Apparently, "Hefkervelt" has refused to post my comments exposing the shame of S. Kaminetzky's fraudulent "hetter" to allow an "eishes ish" to the street without any GET whatsoever. This travesty was clearly and unequivocally condemned by all of the Rabbanim here in Eretz Yisrael. Harav Yoseif Shalom Elyashiv zatza"l among others had, in his time, denounced this farce in the strongest terms. He had made it clear that no such "hetter" exists whatsoever, and that she remains an "eishes ish" in all respects.
While I can understand that "hefkervelt" is afraid to post comments of such (based on the ENORMOUS confusion and devastation which was wrought over such "hefkeirus" at the time and ever since) I nonetheless see a clear obligation to protest this upside-down distortion of Torah values as much as I am able.
What I mean by "upside-down distortion" is this:
Many today feel, based on their level of Torah commitment; that, while a definite error was committed in this tragic case (after all S. Kaminetzky himself had eventually admitted this) - even still it would only cause more harm to expose the shame of such trenchant error to the public, and that this would result in "bizayon hatorah". Thus, they feel that the above error should just pass off in silence. I would in most cases tend to follow this view. The problem here is that the issue at stake is not of technical content but rather a fundamental issue:
The halachah clearly states, based on our mesorah from Tanach, the Talmud, and the Rishonim that a GET cannot be given (or even written) until the husband himself gives such instruction. Even where a man is halachically obligated to divorce his wife (i.e. a kohein who married a divorcee) beis din cannot take away jurisdiction from the husband to write such a GET - let alone to give one. What they can do in such a case (where he is clearly halachically obligated) is to pressure the husband with sanctions and even physical force until he says "I wish to do so". In such a case we say that a normal Jewish man really wants to do what beis din commands, and that only his yeitzer hara is blocking him from allowing this to surface. Under the proper pressure which is proscribed by beis din this obstinance subsides. Thus; we say, the man has given his verbal consent. Outside of beis din's scrutiny such pressure would invalidate any GET.
The gemara list two possible scenarios where this procedure may not be possible and/or is insufficient in view of the circumstances. One such case is where the man gave a conditional GET and subsequently attempted to annul the condition, but was forcibly restrained from doing so. EXAMPLE: A man said, "You are divorced with this GET provided that I do not return here by a set time". Afterwards, he attempted to return, but couldn't cross the river by boat in time. Chaza"l feared that this is a potential scenario where a man would attempt to return, and be held back without his wife's knowledge. Afterwards, she will then assume that he decided to validate his condition; and, not seeing or hearing from him afterwards she will remarry illicitly. Thus, chaza"l declared that we annul his betrothal in advance, and she was never married to him. [Here, the man was at fault for having made such a negligible stipulation; thus, we say that his betrothal was not done "according to the law of Moses and Israel".]
The second example given is where a man tied a girl up in a tree and promised to free her in exchange for her acceptance of marriage. Here we say that even if she had fully accepted such a proposal on her own account it is nonetheless invalid - as he mistreated her to obtain such "acceptance". Such betrothal is excluded from "the law of Moses and Israel", and Chaza"l are halachically empowered to confiscate the money with which he activated the kiddushin, or to delegitimize his act of intimacy with which he intended to betroth her.
It must be realized that even where we are sure that a man would want to divorce his wife, and even where he himself stated explicitly that he wishes to do so, a GET may not be written except with the husband's explicit instruction to write such a GET. Chaza"l never recognized any ability to annul someone's kiddushin other than the above mentioned cases where there was a problem involved in either the kiddushin or the subsequent "conditional" GET. Even a man who disappeared a day after his marriage would have to be retraced. Even a man who went out of his mind a short time afterwards or had left the fold would likewise have to be retraced; and, if and where found to be stable enough to reason, would need be convinced to agree to give her a GET. (Otherwise, she would remain confined to him regardless - a potential case of agunah.)
A woman who is stuck in an unfortunate scenario where her husband is missing or unreachable is known as an agunah. By contrast, a woman who simply decides on her own to balk at her marriage is called a "moredes" (a rebellious woman); and, if she does this out of spite (not asking for a get) beis din publicly announces this shameful conduct. If, however, she asks for a get without any compelling reason she will still be considered a "moredes" and forfeits her kesubah, but beis din does not officially publicize her as such. If she gives a reasonable explanation (i.e. he is chronically drunk and/or beats her and/or uses up all his money and doesn't support her) and beis din is convinced that she may be telling the truth - then she will not be declared a moredes" at all. Even still, they will not force her husband to divorce her, unless there is compelling evidence that the halachah requires such.
The tragic case of Tamar Friedman's rebellion from her husband Aharon; her fleeing from the beis din in Baltimore, the beating and attempted kidnapping of her husband, and subsequent smearing of his reputation, and the bogus claim that he was "unfit for marriage" - all are severe infractions in halachah; and even were he to give a GET under such circumstances it would be halachically invalid.
What adds even more enormity to this travesty is that Aharon Friedman had indeed offered to give a GET to his wife Tamar (upon the settling of terms regarding the custody of their daughter) prior to her running away from the beis din in Baltimore, and this is where her tirade began.
Tamar is the daughter of one of S. Kaminetzky's former (deceased) students in Philadelphia. She had smeared and slandered her husband to the point that Kaminetzky had - together with his son reportedly turned to Nota Greenblatt in Nashville, Tenn. to find some kind of "hetter" to free her from her husband Aharon. (This was after they had paid a band of thugs to attempt to kidnap him and force upon him an invalid GET.) Greenblatt had come up with the distorted idea that any recognized rabbi can consider himself authorized to "nullify" kiddushin retroactively. This is an unprecedented negation of basic halachah clearly stated in Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Yoseif Shalom Elyashiv zatza"l had raised the cry of alarm over this (as did the beis din in Bnei Brak, and all of the recognized gdolei Torah here in Eretz Yisrael).
This is a FUNDAMENTAL distortion of halacha, as Kaminetzky hasn't yet the strength of character to admit publicly his error, and how much more so to demand that Tamar separate from the foreign man she is presently living sinfully with.
As a Torah-observing Jew I cannot remain silent when I see people referring to this perverted character and/or his cohorts in honorable terms!
