Shalom Rabbi Eidensohn,
First of all let me state that I think you are doing an extremely important job of bringing this issue to the public's knowledge. I think your willingness to publish this guest post also further demonstrates that your work is being done lesheim shamayim without any agenda.
At the same time, can’t help but wonder about the appropriateness and halachic permissibility of some of comments you and your esteemed brother have been expressing towards RSK and RNG, especially in the comments section. Calling recognized talmidei chachamim and Torah leaders "idiots and fools" is, in my opinion, not only unnecessary for what you are trying to accomplish but also quite possibly a grave violation of serious halachic prohibitions.
I respectfully submit that the same may be true for your comments on whether or not RSK is a capable posek. First, the fact that some anonymous talmid chacham was not impressed by his halacha sefarim does not impress me. There are many respected and accepted halacha sefarim about which various talmidei chachamim might express negative opinions. This has always been true.
(Parenthetically, I don't think familiarity with the responsa literature or lack thereof are necessarily relevant to being a posek. There are and have been many poskim who paskened mainly from their understanding of the sugya. RMF was a prime example. Conversely, there are unfortunately many young “poskim” today who are familiar with much “response literature and can quote freely from a large range of poskim but are incapable of forming their own intelligent opinions based on deep learning of a sugya. If RSK paskens primarily from his extensive knowledge of Gemara and Rishonim, I don’t see any detriment in that.)
Please note that I am not questioning your right - even obligation - to take up these issues and criticize the rabbis in question. I am only questioning the method of communication.
I would like to point out that your own rav, Rav Sternbuch, who is clearly highly agitated over this episode, nevertheless does not engage in ad hominem attacks or questioning the protagonists’ general qualifications. In fact, I believe that his teshuva is a model for how this discourse should be conducted. Notice the respect he accords RSK and RNG.:
First, he calls them אחד מגדולי ראשי הישיבות עם אחד מהפוסקים שם.
When he proceeds to strongly disagree with their reasoning, he writes במחכ"ת , which basically means, “with all due respect to the honor of their Torah personalities.”
Nowhere does he attack them personally or their personal integrity.
I do not see him comparing them to Rabbi Goren. He invokes the Goren episode as a point of reference to a case of how the gedolim reacted to a mamzer being wrongly permitted. Even if you argue, that he meant to draw a veiled comparison, he left that between the lines, and did not do it blatantly.
To summarize, Rav Sternbuch has skillfully demolished their credibility in this particular case and expressed the full monstrosity of what has happened without uttering a single word about the protagonists!
I realize this is a very difficult situation. Impossible really. RSK is a person who has become renowned for selflessness and for care about all sectors of Klal Yisrael, and his yeshiva has produced legions of talmidei chachamim. This in no way justifies his actions here; but his status as a gadol is already established. If anything, let's stick to impugning what was done, without attempting to fell people who have filled important and positive roles in the Torah world.
Call out the actions that have been taken in the strongest possible terms. Alert your readership to the serious and far-reaching implications. But refrain from offering judgements - especially highly speculative ones – on the people involved.
Well said!
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody else think this is the blogger himself?
ReplyDeleteHe never ever allows comments the slightest bit critical of himself without responding with a shark put-you-down. This is an attempt to self indulge a guilty concious, look I'm kosher too.....
Amen.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it's necessary to say harsh things to get people's attention. If it weren't for this blog it's possible that this issue could have been swept under the rug.
ReplyDeletepreach
ReplyDeletethe issue is when - not if it is permitted to say harsh things.
ReplyDeletePlease read the letter from Rav Miller, Rav Wachtfogel Rav Green and Rav Tauber. Notice how their letter describes Rav Nota Greenblatt as the "rav" who gave her the heter of mekach taos. Have you written to the above rabbis and complained?
In addition you fail to note that sometimes in an offical diplomatic letter - more care is taken to avoid arousing anger. If you spoke to the author of these protest letters in private I can assure you that they use harsher terms and descriptions.
The simple question is not whether saying harsh things is permitted but when is it effective and when is it counter effective. In my view I allow certain harsh description through in order to show the reality of the anger and sense of betrayal that exists widely. On the other hand there have been many posts that I have blocked because I didn't think they were useful in furthering the discussion.
Thus it is a judgment call. If my considered judgment offends your sensibility - then first complain about it - I do make mistakes and misjudge situations at times. But if I disagree with your evaluation then you have the choice of either tolerating my presentation and editing or to go elsewhere to get your information.
Nope!
ReplyDeleteYou need a warped mind to come up with such comments
I fully agree with the author's comment regarding RSK paskening from his understanding of the sugya. There are many who can varf Torah, but can't open a gemara and analyze it for themselves. Ultimately every rishon and acharon have the same gemara in front of them, and don't make up anything that can't be derived from the gemara. Acharonim derive from Rishonim who derive from gemara, etc. Now all those spouting that this is a clear case of mamzerus are merely making noise. The gemara leaves out any mention of mekach taus from the relevant mishnayos of mumin by men. The mishna seems to be discussing either mumin that developed later, or mumin that she knew about, and agreed to go ahead with marriage, but later had problems dealing with them. But the critical case of pre-existing mumin that were not revealed to her does not seem to be discussed. It seems clear that this is because it would be pashut that it is a mekach taus because she never agreed to it, and did not get the type of person she thought she was marrying.
ReplyDeleteAs far as whether mental/personality issues are a mum, that is not discussed, either. But we know that in an extreme case, that of a shoteh, (which may not mean only a delayed person, but even one who does bizarre things like sleeps in a cemetery) they are halachically disqualified from marriage on the deoraisa level. So clearly there are mental/personality issues that would be considered a mum. The question becomes where to draw the line. But there is no guidance in the gemara of an exact modern day psychological diagnosis that we can go by. So it is up to individual poskim to evaluate what is significant. While some may totally disagree with RSK's line of demarcation, that doesn't make it any more or less correct than the line of other poskim. There is no black and white here. All those commenters screaming that the halacha says this or that are not basing it on anything. The halacha is the way talmidei chachamim learn the sugya. RSK has every right to learn it the way he sees fit.
You write, "Calling recognized talmidei chachamim and Torah leaders "idiots and fools" is, in my opinion, not only unnecessary for what you are trying to accomplish but also quite possibly a grave violation of serious halachic prohibitions." You were talking about me. Let me say my side.
ReplyDeleteIf you noticed one of the letters on the blog put the two rabbis in Cherem. Another said they were "rabbis" or false rabbis. All of the rabbis quoted on this blog stated clearly that the child born from Tamar's new marriage are mamzerim. They make it clear that the HETER is based on intolerable inventions, just read them.
I called up one of those who tore the pesak apart but spoke about the "gadol" or whatever in a most respectful manner. i asked him how a person who makes such mistakes that the writer considered making mamzerim can be called a Gadol etc. He replied that he basically agreed with me but wanted to give these rabbis a chance to on their own return to the proper way of learning. And if they won't, he agrees completely with me.
You must agree yourself that anyone who receives the very heavy criticism that RSK and RNG received, cannot be respectable Torah authorities, at least by those who know what Torah is all about. What kind of world will it be when people violate the written teachings of the Torah, customs for centuries, teachings of the Shulchan Aruch and gemora, and thereby make mamzerim: and are called Gedolim. This will encourage other women to do the same and then say that the Gadol that everyone considers a Gadol permits women to remarry with invented reasons that have no place in the Shulchan Aruch and in common sense. Is that what Torah wants?
No, the Torah wants people who make mamzerim to be labeled as "rabbis" or as I put it, idiots and worse. And if you don't agree, just ask Tamar's mamzer if she has one. I care much more for this child who is utterly innocent than I care for the feelings of a wicked mamzer producer Rabbi Kaminetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt. They are both wicked and not rabbis.
If I talk differently than many people you know it is because I learned by Reb Aharon Kotler and spoke to him very often privately. And during these sessions, I saw Reb Aharon at work, fighting. And he fought for keeps. And the people I heard talking to him were also people who fought for keeps. Today people don't fight like that. But I do. And my other rebbes, gedolim from Europe, were right in line with what I am doing. I served personally the greatest rabbis of the past generation. And none of them would accept what you just said. They would very much appreciate what I said.
I have been talking this way for years. And I get calls from the major poskim who congratulate me on what I am saying. And I tell them that I thank them for the compliment, and I understand why they, burdened by a job or a need to raise money for their Yeshiva, suffice with thanking me but do not do this on their own. But they all agree with the stance I have taken that anyone who tells a woman who is an orphan with no father and is being driven to Gehenum by Rabbi Kaminetsky, means that Rabbi Kaminetsky is a full blown rosho and must be labelled as such.
Rav Aharon Kotler ZTV'L, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, to change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
ReplyDeleteYeshivahleit love to argue that “I don't think familiarity with the responsa
ReplyDeleteliterature or lack thereof are necessarily relevant to being a posek. There are and have been many poskim who paskened mainly from their understanding of the sugya. RMF was a prime example. Conversely, there are unfortunately many young “poskim” today who are familiar with much “response literature and can quote freely from a large range of poskim but are incapable of forming their own intelligent opinions based on deep learning of a sugya. If RSK paskens primarily from his extensive knowledge of Gemara and Rishonim, I don’t see any detriment in that.” This is simple narshkeit.
There is no such thing as paskning from the sugya, we have a Shulchan Aruch. If the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention the case then we have a right to pasken from a sugya. People make such arguments because so few people actually learn Shulchan Aruch anymore. This is a terrible calamity of unimaginable proportions that is affecting us today on a day to day basis. This is the result of the yeshiveshe derech of only learning lomdus. Most Roshei Yeshivos simply never learnt Shulchan Aruch EH to begin to know bein yomino bein lsmolo regarding hilchos Gittin, and have no right to be involved in the matter. I would rather ask someone who is “familiar with much response literature and can quote freely from a large range of poskim” then these Roshei Yeshivos who don’t know the basics.
Those who claim that Rav Moshe’s psak followed this derech simply don’t know what they are talking about. Rav Moshe absolutely followed the Shulchan Aruch and learnt through it hundreds of times including the nosei keilim. However, Rav Moshe was asked original sheilos that were not clearly delineated in the Shulchan Aruch, and therefore he had to mine the sugyos of Shas. This was Rav Moshe’s genius, his ability to apply these sheilos to the sugyos. However, Rav Moshe never on his own argued on the Shulchan Aruch. When and if these people would know the Shulchan Aruch like Rav Moshe then they would have a right to delve into the sugyos.