=============================
Strange,
that R' the same Notta Greenblatt who allegedly presided at the
marriage of Tamar Epstein, signed a letter of protest against the
incompetence of the IBD. How do understand this?
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/08/protest-against-incompetence-of.html
In other news:http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/08/protest-against-incompetence-of.html
http://www.onlysimchas.com/news/12660/memphis-welcomes-new-yeshiva
IsraelReader
Probably has another Kuf Nun taamim on tovel vesherets beyadah along with the heter m' r' of kvar horeh hazoken, but can cannot disclose just like the IBD didn't, since the famous discovery of Sod H' liyereov. With just a goblet of wine, nichnas yayin yotso sod, and sod for gants Brod. Veal ko do ani boichino.
ReplyDelete"The pot calling the kettle black".
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black
Blu Greenberg's "When there's a Rabbinic will, there's a Rabbinic way" seems to be sounding at least partially true.
ReplyDeleteכל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות ו..., אנדרלמוסיה באה לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים
ReplyDeleteI guess nota Greenblatt sees a difference, he says he's relying on reb moshes teshuva
ReplyDeleteThis is the end!!!!!, the war for קדושת עם ישראל has been lost
We need separate ourselves from the rabonim and communities that aren't מוחה, as the חתם סופר did in his day to preserve שארית ישראל
R' Nota did not "condemn IBD for relying in a Ritva" Rather he wrote:
ReplyDeleteלמותר נציין שאין כאן לא דין ולא דיין אלא דברי שטות של קלים שמינו עצמם
לפוסקים בינלאומיים כבי"ד שבלשכת הגזית. לפגוע בקדושת ישראל שע"י חופה
וקידושין וחבל על הנייר ועל הדיו ולהאריך בזה" That is, rather than
criticizing the context of the psak, he criticized those who are not
qualified to involve themselves with halachic matters of this scope. He
would prefer that קלים do not interfere with actual rabbanim.
"who are those guys?
ReplyDeleteHe says their psak is not a psak and that they are not qualified to be dayanim. The psak was based on a Ritva and thus he is clearly crticizing content as well as the dayanim.
ReplyDeleteclick on onlysimchas link
ReplyDeleteA rabbi who makes an unusual permissive ruling, halachically carries on himself a burden of clarifying his ruling.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a stringency. This is actually only a leniency, provided the Shach. I will explain.
As per the Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) a rabbi is not allowed to permit
something that people perceive as being prohibited. Period.
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רמב, סעיף י
יש מי שכתב שאסור לחכם להתיר דבר התמוה שנראה לרבים שהתיר את האסור.
However the Shach, in his commentary, formulates a leniency, in a case where
the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.
ש"ך יורה דעה סימן רמב, ס"ק יז
שאסור לחכם כו' - נראה דהיינו דוקא אם מתיר בסתם, וכן נראה מהראיות שהביא בהגמ"יי שם מרפ"ק דסנהדרין (דף ח')
גבי רב דבקי במומי וס"פ כל היד דף כ' סוף ע"א גבי ר' חנינא דפלי קורטא
דגרגישתא וריש בכורות גבי כל חיותא דרב מרי בר רחל, אבל אם אומר לשואל טעם בדבר ומראה לו פנים או שמביא ראיות מתוך הספר מותר
A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "eishes ish"
to remarry without having received a Get, is considered an unusual
ruling. As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are
either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per
the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for
their leniency (as per the Shach).
The public awaits to the hear the defense of this unusual ruling. The burden to explain such a ruling, lies on those who made it. Until they do so, the ruling is allowed to be criticized.
As a talmid of RNG can you clarify with him what's going on?
ReplyDeleteYour rebbe R meiselman is very upset about this.