Thursday, October 24, 2013

Suggestions for improvement in Gittin - Can we all agree?

I am making these comments into a separate post - focusing on how to improve the situation.

Is there any focus on our future, where all who agree with the major poskim and the Shulchan Aruch will not be able to marry the products of invalid divorces from the followers of Kotler and company? And if there is a great war in Israel between the rabbonut and gedolim about divorces, what does that mean? Are we thinking and talking about that, or are there more important issues?


R' Dovid:

I'm imagining that the identifying the "products" of these Gittin would require some sort of registry run by people that have the Gedolim's CLEAR stamp of approval.

That's a tough call, because as the author states, Sincere Batei Dinim are afraid to come out in the open against the Rabbanut, because they need the Rabbanut's אישור on Gittin.

How about dealing with "low lying fruit", first:

Let's get some publicity, articles.. ads etc publicizing a simple, logical truism:

1) No Rov or Bais Din can issue a Psak affecting the rights of any party in issues of בין אדם לחבירו without A) hearing both בעלי דין when they are both present together and B) without seriously attempting to ascertain the facts, unless the Baalei Din are מקבל קנין of their free will for a פשרה that states otherwise.

2) Any Baal Din has a right to ask מהיכן דנתני, where he feels an issue of bias may crop up.

3) Any Baal Din has a right to record the proceedings of Bais Din, where he feels there is an issue of bias.

Even if we assume that Epstein/Walmark can explain away lots of things: They care for עגונות; as Rabbi's they feel entitled to the opinion that גט מעושה is okay in the cases they dealt with; they took money because they have families to support...

....Perhaps the most blatant travesty in the saga is the lack of due diligence on their part: Namely, the fact that they never heard "the other side of the story". After all, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story!

How can Epstein/Walmark claim entitlement to the opinion that גט מעושה is okay in the cases they dealt with IF THEY OBVIOUSLY NEVER MET THE FICTITIOUS HUSBAND?

I think most of Kllal Yisroel - across the board - could empathize with these arguments.

I think that if we stay focused on things that most of Kllal Yisroel CAN agree with, we'll BS"D accomplish MUCH more..

Maybe afterwards - once people are warmed up - you'll BS"D have support going forward....

82 comments :

  1. R. Eidensohn:

    When I read this post, I was reminded of a famous story about the Shaagas Aryeh. Near the end of his life, he was appointed the Rav in Metz. The heads of the kehillah told him that it was their custom that a new rav would make a takkanah and it would be written down in the official book of the kehillah. The point was to show that the members accepted his authority by carefully keeping the takkanah. The SA was not comfortable with this request, and tried to avoid it. When the kehillah heads kept pressing him, he said, "Write down the Aseres ha Dibros in the kehillah book. If the baalei batim keep those as carefully as they do the takkanos, then we will have made an improvement."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "How can Epstein/Walmark claim entitlement to the opinion that גט מעושה is okay in the cases they dealt with IF THEY OBVIOUSLY NEVER MET THE FICTITIOUS HUSBAND?"

    Perhaps they hold like Rav Gestetner, who, in contradiction to the Shulchan Aruch issued a finding of fact in the Friedman/Epstein case without hearing from Epstein.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ghost of Langer PastOctober 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM

      Gestetner is also the sole signatory on is psakei din. Something that the entire khareidi world was outraged about when Rabbi Goren did it. It was the main halakhic basis for saying that Goren's psakei din were passul.

      Delete
    2. There has still been no explanation from Epstein's supporters as to why the Baltimore Beis Din to which both parties brought the case and which actually heard the case has never said that a get would be appropriate.

      Delete
    3. Actually, Wolmark was one of the signatories on the purported seruv against Friedman from a beis din that never heard the case.

      Delete
  3. The Rabbanut's אישור on Gittin is unimportant to Chareidi Bute Dinim (i.e. Rav Karelitz's Beis Din), since they can divorce and marry couples kdas moshe v'yisorel without involving the rabbanut whatsoever. At most the State of Israel won't recognize the marriage. But they can live a happy life until 120 and have many children without the Israeli government's recognition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dvar:

      I don't think that's true. See דף שי"ב הערה 61 and דף שפ"ד of the Sefer - he notes that the Rabbanat has in the past threatened the Eida...

      1) Not to recognize the Eida's marriages (I'm assuming that in EY there are legal benefits to being married, just as there are here in the US.

      2) To boycott the Eida's הכשרים.

      I think the Eida - or Rav Karelitz stand to lose plenty if they get into an open quarrel.

      Delete
    2. I don't think that's true. See דף שי"ב הערה 61 and דף שפ"ד of the Sefer - he notes that the Rabbanat has in the past threatened the Eida...

      The problem is that you are taking a work of fiction as though it is fact. The unambiguously photo-edited "haskamot" pretty much sum up the entire sefer. An invention by the author. It brings to mind Glenn Beck and his chalk boards.

      Delete
    3. Tzadok says:

      “The problem is that you are taking a work of fiction as though it is fact. The unambiguously photo-edited "haskamot" pretty much sum up the entire sefer”.

      Let’s see…

      On the one side:

      A desire to institute

      A. Fairness
      B. Transparency

      And on the other side:

      A. False Appeal to Authority,
      B. Ad Hominem attacks

      Perhaps,,,

      A. The Haskomos are Photoshopped,

      Or perhaps…

      B There really ARE Gedolim backing the author, who are simply AFRAID to identify themselves with him, because of “tough guys” running around unhindered, loss of financial support for their institutions, etc. etc.

      If “A” is true, and the haskamos are photoshopped – does that mean that anything the author says should be discounted? Absolutely not! קבל את האמת מכל מי שאמרו…

      And if “B” is true and fear is which motivates some sincere “communal leaders” to remain silent – shouldn’t we strive for making “strength in numbers”, and encourage fairness and transparency?

      Of course, there IS a third option – some people are actually AFRAID of fairness and transparency….

      PS: FWIW, I KNOW option "B" is true... Just last week a Dayan clearly told me so concerning another, related matter that needs תיקון....

      Delete
    4. Ploni:

      1) The Eida and other Chareidi butei dinim do not need the Israeli government's recognition of their marriages. They also happen to refuse accepting Israeli government funding. And there are no financial incentives to being married in Israel (as opposed to living with a woman and having children with her but not officially being "married" under Israeli law.)

      2) The Eida doesn't need the rabbabnut's approval of their hechsheirim. If they boycotted it, they will be unable to eat from about 60+% of kosher food in Israel.

      Delete
    5. @Ploni, Tzadok is employing disinformation and confusion as usual in an attempt to discredit the Mishpatei Yisrael sefer.

      Tzadok:
      "photo-edited "haskamot" pretty much sum up the entire sefer"

      A number of years ago, I personally received from R. Menashe Klein's gabbai a copy of the letter from 50 Gadolim on p. 10-11 of the sefer. That letter alone, without the rest of the sefer, summarizes well many of the HALACHOS currently relevant to Jewish divorce issues, in stark contrast to many of Tzadok's opposing claims about Jewish divorce matters on this blog.

      Tzadok v. 50 Gadolim? I think I'll go with the 50 Gadolim!

      Delete
    6. If “A” is true, and the haskamos are photoshopped – does that mean that anything the author says should be discounted? Absolutely not! קבל את האמת מכל מי שאמרו…

      "A" is clearly true as no one signs a letter a year before it is written.

      Should what the author says thus be discounted? Yes absolutely. Once obvious and unambiguous falsification has taken place within a sefer, it renders the rest of the sefer unreliable.

      You may recall that an RCA Dayyan met just such a fate, to the great cheers of many commentors here. The reliability of any written work is predicated on the author's sincerity and honesty. Once the author can be seen to clearly be falsifying facts they lose that reliability.

      Now to your original points and why they are false:
      I don't think that's true. See דף שי"ב הערה 61 and דף שפ"ד of the Sefer - he notes that the Rabbanat has in the past threatened the Eida...
      How has the Rabbanut threatened the Eida and in what context? Why has he not published a single scrap of evidence for said assertion? Not a letter nothing...

      1) Not to recognize the Eida's marriages (I'm assuming that in EY there are legal benefits to being married, just as there are here in the US.
      While there are legal benefits to marriages the Eida forbids it's people from accepting said benefits in any form from the Zionist state. So in the end, so what.

      2) To boycott the Eida's הכשרים.
      Rabbanut, legally, is not allowed to recognize other hekhsherim. Pure and simple. See Jerusalem Kosher News for more information. Legally Rabbanut is only allowed to recognize either Rabbanut Stam or Rabbanut Mehadrin. These additional hekhserim are entirely up to the customer/producer/restaurant and are not legally or officially recognized in any capacity. So that is a completely empty threat.

      I think the Eida - or Rav Karelitz stand to lose plenty if they get into an open quarrel.
      What? Precisely what do they have to lose? Further why haven't they lost this in many of the open quarrels they have had with them in the past. Such as with the various gerut controversies? Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef has been in open quarel with them on several issues since he published the Yalkut Yosef in 1971. However that never negatively affected him or his father...

      So really you must come up with some evidence that is a little more substantial than the word of an author who has already falsified information in his work.

      Delete
    7. There is nothing false in the Sefer other than your vivid imagination, Tzadok. There is nothing forged other than in your mind.

      Delete
    8. I do love your sock puppetry Stan, but if you will notice the signature of Rav Wozner is dated a year before the rest of the letter and a year before the sefer was compiled.

      Do you mind explaining how that happened other than by photo-editing?

      Delete
    9. Regarding the threat to Eida Hechsarim:

      Dvar said: The Eida doesn't need the rabbabnut's approval of their hechsheirim. If they boycotted it, they will be unable to eat from about 60+% of kosher food in Israel.

      Tzadok said: Rabbanut, legally, is not allowed to recognize other hekhsherim. Pure and simple. See Jerusalem Kosher News for more information. Legally Rabbanut is only allowed to recognize either Rabbanut Stam or Rabbanut Mehadrin. These additional hekhserim are entirely up to the customer/producer/restaurant and are not legally or officially recognized in any capacity.

      Please CAREFULLY read See דף שי"ב הערה 61:

      The author spells out the threat:
      a) They were threatened that raw ingredients won’t be able to imported.
      b) They were threatened that the Rabbanut will publicise that the eida hechsarim aren’t reliable.

      Tzadok also writes: “Why has he not published a single scrap of evidence for said assertion? Not a letter nothing...“

      Tzadok – Though I can’t vouch for the veracity of what the author says, I can vouch for this:

      Illegal threats don’t usually come in writing, and if they do, they aren’t traceable ….. I know that from personal experience…

      C'mon... You're making me suspect that, like EL says, there may be a bit of intentional misinformation here..

      Delete
    10. Regarding the threat to Eida Marriages:

      Dvar said: The Eida and other Chareidi butei dinim do not need the Israeli government's recognition of their marriages. They also happen to refuse accepting Israeli government funding. And there are no financial incentives to being married in Israel (as opposed to living with a woman and having children with her but not officially being "married" under Israeli law.)

      Tzadok said: While there are legal benefits to marriages the Eida forbids it's people from accepting said benefits in any form from the Zionist state. So in the end, so what.

      I don’t live in EY, but I see the two of you contradict each others on whether or no there are legal benefits to marriages….

      If there are – obviously the Eida would care, and even if not: I see the argument that both of you make, that Eida people aren’t supposed to accept funds from the govt., as a non-starter. The eida isn’t stupid – they don’t know which way the children of their marriages will turn 30 yrs. later, and they obviously don’t want people to refrain from using their services because of problems that may later come up.

      Delete
    11. Regarding discounting the author, based on his purported “photoshopping” Haskamos.


      Tzadok says: Should what the author says thus be discounted? Yes absolutely. Once obvious and unambiguous falsification has taken place within a sefer, it renders the rest of the sefer unreliable. You may recall that an RCA Dayyan met just such a fate, to the great cheers of many commentors here. The reliability of any written work is predicated on the author's sincerity and honesty. Once the author can be seen to clearly be falsifying facts they lose that reliability.

      Tzadok also says: “the signature of Rav Wozner is dated a year before the rest of the letter and a year before the sefer was compiled”


      I’m assuming you mean the letter on pg. 5, correct?

      I think that perhaps you’re confusing things.


      The Haskamos are for the authors’ POSITION, not on the text of the sefer. The letters clearly support his position, (as Emes LeYokov also concurs, from personal experience).

      Different Gedolim supported this position, at different times…

      Come to think of it, don’t you think that if the author’s intention was to deceive, he could have simply covered up the date of Rav Wosner’s letter?

      Can you please stop acting childish?

      Delete
    12. EmesLeYaacovOctober 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM
      @Ploni, Tzadok is employing disinformation and confusion as usual in an attempt to discredit the Mishpatei Yisrael sefer.

      It is not disinformation to point out photo-editting.

      A number of years ago, I personally received from R. Menashe Klein's gabbai a copy of the letter from 50 Gadolim on p. 10-11 of the sefer. That letter alone, without the rest of the sefer, summarizes well many of the HALACHOS currently relevant to Jewish divorce issues, in stark contrast to many of Tzadok's opposing claims about Jewish divorce matters on this blog.
      Again you lie. I have repeatedly referred to this very letter here on this blog as THE halakha in regards to seeking out secular courts in the US. That is your own disinformation and lies.

      Tzadok v. 50 Gadolim? I think I'll go with the 50 Gadolim!
      Except when their position doesn't fit your current needs ala Friedman and Weiss. Then you give all sorts of savoras as to why those 50 Gedolim are wrong.

      Delete
    13. The Haskamos are for the authors’ POSITION, not on the text of the sefer. The letters clearly support his position, (as Emes LeYokov also concurs, from personal experience).
      If you look carefully a "haskama" for the sefer is conveniently photo-editted into the middle of those signatures. That is done with obvious intention to deceive otherwise he would not have made the dates so small.

      Come to think of it, don’t you think that if the author’s intention was to deceive, he could have simply covered up the date of Rav Wosner’s letter?
      To avoid possible legal entanglements. If he had covered the date, then his deception and falsification would have opened him to criminal and civil suits both in the US and in Israel. Leaving the dates allows him to play out his deception while keeping him more or less clear of those legal entanglements.

      The eida isn’t stupid – they don’t know which way the children of their marriages will turn 30 yrs. later, and they obviously don’t want people to refrain from using their services because of problems that may later come up.
      Considering that the Eida pretty much views non-Eida folks as kofrim, I don't think that they would want to help those children 30yrs from now move into mainstream Israeli society. In fact, as has been shown repeatedly, even on this blog, with the various interviews and documentaries done on and with Eida spokespersons they will do everything in their power to intentionally hinder that.

      You are making false strawman arguments. Also you, and the author, have yet to offer any actual proof that the Eida was ever actually threatened by the Rabbanut.

      Delete
    14. I stand corrected on the point that there IS indeed a Haskama on the sefer in the middle of the sefer - I didn't notice it before.

      Perhaps, Tzadok, you have a crystal ball, but your assertions that "hat is done with obvious intention to deceive otherwise he would not have made the dates so small" is conjecture.

      Perhaps the original actually had small print. Silly game you're playing...

      And BTW, R' Nissim Karelitz's B"D position on this matter is pretty well known, as is R' Wosner's....... what purpose do you have in smearing an author who clearly has support for his position from these very same Rabbonim, besides the age old tactic of character assassination?

      As far as your " I don't think that they would want to help those children 30yrs from now move into mainstream Israeli society":
      For many years here in the USA the "heimishe" hashkochos were publicly attacking the OU while covertly cooperating on certain areas where they did see eye-to-eye.
      The Eida doesn't "want to help", they simply understand the realities. In their view, public proclamations need to be offered, so as to be מוחה and influence those can be influenced. They want a widely accepted product, for the realistic eventuality for those that won't be influenced.

      I think it's a waste of time to "beat around the bush". Much more productive would be some substantive dialogue.

      As the ספר המספיק לר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם says:

      ספר המספיק לר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם (נספח א'): אדם שהוא שלם בדתו ואין תאוותיו מתגברות עליו, ומלֻמד בתורה ובכללי ההלכה, ושלם בהגיונו ומעין כראוי, אינו צריך שכנוע, וזאת משום שהאמת והשקר נוגדים זה את זה, ועל ידי גלוי האמת יתעלם השקר ממנו. אבל מי שיצרו גובר עליו, ומעדיף הנצחון בגלל פחיתותו, ומגן על מנהגו ומה שנתחנך עליו, ובפרט אם נמצאים אצלו הגאוה וכשרו בהלכה, כמעט ברור שלא יחזר בו אפילו על ידי הוכחה ברורה ומאה ראיות.

      Maybe it’s me, Tzadok, maybe it’s you. This conversation “ain’t” going nowhere, so “I’m outta here”!

      Delete
    15. Rav Karelitz's view on everything the author says is clear? Where has Rav Karelitz attacked Rabbanut in the past or ever mentioned being threatned by Rabbanut? Where has Rav Wozner made that claim? What about other Rabbanim who's signatures appear say, Rav Tzedaka or Rav Abadni? Both of whom have long been supporters of Rabbanut?

      Further, you continue to claim that Rabbanut somehow threatened the Eida, without any proof, nor being able to offer anything of substance with which the Rabbanut would be able to threaten the Eida.

      Delete
    16. Tzadok, periodically you slip up and your falsehoods and contradictions are visible to all. Your repeated, pathetic attempts to nullify the PSAK of Ashkenazi GADOLIM will not succeed.

      Your emphasis on solely the issue of using secular courts while ignoring the PSAK of GADOLIM on PASUL GITTIN caused by use of secular courts, is just plain obfuscation and deception.

      In the letter from 50 Gadolim on p. 10-11 of the sefer Mishpatei Yisrael that you referred to several times on this blog, no. 8 clearly states that women using secular courts will invalidate their GITTIN, and if the women remarry on these GITTIN, the children will be MAMZERIM.

      Tzadok:
      "I have repeatedly referred to this very letter (from 50 Gadolim) here on this blog as THE halakha in regards to seeking out secular courts in the US."

      "Rabbi Michael Tzadok said...

      Mamzerut claim is really and truly a false claim that is meant to be more incendiary than it is helpful. It is pure propaganda ...That is what this is, it is a lie that keeps getting repeated...

      M'doraitta, we can force a husband to give a Get ... Thus a forced Get(never mind R"T), an actual forced Get, is only possul m'd'rabbanan...

      You throw on top of that Bitul Modaah, then what you are left with is a Get that is sofek possul m'd'rabbanan(at best, and then only by the stringent opinions which the B"Y rejects). But let us say that you have a sofek d'rbannan. Since when do we not rule sofek d'rabbanan l'kula? ...

      In short the claim of mamzerim is a despicable propaganda attempt and nothing more. Since the get would be a sofek d'rabbanan, we would say that b'diavad the remarriage is fine, and chas v'shalom that we would say anything against the children.
      ..."


      http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/04/mechooh.html

      Delete
    17. More of your lies and distortions. You cannot find fault with my actual statements so you have to invent things for me to say.

      Let's seen #8 of the Kol Koreh:
      8) Women who turn to a non-Jewish court to force their husbands to divorce them, or to receive money not in accordance with the halacha, such a get is invalid and the money is stolen, and it is forbidden to marry these women. If the woman remarried with this get, children born from the marriage are mamzeirim. Likewise, men who are required according to the Torah to divorce their wives, as ordered by Beis Din, and they refuse to obey the Beis Din in order to render their wives agunos, it is a mitzva to excommunicate them from other Jews and to publicize their names until they listen to Beis Din and divorce their wives.
      Yes I agree completely.

      However this was not what I was talking about on that other blog and you well know it. We were talking there about a Beit Din either focing a Get out of halakhic necessity or the use of the harchakot of R"T.

      Stop your lies and distortions.

      Delete
    18. Rabbi Tzadik,
      Kidnapping a child out-of-state, refusing to let the child and the other parent have any contact or only very severely limited contact, refusing to negotiate other than through an aggressive civil court custody lawyer hired by the kidnapping parent [and who advised the kidnapping parent to kidnap the child] who says only that there is nothing to negotiate and that the kidnapping parent will unilaterally set the terms and conditions upon which the child may have contact with the other parent, and refusing to go to a rav to find a way to mediate or bring the matter before a beis din is effectively initiating a civil court case even if that parent doesn't actually file papers in court.

      Delete
  4. We absolutely cannot agree to this nonsence. Peshoro is a code word for justifying theft or secular law such as maintenance, equitable distribution and custody of boys to mother etc. No way this is the corruption of the rabbanut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [st]anti : it is "nonsense".
      learn to distinguish which words have "c" and which "s".

      Stan also had this same spelling error.

      Delete
  5. Part 1:
    James:
    I doubt you had this in mind when you made your offhand comment against R’ Gestetner, but…
    ….Based on your remark and the bit of research I did on the Freidman/Epstein morass tonight (Disclaimer: My analysis may be very wrong, and I’ll be happy to correct my mistakes), I’d like to add a clause to my proposal - something along the lines of:
    4) Under no circumstances shall one party receive any benefit whatsoever from any action they undertake that hinders the other party from benefiting from their Halachic Marriage rights.
    For example: If any spouse is a מורד\מורדת without a היתר בית דין “ante factum” (before the act) and thereby causes the marriage to be irreversibly broken, he/she can’t use the argument “post factum“ (after the act) that the marriage is broken as a basis to demand a Get.
    Or, If any spouse takes off with the children without a היתר בית דין “ante factum” (before the act) and thereby causes the marriage to be irreversibly broken, he/she can’t use the argument “post factum“ (after the act) that the marriage is broken as a basis to demand a Get.
    Since it’s a neutral clause, it stands the “fairness” test.
    And it seems to me that most reasonable people are utterly repulsed by those that break laws and then use that breach as the basis for preferential treatment. I think most of Kllal Yisroel would agree that שלא יהא חוטא נשכר…
    So it’s another case of attacking “low lying fruit” of the Gittin problem first.

    What does this have to do with the Freidman/Epstein case?
    I searched a few of DT’s posts on the Freidman/Epstein morass and what I found is really illuminating:

    At first, the core issue in THAT seemed to be “our problem”; That Batei Dinim issue Psokim without meeting both parties together and without publicizing their reasoning.

    James assumes that the problem is: How could R’ Gestetner’s invalidate the Siruv against Freidman issued by the OU, since he didn’t meet both parties together.

    But DT states that the problem seemed to have started earlier: How could the OU ISSUE the original Siruv, and order the Get, since they did so WITHOUT MEETING BOTH PARTIES TOGETHER?

    As DT wrote to James @ http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/04/friedman-epstein-what-halahic.html:

    “the beis din issued a seruv for not appearing in which they poskened that a get had to be given. They did not explain their reasons nor did Friedman participate - so they only heard one side. Is that correct? Simple question is how can a beis din posken without hearing both sides”?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incorrect. Belsky was originally on Friedman's side. He tried to mediate. He met with Friedman many times. He heard both sides.

      Gestetner did not JUST invalidate the seruv. Read the original bitul seruv carefully. He also made findings of fact. I raised this issue a while back when I was challenged in my assertion that Gestetner does not follow basic procedure as set out in the Shulchan Aruch. I gave this example. The response was:
      1. Give another example (as if one is not enough???)
      2. Rav Gestetner holds like "other rishonim".

      Delete
    2. The Union of Orthodox Rabbis that purported to issue a "seruv" did not hear the Epstein-Friedman case and did not even attempt to do so as it did not even send Friedman a single hazmana before issuing the "seruv." The "seruv" was signed by Martin Moredchai Wolmark who was arreseted by the FBI for ordering the beating and kidnapping of a fictittious husband in a marriatge that did not exist. Putting any credence in such a purported "seruv" especially given that the Beis DIn to which the parties actually brought the matter and actually heard the case did not rule that a get should be given and did not rule that Friedman had committed any wrongdoing is absurd.

      Delete
    3. They most certainly did meet with Friedman. A hazmana is a procedural requirement. Belsky met with Friedman many times. Ask either one of them.

      I am not sure whether the panel met with both sides at the same time. I am also unsure that is a halachic requirement. Either way, it is much better than what Gestetner did.

      Delete
    4. The Baltimore Beis Din actually held several hearings on the case with the participation of both sides and did not rule that a get was appropriate. You have still not explained why that is the case.

      The Union of Orthodox Rabbis beis din did not meet with Friedman, even if Rabbi Belsky did. The Union of Orthodox Rabbis never had any pretense of being some sort of objective beis din in this case. Why are you so eager to dismiss the fact that they didn't even bother to issue even one hazmana?

      It is rather amazing that you would put any credence into the "seruv" against Friedman signed by Martin Mordechai Wolmark. If the facts in the complaint by the FBI are true, Wolmark, besides being a thug for hire, does not even bother to check into the facts of cases. Are you alleging that the FBI is lying?

      Rabbi Gestetner lays out the facts of the case, and then applies halachic analysis to those facts. Which of the facts as asserted by Rabbi Gestetner are you alleging are incorrect? Which part of his halachic analysis do you claim is incorrect? Those criticizing Friedman have never laid out a halachic basis for doing so, other than Rabbi Schachter's absurd claim that “there already is a sage who’s instructed.”

      Delete
    5. And James,
      Do you believe that Friedman should be beaten by a bunch of "tough guys" such as the Epstein-Wolmark gang as advocated by Rabbi Schachter and ORA because a “sage had decided”?

      Delete
  6. Part 2:

    Good question: Surely the signatories to the OU Siruv, namely…..

    s/ Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, s/ Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, s/ Rabbi Mordechai Wolmark, s/ Rabbi Gavriel Stern, s/ Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky…. know the Halacha in סימן י"ז סעיף ה', and they learned the ש"ך that clearly states that such a psak is פסול. Our author (on Pg. כ"א) quotes a מהר"ם שי"ק and (on Pg. 7) a proclamation from the Eida Hachreidis SPECIFICALLY dealing with cases of divorce – that such Gittin are invalid.

    So what’s really going in the Epstein/Freidman case – Why would prominent Rabbonim trample on normative Halacha?

    Reading further in the aforementioned post, Gil Student and James seem to offer an answer: Freidman seems to have told friends that he understands that the marriage is over. I didn’t see it mentioned in the thread, but the justification seems to be the ר"ח פלאגי which the author dissects on Pgs. ק"ח-קכ"ד at length. His words MAY be interpreted as obligating a Get when נראה לבי"ד שהיו הרבה זמן נפרדים ואין להם תקנה (the author though, has an alternative interpretation).

    This seems to be why these Rabbonim understood that a Get is obligated – both parties agree that the marriage can never be mended, so regardless of custody issues, the Get is obligatory.

    OTOH, R’ Gestetner’s ביטול סירוב clearly assumes that Freidman DOES still want שלום. (See http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/08/bitulseruv-aharon-friedman-rav-gestetner.html).

    So it seems we have a מחלוקת in מציאות. This IS NOT “low lying fruit”. So we’ll drop it – we can’t figure it out…

    HOWEVER, there seems to be an important point that isn’t disputed: According to http://www.stuffandnonsensesaidalice.blogspot.com/ Epstein started out as a מורדת, and although her husband agreed to a 2 month stay in PA, that was only on the basis of a signed “Separation for Purposes of Fostering Reconciliation”, which she later turned into a claim for keeping the child permanently in PA. I didn’t see anyone argue this point.
    Why isn’t THIS extremely important?
    Regardless of whether Freidman LATER gave up on the marriage or not, Epstein is surely using her original מורדת transgression as the basis for later claiming that the child should stay in PA.
    If this is true, I would be ask our eminent Roshay Yeshivos "כך כתוב בתורה", that "ס'פאסט נישט", it’s highly unbecoming and a חילול ה' (based on the יראים) to have Epstein benefit from transgressing her obligations. THIS IS ESPECIALLY SO BECAUSE THESE ROSHAY YESHIVOS KNOW VERY WELL THAT THIS TYPE OF UNFAIR CONDUCT IS RAMPANT.
    As our author quotes the יעב"ץ on גיטין נח.:
    אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב {מיכה ב-ב} ועשקו גבר וביתו ואיש ונחלתו מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשת רבו ושוליא דנגרי הוה פעם אחת הוצרך (רבו) ללות אמר לו שגר אשתך אצלי ואלונה שיגר אשתו אצלו שהה עמה שלשה ימים קדם ובא אצלו אמר לו אשתי ששיגרתי לך היכן היא אמר לו אני פטרתיה לאלתר ושמעתי שהתינוקות נתעללו בה בדרך אמר לו מה אעשה אמר לו אם אתה שומע לעצתי גרשה אמר לו כתובתה מרובה אמר לו אני אלווך ותן לה כתובתה עמד זה וגרשה הלך הוא ונשאה כיון שהגיע זמנו ולא היה לו לפורעו אמר לו בא ועשה עמי בחובך והיו הם יושבים ואוכלים ושותין והוא היה עומד ומשקה עליהן והיו דמעות נושרות מעיניו ונופלות בכוסיהן ועל אותה שעה נתחתם גזר דין
    Why was that specific story so terrible, that ועל אותה שעה נתחתם גזר דין?
    Says the יעב"ץ:
    מכאן נראה ברור שיש עון שאינו מפורש ומבואר בשום מקום והוא חמור מאד ושנוי בעיני המקום יותר מעבירות חמורות להעניש הרבים בעבורו בשביל שאין חוששין לו כלל עם היותו מתנגד לשכל והוא מפני שהיה דבר מתמיד בפרסום בכלל דסני לך לחברך לא תעביד
    Enough said….

    ReplyDelete
  7. Da'as Torah,
    Thank you for this post, attempting to deal with the real issue (how did H' bring this to this point? A Chillul H' due to the lack of a real solution.)
    One thing that is NOT clear at all, is how elaborate a set-up was this FBI sting. There HAD to be a 'husband', or else, who were they lying in wait for?
    There HAD to a be a p'sak of a Beis Din that they were relying on.
    What is frightening is the cooperation there had to be from insiders. Knowledgeable of workings Batei Dinim, and Halakha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is frightening is the cooperation there had to be from insiders. Knowledgeable of workings Batei Dinim, and Halakha......Frum Sarah, can you explain why this is frightening? Of course insiders are also those who are knowledgeable of Batei Dinim and Halakha. These differences of opinion, halachic based have been going on for years. The sting was primarily due to the torture tactics.

      Delete
    2. Sarah: There was no "husband" in the FBI sting.

      And thankfully real ehrlich yirei shamayim turned in the Epstein/Womark violent gangsters. The FBI compared them to the Crips and the Bloods gangsters when asking that they be denied bail. In addition to beating and torturing Jews with electric cattle torture tools, they were creating mamzeirim by telling many eishes ish's that they were free to marry after the Get Me'usa they extracted.

      Delete
  8. Da'as Torah,
    Thank you for this post, attempting to deal with the real issue (how did H' bring this to this point? A Chillul H' due to the lack of a real solution.)
    One thing that is NOT clear at all, is how elaborate a set-up was this FBI sting. There HAD to be a 'husband', or else, who were they lying in wait for?
    There HAD to a be a p'sak of a Beis Din that they were relying on.
    What is frightening is the cooperation there had to be from insiders. Knowledgeable of workings Batei Dinim, and Halakha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FS:

      "There HAD to be a 'husband', or else, who were they lying in wait for?"

      As you might notice, psokim are often issued without the participation of both parties - in contradiction of Shulchan Aruch...

      The Rabbonim were surely TOLD that there was a husband - they were waiting for him....

      PS: I already mentioned my willingness to lend a listening ear to your פרשה in another thread... did you see it?

      Delete
  9. There are two wars going on. One is between this and that husband and wife, and two, between the shulchan Aruch and the Rosh Yeshivas who don't agree with the SHulchan Aruch. The first war may resolves itself, but the second war, against the Rosh Yeshivas who have a mamzer factory, will never be resolved, until the Rosh Yeshivas openly confess that they are making mamzerim, which they are unlikely to do. Ultimately, this second war will consume the energies of the Torah world, and there is likely to be a new realization about the new generation of "gedolim" rachmono litslon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reb Dovid,

      I wish to ask you a question, which is slightly different from this debate, but it related to mamzerut and giur.

      I posed this question to a local rav, but he wasn't able to provide an answer.

      You would agree that there is a difference between basar v'chalav d'oraita, and d'rabbanan; also with chometz, and with most other things. In fact, even a mikve d'oraita has less strictures than d'rabbanan.
      It thus follows that this would apply to several of the big status issues:
      Giur
      Gittin
      Mamzer

      i.e. the Torah criteria for these may (and probably are) less strict than the rabbanan criteria.

      Are you aware of what the D'oraita definitions are for these?

      Delete
    2. Eddie,
      I was actually, years ago, heavily involved with a Sofek mamzer, and I was the messenger from my rebbe the Strassberger Rov from the Aido to Reb Moshe Feinstein, who was also my rebbe, about how to resolve the issue. I won't forget the terror of being a doubtful mamzer, something I managed to get resolved, even though my neshomo was dangling during the process. But a real mamzer, that is something else.
      A person who is a real Torah mamzer may marry another who is a real Torah mamzer. But one who is a sofek may not marry a mamzer or a sofek mamzer. A mamzer dirabonon may not marry a mamzer diorayso. Imagine sorting out a shidduch for a mamzer with all of these problems. And people just ignore the children as long as they can claim they are helping a lady. Don't the children have a say in this?
      Thus, a woman married whose husband is in jail and is never allowed out, and she has a baby, this is a mamzer diorayso, assuming that her kiddushn was diorayso.

      Delete
  10. R. Dovid Eidensohn:

    Even if they are technically mamzeirim, they are not de facto recognized and considered mamzeirim unless a besi din holds a hearing and a case and issues a ruling that a woman's children from her second marriage are mamzeirim. I haven't heard that happen in the last 50+ years in the United States. In other words, its all theoretical but practically speaking those children marry into Klal Yisroel and are considered for all intents and purposes to be kosher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know any child born from a mother who has no proper GET is a mamzer. A Beth Din is not needed. In those cases where a woman had a GET and the Beth Din is suspected of great leniency in issuing a GET, Posek HaDor Rav Elyashev zt"l told me he removes the Chezkas Beth Din so the word of the Beth Din that the gave a kosher GET is not accepted. Let us not make up new Torah laws to help out people, because there is only one Torah.

      Delete
    2. with due respect, R' Elyashiv is not the Posek Hador. Unless you have communications with him from beyond the grave, he is not the Judge of our times.
      Next, the Israeli Rabbis do not have control over halacha in America, and we can only go by the living Poskim in America, whether you like them or not.
      Finally, you didnt answer my question.
      what is the D'Oraita requirement for a get to be valid? Surely not the same as the d' rabbanan requirement?

      Delete
    3. Eddie,
      I just wrote an answer to your question.

      Delete
    4. Eddie,
      You feel you can fire the Posek HaDor who is not alive, and I feel that he is not fired. Why is your opinion superior to mine? The influence of a Posek hador does not end with the funeral. Surely today, when we have very strange excuses for pesakim we must cling carefully to the past.

      Delete
    5. Rav Eliashev certainly was the posek hador during his lifetime. And he was only niftar very recently, thus our dor/generation.

      Delete
  11. Part 1:

    R’ Dovid:

    Please tone done the vitriol a bit and we MIGHT actually accomplish something….

    I think the issue is much more subtle than a war “between the Shulchan Aruch and the Rosh Yeshivas”. As much as I expressed my consternation against their Psak in the Freidman/Epstein case …. I have no doubt that they would never KNOWLINGLY transgress Torah.

    I think the real issue is the subtle influence of נגיעות on ALL of US – even GEDOLIM.

    It’s an issue of portraying oneself as a "לכתחילה יוד", while habitually acting in ways that MAYBE qualify for בדיעבד.

    Let me explain…

    Let’s start out by asking ourselves, concerning the OU Siruv against Freidman - How did such an incomprehensible Psak ever get issued?

    If my analysis is correct (and I know it’s an IF), the Psak hinged on the שיקול הדעת that
    A. Freidman Knows That The Marriage Is Irrevocably Broken +
    B. The Dayanim Are Under No Halachic Obligation To Consider The Fact That Epstein Was The Instigator, By Choosing To Be A מורדת.

    Whose שיקול הדעת was this? Following the trail leads to Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.

    Is RSK allowed to be דן on this case, given his prior ties to the Epstein family?

    Halachacilly, yes. But only בדיעבד.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Beis Din Shaar Hamishpat on Epstein Friedman case

      F. The husband is prohibited to give a get prior to the cancellation of the “seruv”

      It is strictly prohibited for the husband to give a get before those who signed the “seruv” admit in writing that they erred in issuing the seruv against him (without such admission being conditioned on the issuance of a get), and make amends to him and publicly announce this admission of error in all places in which the seruv was publicized. As we have explained, any get in this case is void if given before this occurs, and would thus mislead her and her future husband into transgressing the severe and terrible prohibition of “Eishes Ish” [a married woman living with another man] and their children would all be “mamzerim” for all generations, G-d forbid.

      1. Therefore, we announce that Aharon Friedman is a person of integrity, who is not committing any iniquity in withholding a get from his wife so long as she prevents the implementation of an appropriate custody arrangement, and is justified according to halacha and yashrus. And it is a mitzvah to befriend him, as it is any of the bnai yisrael. And the counterfeit “seruv” that was issued with falsity and against Daas Torah has no effect whatsoever. To the contrary, because of the situation caused by the issuers of the seruv, the husband is prohibited from giving a get to his wife until they admit publicly that they made a mistake and nullify the seruv and make amends to him.

      2. Anyone distancing or paining the husband, and certainly anyone involved in embarrassing him [besides transgressing a prohibition in trying to influence him to give a get that he is forbidden to give] should fear for their souls from the severe sins of malbin pnei chavero brabim [publicly embarrassing another person] and motzei shem ra [spreading malicious lies] that, as our sages tell us, is the equivalent of murder and burning someone alive. It is established in halacha that they have no place in Olam Haba [the world to come], they descend to gehenom with no return, and their sins can never be rectified, and there is no obligation to forgive them. This is especially the case regarding those who signed the “seruv” and those who distributed it, as it is established in halacha that one who wrongly ex-communicates another is himself ex-communicated.

      3. We warn Tamar with a severe admonition of Beis Din that she must immediately cease the persecution and tarring of her husband and the members of his family [and is required to publicly make amends to them]. Any get she obtains before this will leave her a married woman and any children from another man will be mamzerim until the end of generations. And she must also stop preventing their daughter from having an appropriate relationship with her father. Is it not enough that she decided to conduct herself according to iveless byadeha teharsena [a foolish woman destroys her household with her own hands] to destroy the family life of her husband and their daughter because of frivolous reasons? But she goes even further to be cruel to them to deny them an appropriate custody arrangement and this should not be done. Those who hear this should restrain themselves and peace on Israel.
      http://www.friedmanepstein.com/

      Delete
    2. Ploni,
      I apologize if I was too strong in my statements. But when you think of the ruined mamzer children, encouraged by Rosh Yeshivas, I do get hot under the collar, and I hope I won't forget to be too strong protesting this.

      Delete
  12. Part 2:

    Here’s what the Bais Yosef says on the matter:

    חו"מ ס"ז בשם הרא"ש - לענין דיין אוהב ושונא: "וכתב הרא"ש (ס' כ"ג) והא דדיין פסול לדון את שונאו היינו שלא דבר עמו שלשה ימים משום איבה ... וכן נמי אוהב שושבינו ומיהו אפילו אין שונאו כל כך או אין אוהבו כל כך לכתחלה לא לידייניה כדאמרינן בפרק בתרא דכתובות (קה:) לא לידון איניש לא למאן דרחים ליה ולא למאן דסני ליה דרחים ליה לא חזי ליה חובתא ודסני ליה לא חזי ליה זכותא כי ענין הזכות והחובה מבצבצת באדם בלא כיוון רשע לפיכך באהבה מועטת לבו נוטה לזכות ובשנאה מועטת הלב נוטה לחובה עכ"ל, וכ"כ המרדכי בסוף פרק קמא דסנהדרין (ס' תרפג).

    I’ll repeat that CRUCIAL line:

    ענין הזכות והחובה מבצבצת באדם בלא כיוון רשע לפיכך באהבה מועטת לבו נוטה לזכות ובשנאה מועטת הלב נוטה לחובה

    RSK should have reclused himself – he didn’t….

    Perhaps בלא כיוון רשע that subtle נגיעות made him ignore the lack of ישרות on the part of Epstein and the possibility that Freidman cares so much for the child that he WOULD want to mend the marriage.

    What can we do?

    Shine a light on the parameters of “Daas Torah”….

    Let everyone know these two halachos, clearly stated in Shulchan Aruch Y”D:

    א) בענין נגיעות: ברמ"א יו"ד סוף ס' רמ"ב: ותלמיד חכם שאמר דבר הלכה בדבר השייך לדידי' אם אמרה קודם מעשה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו ודוקא שאמר כך קבלתי אבל אם אומר דבר מסברא ומראה פנים לדבריו והוא נראה שומעין לו אבל אין שומעין לדידי' דלמא מדמי דברים להדדי שאינן דומים אבל אם הוא פשוט שומעין לו (רבינו ירוחם סוף נתיב ב' ובשם הרא"ש).

    ב) בענין פסק בדבר התמוה לרבים: יו"ד ס' רמ"ב ס"י יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁאָסוּר לְחָכָם לְהַתִּיר דָּבָר הַתָּמוּהַּ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לָרַבִּים שֶׁהִתִּיר אֶת הָאָסוּר.

    WE CHAREIDIM SUPPOSEDLY STRIVE FOR A לכתחילה LIFESTYLE, NO?

    THE ACTIONS OF THESE ROSHAY HAYISHIVOS SEEM TO BE – AT Least “PRIMA FACIE” – בדיעבד.

    And as the יראים says by the איסור חילול השם - That when a GODOL practices Judaism בדיעבד, he is עובר on the very serious transgression of חילול ה'..

    What do the masses learn from such occurrences? That if the Gedolim can’t control their money and Kovod urges… why should they agonize over controlling their urges for XYZ, (which may be serious עבירות and even חיובי כריתות ומיתות בית דין). The layman says: No problem: Give ME the same amount of Kovod that the Gadol gets… and I’ll also stay away from חיובי כריתות ומיתות בית דין and stick to smaller עבירות….

    But on the positive side….

    Imagine 20 newspaper articles explaining that the Torah לכתחילה lifestyle requires that Dayanim with נגיעות recluse themselves…. And that judgments are required to actually be fair and equitable… and that there be transparency, and that no Rabbi is beyond the reach of Torah law (all of these are also in Shulchan Aruch, it’s just a bit of a hassle to organize the sources).

    Imagine if we brought the same התלהבות to THESE לכתחילה Mitzvohs as we do to many other Mitzvohs and minhagim….

    Just IMAGINE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beis Din Shar Hamishpat on Epstein-Friedman

      C. Rabbi Kamenetsky’s interference: With all due respect, it is unclear what authority he has to suddenly interfere in a dispute that is not his, and offer “Psakim” (decisions) that the husband is obligated to give a get, and especially to turn the husband to a “Sarvan” when he never heard the husband’s side, at the same time during which the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin and that has heard both sides has not required a get be given. And particularly when Rabbis Ben-Dahan and Belsky issued a decision that until the custody situation is resolved in an appropriate manner there is no obligation to give a get, why wouldn’t he listen to them? [Note: we are not imposing our opinion and decision on the woman as an unsubstantiated decree without reasoning as he did. We offer strong sources for all of our conclusions according to our Holy Torah, and it is the husband’s full right to accept this instruction as conclusive and conduct himself accordingly.]

      It was certainly inappropriate of Rabbi Kamenetsky to act this way, when it is universally known that he has close ties to the Epstein family and has accepted benefits from them. The Zohar states that Moshe Rabbeinu stepped down from deciding on the case of Tzlofchad’s daughters since he felt there was suspicion that he disliked their father. And see there that whoever doesn’t act similarly is called an az panim [brazen] and a ga’e [exceedingly haughty]. See the Shla who wrote: “Judges…that… are… suspected of having favoritism to one of the sides in a case and do not resign from that case are called azai panim [brazen] and lacking even a modicum of modesty… When one of the judges in a Beis Din has a love for one of the sides, R’ Bachay wrote, that is the reason Moshe Rabbeinu dismissed himself from judging the Tzlafchad case, since he had somewhat favorable feelings towards them after they mentioned that their father “was not part of the Korach camp.”

      And if one thinks other “rabbis” [outside the Beis Din before which both sides signed a shtar beirurin] have the authority to share their opinion, why would Rabbi Kamenetsky think that specifically his opinion obligates the husband more than the opinion of the rabbis who said that he is not obligated to give a get until an appropriate custody arrangement is arranged in an acceptable manner. Does the husband not have the right to follow those rabbis? Why does he think that the husband is subjugated, and is required to listen, specifically to him?

      www.friedmanepstein.com

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Kamenetsky affirmatively insisting on interjecting himself into the matter is much more accurate than saying that he did not recuse himself. It is not as if Rabbi Kametesky is a regular dayan on all UOR cases and merely made the decision not to recuse himself from this particular case.

      Delete
    3. Bob:

      I don't think we're disagreeing on the fact that RSK's involvement seems inappropriate. Your comment that his interjecting himself is more serious than not recusing himself is also not lost on me.

      The key problem, in my humble opinion is "Daas Torah" falsely interpreted, as you state:

      "why would Rabbi Kamenetsky think that specifically his opinion obligates the husband more than the opinion of the rabbis who said that he is not obligated to give a get until an appropriate custody arrangement is arranged in an acceptable manner. Does the husband not have the right to follow those rabbis? Why does he think that the husband is subjugated, and is required to listen, specifically to him?"

      I'm reposting R' Dovid Eidensohn's comments on the same issue, from the "Sefer on forced gittin" thread..


      I

      Delete
    4. Reposting comments from Dovid Eidensohn

      October 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM

      Ploni,

      … I want to express what I think is the answer to the main question: How can Roshei Yeshiva conflict with the Shulchan Aruch? How can they declare that one must humiliate the husband in MOUS OLEI when the Gro says that there is not a single opinion that agrees with this?

      Years ago I was shocked to hear from major Rosh Yeshivas in the Agudah that "it is forbidden to fight gays." I asked why that was, because all of the rabbonim that I dealt with said we must fight them. Their goal is to do away with the Torah's teaching and the Torah's influence. They replied, "We are against hate." This is pure apikorsus, because there are many pesukim that we must hate evildoers. See Pesachim 113 it is a mitsvah to hate the wicked.

      I spoke with senior members of the Agudah who explained to me as follows. Their Rosh Yeshivas are the Gedolim of the generation. "There is no prophet except of your own time" meaning that times have changed and now whatever rabbis said in the past is worthless as only the Rosh Yeshivas are the leaders of our generation. THis idea, that the present Rosh Yeshivas are able to throw out the teachings of the greats of the past is mistaken, because "if the earlier ones are like angels we are like people and if the earlier ones are like people we are like donkeys." But the Rosh Yeshivas probably rejected that as well.

      Thus, the issue is whether the Agudah's Rosh Yeshiva have the right to change the Torah in defiance of the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, and they say they are the Gedolim and will do what they want. The issuance of a decree to divorce for someone who is not, by the Torah's law, obligated in that, is a wicked act, and the Chazon Ish says that the Get issued is invalid. But the Rosh Yeshivas of the Agudah feel that they are empowered to re-invent the Torah, show their concern for women, and make money for Yeshivas from liberal politicians, and so what if there are mamzerim? Their salaries will be paid.

      Again, this is an issue where the halacha is clearly against the Rosh Yeshivas, who are making mamzerim. My brother and I are fighting to educate people that the Rosh Yeshivas are making mamzerim. Ultimately, this issue will destroy either the Rosh Yeshivas or many children.

      Delete
    5. I think we're getting to the REAL problem:

      The interpretation of Daas Torah that we are inoculated with DOESN'T MATCH the true interpretation.

      Delete
    6. I would love to have the Halachic גדרים of דעת תורה dealt with, once and for all…. I wish R’ Daniel could get a Psak from a true Godol, someone like Rav Sternbuch….

      In the meantime, here are a few מראי מקומות:

      First, a piece that deals specifically with what R’ Dovid wrote:
      I spoke with senior members of the Agudah who explained to me as follows. Their Rosh Yeshivas are the Gedolim of the generation. "There is no prophet except of your own time" meaning that times have changed and now …the Rosh Yeshivas are the leaders of our generation.

      בספר סור מרע ועשה טוב מהרה"ק ר' צבי מזידיטשוב זצ"ל, עם הגהות הבני יששכר זצ"ל: "אפילו לרב מובהק ומפורסם אפילו יהי' דומה הרב למלאך ה' צבאות לא תאמין ... עד שתדקדק בעצמך בכל תנועה אשר ראית לרבך ותהי' נושא ונותן בדבר מאיזה טעם ושורש מה אשר עשה הרב תנועתו ומעשה זו (ואל תשיבינו מן מאמרם ז"ל אין לך אלא דיין שבימיך זה נאמר על דבר הספק בשיקול הדעת והסברא אבל לא נגד הלכה ברורה מפורש בתלמוד ופוסקים) הגם שהתנועה ועבודת רבך הוטב בעיניך... כי מחמת אהבת רבך יש לתנועה חן בעיניך... אבל אם אתה נושא ונותן והתנועה יש לה טעם מן התורה.. אזי תשכיל ואז תעשה.... ובפרט אם ראית אשר הרב עושה לעצמו איזה דבר שלא כדרך התורה...הגם שהרב הוא צדיק ומפורסם לא תעבר אתה על דברי תורה



      לא לציית כנגד התורה גם במורים: הא דהביא התויט בשם רשבא בשם בעל המאור בטעם הרמבם למה בדיין מומחה לרבים שטעה בדבר משנה שהדין שהחוזר אבל אם הלכו בעלי דינים לדרכם ואי אפשר לחזור פסק שאין הדיין משלם מביתו, והא טעה בדבר משנה, וכ' הבעל המאור הטעם שהבעל דין אשם בזה שמכיון שההלכה ברורה לא הי' לו לציית לדיין ולפיכך מפסיד. וע' בחומ ס' כה בשם הראבד והראש שגם דברי הגאונים או פסק מפורסם כטעה בדבר משנה, ובתפארת ישראל בבכורות שכל דבר המפורש בפוסקים המפורסמים כן הילכתא כדין טעה בדבר משנה.


      קול קורא (נדפס בס' חוט המשולש, פסקי הג”ר נסים קרליץ שליט”א שגם הוא חתם) מגדולי ארץ ישראל שאסור לסמוך על מורה בענין מראות דם שאין עליה מסורה ברורה להתיר ולא יטעה השואל לחשוב שהקולר תלוי על צוארי המורה עפ דברי הרמב"ם פרק י"ב ה"ב מהל' שגגות כתב לענין פר העלם דבר של ציבור: "במה דברים אמורים שבית דין חייבין ואלו העושים על פיהם פטורין מן הקרבן, כשהיו המורים בית דין הגדול של שבעים ואחד וכו' ... ויהיו העושים שוגגים על פיהם ומדמים שהדבר שהורו בו כדת הורו ... בכל אלו המאורעים הוא שהיו בית דין חייבין בקרבן והעושה על פיהם פטור. אבל אם חסר אחת מכל אלו הדרכים הרי בית דין פטורין מן הקרבן וכל מי ששגג ועשה מעשה מביא חטאת קבועה על שגגתו". הרי שלא חילק בין הגיע להוראה או לא.

      בהוריות ב: שתלמיד שהגיע להוראה וידע שבית דין טעו אינו נפטר בפר העלם דבר של ציבור. ולאו דוקא שהגיע להוראה, דהא בכנסת הגדולה על חו"מ ס' ל"ד ס"ק י"א כ' לענין מי שסמך על הוראת חכם שהתיר לו לעבור על שבועתו "אם סומך על הוראת חכם שאינו חייב לקיים הדבר אשר נשבע (ושוב נמצא שהחכם טעה בדין) לא מיפסל (מלהיות עד) מהרי"ק שורש י"ז. אמר המאסף הדברים ברורים דהיינו דוקא כשזה הסומך על הוראת החכם הוא עם הארץ וחושב שהחכם הורה כדין מיקרי שוגג אבל אם הוא תלמיד חכם ויודע ספר ויודע שהוראת החכם הוא שלא כדין, ואפילו' אם הוא עם הארץ וברור לו שהחכם מורה לו שלא כדין הא ודאי מזיד מיקרי ומיפסיל. והוצרכתי לכתוב זה מפני שראיתי הרבה בני אדם יודעים את קונם ומתכוונים למרוד בו וסומכים על הוראת הכחם שהורה שלא כדין אף אל פי שיודעים בבירור שהחכם הורה שלא כדין", עכ"ל. רואים מדבריו שגם

      Delete
    7. Next Part:


      וכן הדין במלך, שלא צייתו לציווי של שאול, דכ' בספר שמואל א-כב-יז שאמר שאול לרצים להמית כהני ה' כי ידם עם דוד "ולא אבו עבדי דוד לשלח את ידם לפגוע בכהני ה', ובפרש"י ד"ה ולא אבו "דרשו אכין ורקין (יהושע א יח) כל איש אשר ימרה את פיך וגו', יכול אפילו לדבר עבירה תלמוד לומר 'רק'.

      מבואר ביו"ד רמ"ב ס"ג שאפילו תלמיד במקום רבו מובהק מותר לישא וליתן עמו בהלכה, ובערוך השלחן ביו"ד ס' רמ"ב ס' כ"ג הסביר "דווקא להורות במקום רבו אסור אבל להתווכח עם רבו באיזה פסק או הוראה שלא נראה לו כמו שרבו אומר ויש לו ראיות והוכחות וודאי שרי שהרי כל הש"ס מלא מזה שהתלמידים התווכחו עם רבותיהם ואמרו חז"ל אפילו הרב ותלמידו נעשו אויבים זל"ז בהלכה וכו' וכן אב ובנו וכך דרכה של תורה וכו' ואסור לחנוף בדברי תורה והתורה נקראת אמת ומכל מקום אם רבו עומד על דעתו אסור לו להורות עד שרבו יודה לדבריו", (ואם חולק להלכה עם רבו מכח ראיותיו יש בזה מחלוקת דלדעת מהרא"י הובא ברמ"א שם מותר, והש"ך פסק כדעת מהרי"ק שאסור בלי נטילת רשות או שמת רבו, והערה"ש נשאר בצע"ג על דברי הש"ך).
      וממש"כ שאסור להחניף בדברי תורה משמע שהוא חיוב ולא רק רשות.

      כ' הגאון חקרי לב ביו"ד ח"ג ס' פ"ב לא ימנע אדם עצמו מלכתוב בספר שקול דעתו אם יש לו להשיב על דברי הפוסק אפילו על גדול האחרונים וכו' כי לא נצטוינו בשום מקום מלחלקו עליהם כי אם להעמיד דבר על בוריו וחייב להגיד דעתו ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים".

      ובשו"ת מכתם לדוד יו"ד ס' נ"א "ואתה המעיין לשם שמים צריך אתה להודות ולא לסמוך על מה שבא בדרך אגב לפום ריהטא וכו' בלי שום טעם, וכו' הוא בחסדו ימחול על כבודו וכבוד שמים עדיף ואין נושאין פנים בתורה ומושבעים מהר סיני להודות על האמת ולקבל האמת ממי שאמרו למגדול ועד קטן". הובאו הדברים בשד"ח ח"ו כללי הפוסקים ס' ט"ז ס"ק ס"ו.

      בח"ח הל' לשה"ר כלל ו' ס"ח בהגה"ה כ' מה צריך להיות הנהגת האדם שבא אליו חבירו שיעזור לו אם נראה שבית דין פסקו הדין כנגדו שלא לפי האמת, שכ' "...שלא יחליט השומע כנגד הדיין אלא ידין אותו לכף זכות כי שמא לא טען הבע"ד טענה נוצחת בשעת מעשה ורק עתה אחר שיצא חייב נתיישב בדעתו, אלא יש לילך אל הרב או אל הב"ד ולדרוש מאתם הטעם וכו' יַראה לו את טעם דבריו מאיזה מקום הוציא את הפסק שלו או יודה לו ויאמר טעיתי כי אפילו באמוראים הראשונים מצינו שטעו בפסקי הדינים ואח"כ חזרו בהם", עכ"ל.

      ביו"ד רמ"ב סכ"ב דגם תלמיד לרב מחויב במצות תוכחה וכ"ה לגבי בן לאביו בס' ר"מ סי"א, ואפי' לגדול הדור כדמשמע בשבת סב: מדהביא הגמ' ראיה דרבה בר רב הונא לא הוכיח לריש גלותא, אלא דבדרבנן עבדינן עובדא מקודם ככתוב שם בסכ"ב,
      ובארוכה ע' בשאילת יעב"ץ ס"ד שכל מגמת התורה"ק הוא להגיע להאמת וכו',
      וגם באג"מ יו"ד ד' ס' ל"ח אות ב' שלכך צריך המורה ליכתב טעמו כדי שעי"ז יכולין לבוא אחריו ללבן דבריו,

      ובשו"ת משנה הלכות באריכות ח"ח ס' קל"ו שהביא גם מש"כ לו בעל אג"מ מכח הנמק"י בסנהדרין לו: דדין דמתחילין מן הצד "לאו למימרא דאסור לענות על רב דאדרבה אסור לו לשתוק וכו'", אלא הוא עצה טובה דוקא בדיני נפשות, וע' במשנה הלכות ח"י ס' קמ"ב.

      ובמאירי שבת דף נ"ה וז"ל "אע"פ שהגדול ראוי למחות ביותר והוא הראוי ליענש ביותר מכל מקום אף הקטנים ממנו הואיל ובידם למחות נענשים אלא שהגדול נענש יותר".

      Delete
    8. wow ploni you really found some big stuff - great! But don't forget that Daas Torah is really about $$$$ at least those people's inventions of it.

      Delete
    9. Ploni,
      Here is a secret. After Reb Aharon Kotler died, there was no longer Daas Torah in its old sense. This was not because someone was wicked, but for other reasons, beyond the control of anyone. Let me explain.
      When Reb Aharon ran Lakewood, almost nobody came to Yeshiva, two would come and two would leave in a term. The last year of Reb Aharon he tasted success. Brilliant geniuses flocked to the Yeshiva and many others. But then Reb Aharon died.
      Now his successor had a problem. How to support those flocking to the Yeshiva? There were heroic efforts including Reb Yosher Ber's help from his YU disciples, but it was not enough. What tipped the scales from chaos was government program money. Without that money, few people would devote years to learning. So if the "gedolim" worship government money and flatter liberals at all costs, this is the cost of "everyone must learn." And since this is the cost, along with other costs such as many broken families, etc., the entire idea of "everyone must learn" is treifeh. And it is treifeh. And the new Rosh Yeshivas still believe that when they sign something in defiance of the Torah their word is the new Daas Torah. So all of the treifeh must be expunged. We need the old Torah. Because the new Torah is not producing gedolim. It is rather producing people who feel that they are greater than the Torah and can re-invent it if they have to help out a cousin or the daughter of a rich supporter of the Yeshiva. This is the new Daas Torah. It doens't exist in my house. I have been fighting it for generations, and my children married the top Rosh Yeshiva and Rebbe families in Israel. Over there they have real Gedolim and appreciate what I do, try to live as Reb Aharon would want.

      Delete
    10. R' Dovid,
      and interesting observation.
      I don't know what real "daas Torah " means, but certainly there is hitkatnus or yeridas hadorot going on.

      But you mention a problem , which Ramatz is also saying.

      In fact, Rambam stated this regarding the machlokes increasing in the time of Chazal.

      The first problem, is that you are saying the new daas Torah is fake.
      The 2nd problem, is that Michael Tzaddok is saying that fake attributions are being made to R' Elyashiv , in the so-called Kovetz teshuvot.

      So all of this new "oral law" did not come from Sinai.

      Now, this is something of a problem. You are both frum rabbis, and I am not disparaging either one. But this problem occurred over 2000 years ago when Sadducees made the same exact claims, but about the rabbis of their age.
      whilst you will be shocked and angry at being compared with tzadukkim, the logic is parallel, although not the "ballpark".



      Delete
    11. Eddie you are a different form of life close to a Martian - whilst you will be shocked and angry at being compared with a Martian, the logic is parallel, although not the "ballpark".

      Could we please make comments that have a little more to do with reality!

      Delete
    12. Not shocking, it agrees with evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    13. The 2nd problem, is that Michael Tzaddok is saying that fake attributions are being made to R' Elyashiv , in the so-called Kovetz teshuvot.
      So all of this new "oral law" did not come from Sinai.
      But this problem occurred over 2000 years ago when Sadducees made the same exact claims, but about the rabbis of their age.
      whilst you will be shocked and angry at being compared with tzadukkim, the logic is parallel, although not the "ballpark".


      I cannot speak to Rav Dovid's comments for various reasons, but as to my own, my friend, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a tzadukki was or thought.
      The Gemarra is filled with arguments over what version of a Rav's teaching was the correct one and which had spurious additions/changes.
      Regarding the spurious additions to Rav Eliashiv's psakim, B"H that they occurred within his lifetime, and he had the ability to attack them personally as Rav Daniel Eidensohn has made known and publicized on the appropriate post.

      The tzadukkim weren't concerned with getting the proper tradition or the proper understanding of the tradition, they were opposed to the oral torah altogether.

      Delete
  13. Reb Dovid Eidensohn please confirm that tzaddok's claim that rav elyashiv held mo'us olai was a reason to force a get is sheker vekozuf (unless maybe husband remarries and wont support 1st wife). Frankly I know this but it is always better when someone like tzaddok who is such an open revisionist is put in his place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. please confirm that tzaddok's claim that rav elyashiv held mo'us olai was a reason to force a get

      Please stop lying and making up statements of mine. I never said force. I said that he clearly holds, and listed and linked three sources in Piskei Din, that he believes מאיס עלי makes a person Chayev L'Get. Never said it was reason to be כפייה לגט without other reasons.

      You have been shown to be a troll, a liar and an identity thief Stan. So please stop it already.

      Delete
  14. Tzaddok what are the other reasons? A man taking a second wife and being unable to suoport 1st? Please you are a joke accusing me of lying. Were I to use such language against you my comments would be banned. You are the liar - where us the evidence that rav gestetner us corrupt?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reb Elyashev has a teshuva #104 where he quotes a Tosfose and Rashbo that the husband has no obligation to divorce in MOUS OLEI. All of the poskim and the Shulchan Aruch I quote in my letter agree that no coercion is allowed, and if he wants to divorce he can, but does not have to do so. See EH 77 2 and 3 and Nosei Kalim and Gro #5 that nobody disagrees,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry sir but Rav Eliashiv did NOT write that. It directly contradicts three of his actual teshuvot and piskei din. Those things were added by the editors of the Kovetz Teshuvot. It says clearly on the title page of the Kovetz that Rav Eliashiv had nothing to do with compilation of that sefer. Check with your brother Rav Daniel for more details on that.

      Delete
    2. Tzadok, your HASHKAFA is clear: GET MEUSA = SAFEK D'RABBANIM L'KULA! (As you yourself stated on the other blog).

      Rav Eidensohn quoted (right above your comment) the Tosfos, Rashbo, Shulchan Aruch, Nosei Kalim, GRO, etc., who all hold that a husband whose wife claims MOUS OLEI has no obligation to divorce.

      Are you now claiming that Rav Eidensohn has misquoted all those other POSKIM?

      Even if you simply ignore Rav Eliashiv in this matter, are you now going to nullify all the other POSKIM brought by Rav Eidensohn?

      Delete
    3. Kovetz Teshuvos has NOTHING added that RYSE didn't write. Period.

      Delete
    4. Shulchan Aruch, Nosei Kalim, GRO, etc., who all hold that a husband whose wife claims MOUS OLEI has no obligation to divorce.
      Are you now claiming that Rav Eidensohn has misquoted all those other POSKIM?


      Either he did or Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Eliashiv did. I'll go with the latter thanks.

      Delete
    5. Kovetz Teshuvos has NOTHING added that RYSE didn't write. Period.
      Not true. See the post that the blog owner did on the subject.

      Delete
  16. Thank you Rabbi Dovid. Should I be ridiculous and claim you are wrong? Tzaddok disagrees. Or ben dahan the politician disagrees. Or the protestant church disagree.

    so tzaddok now that we have it in black and white stop your nonsense and explain the corruption of the rabbanut

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hang onto that thought troll. It has already been shown how Kovetz Teshuvot is not an accurate accounting. Rav Daniel Eidensohn is now researching it, as his post:
      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/rav-eliashiv-reliability-of-psakim-said.html
      And, as he has said he is going to be posting more sources concerning this very real issue. I am sorry that it disturbs your warped world view, but there you have it.

      Delete
  17. Reb dovid do you accept accept tzaddok's allegations that 1) someone added words to rav elyashiv's psak on mo'us olai 2) the sefer mishpat yisroel has fraudulent haskomos

    ReplyDelete
  18. I like to say my piece and let it go at that, unless someone mentions something that I have something of interest to ad. But to get involved in personalities, I am too old, and my doctor would not approve.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am disappointed that nobody picked up on my comment about the change in Yeshivas after the passing of Reb Aharon. If only we could go backwards instead of forwards, but mainly I think that way because I was there and nobody appreciates those days today. Oh well, I tried.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it is a very interesting point.
      Perhaps the 50 years transition from 1962-2012, spells the end of the era of great Torah gedolim - with the passing of R' Elyashiv, and R' Yosef most recently.

      BTW, many (obviously in the YU world) claimed that R' Soloveitchik was the greatest of rosh Yeshiva of his time. I am not here to argue one way or another, but sadly nobody of the stature of R' Kotler or R Soloveitchik is around today.

      Delete
    2. Eddie,
      You said it. There is no Reb Aharon or Rav Sololveitchik today. But that is the way of history. On the other hand, we who live in relative darkness can achieve even more light with our struggles in darkness. And Moshiach is right around the corner, waiting for our efforts.
      There is a famous saying, "Happy are the eyes who saw the eyes of those who saw" meaning we don't see the removed greats, but we see those who did see them, and even those who saw those who did see them. And this sustains us. We are never alone.

      Delete
  20. reb dovid all yiddishkeit is today is a business for many families and corruption is rampant just like when the catholic church split and the reformation occurred. I was not around before it got corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DT why did you censor my questions to tzaddok? He needs to explain so much about his support of corruption and the rabbanut.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.