The Tamar Epstein Saga

[Ergel]

Which one is korach?

[aygart]

Which one is korach?

Who says there can be only one?

[aygart]

Let's get real.

She is living with another man after convincing a therapist that he's crazy.
She is very much a part of her campaign to defame AF.
She went heter shopping by telling rabbis he's crazy.
She then got rabbis to sign that he's crazy in every aspect.

This is all in addition to the other wrongdoings that she has committed like fleeing BD,
paying to beat him up, fleeing the state, and etc.

Why are we still defending this lowlife?

I am not defending anyone and definitely not her. He made a statement that she went around yelling publicly how he is crazy and therefore her diary is fair game to be posted in public. He has not yet been able to show that she did this. True it is a central part of her supposed heter but that is not yelling in public. It would certainly have been in her best interest for the supposed heter to be a quiet as possible. I am only asking for a source for his claim.

[SayWhat]

I am not defending anyone and definitely not her. He made a statement that she went around yelling publicly how he is crazy and therefore her diary is fair game to be posted in public. He has not yet been able to show that she did this. True it is a central part of her supposed heter but that is not yelling in public. It would certainly have been in her best interest for the supposed heter to be a quiet as possible. I am only asking for a source for his claim.

By the fact that she made the situation a public discussion and got a heter based on her husband being mentally ill she is responsible for that accusation being in the public domain.

[SayWhat]

A shmooze from R Mendel Bodsky Rezav regarding those that are mezalzel the gedolim and what the proper response should be.
https://daistorah.wordpress.com/

Being that R Shternbach is a Gadol shouldn't R Bodsky handled this is a private manner as he says instead of being mezalzel a Gadol?

[aygart]

By the fact that she made the situation a public discussion and got a heter based on her husband being mentally ill she is responsible for that accusation being in the public domain.

With the same reasoning one can say that by him not giving her a get it is his fault. I don't see either one to be true. The ones who put everything into public domain are the bloggers who are using this as a tool for their personal agendas.

[AJK]

With the same reasoning one can say that by him not giving her a get it is his fault. I don't see either one to be true. The ones who put everything into public domain are the bloggers who are using this as a tool for their personal agendas.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you even bother.  He's been pretty clear that Rav Nota, among other rabbis, deliberately and knowingly relied on a purportedly bogus report as the basis for any heter, if there was one.

You may as well be debating with a hillbilly fisherman who swears up and down that he was abducted by aliens that night he had one too many.  There's just no way you'll get through. Aliens exist; he was abducted; and they're coming for you next.  The fisherman would swear to it.

[aygart]

Frankly, I'm not sure why you even bother.  He's been pretty clear that Rav Nota, among other rabbis, deliberately and knowingly relied on a purportedly bogus report as the basis for any heter, if there was one.

You may as well be debating with a hillbilly fisherman who swears up and down that he was abducted by aliens that night he had one too many.  There's just no way you'll get through. Aliens exist; he was abducted; and they're coming for you next.  The fisherman would swear to it.

Unfortunately there are those who are all too happy to swallow the fisherman's narrative hook line and sinker.

[aygart]

Being that R Shternbach is a Gadol shouldn't R Bodsky handled this is a private manner as he says instead of being mezalzel a Gadol?

Where did he mention R Shternbuch or say that people should be moche against him?

[churnbabychurn]

 
@AJK,

The letter from R Notta himself (posted here) is pretty clear that he relied on R Sholom K entirely. Without knowing or meeting the couple.
These are also facts.

[aygart]

@AJK,

The letter from R Notta himself (posted here) is pretty clear that he relied on R Sholom K entirely. Without knowing or meeting the couple.
These are also facts.

Except that he is still standing by it.

[SayWhat]

Frankly, I'm not sure why you even bother.  He's been pretty clear that Rav Nota, among other rabbis, deliberately and knowingly relied on a purportedly bogus report as the basis for any heter, if there was one.

You may as well be debating with a hillbilly fisherman who swears up and down that he was abducted by aliens that night he had one too many.  There's just no way you'll get through. Aliens exist; he was abducted; and they're coming for you next.  The fisherman would swear to it.

I have never said that R Greenblatt knowingly relied on the false report.

[SayWhat]

With the same reasoning one can say that by him not giving her a get it is his fault. I don't see either one to be true. The ones who put everything into public domain are the bloggers who are using this as a tool for their personal agendas.

It amazing that everything is the bloggers fault - you liked it better when everything was swept under the rug?

[churnbabychurn]

Except that he is still standing by it.

Therefore what?

[AJK]

I have never said that R Greenblatt knowingly relied on the false report.

Oh, no?

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.

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.

Yeah, you didn't say the words "R Greenblatt knowingly relied on the false report" but that's proof of nothing. Your direct implication was inescapable.

[churnbabychurn]

[Ergel]

Oh, no?

Yeah, you didn't say the words "R Greenblatt knowingly relied on the false report" but that's proof of nothing. Your direct implication was inescapable.

You should have been a lawyer.

[SayWhat]

Oh, no?

Yeah, you didn't say the words "R Greenblatt knowingly relied on the false report" but that's proof of nothing. Your direct implication was inescapable.

First of all you had quotes from other posters, I don't take responsibility for what others post.

R Shalom knowingly peddled the heter based on false information

[aygart]

First of all you had quotes from other posters, I don't take responsibility for what others post.

Of course but the context matters.

[Ergel]

First of all you had quotes from other posters, I don't take responsibility for what others post.

LOL

R Shalom knowingly peddled the heter based on false information

And you know this because?