The Tamar Epstein Saga

[aygart]

personal vendetta? Besides for the bloggers, I haven't seen any of that.

I think you answered your own question, but there were protesters etc. as well.

[SayWhat]

And that's where we'll agree to disagree.
Again, we don't know the details of what actually went down.
My understanding is that Rav Shlomo Miller doesn't think Rav Shmuel was involved with heter. So there's that. And we don't know what Rav nota did or believes. And if they made a taus bshogeg not sure that pasuls everything else they ever did

How is using a bogus psychologist report bshogeg?
Remember the argument is not whether the heter of mekach tois is relevant in this case but rather the facts to establish the heter were false.

[AJK]

How is using a bogus psychologist report bshogeg?
Remember the argument is not whether the heter of mekach tois is relevant in this case but rather the facts to establish the heter were false.

Oh, I get it. You think Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetzky *knew* the report was bogus. And then used that allegedly false report to issue a heter, despite their knowledge of its apparent bogus provenance. Got it.

Thanks for clarifying.

[churnbabychurn]

Oh, I get it. You think Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetzky *knew* the report was bogus. And then used that allegedly false report to issue a heter, despite their knowledge of its apparent bogus provenance. Got it.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm just curious, do you have a good explanation as to what happened? Or do you just think that obviously everything is totally OK because of your admirable emunas chachomim?

[aygart]

I'm just curious, do you have a good explanation as to what happened? Or do you just think that obviously everything is totally OK because of your admirable emunas chachomim?

Well, I ask you:

I'm just curious, do you have a good explanation as to what happened?

Since you seem to feel you know all the ins and outs and know that there can be no explanation other than your conspiracy theory, why do you think they did this? Why would two ninety year olds who spent their lives being marbitz Torah suddenly now go and maliciously encourage a woman who they know is a full fledged eishes ish to marry someone? Why would they intentionally make up false reports? If they are so egregious why wouldn't they just tell her forget about the whole get thing who cares? Forget about emunas chachomim, it makes no logical sense at all.

[SayWhat]

Oh, I get it. You think Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetzky *knew* the report was bogus. And then used that allegedly false report to issue a heter, despite their knowledge of its apparent bogus provenance. Got it.

Thanks for clarifying.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Eventually the whole truth will come out. We will see then who "knew" what when.

When Rabbi Kaminetsky wrote letters that the husband was "mechyuv according to halacha" to give a get when that was/is not the case he also didn't know what he was writing?

When Rabbi Kamenetsky signed a bogus seruv along with Wolamrk he also must not have known. There seems to be a pattern here.

[Aaaron]

...

Hey, now that we have you back, care to elaborate on this:

It was part of official court records which are public (according to the website). If she is going to publicly claim that he is crazy he should be able to defend himself in the same manor. What's good for the goose is good for the gander

Seems like you may have overlooked it when I first asked:

Source that she publicly claimed he's crazy?

[SayWhat]

Hey, now that we have you back, care to elaborate on this:

Seems like you may have overlooked it when I first asked:

Lets get some history here.
The wife waged a very public campaign against the husband which included rallies, facebook pages, billboard ads, all the major news outlets ran stories (including NY Times, Fox etc...) She hired Mendel Epstein and company to beat him (as per testimony during the trial) but he got away. After all that didn't work she releases a statement through ORA saying that she is Free.

(I might add that all of this was done after she walked out of Bais Din as stated publicly by the Av Bais Din in their case)

So she was the one that made this into a public spectacle by going to the Press etc.. If she is going to defame him in public he should be allowed to defend himself in public.

[Aaaron]

Lets get some history here.
The wife waged a very public campaign against the husband which included rallies, facebook pages, billboard ads, all the major news outlets ran stories (including NY Times, Fox etc...) She hired Mendel Epstein and company to beat him (as per testimony during the trial) but he got away. After all that didn't work she releases a statement through ORA saying that she is Free.

(I might add that all of this was done after she walked out of Bais Din as stated publicly by the Av Bais Din in their case)

So she was the one that made this into a public spectacle by going to the Press etc.. If she is going to defame him in public he should be allowed to defend himself in public.

I don't necessarily disagree.  If they want to sling their mud in public that's their business. 

But that's not what you said...  As far as I can tell, you made a libelous statement to justify the posting of her personal diary. 

[SayWhat]

I don't necessarily disagree.  If they want to sling their mud in public that's their business. 

But that's not what you said...  As far as I can tell, you made a libelous statement to justify the posting of her personal diary.

She declared she was free and it was very obvious that she hadn't received a get - any other ways to be free?

[yuneeq]

I don't necessarily disagree.  If they want to sling their mud in public that's their business. 

But that's not what you said...  As far as I can tell, you made a libelous statement to justify the posting of her personal diary.

Ridiculous. That was brought to court.

[AJK]

Truth is stranger than fiction. Eventually the whole truth will come out. We will see then who "knew" what when.

When Rabbi Kaminetsky wrote letters that the husband was "mechyuv according to halacha" to give a get when that was/is not the case he also didn't know what he was writing?

When Rabbi Kamenetsky signed a bogus seruv along with Wolamrk he also must not have known. There seems to be a pattern here.

Oh, I get it. You think Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetzky *knew* the report was bogus. And then used that allegedly false report to issue a heter, despite their knowledge of its apparent bogus provenance. Got it.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Aaaron]

She declared she was free and it was very obvious that she hadn't received a get - any other ways to be free?

She never made any public statements that he was crazy. Did she?  Maybe people would assume he couldn't perform? 

Ridiculous. That was brought to court.

And therefore what??

[yuneeq]

You're deflecting one accusation for another.
Not doing due diligence before mattiring an eishes ish is also pretty bad.

[yuneeq]

She never made any public statements that he was crazy. Did she?  Maybe people would assume he couldn't perform? 

And therefore what??

And therefore it was posted in the public domain?
There was nothing private about her diary once she brought it to court for all to see (both in court and on the Internet.).

[Aaaron]

You're deflecting one accusation for another.
Not doing due diligence before mattiring an eishes ish is also pretty bad.

Agreed. I had a long sit down with a member of the Baltimore Beis Din this past week and I completely agree with you.

That still doesn't justify posting her private diary publicly. And to claim "but she called him crazy publicly" as any sort of justification is absurd.

[Aaaron]

And therefore it was posted in the public domain?
There was nothing private about her diary once she brought it to court for all to see (both in court and on the Internet.).

I'm not discussing the legality, in which case it's publicly accessible. I'm stating that it was wrong to post it on a public forum.

[SayWhat]

She never made any public statements that he was crazy. Did she?  Maybe people would assume he couldn't perform? 

They have a child

[yuneeq]

I'm not discussing the legality, in which case it's publicly accessible. I'm stating that it was wrong to post it on a public forum.

It's on the internet, for all purposes there's no difference between a blog,  a forum and court documents.

It's publicly available information in a highly followed case, it's not private anymore.
I don't see why it matters so much to you to cover up what she made public.

[Aaaron]

It's on the internet, for all purposes there's no difference between a blog,  a forum and court documents.

It's publicly available information in a highly followed case, it's not private anymore.
I don't see why it matters so much to you to cover up what she made public.

Oh, I figured it works like down here. To get any local court docs you have to actually pull the hard file. So yes, doing that and posting it to the internet is wrong. If it was truly publicly available I feel slightly different.