורים הצער שלהם גדול מן היתום שמת אחד מן ההורים, ואם ב"ד חייבים לטפל ביתומים ממש כ"ש שצריכים לטפל עם יתומים שההורים חיים אבל הילד רחוק מאחד מהם. וגם הבילבול שיום זה אצל אביו ויום זה אצל אמו הוא צער גדול מאוד שמשבר הילד ר"ל.

סוף דבר מי שיש לו צער חלילה וחס בבית יכולים להתקשר אתי ולכל הפחות עליהם החוב הגמור שלא ליכנס אצל אלה שמשברים לא רק הילדים אלא גם הש"ע. 845-578-1917

דוד אליהו אידנסון

תלמיד הגאון רבי אהרן קטלר זצ"ל וכתב עלי הגאון רבי משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל - הרה"ג הנ"ל ידוע לי מכבר להרבה שנים כאחד שמתעמק הרבה לברר הלכות מסובכות כו' עכ"ל וגם קיבלתי רשות מן הגאון רבי יוסף שלום אלישב זצ"ל לנהג ב"ד לגיטין עם השם שלו.

Audio of Problems of Family, Marriage and Derech Erets

Breakdown of Marriage, Family and Derech Erets

Destruction of Marriage, Family and Derech Erets now in “Footsteps of the Moshiach”

Free Telephone Conference Laws of Marriage and Family Even Hoezer #19    -   Sept 9 Wed 9:30 PM

Destruction of Marriage, Family and Derech Erets now in “Footsteps of the Moshiach”

Call 605-562-3130 enter code 411161#

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/845-578-1917/eidensohnd@gmail.com

The gemora[1] lists two major causes of Jewish decline and confusion. One is the Destruction of the Second Temple when the Romans destroyed the Temple and exiled many Jews. The other major cause of Jewish decline and confusion is called “In the Footsteps of the Moshiach.” It seems that the latter problems are, in some crucial areas, much worse than the era of the Destruction of the Second Temple. The earlier periods were known for the losses of great rabbis and deep decline in the level of Torah learning. But the “footsteps of the Moshiach” period is known for decline in family and Derech Erets. We know that Derech Erets comes before the Torah. This is taught in the beginning of Sefer Tono Divei Eliyohu.

When we see today the decline of marriage and family, we must realize the magnitude of our difficulties. Surely the young children who are the greatest sufferers of a broken marriage should arouse us to think about improving things. The way things are going, there will be many children broken in spirit. And also, as I will explain, we have a growing problem with invalid Gittin that leads to Mamzeruth.

The problems we face in family today are:

1.       young people refusing to marry

2.       divorce is common

3.       broken children from broken marriages

But there is another problem, in a sense, worse than the others. And that is, that there is a huge war among the rabbinate how to deal with some of these problems. The major issue is whether or not to force a husband to divorce when his wife demands a GET. Some will be quite lenient and seek any excuse to declare a woman free to remarry despite the fact that the husband did not want to give a GET and was forced to divorce. And some will say that such a coercion such as that practiced by ORA, to publicly humiliate and demonstrate outside of the house of the husband and his family, makes an invalid GET. The children born from the woman when she remarries with an invalid GET are mamzerim. Thus, in the coming generation, we will have people who keep Shabbos and go to shull, and will want to marry somebody, and will be told, “You are a mamzer.” This is the ultimate child abuse, and there is no cure for it.

But the rabbis who made the problem may not retract. They will perhaps perform marriages for such people as they believe that the GET was kosher. The Orthodox community will thus be split over the issue of who is a mamzer.

 Ultimately, all divorced women could be a problem, until the details of her divorce and what Beth Din she used are clarified. Even today, there are Beth Dins that Gedolei HaDor have ruled that they lose Chezkas Beth Din, the status of a Beth Din for Gittin, because they violate open teachings in the Shulchan Aruch when forcing a GET. I personally heard this from Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l. We spoke at length about coerced Gittin and the New York State GET law which he opposed as it coerced a GET. And he sai that any Beth Din that coerces against the Shulchan Aruch loses the status of a Beth Din. This was subsequently published as a letter from leading rabbis today, in the book Mishpitei Yisroel. The Beth Din of Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner and many other great rabbis ruled that any woman who coerces her husband to give a GET with public humiliations [such as done by ORA] has an invalid GET and must have a new GET by a respected Beth Din.

Rabbi Moshe Heinemann of Baltimore has a letter on ORA’s website calling for people to support its humiliation of husbands to force a GET, and congratulating them on the forced Gittin of 150 women. I consider those Gittin as very possibly invalid and children born from them are quite possibly mamzerim. Thus, we realize just how bad the battle is and it  will be getting worse, not better. It will not be between Modern Orthodox and Haredim.  It has now become a war in Yeshiva University and among the Modern Orthodox, some stricter and some more lenient. It is a problem for the Haredim, as one Rosh Yeshiva of the Philadelphia Yeshiva is encouraging a woman to remarry without a GET, even though her husband wants to settle things and give a GET. The vast majority of Haredi  and even Modern Orthodox rabbis consider the children born from this woman if she remarries and has a child, to be a definite mamzer. But there are all kinds of rabbis, and many of them have no fear of doing what they want, and producing all kinds of children with severe problems of mamzeruth.

“Who is wise? He is sees the future.” Are we prepared to realize the above? Are we ready to do something about it?

The above gemora in Sota about the suffering an decline of the Jews says, “And we have nobody to turn to other than our Father in Heaven.” Reb Elchonon Wasserman said, “This is not a call for despair. It is a call for the courage to fight for Derech Erets and Torah even in the darkest times, and HaShem is stronger than anything else.”

Now, before Rosh HaShana, let us gird ourselves with courage and faith, and fight for the children who will ask us, “Why were you silent when I became a mamzer?”

And if they do not ask, HaShem will ask. And He will be asking this on Rosh HaShana, and Yom Kippur. He will be asking this every day.

Anyone who is truly concerned about the future of our children should call me or write me at the above contacts.

Dovid Eidensohn

“I know Rav Eidensohn for many years as one who delves deeply into complex halacha.” The Gaon Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s haskomo on my halacha sefer. “Words of truth are recognized, and they are written lishmo.” HaGaon Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner zt”l’s haskomo on my halacha sefer. HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt”l gave me his name to use for my Gittin Beth Din.

---

[1] Sota 49

Tel Conf EH #18 Older Singles and Marrying from Pressure

Tel Conf #18 Sept 2 9:30 PM – call 605-562-3130 then code 411161#

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn/845-578-1917/eidensohnd@gmail.com

Older Singles and Marrying from Pressure

Okay, Get Married. So why are there so many singles? The Shulchan Aruch beginning of Even Hoezer tells that in early generations a man past twenty who was not pursuing marriage properly was brought to Beth Din and instructed to get married.

Now, this can make a lot of problems. Let us say that in a certain town an older man can only marry people he doesn’t want to marry. Can he be forced to marry someone against his will?

We had a case like this with the brother-in-law of the Baal Shem Tov. Reb Gershon Kitover. In his older years he went to live in Israel, in Jerusalem, where the Orach Chaim HaKodosh, considered the greatest saint of his time, was the Rov. The Orach Chaim honored him with being the Baal Tefila for Rosh HaShana. But then Reb Gershon was told that the rule in Jerusalem was that nobody was allowed to live there as a single. There are letters that Reb Gershon wrote about this, and he asked, How can I marry somebody from a different world? It is not known what happened. But this kind of a problem surely existed in earlier generations. And when people were forced to marry without wanting their partner, only problems could result.

The problems were so strong that the Beth Dins eventually surrendered and did not force people to marry. Some offered proofs that today we don’t force marriages. But others disagreed and said we must have marriage. But if by so doing the Beth Din will create a constant ruckus that destroys the Honor of the Torah, it may be prudent to refrain from this forcing of marriages. Still others maintained that even today marriage should be coerced.

Reb Chaim Palagai, the great Rov of Iraq, wrote in his sefer Chaim ViShalom II:112 that when a marriage is completely broken with no hope of repairing it, the couple must be divorced. If the husband refuses to divorce his wife after eighteen months, he is beaten until he says, “I want it.” The Tsits Eliezar asks how a husband can be coerced to give a GET, which is against the teaching of the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 77 paragraphs 2 and 3 and all of the poskim. This is a very strong question.

But the Ben Ish Chai was a world-class Rov and the head of a country. His word was law. His Beth Din had the power to do what it says in Shulchan Aruch in the beginning of Even Hoezer, that a Beth Din forces marriage when people reach the age of marriage such as a man of twenty. I think that the Gro agrees to this. If so, the custom not to do this is because the more modern Beth Dins did not have the respect of the community to force marriages or divorces. But Reb Chaim Palagi did have the power, and he used it, and everyone obeyed him. This was not a beating to force a divorce because the wife demands a GET. The wife perhaps said nothing. But the Beth Din had the obligation and the power to force marriages. The same power could possibly be used to force a GET if the Beth Din was not motivated by the mere complaints of the wife but by the damage single people could do in their community. A single of age is a menace to a community’s kedusho. But this applied only to earlier Beth Dins that had the respect of the whole country or at least the whole city as the Torah leaders deserving of obedience. But today there are very few great rabbis and we don’t find too many with wide powers of authority such as Reb Chaim Phalagi had or the official Beth Dins of an entire city such as the Beth Din of Brisk of Vilna.

About a hundred years ago the Rov of Jerusalem ruled that speaking Hebrew was forbidden. Reb Yosef Chaim Sononfeld was on the Beth Din and a major Torah personality, a Gadol HaDor, and he spoke Hebrew at least to the Sefardic Jews. He was asked how he could do such a thing to defy the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. He explained that the rabbi created this law without the agreement of the Beth Din. Thus, even the Chief Rabbi has limitations. Surely what we have today that this and that person make a private Beth Din, surely it has little power to force people.

We do not force marriages or divorces today in general even if somebody is older. But that is because the community will not tolerate such things or the Beth Din has some leniency not to do this. But the obligation to marry is there. This is a very important point.

True, we do not coerce a GET just because the wife says her husband is a terrible person. But if the husband knows that it is true, he has a clear obligation to force himself!

We may not force husbands to marry at twenty. But the husband should force himself.

And if the wife has bitter complaints about her husband, and the Beth Din cannot force the husband to give a GET because of them, if the husband knows it is true, he should force himself. He will be judged for causing the pain and not giving a GET.

Rambam says that a woman is not to be chained as a slave in a marriage she hates. Rambam therefore rules that the demand of the woman is honored by Beth Din and the husband is forced to divorce. But we do not hold like this. We pasken like Rabbeinu Tam, the Rosh and the Rashbo and others, that the word of the wife is not enough to force a GET.

But the principle stated by Rambam, that a woman is not a slave to be forced to remain married to somebody she hates, is true. If the Beth Din does not force the GET, perhaps because to give all women the power to just complain and leave their husbands would create a destruction of families, nonetheless, the husband who knows he is at fault will be judged for this and for the sin of treating his wife like a slave.

Again, Beth Din today cannot always force things the right way in marriage and divorce. But the couple involved in the marriage and know what is happening, must answer to HaShem. And they should better get on with their lives before they have to answer to a Beth Din that has no fear of antagonizing anyone.

AUDIO of Tel Conf #17 Is Your Kesubo Kosher?

click below and then click again on new link

Audio of Tel Conf #17 Is Your Kesubo Kosher?

Tel Conf #17 - Your Kesubo - Is it Kosher?

Tel Conf #17 - Your Kesubo – Is it Kosher? Aug 26 Wed 9:30 PM Call 605-562-3130 enter code 411161#Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

Your Kesubo – is it kosher? Why not? Probably, some reliable person supervised the Kesubo writing at your wedding. Torah scholars were present.  So, what is the problem? We list below three problems. One is Reb Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that in large cities some kesubose may be invalid. And today most people are probably in such cities, certainly those in New York City. Another problem is that our Kesubose don’t really assure  a woman that she will be paid. And  the Talmud considers this an invalid Kesubo, and the marriage is considered Zenuse. This is even if the Kesubo is a proper legal document but the wife is not sure of that. Surely if there are real problems in making her sure of herself with the Kesubo. The third problem is that the Kesubo is read publicly, and some information in it may be hugely humiliating. Rabbeinu Yona considers such a humiliation to be worse than murder.

 Problem number one is from the Gaon Reb Moshe Feinstein אג"מ א"ה א' קעח' – The main thing in the Kesubo is the names of the husband and wife. But these names are Hebrew names. And there are many people with the same Hebrew names. For instance, how many people are named Reuven ben Yaacov in New York City? How many are named Yoel ben Chaim? If the wife produces the Kesubo and demands money from Yoel ben Chaim, the husband can claim that it was another Yoel ben Chaim not him who signed the document.

It would seem from the teshuva there that even in a GET, there are circumstances when it could be a problem because nobody knows exactly who the husband or wife is because in a large city more than one person has this name or these names. The only difference between a Kesubo and a GET says Reb Moshe is that in a GET we write names and nicknames so that each person usually has more than one name. So we are not so concerned that there may be two people with the same exact name. But with a Kesubo when we write only one name, it is a problem in a big city. And even in a small city, since basic Hebrew names are not so plentiful, who guarantees that nobody has such a name even in smaller cities? And if they do, the Kesubo is not a valid monetary document. And if the GET was written so that a name is that of one other person in the whole city, the GET could be invalid.

Problem Number Two is that a Kesubo is not like ordinary monetary documents, where A signs he owes money to B. The Kesubo was established by the rabbis so that a woman can be comfortable getting married. She needs a document that will make her sure she will get her money with no trouble. (See Rosh in  Kesubose 56b kol hapochase, and Tosfose Kesubose 51Aמני ר,מ היא  )But do our Kesubos allow her this peace of mind? And the answer is that our present Kesubo definitely provide no peace of mind for the wife, therefore, they are a problem.

The whole purpose of the Kesubo is to give the woman a guarantee that she will get a certain sum of money. (See above) But nobody in the world knows what the amount of money in any Kesubo is, for the simple reason that nobody knows the value of a ZUZ. So the document is essentially worthless in monetary terms.  A Beth Din rabbi once hired a brilliant scholar to figure out the value and he could not do it. The term Zuz goes back thousands of years, and the documents that refer to it come from countries throughout the world in various ages. What is there to convince anyone what a Zuz is in today’s climate? Even the Shekel in Israel where money is always going between America and Israel and people have to know the exact value of both coinages, the value changes every day. So what does a woman get in a Kesubo besides a word ZUZ that changes in value every day, and nobody in the world knows the true value ever? Of course we have in Yoreh Dayah 294:6 the value of a Peruto which is related to a piece of silver the size of a barley grain. One opinion is that it is the value of a half a grain of barley of silver. But then we have to know if we follow the value of a grain of barley in our country or just what. And is the value wholesale or retail? And doesn’t silver fluctuate in value sometimes very strongly? If so, the Kesubo can be interpreted as the value of its being written or the time of the wedding, or it can be when it gets collected? And the Shach brings other opinions. And even if you understand this, if the wife does not feel comfortable and secure in her kesubo, it is invalid. And how can she be secure if nobody knows for sure what the value of the kesubo is because kesubo can be dirabonon or diorayso and we will stop with that.

Problem number three is a problem of murder. A problem of murder? I feel that the present Kesubo system is a problem of murder. The kesubo in ancient times had to clarify the monetary value of a woman’s kesubo. And that was rooted in the reality of her marital status. That is, if she was never married and a virgin, she got two hundred zuz for her kesubo. But if she was married and no longer a besulo or virgin, she got a hundred zuz for her kesubo. But what happens if a woman is not a virgin and she was never married? This is very common today. And every woman whose marital status is an embarrassment must get married with a kesubo and somebody will read the kesubo out loud, announcing to the world that she is not a virgin. This is a humiliation in public that Rabbeinu Yona  in Shaarei Teshuva 139 considers to be worse than murder. There is a gemora in Berochos 23a  that some lowly pagan humiliated a Torah scholar, and he killed himself for the shame. The shame was that she found his tephilin outside a public toilet and brought it to the Yeshiva and claimed that he had slept with her and given her the tephilin as payment. Now, this was obviously a lie. And yet the shame was too terrible and he killed himself. What about a woman who is not a virgin and the kesubo will tell the truth? Is this not murder?

So what is the solution?

The solution is to make a Kesubo using names, addresses and family names, exactly as they are used in legal civil documents.  The sum of money the husband promises is in dollars. It is much easier to collect money with such a document than one with Hebrew names and Hebrew texts. And yet, people will continue doing what everybody else does, to write Hebrew Kesubos with Hebrew names that have problems.  Therefore, we need two Kesubos. One written in Hebrew and one in English. The English one is probably more kosher than the Hebrew one. Therefore, we will add to the English one, “This document will be part of the Hebrew Kesubo, and will override any conflict between the two documents.” This way the wife cannot collect twice with two Kesubos.

But she will be confident of collecting her Kesubo, and be comfortable that her Kesubo is kosher.

Audio Tel Conf EH #16 - Problems with Prenups

click here 

audio of Problem of Prenupts


or click  here
 http://torahtimes.com/2015/08/20/tel-conf-16-problems-with-prenups/

or type torahtimes.com

Why a Prenup is Forbidden by the Mishneh, the Rishonim and Poskim

Tel Conf #16 – Prenups Force a Husband to Divorce His Wife
Wed 9:30 PM Aug 19 - Call 605-562-3130  code 411161#

Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn\845-578-1917/eidensohnd@gmail.com

Prenups

Prenups are documents a husband signs at his wedding, empowering the wife to leave the house at any time and force the husband to give her a GET. The husband, from the time that the wife leaves the house, must pay his wife a large sum of money regularly, a sum designed to overwhelm his ability to pay and to force him to give her a GET. The Modern Orthodox world is working hard to force every husband to sign a prenup. When that happens, may truly Orthodox people marry children born from Modern Orthodox women who got divorces because of prenups, or not? And what happens if Orthodox husbands sign a prenup and there is a GET? That is our discussion here.

Proof from a Mishneh in the Talmud that Prenups are Forbidden

See Nedorim 90b. The Mishneh says, “Originally the rabbis taught that three women who make claims may leave their husbands [the rabbis force the husband to give a GET] and are paid their Kesubo: 1) A woman who tells her husband, ‘I have profaned myself to you’ [she slept with another man]. 2) The heavens are between us [she claims that the husband cannot ejaculate and thus cannot have children and she wants a GET]. 3) I am away from the Jewish people [she forbids herself to have intercourse with anyone, perhaps because intercourse causes her pain (Tosfose 90b). The rabbis changed their minds, because we fear that women will want to remarry with a different husband if a wife has the right to just say something and get a GET.”

We see from this that women who have a right to go free with a forced GET from their husbands lose that right when we fear that this freedom will lead women to say lies so that they will be able to remarry another man.

A prenup is exactly what the Mishneh describes. A woman is given the right to force a GET from her husband just because she asks for the GET. Now every Jewish woman can easily leave her husband and find somebody else. The Mishneh makes is clear that we must guard that women do not have this right. If so, how can we permit prenups?

They Claim Proof from Nachalas Shiva to Permit Prenups

Some claim a proof for prenups is found in the classic Sefer Nachalas Shivo. Chapter 9 deals with documents signed at the Chupah. The long version contains the following condition: “And if chas vishalom the husband should do to his wife something that she cannot tolerate and she needs a Beth Din, then the husband will immediately with no delay give her ten gold pieces for her food. And so shall he give her every month of the contention. And she gets her clothes and jewelry she needs to wear. And the husband will go with her to their Beth Din. (And if there is no Beth Din in their city they will go to one in a nearby city or make zabla.) This is to be done within two weeks after she made this request of him. And the Beth Din will settle any argument and difference between them. And after they come to terms the wife will return to her husband’s house. And she will return any remaining money and her clothes and her jewelry to her husband’s house, where they were originally.”

Some infer from this that a husband can sign a prenup that obligates the husband to pay a monthly amount to his wife when she demands a GET and leaves the house, until she gets a GET. But this document says something much different.

First, the obligations of the husband only begin when the wife suffers at his hands, perhaps from a beating. And the Beth Din that will hear the case  has the authority and ability to find out the truth if he did beat her. If a woman is beaten and she screams people hear it. And if he did something else to torment her, the Beth Din is trained to find out exactly what happened. This is crucial because we explained above that the Mishneh in Nedorim clearly forbids any ruling that gives women the right to force a GET from the husband. We fear that ladies will find  somebody more interesting than the husband and leave her husband whenever she wants. That is exactly what a prenup does. The wife is empowered to force a GET anytime she wants.

See also Kesubose 63b ד"ה אבל אמרה about if a woman who claims that her husband disgusts her can force a GET. Rabbeinu Tam says she cannot otherwise women would find somebody else to marry and force a GET on the first husband. Thus, Rabbeinu Tam would surely forbid a prenup, because it permits a woman to leave her husband against his will and remarry somebody she likes better. We pasken like Rabbeinu Tam see EH 77 par 2 and 3. Thus, it is forbidden to give a woman the ability to force a GET from her husband anytime she wants.

The Tosfose there says that if a woman can force a GET but get no money from the husband not even a kesubo, some would permit it. But if she gets money, such as a kesubo, everyone holds it is forbidden to coerce the husband. Thus, everyone would agree that a prenup is wrong, even those who disagree with Rabbeinu Tam.

The prenup is quite different from the above document protecting the wife who must flee the house of her husband because he did something terrible to her. He and she must  go to Beth Din and while she returns to her parents or some other house, the husband must give her some money for food. With a prenup, the wife, for any reason, can leave the house and demand a GET. And the husband must pay the wife  a large amount of money monthly or weekly or daily until he collapses and has to give a GET. This GET is forced by the prenup, and it says that clearly in the prenup.

The Nachalas Shiva document mentions nothing about a GET, only about going to Beth Din. And once the couple is in Beth Din and the Beth Din clarifies what has to be done there is no longer any payments. This is surely different than the huge sums demanded for not giving a GET by prenups. There the entire purpose of the prenup is to force a GET, and this is forbidden by the rabbis of the Mishneh.

Comments from Rabbonim on Prenups in Daas Torah

I saw in my brother’s blog Daattorah a letter from rabbonim attacking Prenups. HaGaonRav Shlomo Yedidiah bReb Zifroni shlit”o quotes the Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l quoted below that if a wife leaves the house and does not want to return to the husband there is no obligation to pay her money for mezonose or to give her mezonose. But if she left the house because of a fight with a mother-in-law and will return when the mother-in-law leaves, the husband must give her mezonose where she is staying. It all depends whether she maintains the marriage and wants to remain his wife. But if she wants to leave him, he has no obligations to her. Thus, Rav Shlomo Yedidiah shlit”o rules that the prenup forces the husband to give a wife mezonose of a huge sum of money has no place, because since she wants a GET, and does not want to return to him, the husband has no obligation to provide her with mezonose. Thus, the prenup is simply a tactic to force the husband to give a GET, and the GET is thus a GET MEUSO and invalid.[1]

Also in my brother’s blog a letter appears against prenups from Rav Eliyohu Shlesinger shlit”o who stresses that Gedolim of past generations knew all of the problems about women needing a GET and husbands refusing, and they knew all of the tricks to force a GET, but they refused to introduce these things. And that is how we should behave. We are not a generation that can invent devices that could produce invalid Gittin.

In the time of the Gaon Rav Yosheh Ber Soloveitchik as Rosh Yeshiva in YU, people came forward with these ideas, to make changes in divorces that would free women from the obligations of the GET. He responded, “Kolu kol hakaitsim.” The end of all ends. This is the pits. Once we start playing around with the laws of Gittin, we will have a disaster. And today, things are not any better than in his time. In his time the world had many great Torah leaders who could speak and be heard. Today we don’t have any such personalities. And to listen to the mice and their squeaking will introduce destruction.

---

[1] וז"ל הגרע"י זצ"ל בתשובה - ולפ"ז אתי שפיר גם ד' העדות ביעקב, דמיירי שהמניעה ע"י פשיעתו שבא עליה בנדתה וכיו"ב, לכן יש לחייבו במזונות אף על פי שאינה דרה עמו. אבל נידון הרא"ש והטור דהוי ע"י מחלת עצבים אין לחייבו במזונות. אולם יותר היה נ"ל לחלק כמש"כ שיש הבדל בין כשאינה חוזרת אליו לצמיתות שדעתה להתגרש ממנו, ובין כשהיא מוכנה לחזור אליו מיד כשתתבטל הסיבה והטענה שלה כלפיו. ושו"ר בשו"ת זכור לאברהם אביגדור (בדף קנח ע"ג), שהביא מ"ש ה"ה (פי"ד מה' אישות) בשם הרשב"א, שהמורדת בטענת מאיס עלי אין לה מזונות וכו', ודייק מדבריו שאפי' אם נותנת אמתלא לדבריה למה הוא מאוס עליה אין לה מזונות, כיון שאינה רוצה בו, והקשה ע"ז, ממ"ש הריטב"א הובא בשטה מקובצת (כתובות קג), שאשה שיצאה מבית בעלה והלכה לה, אם נתנה טעם לדבריה חייב לתת לה מזונות שלמים במקום שהיא, אבל אם לא נתנה טעם לדבריה פטור ממזונותיה, ואפי' למ"ד יש מזונות למורדת גמורה, התם ביושבת עמו בבית וכו'. [א"ה, וע' בשו"ת הריטב"א הנד"מ סימן קנ. ודו"ק]. ולכאורה דברי הריטב"א אלו הם דלא כמ"ש הרשב"א שאפי' נותנת אמתלא לדבריה אין לה מזונות. ותירץ, מיהו קושטא דמילתא שאינו חולק, דהריטב"א מיירי כשהיא חפצה בו, אלא שמשום איזה סיבה עזבה את הבית, כגון מפני קטטה עם חמותה וכיו"ב, ומש"ה חייב במזונותיה, אבל האומרת מאיס עלי ואינה רוצה להיות אשתו עוד למה יתן לה מזונות. ובודאי דלדידן דקי"ל שאין כופין אותו לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי, אין לה מזונות ג"כ, שאם יכפוהו לזונה, הוי גט מעושה, כיון שכופין אותו באונס ממון. ע"כ. והוא תנא דמסייע לן. (וכמ"ש ג"כ הגאון מליסא בס' בית יעקב הנ"ל

The Torah World Sleeps as A Woman Prepares to Remarry Without a GET

The Torah world is trembling because  Rosh Yeshivas in Philadelphia encouraged a woman to remarry without a GET. I have protested this full blast, and have stated many times on this blog and elsewhere   that if the woman, Mrs. Friedman, remarries without a GET, her children will be considered mamzerim.  Members of her family and associates who encourage her will share her Gehenum. 

A major American Torah personality asked the Gaon Reb Nissim Karelitz shlit"o if there was any heter for the woman to remarry without a GET. He replied that in order to remarry she must have a GET. The Gaon Reb Pinchas Rabinowitz told me that he once spoke to Posek HaDor Reb Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l about such problems and the Rov said, "American rabbis can go so far as to declare a woman free because of Kiddushei Toose." They can think the woman is free, because of their ridiculous ruling, but she is still married. And when she remarries her children will be mamzerim. She will be a sota forbidden to marry either her first or second husband.

Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur are coming soon. We are in the month of Elul. And still, the Torah world sleeps. Who has come out openly against this abomination of permitting a married woman to remarry without a GET? VERY FEW RABBONIM! And the few who did protest or sign a protest did it in a very quiet way. 

Now is not a time to be quiet. If this lady follows the Kaminetsky derech and remarries, every woman will feel free to emulate her, especially as almost no protest was heard from the rabbonim in America despite the fact that this has been going on for a long time.

Those who are silent now, before Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, show just how much fear they have of HaShem, of Chilul HaShem, of mamzeruth, and what some people may say about them - which is their main problem!

This itself is a great Chilul HaShem, And those who create Chilul HaShem and lower the standards of kedusho so that married women can consider remarrying without a GET are worthy of Nidui even if nobody is declaring it. There is a discussion about the laws of Nidui if it is deserved and nobody declared it, if it happens anyway. That is pretty scary. But some people are more scared of other things.