Answer

Of course, the article does not distinguish between the question of whether the women who committed adultery became forbidden to their husbands (in which case their future children would be mamzerim), and the question of whether there is concern that their already existing children were conceived through intercourse with this Sheinberg rather than with the father, and therefore they are mamzerim. These are, of course, two entirely different questions. But perhaps in the original article the distinction is made, and here this is only a journalistic report.
Beyond that, it is clear that psychological expert opinions are not worth much in this context. By the same token, one could say that a woman who falls desperately in love with another man is acting under coercion. The evil inclination put on a costume. Psychological rape is a very difficult thing to define (somewhat similar to coercion in the views of the Radbaz), and professional opinions cannot determine what the threshold of coercion is (that is a question not for professionals but for halakhic authorities), but it seems to me that this is not an absurd claim on its face (similar to a child captured among the gentiles, who is considered inadvertent or coerced).
Still, one should discuss this in light of the Maharik regarding a woman who committed adultery thinking there was no prohibition involved (in our case: it was done for the sake of Kabbalistic healing and higher spiritual rectifications), where his view is that she does become forbidden to her husband (and only in a factual mistake does she not become forbidden to her husband). But there is room to distinguish this case from the Maharik’s case, because here there was no intention of adultery at all.
Bottom line, perhaps I didn’t understand the point of your question. I see plenty of reasons for doubt here, but why do you think it is completely far-fetched?
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Thanks for the response.
 
What mainly troubles me (of course one has to see the original text) is the assumption that a person is considered insane, or loses free choice, in such circumstances. As you noted, the apparent implication is that anyone who falls desperately in love with the neighbor is acting under coercion (and seemingly vice versa as well) — where do you stop this? If Godwin will forgive us, there is no doubt that the SS admired Hitler in an incomprehensible way. Does that mean they were coerced, or considered insane and exempt from responsibility?
 
This issue came up in the trial of Goel Ratzon, where they wanted to accuse him of “enslavement” of the women in his cult, even though they were there of their own free will and were interviewed a thousand times by newspapers and said they were happy. In that case the court did not accept the claim and sent Ratzon to prison for other reasons, but it turns out that this disturbing idea is still floating around in the air. In the case of these women it may perhaps be a reason for leniency, but there is virtually no distance between that and someone coming tomorrow and telling me what to do and forcing me on the grounds that I am really under the mental control of Netanyahu or the local rabbi.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
1. Indeed, in all these cases the problem of psychological coercion arises. But the fact that the line is blurry and hard to diagnose does not necessarily mean it does not exist. The question is when a person loses control and acts not out of his own choice but out of reactions imposed on him. It seems to me that we would agree that such situations exist, although it is indeed hard to diagnose them.
2. I assume the question is quantitative (to what extent the person lost control, on a scale from 0 to 1), because I do not think that in most situations there is a total loss of control. Therefore this is not a decision entrusted to professionals. At most they can say how much control a person has in a given situation (and I am very doubtful even about their ability to do that), but then a religious court has to come and decide whether such a level of lack of control counts as coercion or not. Rabbi Dichovsky is the religious court here, and that was his assessment. One can perhaps argue with it, but in principle this is his role and his authority. It does not seem to me to be something patently unreasonable.
——————————————————————————————
Oren:
Following up on what was discussed here, do you think the court’s ruling in the Daniel Ambash case was justified (mental captivity)?

——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I am not familiar with the case, and certainly not with its details.

——————————————————————————————
Oren:
In general, do you think state laws that prohibit things like mental captivity are justified? Or because it is hard to identify mental captivity, is it better to presume innocence?

——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
See my latest response here.

Regarding the question: "Following what was said in that article about law and Jewish law, do you think state laws that prohibit bigamy/polygamy or incest are justified laws?"

There I answered:
In my opinion, generally no. There is no room for a law that enters the private domain and forces adults not to do what they freely wish to do, so long as they are not harming others.
Still, one can discuss situations in which the legislator believes that this is not truly free will. There are discussions about this regarding prostitution (among adults), which is seemingly done willingly by those engaged in it and those who use their services, but some argue that this is not free will. I am very doubtful about that as well (including on the conceptual level of defining free will in this context).
But I do not know the subject well enough to take a firm position.