The Tamar Epstein Saga

[henche]

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.

Doesn't even the heter only allege OCD and paranoia?  Don't like half of Americans have OCD, and the other half would if any MSW got his hands on the possibility of billing their insurance company for 60% of $100?

[churnbabychurn]

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.

Half the people I know can be diagnosed with some form of psychiatric condition. Can we date their wives?

My point is that he would have to be "meshuga bemolo muvan hamila"
He isn't.

[AJK]

Half the people I know can be diagnosed with some form of psychiatric condition. Can we date their wives?

My point is that he would have to be "meshuga bemolo muvan hamila"
He isn't.

Man, they must have had a black Friday sale somewhere on armchair medical degrees.

The amount of conjecture and mere speculation on this thread is mind boggling. It's almost as if some of you wouldn't recognize the concept of "don't jump to conclusions" or "giving the benefit of the doubt" if it hit you in the heads.

Either you have all the facts, or you don't. You likely don't.

And sure, no one is saying Rabbis are infallible, but in some cases, these rabbis have a *lifetime* behind them of learning, sacrificing, and helping the klal. The least some of you faceless rumor mongers can do is afford them a bit of respect and benefit of the doubt considering their history.

The truth will come out one way or the other. It's not your jobs to spit venom on the backs of people that are undoubtedly greater than you.

... Especially if you're not sure of the facts.

[yuneeq]

Man, they must have had a black Friday sale somewhere on armchair medical degrees.

The amount of conjecture and mere speculation on this thread is mind boggling. It's almost as if some of you wouldn't recognize the concept of "don't jump to conclusions" or "giving the benefit of the doubt" if it hit you in the heads.

Either you have all the facts, or you don't. You likely don't.

And sure, no one is saying Rabbis are infallible, but in some cases, these rabbis have a *lifetime* behind them of learning, sacrificing, and helping the klal. The least some of you faceless rumor mongers can do is afford them a bit of respect and benefit of the doubt considering their history.

The truth will come out one way or the other. It's not your jobs to spit venom on the backs of people that are undoubtedly greater than you.

... Especially if you're not sure of the facts.

You can read the heter if you'd like.
It says that the wife talked to a psychiatrist, not the husband.

They have to prove that he's certifiably insane, not the opposite way around.

[Moshe123]

You can read the heter if you'd like.
It says that the wife talked to a psychiatrist, not the husband.

They have to prove that he's certifiably insane, not the opposite way around.

Exactly.

[Moshe123]

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.

Yeah, I don't even know where to start. Yikes

[aygart]

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

The heter is relying that there are personality disorders which can be cause for mekach taos even if he does not outwardly seem "crazy". This was written explicitly in their letters.

You can read the heter if you'd like.
It says that the wife talked to a psychiatrist, not the husband.

They have to prove that he's certifiably insane, not the opposite way around.

I suggest you re-read the letters. You are simply wrong according to the letters of the matirim, though some letters from the osrim lay it out that way.

[chaimmayer]

You can read the heter if you'd like.
It says that the wife talked to a psychiatrist, not the husband.

They have to prove that he's certifiably insane, not the opposite way around.

There is an official heter issued by anyone or just some שקלע וטריא floating around?

[churnbabychurn]

The heter is relying that there are personality disorders which can be cause for mekach taos even if he does not outwardly seem "crazy". This was written explicitly in their letters.
I suggest you re-read the letters. You are simply wrong according to the letters of the matirim, though some letters from the osrim lay it out that way.

How do you understand the following phrase: "crazy in every sense"?

This is the exact phrase used by R Sholom.

[aygart]

How do you understand the following phrase: "crazy in every sense"?

This is the exact phrase used by R Sholom.

Did you read the whole thing?

[churnbabychurn]

Did you read the whole thing?

Irrelevant. That phrase disqualifies the entire document.

How could someone who is totally crazy have a job and be married for many years??

[Redbull3]

Irrelevant. That phrase disqualifies the entire document.

How could someone who is totally crazy have a job and be married for many years??

Because we are making getting divorced so hard?

[aygart]

@shiframeir you are so wrong in so many ways, but I will start with a couple in order that you shouldn't be left with those who don't know where to start (it was hard-in the end I picked randomly)

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).

Your saying that anything is fair play is your mistaken premise. It is simply wrong. If anything is fair play then the torah does not exist and is only dependent on the whims of the time. This is not simply stare decisis and I am not sure why you think it is. I am unsure what this "Elchonon's hypothetical" is and cannot respond to it, but you don't believe in Torah Shebeal Peh there is not much of a point in any discussion at all with those who do believe in it. The premise behind yiddishkeit as we know it is belief in TSBP and if you will not reckon with it then you are simply dealing with a different religion and your questions would be akin to asking why we don't follow Christian protocol.

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.

This is based upon your mistaken premise above. Considering what some vague liberal minded sense of fairness thinks to be significant embarrassment of G-d and his Torah is nothing more than a lack of confidence. There is no need to conform to every notion of good and fair that someone cooks up and to even attempt to do so is doomed to failure. Judaism is very considerate of human suffering especially in this area. Just take a look at any responsa on Even Hoezer and you will see many poskim going out on a limb to be matir agunos. That does not mean that anything can be done. If the rules can always be bent to conform to the latest whim then there are no rules at all.

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...).

This statement is mere ignorance. There is no pretending. By giving the loan over to B"D shmita does not cancel the loan. Hillel merely simplified and codified the process (much more to this but no time)

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.

Can you please explain this statement? WHy in the world is it a stretch to call this a case of ervah? Because of caring for those who suffer? To be a light unto the nations? How does that make it not ervah? What does it mean to be a true light to the nations anyhow? To take their concepts and change ourselves because of it? That is not being a light to them it is them being a light to us! Being a light to them means that we should remain true to our principals and this will help the nations correct their misguidedness.

[aygart]

Irrelevant. That phrase disqualifies the entire document.

How could someone who is totally crazy have a job and be married for many years??

You are being ridiculous. Someone who has an extreme case of certain personality disorders may be able to hold a job etc but when the disorder comes into play be meshuga b'mlo hamila (which does not mean crazy in every sense). This post of yours illustrates how you have decided an result before seeing the entire picture.

[Redbull3]

Being a light to them means that we should remain true to our principals and this will help the nations correct their misguidedness.

Your implication being that, in this case, the world is misguided by what... being too sympathetic to individuals who want to get divorced and allowing them a way out, and we should shine the light of torah on them and help guide them into a way of life in which the freedom of the woman is dependent on other people's opinions?

[churnbabychurn]

Can you please explain this statement? WHy in the world is it a stretch to call this a case of ervah? Because of caring for those who suffer? To be a light unto the nations? How does that make it not ervah? What does it mean to be a true light to the nations anyhow? To take their concepts and change ourselves because of it? That is not being a light to them it is them being a light to us! Being a light to them means that we should remain true to our principals and this will help the nations correct their misguidedness.

Like this part alot


But don't waste your breath. OO is conservative. The ship has sailed. Game over.

[aygart]

Your implication being that, in this case, the world is misguided by what... being too sympathetic to individuals who want to get divorced and allowing them a way out, and we should shine the light of torah on them and help guide them into a way of life in which the freedom of the woman is dependent on other people's opinions?

No my point is that you cannot just simply take that and throw out the entire torah to be a light to the nations.

[Aaaron]

This statement is mere ignorance. There is no pretending. By giving the loan over to B"D shmita does not cancel the loan. Hillel merely simplified and codified the process (much more to this but no time)

And by saying she didn't get what she bargained for is "simplifying and codifying" the process of voiding her marriage.  Again, mekach/mimcar ta'os isn't a new concept either, not even in the framework of annulling a marriage.  I'm not sure why Yuneeq is claiming it is. 

So, how is it different than pruzbal or the methods used to avoid pi shnayim in an inheritance? 

[churnbabychurn]

In defense of the matirim not publicising their heter. IMHO it is definitely best NOT to further publicise the "heter".

The more publicity the "heter" gets the bigger the churban in kedushas yisroel will be.

This is already snowballing out of control with many of modern Orthodoxy declaring a victory in the battle of feminisem vs orthodoxy.

[AJK]

You are being ridiculous. Someone who has an extreme case of certain personality disorders may be able to hold a job etc but when the disorder comes into play be meshuga b'mlo hamila (which does not mean crazy in every sense). This post of yours illustrates how you have decided an result before seeing the entire picture.

This.