There are many sources which explicity reject Rav Menashe Klein's view
Beis Yosef(Choshen Mishpat 2:2): The Rashba (3:393) states: It appears to me that if the witnesses are believed by the judges then the judges are permitted to administer physical or monetary punishment according that which they deem appropriate. This is necessary to preserve society. Because if you would insist that everything has to follow the law of the Torah and only punish according to the Torah in cases of beatings and similar cases – the result is that the world would be destroyed. In other words, society would be destroyed if you were always required to have 2 male Jewish witnesses and forewarn the criminal in order to convict a person of a crime. This is what is meant in Bava Metzia (30b): Yerushalyaim was only destroyed because they insisted on following the Torah law. This is certainly true outside of Israel where monetary fines are not administered according to Torah law. As a consequence of the inability of Torah law to punish those who don’t take committing crimes seriously - they would break down the walls that protect society and as a result the world would become lawless and destroyed….
Isn't that the Ran's whole notion of the role of the melukhah? The role of halakhah's required jurisprudence is about prevent "ish es re'eihu chaim bal'u". We were expected to have a "civil law" too.
ReplyDelete-micha
micha said...
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the Ran's whole notion of the role of the melukhah? The role of halakhah's required jurisprudence is about prevent "ish es re'eihu chaim bal'u". We were expected to have a "civil law" too.
===============
No the Ran and others indicates that the king or Sanhedrin only stepped in when the society was falling apart. There was no civil law
Ran (Drasha #11): Don’t raise a question against me from what it says in Sanhedrin (46a): R’ Eleazar said, “I heard that beis din flogs and punishes not according to Torah law. Not in order to transgress the Torah but rather to make a preventative fence around it…” This seems to imply that the beis din judges according to what is helpful for the needs of the times [– rather than according to fixed Torah law?] That is simply not so. Rather at the time when Jews have a Sanhedrin and a king - the Sanhedrin judges the people only according to what the Torah law establishes. They are not concerned with taking corrective measures rather that is the role of the king. However when there is no king the judges serve the dual function of judging according to the Torah law and also making corrective measures when they are needed [i.e., the role of the king].
This is also stated by Rav Moshe Feinstein (C.M. 2:68) regarding capital punishment
Near the end of the section on the Eiglah Arufah the Ramban says an interesting thing. He notes that even after the ceremony, the murdered is to be punished if caught, either by the courts, OR THE KING or however.
ReplyDeleteI heard from other sources that there were, in fact, always two parallel systems of justice in the old days. On one side you had the Sanhedrin which administered the laws but really wasn't very good at convicting anyone because the system was set up to let everyone off. On the other side, you had the king who wasn't constrained by the rules for evidence and witnesses the Sanhedrin had.
The problem is that while the gemara is full of what the Sanhedrin did, it almost never mentions the parallel system which means most people don't realize it existed.
It's quite clear that if an attempt were made to create a halachic state today without major updates to the laws, such as accounting for video and audio technology, DNA evidence, etc. that this legal system would quickly fall apart and the country would collapse.
I'm reading the same words of the Ran, and see him as talking about a continuous need for civil law, to deal with changing societal needs. Where do you see that
ReplyDelete"taking corrective measures" means times of crisis?
-micha
Micha: I'm reading the same words of the Ran, and see him as talking about a continuous need for civil law, to deal with changing societal needs. Where do you see that
ReplyDelete"taking corrective measures" means times of crisis?
The below indicates that their was no fixed civil law. Rather there seemed to be periodic corrections introducted by the king or sanhedrin or beis din.
Ran: This seems to imply that the beis din judges according to what is helpful for the needs of the times [– rather than according to fixed Torah law?] That is simply not so. Rather at the time when Jews have a Sanhedrin and a king - the Sanhedrin judges the people only according to what the Torah law establishes. They are not concerned with taking corrective measures rather that is the role of the king.
The same is indicated by Rav Moshe (C.M. 2:68) posted above in which the Torah constituted normative halacha unless it didn't work. When society was functioning Torah law was used.
I guess the issue is whether society typically was in emergency mode and thus by definition the emergency mode became the norm. My point was that there were not two legal systems that worked in parallel. Rather the Torah system was corrected when society started to fall apart and then was reinstated when society stabilized.
What is to say the quoted Beis Yosef is in disagreement with Rav Menashe Klein's view?
ReplyDeletePerhaps Rav Menashe Klein rules that the issue in question does not rise to the level the Beis Yosef demands for it to be considered "necessary to preserve society."
Joseph said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is to say the quoted Beis Yosef is in disagreement with Rav Menashe Klein's view?
===============
Considering the gedolim who have written on this subject all refer to the need for non-Torah measures and Rav Klein does not even mention the subject. He obviously doesn't view this as an issue of the need of preserving society but rather of observing Torah laws.
I would agree with you if he had said, "While there are measures to deal with the problem when it threatens society - I disagree with all the other rabbonim and don't think that child abuse is a threat to society."
However he even acknowledges that it is a problem in the frum community and then proceeds to deny there is any acceptable solution within the poskim.
Daas Torah said: However he even acknowledges that it is a problem in the frum community and then proceeds to deny there is any acceptable solution within the poskim.
ReplyDeleteYet, perhaps, he holds that whilst it is a problem that lacks any acceptable solution within the poskim (perhaps akin to the so-called "agunah" problem), a fix for the problem does not rise to the level of being "necessary to preserve society."
"a fix for the problem does not rise to the level of being "necessary to preserve society."
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point of view.
So this would imply that the victims have to suffer in silence: sorry, the torah has no way of addressing the problem, but you are not allowed either to turn to resources outside...
And it also implies: sexual predators are no menace to society.
Very interesting!
shoshi, Supposing that is correct, how would that be any different than the "agunah" problem?
ReplyDeleteWell, I think the Agunah problem should also be solved.
ReplyDeleteBut I see two main differences
1)The Agunah has no other damage than being an Agunah, while the abuse victim suffered corporal and spiritual damage (and the question of damages, at least, should be addressed).
2) In general, husbunds who don't give gets make a lower number of victims than sexual predators.
3) In Israel, get-refusers are sometims put in prison as a coercive measure, that is to say that they are actually turned over to the secular police or secular justice system.
Joseph, your suggestion about the Beis Yoseif is the opposite of my position about the Ran. Our host and I disagree about whether the Ran is saying the king implements civil law, or whether he steps in at times of crisis. If it's the former, then it would be a more radical interpretation of the Beis Yoseif to place his intepretation so far from the Ran's as requiring a high threshold.
ReplyDeleteAs for my opinion of the Ran, since he invokes the notion of the king's rule in contrast to halakhah changing with societal need, I really don't see where our host sees any mention of a crisis. Rather, society is always in need of civil law that responds to the times, and the king is there to answer those needs. And thus there is a fixed civil law, but one that evolves as society does -- in ways that halakhah does not.
And, I think it's in this light that Rav Kook concludes that a democratically elected gov't is allowed to serve in that role.
Last, the problem of Agunah is that beis din lacks authority to penalize husbands, not that we inherently need a new law in a manner that halakhah should not be manipulated. We also have a possible way of preventing future cases; but for all the talk around the YU and RCA community, I don't know of that many people who actually use R' Willig's prenup.
-micha
there are two anonymous comments which I am not postings because they are anonymous.
ReplyDeletePlease add a name to them
my name is stanley. please post them.
ReplyDeleteThese posts from the MO show the real extent of the kefirah prevelant in tha that community.
ReplyDeleteR' Willig's beth din goes by NY equitable disribution, child support and maintenance laws but not by halocho because it can be replaced. They claim that this is what dina d'malchusah dina means. The rashba, rivosh, tur, bais yosef etc... are aghast at such an interpretation but the MO world holds one can argue with the Rishonim in lomdus and in halocha.
If you don't believe me. ask Rav Moshe Sternbuch that this interpretation of dina de'malchusa is "not acceptable" al pi halochah.
Secondly, and even more importantly, this beth din holds of the NY Get law which coerces men to give gittin even when their wives are not entitled to a get al pi halochah (ask rabbi manilowitz). Other than the BDA, I have yet to hear of any other bais din that holds this way.
While the BDA will claim otherwise and claim I have misrepresented them, I have spoken to them for a very long time about this issue. They hold that if the man has "agreed to give the get voluntarily", even if everyone knows that he is under the coercion of the courts and you cannot fool the Almighty, the get is Kosher. they misquote an igros Moshe where the man claims he accepts the "settlement" reached by the court and rav Moshe holds the Get is Kosher. If however, we have strong reasons to believe thast the man isn't really saying what he feels, the get is invalid according to rav Moshe. Where a man is under financial or other threat, how can we believe his declaration that he wishes to give the get voluntarily.
I hope i see this post up and not deleted!
R' Willig's prenup stems from the need to give woman more than they are halachically entitled to at the sorry end of a marriage. if we believe the torah is Emes, then why didn't Hashem institute this prenup and why do we need rabbi Willig to do it for us? The onlt answer is that the torah must be out of date and we may as well scrap it in its entirety? What am i missing? I am totally confused!
ReplyDeleteStanley, your points are dead on/correct.
ReplyDeleteStanley: If it were true that R' Willig's prenup showed a flaw in the original halakhah, what about cheirem deRabbainu Gershom, or for that matter any mitzvah derabbanan?
ReplyDeleteAs in the original blog entry, halakhah requires adaptation for the times. And, as I read the Ran (in distinction to how our host does), halakhah also recognizes the need for a law other than itself to promote a civilized society in ways that do not depend exclusively on eternal truths; additional laws that change with the times in ways halakhah does not and should not.
-micha
stanley said...
ReplyDeleteR' Willig's prenup stems from the need to give woman more than they are halachically entitled to at the sorry end of a marriage. if we believe the torah is Emes, then why didn't Hashem institute this prenup and why do we need rabbi Willig to do it for us? The onlt answer is that the torah must be out of date and we may as well scrap it in its entirety? What am i missing? I am totally confused!
===========
Stanley I agree with you that you are totally confused and are missing basic understanding. I also must acknowledge that you are obviously one of the masses of the Jews people who stood at Sinai. Your annonyomous and unscholarly trashing of Rav Willig - who is truly a great talmid chachom - is reflective of the holy comment made by the Ohr HaChaim
Ohr HaChaim (Shemos 19:5): The reason for the repeated verb of listening in this verse perhaps alludes to the acceptance of the two types of Torah. The first being the Written Torah which they received at Sinai and the second being the Oral Torah and the dikdukei sofrim and seforim as well as the legislation which would be taught by the rabbis in the future. This is hinted at by the mitzva of lo sassur (Devarim 17:11)…. Furthermore the verse mentions “My voice” after this double expression. This alludes to the principle mentioned in the Bamidbar Rabbah (14): “That which is heard from a sage has the same authority as hearing something from Gd.” In other words, those decrees of the sages have the same authority as if they had been said by Gd. Perhaps this insight that they were actually accepting two types of Torah at Sinai can explain a difficulty in understanding Shabbos (88a). This gemora understands the verse Shemos 19:17) to mean that Gd forced them to accept the Torah by threatening to kill the Jews by holding Mt. Sinai over their heads - unless they accepted the Torah. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Shemos (24:7) says that they accepted the Torah willingly – naaseh v’nishma (whatever Gd says we will do and afterwards will learn). In view of their ready acceptance why was it necessary to force them?… It is possible to answer this question with our explanation – that they in fact accepted two types of Torah at Sinai one directly from Gd at Sinai and a second one that they would receive in the future from the sages. Their willing acceptance described in Shemos (24:7) was the acceptance of what they heard from Gd even before they knew what it entailed. In contrast the Torah which they would be taught in the future by the sages they refused to accept before they heard what it contained. Their objection to accepting it was that the Torah of the sage is unlimited and in each generation new laws and decrees are generated. Thus Gd had to force them to accept the Oral Torah while the Written Torah was accepted willingly. ... According to our explanation they also said they would accept prior to understanding what it entailed – but we insist that was only the Written Torah that they heard directly from Gd. In fact it might be possible to reconcile these two approaches by saying that these two explanations are describing two different types of Jews. Perhaps our sages are describing the total ready acceptance by the completely righteous Jew. We would then say that the resistance to accepting the Torah of the Sages only occurred amongst the masses. It is obvious that not all the Jews were on the same level of righteousness.
The Medrash Tanchuma (Noach 3) has a similar view.
stanley said...
ReplyDeleteThese posts from the MO show the real extent of the kefirah prevelant in tha that community.
R' Willig's beth din goes by NY equitable disribution, child support and maintenance laws but not by halocho because it can be replaced. They claim that this is what dina d'malchusah dina means. The rashba, rivosh, tur, bais yosef etc... are aghast at such an interpretation but the MO world holds one can argue with the Rishonim in lomdus and in halocha.
If you don't believe me. ask Rav Moshe Sternbuch that this interpretation of dina de'malchusa is "not acceptable" al pi halochah.
Secondly, and even more importantly, this beth din holds of the NY Get law which coerces men to give gittin even when their wives are not entitled to a get al pi halochah (ask rabbi manilowitz). Other than the BDA, I have yet to hear of any other bais din that holds this way.
While the BDA will claim otherwise and claim I have misrepresented them, I have spoken to them for a very long time about this issue. They hold that if the man has "agreed to give the get voluntarily", even if everyone knows that he is under the coercion of the courts and you cannot fool the Almighty, the get is Kosher. they misquote an igros Moshe where the man claims he accepts the "settlement" reached by the court and rav Moshe holds the Get is Kosher. If however, we have strong reasons to believe thast the man isn't really saying what he feels, the get is invalid according to rav Moshe. Where a man is under financial or other threat, how can we believe his declaration that he wishes to give the get voluntarily.
===============
Interesting objection - but I would really like to know which rabbis gave you the above explanation. An anonymous comment on a blog doesn't carry much weight. Especially when he so readily slings accusations of kefirah and ignorance at a whole community.
Regarding Rav Moshe Feinstein's views and the whole controversy over the NY get law see R' Broyde's excellent article on the subject.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_exchange2.html
DaasTorah, Are you using the Ohr HaChaim to say that Stanley is on a lower level of righteousness?
ReplyDeleteThe Ohr HaCahim seems to be speaking of Jews who refuse to accept תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה and/or חז״ל; The Ohr HaCahim does not seem to be referring to Jews who refuse to accept the conclusions of a specific contemporary Rabbi. (Aside from the point that in any event I believe that Rabbi is disputed by other Rabbis.)
SZ said...
ReplyDeleteDaasTorah, Are you using the Ohr HaChaim to say that Stanley is on a lower level of righteousness?
I am simply responding to his statment "if we believe the torah is Emes, then why didn't Hashem institute this prenup and why do we need rabbi Willig to do it for us? The onlt answer is that the torah must be out of date"
He is invalidating all takanos and gezeirus i.e., all Rabbinic decrees. This has been the the sectarian argument against Rabbinic i.e., Orthodox Judaism throughout the ages.
For someone who is accusing the Modern orthodox of kefirah the above statement is itself clearly heresy
where is my posting?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, and I believe the commenter would concur, that he intended his statement (that you just quoted) to include all takanos and gezeirus from חז״ל. He could have possibly worded it better.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, he obviously is saying that R. Willig is not on the level of חז״ל, and his actions can be quoestioned whereas חז״ל's cannot be.
to sum up, since when are messers willig, broyde, g schwartz or h schechter considered gedoilim?
ReplyDeleteIn compariosn with teh real bigs of the 20th century, just to name a few, r chaim oyzer, reb chaim, the brisker rov, rav tzvi pesach frank, reb moshe, reb shlomo zalman, reb yoel mi'satmar, reb aharon kotler, reb yisroel ya'akov fisher who are these guys to come allong and make new gezaires when we had real gedolim who never saw the need for such geziras?
I have never heard anything more laughable or chutzpahdik ? gentleman, this isn't even worthy of purim torah.
If you think otherwise, YOU ARE KOFRIM.
STANLEY said...
ReplyDeleteto sum up, since when are messers willig, broyde, g schwartz or h schechter considered gedoilim?
In compariosn with teh real bigs of the 20th century, just to name a few, r chaim oyzer, reb chaim, the brisker rov, rav tzvi pesach frank, reb moshe, reb shlomo zalman, reb yoel mi'satmar, reb aharon kotler, reb yisroel ya'akov fisher who are these guys to come allong and make new gezaires when we had real gedolim who never saw the need for such geziras?
I have never heard anything more laughable or chutzpahdik ? gentleman, this isn't even worthy of purim torah.
If you think otherwise, YOU ARE KOFRIM.
==============
Stanley you are really obnoxious. An anonymous creature who is passing judgment as to which talmid chachom deserves the title of gadol and if your views aren't accepted than you pronounce everyone a kofer. Please this absurd and evil.
If you want to quote gedolim who say such things - then I have no problem posting it. But who are you? Perhaps you are a tzadik - but the Netziv said it was people like you who caused the Beis Hamikdash to be destroyed.
Netziv (Introduction to Bereishis): Bereishis was called Sefer HaYoshor (the Book of the Straight) by the prophets. This is because it is about the Avos—Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov who were called Straight by Bilaam. We need to understand why he singled them out by the title Straight instead of other descriptions such as tzadik or chasid? Furthermore, why is Bereishis singled out with this description of yoshor (straight)? Another question is why Bilaam asked that his end should be like those who have such a description? The praise of straightness is to reinforce G-d’s judgment in destroying the Second Temple which as a generation of tzadikim and chassidim and those devoted to learning Torah — however they were not yoshor in the mundane world. Therefore, because of the baseless hatred in their hearts to each other they suspected that whomever they saw who did not conduct himself according to their opinion in Yiras Shamayim—that he must be a heretic. Consequently, this led to much killing and all the evils in the world until the Temple was destroyed. Thus, there was an acknowledgement of the Straightness of G-d’s judgment in that He would not tolerate tzadikim like these. Rather he wanted tzadikim who were straight in the world. Because even if the non-straight tzadikim were motivated by religious consideration—such conduct destroys the world. Therefore, this was the praise of the Avos that besides being tzadikim and chassidim and lovers of G-d to the ultimate degree they were also straight. That means that they conducted themselves in relation to the peoples of the world—even the debased idol worshipers with love and were concerned about their welfare in regards to the preservation of Creation. This we see in the pleading of Avraham for the people of Sedom—even though he had total hatred for them because of their wickedness—nevertheless he wanted them to live…
SZ said...
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, and I believe the commenter would concur, that he intended his statement (that you just quoted) to include all takanos and gezeirus from חז״ל. He could have possibly worded it better.
Nevertheless, he obviously is saying that R. Willig is not on the level of חז״ל, and his actions can be quoestioned whereas חז״ל's cannot be.
==============
Of course there is room for disagreement. But to call a talmid chachom a kofer because he made a takana? To say that making takanos is saying the Torah is not emes! That is totally unacceptable and shows fundamental ignorance of Yiddishkeit.
this willig never made a takona regarding dina de'malchusa dina. he gave an interpretation. his takona id the pre-nup which i am not even discussing. i am referring to his death bin's false interpretation of the torah principle which for which the dba has no basis anywhere. don't obfuscate and switch issues.
ReplyDeletethe obnoxious one's are the willig's, scchechter's, broyde's and schwart's of this world who have violated haolocha with their false interpretations of dina de'malchusa dina, forced 100's of unsuspecting men to give their wives money that al pi halocha they are not entitled to and as it says in shabbos 139, bad things only happen because of distrotions in judgment.
ReplyDeleteby the way, there are tragically many so called charidi botei din that fall into the same category.
As to the accusation of being anonymous, is your phone no or address posted with your blogging activities.
i don't need "rabbi" schechter with josh ross demonstrating outside my home!
even in this dor, which other bais din, has accepted this absurd interpretation of the BDA? Name one choshuve bais din e.g. ravs nissim karelitz, wosners, beadatz etc?
ReplyDeleteanon, you are not telling us any chiddush. there are young aveichim in lakewood who have opshlogged the pope's seforim with consumate ease and shown that he is a man full of BOYCH sevros who contradicts basic rishonim and that he an am ho'oretz be'chol hatorah kula.
However being able to learn, while important isn't the bottom line: derech eretz kodmo le'torah. And when an infalible like schlechter can lie like this, he is a spiritual gigul of yeshu with the MO's rejection of daas torah.
No one should say Rav Elyashiv does not do do kiruv, he does by letting the schlechter into his house but it doesn't seem to be working at all
Sorry I am confusing nothing. The MO think they can argue with the Rishonim and it is mefurash in the Shut horashbo, quoted in the bais yousef on the tur, the tur himself, the rema, the rivosh et all who universally and categoricaly reject this distrotion and misinterpreting of dina de'malchusah dina the way the bda does.
Unfortunately, i temprorarily have a copy of Broyde book, not only the article on the get situation in america in my home and have read this book in its entirety. for everything he has a myriad of sources, which frankly are often totally misunderstood or mis-used or both by prof. broyde. And he cannot come up with a list of anyone to justify this fake interpretation of dina de'malchusa dina. I have no doubt that had someone like that said such a krum sevorah and used it in psak in front of someone like the rogetshover, the gro, or "even" the satmar rebbe or rav shach they would have been thrown out by their ears and these gedolim would have written a cheirem against him on the spot(only if they felt he had influence since this is normally not even worthy of a repsonse).
Broyde misunderstands a teshuva
(from reb Moshe) justifying the get law. So does r' schwartz whom rabbi manilowitz takes to task about misinterpeting a psak regarding the get law from another rov because the psak has very limited application because it was written in a situation that bais din had already paskened that the man was mechuyav to give a get to his wife.
As for comparing rabbis or messers willig, schwartz and broyde to rabbenu gershom, the comparison is not even worthy of a reply. that comparison i believe is kefirah to feel that someone today is on the same level of a rishon and is beyond belief. if these new equitable distribution "halochos" were so necessary, why did reb moshe and rav elyashiv and dayan fisher, who frankly these yu chevra are kindergarten kids next to, NOT make these changes that you feel are so necessary as you suggest? what about reb chaim oyzer who lived less than 100 years ago or the brisker rov who should have felt these changes necessary but didn't implement them?
if this blog is called da'as torah, surely the people blogging on it, should accept true daas torah already and know that being moyti momoyn not al pi halochoh is thuggery and makes one a rosho?
the bda are so off the derech that they told someone whose wife is in arko'oys with no written heter, that if she would come to their court, they would issue a siruv against him for not being giving a get because they bifurcate the get and the money! is that also a "cherem d'bda", is that also a new decree k'neged shulchan oruch that is necessary?
if there was ever a time when "bais din" should have argued there was a hora'as sho'o, it was in the early 1900's when people were fporced to work on shabbos. but obviously they could not do so and did not do so!
continued from before.
ReplyDeleteif you were objective at all, you would understand that the spiraling number of divorces in america is at least partially due to the fact that woman are on average far more financially independent than they have ever been throughout history and don't stay in marriages that "no longer meet their needs".. so the argument that one needs to award them more than in previous doros in my humble opinion just doesn't fly and is sheker ve'kozuf. Today in America a family wishing to live modestly in the sunurbs NEEDS A DUAL INCOME and many frum women are educated and mking six figure salaries. That is the reailty of life in the US today. Any woman who chooses NOT to educate herself must realize there are consequences to that decision. Every woman must understand that in the world we live in todasy, there are even more opportunities for women than for men. A woman must stand on her two feet, that is the cultural phenomenan of America today. Al pi halocho, if a woman is no longer living under a man's roof, he is obligated to provide her not even with her bus fare.
In the past, the argument that men extorted women to give them a get. now the pendulum has swung in the opposite diredction. the man is always at fault, withholding a get, a criminal, a thug.
if anything, it is non-halachic organizations like Ohekl, ORA,the BDA etc, which are exacerbating the situation and encouraging women not only to leave marriages that might have been able to be saved but, even more so, to encourage them to come up with lies, orders of protection, etc, demonstrating ouside people's houses, falsely claiming wives are agunahs when gittin have been depsited in valid botei din, and being motzi la'az, on men and serious talmidei chachomim like rav abraham and rav gestetner WHO FAVOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN ARKO'OYS who typically tend to be the women. unfortunately it is impossible to have anything but contempt for the yu rabbis who are hell bent on "pre-modernizing" halochah.
I have nothing personally against these "rabbis" but belive they are seriously beyond then pale. Scholarship is not a substitute for following the mesorah and neither is it a substitute for ehrlichkeit and yiras shomayim.
lastly, i asked my contact, a very senior member of the BDA, IF OVER THE YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE, IT HAD EVER AWARDED CUSTODY TO THE MAN. He refused to answer , hiding behind confidentiality. i did not ask for specific cases just a general answer. draw your own conclusions.
As for the contempt abut being "confused" etc, just because I am not part of the YU intellectuals, I can hold my own with them. I am an Ivy league graduate pursuing a PhD in Mathematics, so let them get off their pedestals and stop deluding themselves about their unique intellectual prowess.
I will respond to the remainder of the yu posts on gittin on a later occasion.
PS: the ones who are totally unscholarly are the bda who have no theoretical grounds in halochah for this misinterpretation but are relying on emotional and out of date 21st century, paternalistic feeling to award moneys completely kneged halocha. If by unscholarly, I quote the shut horashbo, the rivosh, the tur, the bais yosef who also learned with an unscholarly malach then I feel very privileged of being in such unscholarly company.
Stanley all you have proven is that you are violently angry at these m.o. rabbis - perhaps for personal reasons? Your screed has not produced any intelligent sources or reasoning that would make sense of your rambling.
ReplyDeleteAre you here just to vent or are you trying to persuade us of the validity of your position. You have succeeded in venting but you sure have done a really lousy job in convincing anybody of the correctness of your views.
I don't have any problem pointing out that Rav Willig or Rav Broyde have errored or are simply a minority opinion - but one can't learn this from your rantings.
daas torah, you are totally absurd.
ReplyDelete1) I have asked for a source as to where the interpretation of dina de'malchusa dina od the bda comes from, except from the bda itself which I have not been supplied with.
2) Furthermore, I have stated the obvious, that all the rishoninm, have angrily ranted against the interpretatkion of the BDA.
That claims that there is a need for a new takona are nonsense because women today are expected by society to be financially independent, the courts are also behind on this matter, but in some other countries this is recognised in the law
3)that these guys are kofrim because they either claim they are daas torah equivalent to the gedolim or reject the concept of daas torah altogether
4) i have not gone into the details of the get law. it is suffice to say the chareidi gedolim have accross the baord rejected the NY get law and even their corrupt minnow counterparts haven't had the audacity to argue against this and have all signed the kol koreh that a get forced by the ny courts is a get me'usah. the bda misinterpretation of reb moshe does not have anyone else with the same opinion.
5) frankly these guys of the bda are feminists in religious garb.
A modern orthodox lawyer told me that the guys from the bda are lawyers with yarmulkas not rabbis!
I have not personally been affected by the bda and have not gone to them personally for a ruling or din torah. i am furious because i had been brought up out of town to think these guys represent authentic yiddishkeit and have unfportunately been rudely wake up, they don't
I challenge you to get the opinion of reb moshe strenbuch on this bda interpretation of dina de'malchusa and the get me;usah fiasco as well as the pre-nup of the bda and the need for it. "daas torah" make up your mind which camp you belong to. you are conveniently straddling both camps, as it suits you. be a person of integrity instead of dancing simultabeously at 2 chasunahs.
stanley said...
ReplyDeletedaas torah, you are totally absurd.
1) I have asked for a source as to where the interpretation of dina de'malchusa dina od the bda comes from, except from the bda itself which I have not been supplied with.
================
Stanley - I am not available to research and present coherent summaries of whatever issues anybody is too lazy to look up themselves. If an issue comes up that I have looked into before I am glad to provide sources. However I am involved in a number of major issues now including conversion, EJF, child abuse and getting out a sefer on the subject, spending significant time putting out this blog and answering many questions - the get law is not one of them. I don't say that Rav Sternbuch won't agree with your view of the NY Get law. I really don't know nor am I asking him. There are many other things which I want to use my contact time with him to answer. Feel free to call him up and ask him yourself. I do say that since you are bringing it up - you can do the research, present sources etc.
I am bothered by your ready use of the word kofer and your derogatory pronouncments of talmidei chachomim - without producing a single letter from a recognized gadol that such language is desirable or even permitted. You have not even mentioned which gadol speaks the way you do. Rav Moshe Feinstein poskened that an act of zealotry requires a psak.
lastly as to the allegation of being lazy, because i haven't found a source for a non-existent misinterpretation by the BDA, how ridiculous. i have found plenty sources ridiculing this interpretation and the intellectual justification for the bda's stance on dina de'malchusa dina, broyde's book also does not bring sources either, even though for everything else he has long lists of misunderstood "proofs".
ReplyDeletei think it is you who is being lazy, if you put up a post and also comment on it, you should ascertain the facts, especially when you are challenged. so much for the pot calling the kettle black.
it is pretty clear where your sympathies lie! in numerous posts on 'agunah' previously, it is clear that you are not on the side of the chareidi daas torah approach.
as to why I use the word kofer, denying the validity of one letter in the torah makes one a kofer, let alone a halochah. denying the authenticity of the mesorah and denying the authenticity of daas torah is just as bad.
for the record, these yu guys do the same thing against those who disagree with them, condemning talmidei chachomim like rav abrahm and rav gestetner. they claim they don't follow 'normative halochah" and their gittin are not kosher and their botei din not to be recognized and in private probably say a lot worse.
i realize that even the strongest proofs will never change those with closed minds. ther have always been those throughout the ages who think they are cleverer than the torah, no better, need to bring it up to date etc. this is just yet another tragic example where it leads to genaivoh and chavei krisos violations. that is why we daven "hoshivo shoyfteinu ke'vatchilo..."
daas torah, you have conveniently decided to continue sitting on the fence which is your prerogative but you are still fence sitting on this as on many other issues. you clearly are also not chareidi which again is your prerogative, but the concept of daas torah has been rejected by the non-chareidi, so I personally believe you are misrepresenting yourself to your readers but that is your business.
ReplyDeletethere is a "simple" mamaer chazal of 'ha'megaleh poinim le'torah se'lo ke'halocho ein lo cheylek le'oylom habo". The rishomim have already stated that the bda's intepretation of dina de'malchusa dina falls into that category if not worse.
As to why the gedolim haven't come out against the BDA, the answer is simple. They don't come out every time the reform makes a distortion of halocho. They don't have to comment every time a group mi'chutz le'machaneh makes up a new concoction.
On the other hand, it should also be remembered that the gedolim in America are no longer of the calibre of Eretz Yisroel (cf. R' Nosson Kamitskey's lecture on his book being banned when he said this). hence the gedolim in the US today don't have the power they once did have and don't come out often because the "street" won't take notice of them.
they did signa kol koreh with many others that condemns the ny get law.
here are some details:
http://www.science-halacha.com/getlaw/getlaw_eng_G1.htm
another question for you. you are writing a book on wife abuse. who are you biased against? is the book only on women who abuse men, well this is ridiculous. equally ridiuclous is if you are writing a book on men who abuse their wives.
ReplyDeletelet's see if you are not lazy. if as i suspect your book is only on men who abuse their wives, then have you got valid statistical data to support the premise that men abuse women far more than women abuse men.
while it is your prerogative to write a book on any topic you like, (provided it is not kefirah!), your objectivity is obviously at risk if you focus on the one side and not the other, unless you can PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY that it is mainly men who are the abusers and not the woman.
otherwise you are temporarily probably a BDA feminist, that is until chas ve'sholom your wife or daughter in law falsely accuses you or your sons (if you have sons, i hope you do!)and makes you a realist.
Stanley wrote:
ReplyDeletedaas torah, you have conveniently decided to continue sitting on the fence which is your prerogative but you are still fence sitting on this as on many other issues. you clearly are also not chareidi which again is your prerogative, but the concept of daas torah has been rejected by the non-chareidi, so I personally believe you are misrepresenting yourself to your readers but that is your business.
===================
Wow! I am just astounded that there is at least one prophet left who knows everything.
1) You claim I am not a chareidi - Your definition of chareidi seems to be anyone who is subservient to your rants. Don't accept your definition
2) You claim that you know clearly what Daas Torah is and I don't have it. Incredible - Rav Dovid Feinstein told me that Rav Moshe never asserted that someone should accept his psak because he had "daas Torah" but only if it made sense. Rav Moshe obviously didn't understand Daas Torah either.
Why don't you stop embarrassing chareidim by being an obnoxious bully. If you have something intelligent to say I will be glad to publish it but no more of "the chareidi world according to Stanley."
"Rav Dovid Feinstein told me that Rav Moshe never asserted that someone should accept his psak because he had "daas Torah" but only if it made sense."
ReplyDeleteDon't all of Rav Moshe's psak's "make sense"? Or am I misunderstanding?
Joseph said...
ReplyDelete"Rav Dovid Feinstein told me that Rav Moshe never asserted that someone should accept his psak because he had "daas Torah" but only if it made sense."
Don't all of Rav Moshe's psak's "make sense"? Or am I misunderstanding?
============
Of course they all make sense. What I meant was he said his psak should be accepted only if the reader felt that his reasoning was convincing - not because of his authority as the posek hador.
What I meant was he said his psak should be accepted only if the reader felt that his reasoning was convincing - not because of his authority as the posek hador.
ReplyDeleteWait, so if Yankel "feels" Rav Moshe's psak was convincing then he should follow it; but if Berel, who has the precise situation as Yankel, feels that very same psak is not convincing, he is free to disregard it?
Joseph said...
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant was he said his psak should be accepted only if the reader felt that his reasoning was convincing - not because of his authority as the posek hador.
Wait, so if Yankel "feels" Rav Moshe's psak was convincing then he should follow it; but if Berel, who has the precise situation as Yankel, feels that very same psak is not convincing, he is free to disregard it?
==================
Correct.
He does say that in an emergency situation it would be possible to rely on his conclusion without understanding the teshuva (Y.D. 4:38.1 See also E.H. 4:18 where he acknowledges he makes mistakes
read the introduction to the Igros Moshe where he discusses this issue in detail.
For more sources see Yad Moshe under the entry for psak and halacha.
So this would seemingly give (too?) much leeway to someone who has incorrect precepts or understanding of what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteJoseph said...
ReplyDeleteSo this would seemingly give (too?) much leeway to someone who has incorrect precepts or understanding of what is right and wrong.
================
It is always a problem if someone doesn't understand properly.
What would you suggest? That a person has to accept everything Rav Moshe said? But that is not done. What if he felt that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach made more sense or the Mishna Berura?
I am just making the simply point (which is found in the Igros Moshe and Rav Dovid told it to me personally) that Rav Moshe did not demand being obeyed because of the claim that his view was Daas Torah.
Doesn't "Asei lecha rav" have application? If Rav Moshe is one's Rav, wouldn't he be obligated to stick to what Rav Moshe holds?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, wouldn't "Rabbi shopping" (based on the issue/ruling) become acceptable?
Joseph said...
ReplyDeleteDoesn't "Asei lecha rav" have application? If Rav Moshe is one's Rav, wouldn't he be obligated to stick to what Rav Moshe holds?
Otherwise, wouldn't "Rabbi shopping" (based on the issue/ruling) become acceptable?
===============
Depends on what you consider your Rav. Rav Chaim Kanievsky said that today since Torah authority is in seforim - it is permitted to posken in the location of your rebbe. It is possible to accept someone as your rebbe but not accept everything he says.
Who says that Rabbi shopping is not legitimate? The problem is if you asked for a psak and then ignored it.
Who do you follow absolutely? Do you always follow the Mishna Berura or Igros Moshe? Do you have a rebbe that you are makpid to do exactly as he does?
"Who says that Rabbi shopping is not legitimate? The problem is if you asked for a psak and then ignored it."
ReplyDeleteI take it from this, that you are saying Rabbi shopping is legitimate. Since many psak's are known in advance (from Seforim or otherwise), someone who has a real shaila could research which posek holds what, before even asking his shaila. By time he asks, he more or less knows what answer he'll get, and can always insure it will be to his satisfaction.
So there wouldn't be a need to ignore it, and one can always go with every leniency that some Rov somewhere has.
(There is an old joke, that software programmers in Israel released a product called "Shailos & Teshuvos" where you put in what your shaila is, then you put it what teshuva you want, and the program will tell you which Rabbi paskens like that.)
Is this acceptable?
Is this acceptable?
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between acceptable - after all it is a legitimate position - and what is ideal.
Ideally a person should have a posek/rebbe who knows him intimately and poskens according to the individual. But if he posken's accurately from Mishna Berura or Artscroll - he will still make it into Gan Eden.
What does your rav say?
Did the Rav Danzig the Chayei Adom ruling exactly as his rebbe the Gra?
The issue of what is psak in complex and extends into the issue of Avodas Hashem. Beyond this point it is better if you continue the discussion with someone who knows who you are and whom you trust.
let's see if this post will make it or not:
ReplyDelete1) i asked where the source for the BDS's dina de'malchusa dina was when it was rejected by all the rishonim and many acharonim and prof. michael broyde couldn't justify it with sources. i was accused of lziness.
in fact it is the BDA who came up with this 'novel' interpretation, it is for them to list the sources, not me. they must justify this new interpretation not me.
2) i questioned the veracity of the takonah of the BDA regarding the pre-nup by claiming i) no one else accepts it and no gedolim from the chareidi camp saw the need for it ii) less importantly, showed how modern society requires two wage earners and no longer is traditional where the man provides the bread any longer, so the need for the takonah is far less than in previous generations.
3) i stated as a fact and provided a source that the BDA'S claims that NY Get law can still usually result in a kosher get is rejected accross America by charedi poskim so how can the BDA go it alone in dinei nefoshos regarding eishes ish? i sited by name an example where rabbi manilowitz condemned the head of the BDA for mis-interpreting a tshuva from an odom godol. (a further fact, if the BDA wants to use reb moshe to justify this interpretation, how is it that no one from the chareidi camp understands the t'shuva of reb moshe the way it does and has condemned the NY get law).
3) i questioned the blog site's owner's objectivity regarding this agunah issue if he is writing a book on wife abuse and not spouse abuse which includes husband abuse. he may have 100% for this legitimate reasons but he has not answered what they are and I believe he should, otherwise one cannot be blamed for believing he is biased.
instead i have been addressed in a very condascending way and been lamblasted and accused of violent anger. all i wish is for him to answer the 4 questions (even though it's still 6 months till pesach) on his blogs without his frankly despicable replies.
if he claims that this is not his area of expertise and has no time to explore these issues, this is clearly his right. but then how can he be so dogmatic about his opinions and condemn mine so strongly? the other MO people reading this blog should also be able to answer most of my questions if they are defending the BDA out of knowledge and ignorance and i challenge them to do so.
i believe that he agreed to post my comments again on certain conditions and i hope i have been civil enough to have met his conditions. time will tell...
lastly this is not about me or you or anyone being right for that matter,. this is about a basic principle in yidddishkeit. if the botei din are doing the wrong thing, regardless of who they are or what they are, or what camp they belong to, they need to be held to task! gentlemen, i await your response without the sarcasm!
the discussion between Stanley and myself has just been made in a separate post. Please post any further comments to that post.
ReplyDelete