The Tamar Epstein Saga

[Aaaron]

Not at all.
If a heter exists to be matir, then no, you're not creating the heter.
This eshes ish heter never existed until now. And unlike treif,
this is also a heter that needs to be continuously relied on, for as long as they stay "married".

Define "now."

[yuneeq]

There is a huge difference. Heter meah rabbanim is saying that the original issur is still there, but disregard it. This is saying that the issur was taken care of.

And when there are dozens of poskim saying the issur wasn't taken care of?

I can't believe some of you guys think its a walk in the park to mattir eishes ish.
I'm not saying you would need 100 rabbonim, I'm saying look at how seriously these issues should be viewed.

[yuneeq]

Define "now."

The night of the 2nd "chasuna".

[Aaaron]

The night of the 2nd "chasuna".

Hasn't it been established that R' Moshe discussed the heter?  And from what I understand it's been used for centuries, although I don't have a source for that.

[aygart]

And when there are dozens of poskim saying the issur wasn't taken care of?

I can't believe some of you guys think its a walk in the park to mattir eishes ish.
I'm not saying you would need 100 rabbonim, I'm saying look at how seriously these issues should be viewed.

His point is still true, this is not the type of shayla that would normally be paskened by an individual posek. R Nota himself wrote that his opinion was dependent upon others joining with him.

[shiframeir]

And when there are dozens of poskim saying the issur wasn't taken care of?

I can't believe some of you guys think its a walk in the park to mattir eishes ish.
I'm not saying you would need 100 rabbonim, I'm saying look at how seriously these issues should be viewed.

as a layman (BH) I think one should also ask how seriously the alternative should be viewed. this type of eishes ish is not ben adom lechaveiro, and does not actually harm another human, so the question is will Rabbonim be able to get comfortable that Hashem will be mochel on the kavod hatorah (by changing prior precedent, or lack of precedent in order to let this woman be free.

Of course many well-respected rabbis have determined that the scales for such a judgment don't tilt to being matir, but does that somehow bind us today when maybe there is more sensitivity (due to stronger freedom and feministic leanings in many of us), and perhaps (due to internet etc) more chillul hashem the other way if we don't find a solution to a clearly unfair process?

[churnbabychurn]

as a layman (BH) I think one should also ask how seriously the alternative should be viewed. this type of eishes ish is not ben adom lechaveiro, and does not actually harm another human, so the question is will Rabbonim be able to get comfortable that Hashem will be mochel on the kavod hatorah (by changing prior precedent, or lack of precedent in order to let this woman be free.

Of course many well-respected rabbis have determined that the scales for such a judgment don't tilt to being matir, but does that somehow bind us today when maybe there is more sensitivity (due to stronger freedom and feministic leanings in many of us), and perhaps (due to internet etc) more chillul hashem the other way if we don't find a solution to a clearly unfair process?

You are clearly equalizing halacha, toras hashem, to the secular legal system.

This is so very wrong that I don't even know where to start!

[henche]

as a layman (BH) I think one should also ask how seriously the alternative should be viewed. this type of eishes ish is not ben adom lechaveiro, and does not actually harm another human, so the question is will Rabbonim be able to get comfortable that Hashem will be mochel on the kavod hatorah (by changing prior precedent, or lack of precedent in order to let this woman be free.

Of course many well-respected rabbis have determined that the scales for such a judgment don't tilt to being matir, but does that somehow bind us today when maybe there is more sensitivity (due to stronger freedom and feministic leanings in many of us), and perhaps (due to internet etc) more chillul hashem the other way if we don't find a solution to a clearly unfair process?

If Hashem wanted to be mattir, I'm sure Hashem could have written the Torah in that way.

[Baruch]

It should have been the opposite way. R"N is in no way qualified to pasken such a heter on his own without involving at least some renowned poskim.
The facts that have been revealed since, shed light on a case where they issued a sham heter and therefore went into hiding.

RNG writes clearly in his heter, and I quote, "הננני מסכים להצטרף לעוד רבנים בעלי הוראה שיתירה".

Please read the relevant material before criticizing a 93 year old Rav.

(I am not picking sides in the controversy)

[SayWhat]

RNG writes clearly in his heter, and I quote, "הננני מסכים להצטרף לעוד רבנים בעלי הוראה שיתירה".

Please read the relevant material before criticizing a 93 year old Rav.

(I am not picking sides in the controversy)

They are saying that other Rabonim signed on (one of them from Chicago) 

[churnbabychurn]

They are saying that other Rabonim signed on (one of them from Chicago)

Makes sense. But what's the big secret?

[Aaaron]

Makes sense. But what's the big secret?

Could be they feel they have nothing to prove?  Notice that everything that's been published is anti the heter.  It's clearly one side doing the publishing.

[aygart]

Could be they feel they have nothing to prove?  Notice that everything that's been published is anti the heter.  It's clearly one side doing the publishing.

That would be one of the most troubling aspects of the case.

[shiframeir]

If Hashem wanted to be mattir, I'm sure Hashem could have written the Torah in that way.

this is not a "hashem writing" issue, but a rabbinic application/recent historical approach/stare decisis issue. If the torah said don't uproot a get, you got me. otherwise, anything is fair play (shofet asher beyamecha, and per Elchonon's excellent hypothetical re rov jews changing their mind on the binding nature of shas, there is no inherent absolute block on changing a rabbinic decision, just gotta get the right consensus of opinion).
 
I know this is clearly not the place where i will find many people receptive to what sound like the more reformist/open orthodox viewpoints here like valuing extreme human suffering/significant embarassment of God and his Torah (which seem to any laymen/non-jew as clearly weak, stuck in the past and helplessly mysogynistic in causing such grief and unfairness to women, when truth be told, there is plenty that could be done in theory. While many have overpushed the point, the precedent of Hillel and the purzbal is pretty clear along with many others in much more extreme contradictions with actual "Hashem-writing" law in the torah (god says let borrowers be free, Hillel says pretend the Beis din is the creditor, without any real true mechanism other than sleight of hand (but for a holy purpose and do to an extreme need, eis la'asos...). my point is simply that in everything we do we must weigh our choices very carefully (see the start, and the rest, of R Chaim Shmulevitz on Aveirah lishma), and while its clear that in general Hashem HATES Ervah, in this case calling it ervah is a real stretch, and considering how much Hashem exhorts us to care for those who suffer and generally are underprivileged, as well as our need to be a true light to the nations, reconsidering whether to apply legal halachic mechanisms considering the change in circumstance including world opinion is not crazy.
and since we are in the parsha (re Yehuda and Tamar), please note how many angles of ervah (as noted by Chazal) were involved with the house of David and mashiach.

You are clearly equalizing halacha, toras hashem, to the secular legal system.
This is so very wrong that I don't even know where to start!

if u can't even answer an obvious apikorus like me (1/2 joke), not sure you are entitled to throw your opinions around
i'm not equalizing anything. so much of shas and on is about balancing competing halachos (pls check out R Shmulevitz's excellent vort on why we dont teach all of shulchan aruch to a convert). Being a jew is not easy, its really hard. its why we are the priests, and who people should look to. if we are quick and easily decisive about our halachic decisions or pronouncements about other's decisions, we should be worried. NOTHING is clear cut, and we must be charedim, trying to (and praying to) pass all the tests we encounter every day.

[Aaaron]

this is not a "hashem writing" issue, but a rabbinic application/recent historical approach/stare decisis issue. If the torah said don't uproot a get, you got me. otherwise, anything is fair play (shofet asher beyamecha, and per Elchonon's excellent hypothetical re rov jews changing their mind on the binding nature of shas, there is no inherent absolute block on changing a rabbinic decision, just gotta get the right consensus of opinion).
 
I know this is clearly not the place where i will find many people receptive to what sound like the more reformist/open orthodox viewpoints here like valuing extreme human suffering/significant embarassment of God and his Torah (which seem to any laymen/non-jew as clearly weak, stuck in the past and helplessly mysogynistic in causing such grief and unfairness to women, when truth be told, there is plenty that could be done in theory. While many have overpushed the point, the precedent of Hillel and the purzbal is pretty clear along with many others in much more extreme contradictions with actual "Hashem-writing" law in the torah (god says let borrowers be free, Hillel says pretend the Beis din is the creditor, without any real true mechanism other than sleight of hand (but for a holy purpose and do to an extreme need, eis la'asos...). my point is simply that in everything we do we must weigh our choices very carefully (see the start, and the rest, of R Chaim Shmulevitz on Aveirah lishma), and while its clear that in general Hashem HATES Ervah, in this case calling it ervah is a real stretch, and considering how much Hashem exhorts us to care for those who suffer and generally are underprivileged, as well as our need to be a true light to the nations, reconsidering whether to apply legal halachic mechanisms considering the change in circumstance including world opinion is not crazy.
and since we are in the parsha (re Yehuda and Tamar), please note how many angles of ervah (as noted by Chazal) were involved with the house of David and mashiach.
 if u can't even answer an obvious apikorus like me (1/2 joke), not sure you are entitled to throw your opinions around
i'm not equalizing anything. so much of shas and on is about balancing competing halachos (pls check out R Shmulevitz's excellent vort on why we dont teach all of shulchan aruch to a convert). Being a jew is not easy, its really hard. its why we are the priests, and who people should look to. if we are quick and easily decisive about our halachic decisions or pronouncements about other's decisions, we should be worried. NOTHING is clear cut, and we must be charedim, trying to (and praying to) pass all the tests we encounter every day.

[churnbabychurn]

Boo. I'm supposed to respond to a megila of non orthodox thought?
Not happening. As you mentioned, this is a predominantly orthodox forum.


But il summarise my response in one sentence.

If being frum is too difficult and embarrassing for you, you're sadly SOL.
There is nothing anyone can do to help you. Even the rabbis.

[chaimmayer]

Sadly the one giving this the most (only) press on the Internet is Daniel eidenson on his daas torah blog.i don't know who is worse him or his brother but they both appear to me to be a bit crazy.  I would hate to see him be right in this case because I can't stand his whole tone.

Look at what he wrote today:

Thus we are not talking about Rav Greenblatt having an off day and following  the Daas Torah of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky. We see that there are poskim - who clearly should know better - who agreed to this "heter" without bothering to check the facts as presented by R Shalom Kaminetsky and did not bother to hear the other side. Thus the corruption in the system is significantly worse than if the entire responsibility was on Rav Nota Greenblatt. It is also astounding that a posek of Rav Feurst's stature would not acknowledge that he was a major player in the "heter" or even acknowledge that he was involved.

He really ought to entertain the possibility that these choshuve rabbonim know better than he does and don't have to play by his rules.

[yuneeq]

The facts remain. The husband ain't crazy.
The heter (which is a chiddush) is relying on that fact.

[chaimmayer]

Maybe
I don't know the facts

[AJK]

The facts remain. The husband ain't crazy.
The heter (which is a chiddush) is relying on that fact.

Everyone--including you--knows the facts... Except for the rabbis, right?

It's a "fact" that the husband has zero mental issues? You have a medical degree? You're a psychiatrist? You've interviewed the psychiatrists who interviewed him? You've confirmed you've spoken to all of them? You're positive you know all the facts as they were presented to the rabbis in question?

I personally don't have the answer to any of those questions, but I guess it's possible you can answer yes to all of the above.

Doubtful, though.