We are still missing a protest letter from the Roshei Yeshiva of BMG who in the past issued numerous protest about matters that affect the Klal or even individuals not associated with BMG.
Harav Shloimeh Miller is the Server acting by Proxy for BG. IMHO In this particular case it is more appropriate for a Moire Hoiro'o to be moiche rather than a Rosh Yeshiva, of which might seem of having Negius.
The penultimate paragraph undermines the Kol Koreh. Like it or not, R' Moshe, Zatzal, was matir based on mekach toas. I do not know much about those that signed this kol koreh, but they clearly do not have R' Moshe's stature. By saying there is never a heter of mekach toas, they change the focus of the kol koreh.
This is what is known as a Pyrrhic victory. Nobody pays attention to Satmar outside of satmar, and even then it depends which faction of satmar. You might come up with a letter from Reform or reconstructionist rabbis, that is about as useful as one form satmar.
Note also, they refer to the Americas as "Medinatainu" = Our State. This was not the original view of Satmar, who called it a treife medina, and refused to move to America before or during the war.
They are running out of time. If they don't get on board the life rafts now, the Titanic might just take a dive C.V., without any survivors left. The chicken is without a head, and the goose is cooked. Even the little tugboat threw in the towel before jumping ship. The days left are counted, either they do a 180, or do a Kikayon deYonah maneuver.
What's objectionable about that point? Other poskim also rule that this heter of Rav Moshe is wrong and cannot be used. And there are some rulings of Rav Moshe (i.e. timers cannot be used on Shabbos for the AC) that the Torah world has generally not accepted.
More importantly, the reason why מורי הוראה should be involved, and not ראשי ישיבה, is because this issue is הלכה למעשה, which is more in the field of פוסקים, instead of the field of those saying שיעור כללי.
The Rambam (end of introduction to שמונה פרקים) writes: ושמע האמת ממי שאמרו", "Hear the truth from whoever says it". In other words, it doesn't matter who says it, the main thing is the substance of the argument or point that the person is trying to make.
The מתיר stands out alone, without even offering any rationale. Absolutely NO ONE has come out in his defense, or in the defense of the so-called היתר.
Isn't Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky on the moetses? And was he not the speaker at the recent convention? And is the Agudah not strongly connected with liberal politicians who promote toeivo? And did the Agudah not promote a pro-gay program in a bill about the defense department some years ago?
Around that time I spoke to two major Rosh Yeshivas in the Agudah and asked them to help fight gays. They both said the exact words, "We are against hate" meaning we don't permit fighting gays. That is pure apikorsus and what about the pesukim in the Torah about hating the wicked especially people who want to uproot the most sacred parts of the Torah. It is time to tell is like it is. The people running the Agudah have no source for their programs other than "Daas Torah" invented by "Gedolim" who care more about pro-gay politicians than Toras Moshe.
why does this letter ommit names? are they cowards? Chazal state where the is chilul Hashem you go all out! unfortunately we live in a cowardly generation
Unfortunately, already going back to the 1970s, Gedolim who serve on the American Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel do not recognize or listen to or abide by the calls of the Hisachdus HaRabbanim dominated by Satmar or of their CRC Bais Din, as the still-outstanding and unsettled and unresolved Hazomonas below prove:
And factually, neither do the Satmer Chssidim themselves fully respect the hithachdithsss. Rav Aaron's chasidim used to feel that they would get a more legitimate ruling in secular court than at the hithachdith Beis Din.
Why can they not disagree wiith Reb Moshe? Also, one can argue that there are people who are willing to take the Hetr of Reb Moshe a very long way we must reject it because it becomes a standard practice
Very nice! So now you give your "haskoma" to going to Arka'os, something even Rav Shlomo Carlebach did not do to get his rightful severance pay from Fructhandler the money man.
As for Satmar, like by everyone else, they have been suffering from "hiskatnu hadoros".
Rav Yoel Teitelbaum was the great one, he built a malchus and real Chasidus in America, then came his nephew the businessman Rav Moshe Teitelbaum, who in turn has been succeeded by two feuding sons who could not get their act together to keep the Satmar Chasidus united, and fought over, what else, big money, and to set the bar even lower (good pun) they went to secular court to duke it out. Very nice, and you think it's fine and dandy to take justify or prove something from that kind of "chillul HaShem".
Sorry but you are beyond repaid, please return (yourself) to (your) sender please, you know what I mean, stop trolling here, you have gotten away too long with that!
Of course that phenomenon is toevah, but today there is no BD that is empowered to punish them. In the eys of secular law they have rights. It seems you are ok with secular law against beating up people to give a get, even though this is a practice given in the Talmud.
Since BMG is a Yeshiva, and from the point of vihyisem nekiyim, it might seem that they want to knock the competition. Ukedei lehotsi milibam shel... However, by now that rov minyan verov binyan of klal Yisroel is Moiche, they will join the rest, ki Berov om hadras melech. For the time being, I don't know how these people can, Motso yodov veraglov beBeis haMidrash, after all, there is such a thing as Asher yechto nassi. At the rate it's going, the manhig is boshesh lovo and looking for more Simchas in Israel.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף צא עמוד א-ב אמשול לך משל, למה הדבר דומה: למלך בשר ודם, שהיה לו פרדס נאה, והיה בו בכורות נאות, והושיב בו שני שומרים, אחד חיגר ואחד סומא. אמר לו חיגר לסומא: בכורות נאות אני רואה בפרדס. בא והרכיבני ונביאם לאכלם. רכב חיגר על גבי סומא, והביאום ואכלום. לימים בא בעל פרדס. אמר להן: בכורות נאות היכן הן? - אמר לו חיגר: כלום יש לי רגלים להלך בהן? - אמר לו סומא: כלום יש לי עינים לראות? מה עשה - הרכיב חיגר על גבי סומא ודן אותם כאחד. אף הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא נשמה וזורקה בגוף, ודן אותם כאחד. שנאמר יקרא אל השמים מעל ואל הארץ לדין עמו. יקרא אל השמים מעל - זו נשמה, ואל הארץ לדין עמו - זה הגוף.
In the spirit of: סבר שליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין: me and you is two, you and me is 4, one can leave and you still remain with a BD of three. Veyesh lomar, judge, jury and executioner. Veod yesh lomar, Who is on first..... vechozer vechalilo.... On a more serious note, the RY sent an SOS note in the names of father and son to R'H'S of YU and many others to sign AS IS, and R'H'S' signed it. R'H'S' or R'Z'S if you will, freely declared T.F. is FREE FREE vetoleh ...... beacherim as Kvar horeh hazoken. This package was then sent over to R'N'G' for the clincher and got caught holding the bag. R'N'G acting as master of many trades put on his heter Nisuin cap and gave his blessings. In toch kedei dibur he put on his Mesader cap, and topped it with some more blessings on the house, so that ADAM may kiss the bride. If it is a little complicated to chap, just close your eyes and follow the money trail.
The gedolim both on the hisachdus as well as off in the litvish velt have always looked at the position of this hisachdus and lobbied the hisachdus rabbonim for events they needed their input or support.
The Agudah Gedolim have always sought support from Satmar on matters of vital interest. Rav Hutner sought the Satmar Rebbe's support against Rav Moshe's position on new technologies impregnating women. Rav Moshe himself and the Satmar Rebbe are in many pictures meeting each other to discuss klal issues.
And today the Roshe Yeshiva of Lakewood, Rav Kotler shlita, is very close to the Satmar Rebbe in Kiryas Yoel, Rav Aharon shlita. Many pictures from many different times, including very recent and not so recent, of the SR visiting Lakewood and of Rav Malkiel visiting Kiryas Yoel are available in circulation.
Rabbi Dovid, what was the *full* exact wording of your question to the two major Roshei Yeshivos about fighting the gays and what was the *full* exact wording of their answer to you.
Correct. They are stating that let the word go out in all בית ישראל that such a heter is null and void. They don't have the authority (or the plaitzes) to do that.
Reb Mosheh clearly stated that his heter was only to be followed if it is absolutely impossible to get a GET. Aharon Friedman is willing to give a GET if certain custody arrangements can be improved. Reb Moshe would therefore never permit Tamar to remarry without a GET.
Satmar, Brisk, Eidah are at the fringes of , or outside of Orthodox Judaism. The leaders of Lithuanian Orthodoxy: The Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shach all ztl, have been systematically opposed by these extremist factions. Once Rav Kotler (who was long maligned by the satmar rebbe) had to ask Reb Yoellish not to go against the Chazon Ish. The Brisk were mevazeh Rav Shach because of his involvement in Reb Malkiel's heter meah rabbonim. The Brisker Rov, who was a Gaon, claimed that the Israeli Rabbanut was idolatry, and it was assur to have any involvement in it. This statement is also problematic, since Rav Elyashiv , Rav Yosef , and many other Gedolei Torah of all traditions were involved in the Rabbanut. If you are to take these groups seriously, it effectively means that all the Gedolei Yisroel are chas v'shalom sinners and falsifiers of halacha.
Eddie, Allow me to disagree with you. I learned by Reb Aharon Kotler, and when he died, the Satmer Rov Reb Yoel came and eulogized him, "To teach the glory of Aharon that he never changed the Torah." To understand this, another story I heard from a good friend who was there when it happened.
In Monsey lived a very wealthy man named Rapaport who was a follower of the Satmar Rov. He made a parlor meeting for the Satmar Rov and many people attended. One of the Satmar Chassidim noticed in the house of Mr. Rappaport an honor for giving fifty thousand dollars to Chinuch Atsmoi, a project of Reb Aharon. The Chosid went to the Satmar Rebbe and asked how a Chosid could be honored like that by an organization so strongly opposed by the Satmar Rebbe. The Rebbe answered, and this my friend heard himself, "He gave it because I told him to give it." When he saw confusion his remark made on the Chosid, the rebbe added "I have to protest and he has to give."
Another case is known that a fund raiser a student of Reb Aharon went to the Satmar Rebbe with a similar organization request and the rebbe gave him a large donation. He asked that it be put into a check form so that other Chassidim would see the check and contribute generously. The rebbe did this and other Chassidim contributed. The rebbe explained, "I would not do things that way, but you have a Gadol who sponsors it, so I contribute."
When the Satmar Rebbe died the Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood was honored to speak at the Leviah and he called for everyone to support the Satmar projects, as I recall.
The Satmar Rebbe did a lot of screaming, against his best friends, among them were Reb Aharon Kotler, the Kupishneter Rebbe and others. He felt that he had to scream and he had to contribute and people have to understand that.
I heard from a good friend who knew the story personally, I believe her heard it from the Kapishnetser Rebbe himself. The Kapishnitser once wrote a very large check for Chinuch Hoatsmei or some such organization. He then went to the Satmar Rebbe and showed him the check. The rebbe started to scream. The Kapishneter then left the house to go back home and he noticed a taxi waiting for him. He went back to the rebbe and said, "You scream at me and then call a taxi for me?" The Kapishnetser later explained, "Can I deny the rebbe the pleasure of Jewish children being saved and If afterwards he wants to scream, that is his business."
It is wrong to coerce a GET by the Shulchan Aruch, not secular law, although we do obey the law of the land when it is does not conflict with the Torah. And to support those who want to uproot the Torah and its clear laws that gay is TOEIVO is clearly a sin, unless you need the money from pro-gay politicians in New York to build "Torah" rachmono listlon.
There must be an overlap in the ages that will suffice for seeming so, besides, there is personal competition in it as well, again seemingly so. Veyesh leyashev bedochak shamati, veyesh lehakshos bedochak lo rosisi. vd"al.
Now that there is a Cherem, "Veal yevakshu torah mipihu" ma tehe oleho? If they won't own up to this scandal to fix it soon enough, the yeshiva students might end up leaving in droves just like in YCT, if they know what's good for them. Probably by the time you read this, it cold well be in the making.
Brisk, Satmar and the Eidah are as mainstream orthodoxy as orthodox gets. There entire spectrum of orthodoxy looks to them to hear their views on all vital matters for orthodoxy regardless whether they'll ultimately agree with them or not.
If you insist on finding a group within orthodoxy that isn't mainstream and their views area note held in high regard by the rest of orthodoxy, that would be the Modern Orthodox.
The unknown Rachmono litslon seems to be the RY of YU. He publicised the note in ORA's site, that T.F/E is FREE FREE.
"IS" is a Psak in and of itself. Ukvar horeh hazaken is (u) vav mosif al horishonim, that is one more which makes it two. Zoken must refer to the elder K' who sent a drafted up note in his name to be signed AS IS. That leaves R'NG the third, the Baal Heter and the Baal Mesader Kidushin as in multitasking or double dipping. I can't rule out another mystery rachmono litslon rabbi as to whether that was R'NG or someone else, since by the time of the "declaration" of independence of T/F/F, already had to have three Dayonim in order to be allegedly free, and father and son cannot include the three. Yomim yogidu.
This episode sounds so much like the haggadah, veoso soiro deshoso lemayo... or better yet, The eits hadaas, story with lol ADAM, blaming etc. blaming etc...
David Eidensohn says: “It is wrong to coerce a GET by the Shulchan Aruch, not secular law, although we do obey the law of the land when it is does not conflict with the Torah.”
I quote Sotah 25a
R. Hanina of Sura said; Come and hear: In the following cases a court of law can give warning: when the husband is a deaf-mute or has become insane or is imprisoned. not for the purpose of making her drink did they say this but to disqualify her in connection with the marriage-settlement. Conclude from this that she does require to be warned! That conclusion is to be drawn. But why did not [the other Rabbis] draw the inference from this passage? [They thought] perhaps it is different in the circumstance where she had no cause at all to be afraid of her husband. [(8) Since he was incapacitated; but in normal circumstances, they imagined that she would lose her marriage-settlement without a warning.]
A court of law has tremendous powers. We could argue that a court of law cannot coerce a get and cannot approve T.E. to remarry without a get when the court of law didn’t hear the husband’s side. The wife would be afraid of her husband if he would appear before the court of law and testify against her.
I’m arguing that the NY Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Prus cannot rule without hearing my side replies to Susan court papers. Surely, Judge Prus could demand I pay first $25,000 fines and demand that I appear. Fine, but then Judge Prus cannot rule on Susan’s papers.
Are you sure? I understood that The Mesader (Rabbi Greenblatt) relied on The Kaminetzkies. Rav Shmuel, on the other hand, said that he relied on the Rav Bar Samche (Rabbi Greenblatt). My understanding was that there was no third party being blamed. The hisachdus was quietly mocking the ring-around-the-rosy, a-pocket-full-of-posy..... game being played with Eishes Ish.
You take offense that the Hisachdus rabbis didn't accept R' Moshe's heter. You wrote: "It's a good letter till the point where they take it upon themselves to say that no one can follow R' Moshe's heter". However R' Moshe himself acknowledged that there are others who disagree with him. So the Hisachdus is aligned with the poskim who would reject R' MOshe's heter.
I don't see what is confusing here: Rabbi Greenblatt relied on Rabbi Kamentzky for the information, Rabbi Kamenetzky says that Tamar can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt for the pesak.
They're simply calling a spade a spade, without any sanitized euphemisms.
Are you of proud Hungarian decent, by any chance? You're either the biggest tzadik or the biggest rosha, correct? We don't believe in nuance - we believe in broad brush strokes, correct? Lets just take the headline: "Hakezonah yaaseh es achoseinu."
Is rape the same as a disgusting, mistaken and laughable heter? If you see it as the same thing, then you do have the goor heilige hissachdith on your side. They are Yereim Usheimim bechol minei kidishe v'tehare, i'bchol maaseh tov. They are maamesh the Sanhedren sheboireini. Shechinah Hakdoishe medaber mitoich geroinom.
There are others who unfortunately do not properly appreciate these cultural tendencies.
This is why I don't accept the full argument you are bringing. a) Shulchan aruch yes, but rambam allows it. Secular law does not permit ( to beat someone until he says yes).
b) You are arguing that some Rabbis follow a particular politician, who is supporting gaiety. That is not really a halachic argument. You might vote for Bush or Obama or whoever, but each of them will do things that is against halacha and Torah. Similarly, in Israel, apart from Satmar/eida, religious parties are part of a secular government that permit gaiety and give rights to the toievah. Thus, you can eithr protest and be totally Eidah/Brisk etc, or be part of the rest of the Hareidi world such as Rav Shteinman, Rav Kanievsky. Your argument, however, also attacks these gedolim, who accept money form the State, but the same state is gay friendly etc.
c) A reminder of a previous debate on here, when i pointed out that Rav Sonnenfeld, who was the greatest leader of the Eidah, who worked with a man called De Haan. De Haan was frum, from his shoulders up. But his behaviour was that of a gay shaagetz menuval, who went to the Kotel to pick up arab boys, and is a major gay figure in both the religious and secular worlds. Do you know what Rav Sonnenfeld said about him? That he is not responsible for what De Haan does from his shoulders downwards. That means Rav Sonnenfeld was willing to accept this character, because it brought political benefits to his group.
S"A paskens against Rambam and thus one cannot use this Rambam against the psak S"A. If one does, then the S"A and thus normative halacha will consider the future children to be mamzeirim.
I don't really follow your rambling, and bringing you opponents supposed lineage or cultural background doesn't reflect intellectual discussion on your part.
Painting a woman as a זונה doesn't have be done in Fifty Shades of Gray. Just say it as it is, It's the unvarnished truth. Someone who commits זנות is a זונה.
You're probably upset, because the word זונה conjures up in your mind the idea of a hooker, and you think that the Hisachdus is accusing TF of being one. However you should be aware that זונה also means someone who cohabits with a man other than her husband, which TF is allegedly guilty of. For an example of the two usages, see Yevamos 61b: והתניא זונה זונה כשמה דברי רבי אליעזר, רבי עקיבא אומר זונה זו מופקרת Rashi (ad loc.):
זונה כשמה. לשון טועה שטועה מתחת בעלה לאחרים..: מופקרת. ואפי' פנויה מאחר שהפקירה עצמה לכל קרויה זונה
Moe, you seem oblivious to historical facts. DeHaan
was not a ger in any sense, he was born Jewish, and was a BT, but that is not the same as giur.
Your other imaginations are also typical of NKUSA who rewrite history. but we do not rely on satmar/Nk for history, since they are the worst criminals in terms of their brutality towards other Jews , including their own communities.
DeHaan is well known as a feigele, a purveyor of toevah.
Poskim have ruled the Rambams ruling permitting coercion by maos alei cannot be utilized. Same with poskim ruling that the Yaavetz's psak permitting suicide to punish oneself for certain sins or his ruling permitting a pilegesh cannot be utilized and is not accepted.
As you explain that R' G' relied on R'K and R'K relied on the Bar Samcha R'G, is like as if the K's are tapping themselves on their own backs. What happened to klum Adam me'id al isosoi? It also seems that R'HS is part and parcel to this Quantum psak as posted in the FREEDOM poster crediting the Zoken. Here is a text graph of what transpired, and if quoted wrong, please correct me, anyone. Rabbi'(s) K'(s) went on a heter mekach taus expedition hunt to be matir an eishes ish lashuk, sending out a predrafted Psak for a rav hamachshir without disclosing any details of the verification of alleged facts to their prospects. R'HS disclosed that all is well, fine and dandy for TF/E to proceed and move on FREE with life, and no more bound to her previous history (bound by marriage). All this has been accredited to Hazoken R'K. A this point there must have been a BD of three, but that part is not disclosed who those other two might be. When RK has been approached, Hayitochen, he replied I never was matir "Lehafkia" such. When R'G was approached how and why he was Mesader Kidushin for an eishes ish, R'G replied that he was relying on a Bar Smache such as R'K. In this game of Ping Pong also known as heter Iska/heter (shiksa?) for lack of a better term, for self proclaimed alleged Agunos, there were/are three major Known players, namely R'K, R'HS, and R'G. R'K was the PINGER or SERVER in search of quick responders, the other two were CLIENTS, aka as pongers aka HOSTS working in TANDEM aka cahoots as a team. At this point and time, we are unaware whether there is a missing link to this ESEK BISH, ve'ein ledayan elo ma she'einov ro'os. Each of the dream team player denies and confirms their participation in this T. Epstein episode, how then is it posssible that she is married, not married, never married, loves me, loves me not, he said, she said, I never said, who is on first, and who said what to whom, when, why, or where and still be true to all of the above? The answer my friend is, the newly discovered Chidush of "QUARK NETWORKING". We have multitaskers that can be at two places at the same time, saying two opposite things and doing different tasks independently yet working together, severally and jointly all in the same space, time and Universe. This gevaldige Chidush is of such a large magnitude, that was not even given over to a Talmid Vosik at Sinai. It is nowhere to be found In Torah, Neviim, Uksivim, SA, RAMBAM, ubechol machmanei haTorah. If anyone has a better explanation, or knows better the Toldos of the Heteirim bouncing back and forth pathetically beKaf haKela Please, you are more than welcome!
If you happen to be confused, don't make yourself an Agmas nefesh over it, and welcome to the club!
a) I did not take offense. I am in no way offended. Rather, I objected to their high-handedness. b) They can align themselves with whomever they choose, but they cannot issue rulings for all of klal Yisrael in opposition to R' Moshe.
They are not remotely in R' Moshe's league, and even if they were, they are not the poskim of all klal Yisrael. They pasken for some of the chassidishe oilam, not for all of it, and not for the litvishe at all.
They needn't be in Rav Moshe's league. Rav Moshe himself, as other poskim do, on certain issues rejects much earlier poskim than himself who he says were of a much higher pay grade as poskim than himself.
And Rav Moshe, too, want the posek of all of Klal Yisroel. The Chasidim and Sefardim had their own poskim.
You probably missed out on this, "that will suffice for seeming so". And seeming so, is in the eyes of the beholder, regardless of their actual ages. kol h.....
These stories are just stories. the fact is that all of the lithuanian Gedolim were systematically mocked by the extreme right - and even the Chazon Ish was attacked by the satmar Rebbe. There are also stories about Rav Yosef Soloveitchik giving cheques to his uncle's Brisk, even though they would all the time attack YU. You can hold by either Rav Elyashiv or the Brisker Rav. The former was in the Rabbanut, whilst the latter banned it, equating it to Avodah Zarah. There is a story that Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, the son of the famous Rav Kook, would learn at Brisker Rav's shiur. But he would be jeered and attacked each time he went there. Eventually he was persuaded by his colleagues to stop going becasue of this disgraceful behaviour. And that is the same stink in satmar. They spend a lifetime attacking RAK, and at his levayah give a nice eulogy.
And you seem to have missed out on the fact that anyone who knows the slightest thing about these yeshivos will not make that mistake, Unless of course they have managed to puzzle out your cryptic pidgin and are thus misinformed.
Without all the insults: where is the actual Possuk "hakezona yaaseh ess achoseinu" said? The exact source is mentioned right next to the headline in the Hisachdus proclamation.
It was said in a case of abduction and rape. Shimon and Levi were excusing to Yaakov their murder of all the men of the city of Shchem, since their sister had been abducted and raped.
So no, calling a case of a horribly mistaken psak of permitting zenus rape is far from "calling a spade a spade." It is an exaggeration.
You're probably upset, because the word זונה conjures up in your mind the idea of a hooker, and you think that the Hisachdus is accusing TF of being one.
Please. I really thought you're better than that. At what point should we asking if כל הפוסל במומו פוסל is relevant over here?
However you should be aware that זונה also means someone who cohabits with a man other than her husband, which TF is allegedly guilty of.For an example of the two usages, see Yevamos 61b:....
R'HS disclosed that all is well, fine and dandy for TF/E to proceed and move on FREE with lif
Is this "heter" of RHS the story behind his letter against the IBD a full year after they went into business? Is it coincidental that RSK wrote his unique denial letter at aproximanntly the same time that RHS wrote this letter? (Both are dated Tamuz of this past summer.)
I have to assume that you have a mission on this forum and that is to protect RSK. I think that you also have to consider the many outstanding talmidim of the Philadelphia Yeshiva. They have done nothing wrong and the longer this drags on the more their reputation is harmed.
It is OK for a Philadelphia Yeshiva talmid to say that on this occasion RSK got it wrong.
now at last we are seeing some interesting points made by Moe, well done. I quote what you wrote previously: "And Rav Moshe, too, wasn't the posek of all of Klal Yisroel. The Chasidim and Sefardim had their own poskim."
So, some poskim may have ruled against Rambam, but not those who follow the Rambam. there are Sefardi practices for example, that "poskim" may have ruled against. But Sefardi poskim may have ruled for. This is discussion of how halacha works - i am not pushing a particular line, but wish to clarify how things have been historically. Yaavetz is still accepted andpielgesh is still technically feasible. I think there was a Raavad on this, vs the Rambam.
You can argue that the Hishachdus is wrong but if the facts stated are correct then the MESADER relied on the Rosh Yeshiva for the Psak and not just facts. What we are seeing is beyond belief.
When the Shulchan Aruch paskened against the Rambam, generally the entire Jewish world (other than Teimanim) have accepted the psak in the S"A over the Rambam.
Yes, it has become widespread and accepted, but I don't see the reason why the sefer Shulchan Aruch has the final status in halacha, and no previous or later opinions can go against it. The fact is, that approx 1000 years ago, there were various works in halacha, Rambam being only 1 of them. There was no "shulchan aruch" at the time, people went by their own regional poskim, eg Rambam, Rif, Rashi, Raavad etc. Raavad is highly critical in his intro to the Yad of the Rambam, and one can only assume he would similarly be critical of the SA, just as the Maharal was. Again, I am not trying to dethrone the SA, but I don't understand how and why it has become so centralised.
Moe, i think you misunderstand kishkeyum's point, although he wont want me to defend him :) Certain people are on a level to be mechalek on Rav Moshe, e.g. RSZA, Rav Yosef , and maybe even the Satmar Rebbe or Lubavitcher Rebbe. In the big picture, you need to be on that kind of level. Today, Lubavitch does not really have a rebbe or gedolim, so a posek might rely on the late rebbe to disagree on something. This is actually a very revealing debate, since Moe is using a rationalist or almost OO type argument, and Kishke is using a Hareidi Daas Torah type argument. The rationalist argument is that anyone can argue with Rav Moshe, if they bring a good sevarah. IN principle I agree with this, but there is something i call "realHalachik", which means the way it goes in practice, and in powerful halachic circles, a small guy cannot usually argue with a big Posek. If some modern professor writes a critique of the Mishna Brura, for example, then nobody would take him seriously. That is essentially what Kish is (apparently) arguing.
RHS did not permit TE to remarry without a get. the poster was done by ORA, who then removed it. RHS is not the webmaster of ORA, that is not one of his roles. They made an error by posting it, and did not consult him. He was said to be furious at the time, and the poster was removed. If someone has evidence that RHS was involved in the heter, please provide documented evidence or reliable eidut (which is difficult on a blog).
You seem to be unaware that there is license to "borrow" terminology a פסוק, even if the פסוק is not 100% percent talking about the same thing.
In this particular case, the מליצה happens to resonate pretty well, since the bottom line is that זנות is being permitted (cohabiting with a man other than her husband), which is making אחותנו like a זונה.
"The Brisker Rov, who was a Gaon, claimed that the Israeli Rabbanut was idolatry"
This is an inaccurate statement. He thought the Israeli Rabbinate would bend torah and halacha for political reasons and was thus extremely opposed to any involvement. Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadya likely disagreed with him on the facts, and did not believe that involvement with the Rabbinate would result in ziyuf hatorah. Alternatively they held that their involvement would minimize the breaches. Either way, you don't have to "hold of" only one or the other.
True, and bederech mlitsa of something that's a fact fitting in perfectly. And that, is part and parcel of talmidei chachomim writing their views, psak etc. baderech tsachos. Midvorov shel odom nikar im hu Talmid chochom.
Again, they don't rule for anyone outside of their machaneh, even among the chasidim, and certainly not for the litvishe. Their kol korei has got no legs.
So why then is the Yoishev rosh boshesh lovo? klall Yisrael is in a crisis, where are they when needed most. Lo es lachshos, even if only from shmuah rechoike, ad ki yaavor zaam. If it's for reasons of a Simcha, ein Simcha kehatores hasfeikos. You have rov rubo shel Klall Yisroel Uposkei Yisroel Ugedoilei Yisroel befeh echod ubelev echod ubeyiroh haOmdin al haMODIN pleading to recant, all the greatest Mumchim heavy bombers B 52's Baki beTiv Gittin veKiddushin declaring To'oh bidvar Mishnah mefureshes and he is sitting away in silence as if business as usual, is that what you can call a BAR SAMCHA? Ulesamcha zu ma zeh oisoh? Playing ping Pong and misasek is not an option, nor a solution.
The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim "kim li" against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your "Rebbi", where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let's say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no "halachah lmoshe misinai" that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.
1) Was a statement made by ORA without RHS authorization. As Eddie pointed out, he is not ORA's webmaster 2) Was not regarding this heter. Stop with the idiotic lies.
Ah, so you have misquoted the source. It says to "hear divrei torah from him", it doesn't say that Rav Tzvi Yehuda attended the shiur.
As is known, the Brisker Rav's shiur was limited to a small group of hand-picked scholars. R Tzvi Yehuda was not one of them. On the other hand, the Brisker Rav's home was essentially open, and anyone could go to daven there, to talk to him in learning, or to hear him talk to others in learning. Presumably this is what R Tzvi Yehuda did. He did not attend his shiur.
No one rules for anyone outside their machne. So what's your point? No one should issue kol korei's ever since no one rules for outside their own machne?
Not every prominent posek in the world is expected to join in on every maachoa or protest. Not voicing an opinion doesn't indicate an opinion one way or another. Not everyone in the world joins in every protest.
Sahadei bamromim that I am reading right of what was posted in his name, and then and there at the time, there was no denial of fake, fraud or phony, and kivan deshoskei... Again, I reiterate what was stated, Tamar is FREE FREE 2X. *IS free*, was his own heter. Ukvar horeh haZoken, is VAV mosif al horishonim, a separate Heter = 2. That was my take on it, bli kchal ushrak. if you have a better choice of words, or learn different pshat, you are perfectly free to do so. Hameforsem eino tsorich raya, ask any DT blogger whether it was posted here on the blog. Do not accuse me as if this is a lie, as Midvar Sheker Tirchak, Reb You ben bli shem inclusive.
I have no clue to whom this letter was directed originally or whether posted with his authorization or not. Ask ORA what the situation with this case might have been. Again, Lo Sonu ish es amiso, zu oinoes dvorim. I would be more than happy to retreat if you can clarify what those Rashi osiyos printed at the time what they might have referred to. in any which case, ORA is saruach meikro, RA leShamayim veRA Labriyos.
even secular academic research from his native Netherlands demonstrates that his toevah lifestyle and literature extended to his time in Israel. It i actually quite sickening to read about the nonsense he wrote in the name of poetry. He got away with it becasue he wrote in Dutch, and the hareidi community were not as judgemental about his mishkav zachar (or katanim) as the zionists were. a google search of his name will show a link to the uva, (Amsterdam university), which tells the background and practices of Reb De Haan. It should not be read by those who do not like secular and "open" literature. I was quite sickened by this, and I have seen movies and TV, so very frum people might not take well to it.
i think you are confusing 2 separate issues the letter that RHS wrote was about protesting to get the husband to give a Gett.
This is not the same as saying the wife can remarry without one. In fact, these are 2 opposite statements.
If RHS sees the need for a Gett, then obviously he cant claim that there isn't a need for one. the criticism you can make is that he allows fair means or fowl, ie beating up someone. But he never was mevatel the kiddushin.
Oh - thank you for your clarification. You actually make a fine point, and I misunderstood your objection. Going to a shiur meaning a yeshiva class, whereas hearing Divrei Torah may be hear him talk or deliver divrei Torah. That is a good enough distinction.
Eddie, I you say a story about gedolim, about people you never saw, it is true. But when I say stories about people from Gedolim that I personally heard them speaking and I heard from close friends who were very close to these gedolim, that is just "stories."
I did not hear the program, but even given your assessment of his response, all it shows is that he is careful about what he says publicly. It does not necessarily represent what he actually holds about it.
I agree that third-hand information is often inaccurate, but all that means is that someone should try to get a straight answer from him. In any event, the fact that he is unwilling to criticize it publicly says something as well.
HETER SHMETER MEAH RABONIM, CHIYUV UKFIYAS HAGET, MEKACH TAUS, TAUS SOIFER. TIME TO STOP SHMAYSSING OUR BROTHERS
I hereby continue as promised, as well as how it is even getting better. I looked at this article of
*Thursday, January 23, 2014 Rav Schachter: I relied on Rav Kaminetsky*
stating the following
Lechol man deboiye
in the midst of the paragraph, ...demutar lechovsho im rotse livroach uleagen es ishto, R'HS gives his consent for beatings. He then follows with ... 'Veim hoireh hachochom Harav Shmuel Kaminecki n'y' shemin hanochon leshachnea et habaal sheyegaresh es ishto, az kvar hoireh hazoken, v'ein leharher achar hoiro'osoi ... umitsvah lishmoa divrei chachomim, ... hashkofoh shel emunas chachomim, sheoni tomid somchim al kach shemistome hoyo lehachochom siyata dishmaya lehoyrois kehoigen, ukilshon haposuk, sod H' lireiov. ELO IM KEN YISBARER LEHEDYE SHETO'O.
All this was in reference to Kfiyas haGet at that time, supporting R' SK. Furthermore, this is not only support but Giving full fledged SMICHA with both hands to rely on his Psokim and do as R'SK commands, like a BLANK CHECK, v'ein leharher achrov, mistome also had siyata dishmaya, unless we find him clearly to err.
Mistake number one (1) We have arrived to the point where R'SK clearly ERRED. First It started out with a Chiyuv and KFIYAS haGet, NOW we are up to - a Mekach taus and IN NO NEED of a Get ALTOGETHER! A turn of events, taking a 180! Lekatchilah may kosover? This was clearly mistake number ONE (1). No siyata dishmaya, no sod H' lireiov either since H' doesn't err. Shall we c.v. say he is NOT lireiov? Not according to - ve'ein leharher achrov, unless we find him clearly he erred, then yesh leharher achrov. If so, WHERE IS/WAS THE PROTEST? Ein kol v'ein oineh! is this not what you call a HETER?
Mistake number two (2) The reason quoted as per R' NG the Mesader, that since it was a Mekach Taus, there is no need for a GET, and he quoted the RY saying so, he in turn quoted R' Rachmone Litslan unknown Bar Samcha Nero Yoir, and round and round it goes. At this point, we find clearly a Mishna mefureshes that when sovro vekibkla there is NO Mekach Taus, and indeed IN need of a GET as well as according to gedoilei hador uposkim yoshvim al haModin baki beTiv Gittin ve Kidushin saying the same. Again no siyata dishmaya, no sod H lireiov, it is clear that he ERRED, still and all, NO PROTEST, no nothing, all the while the SMICHA bishtei yodov of R' HS is forging ahead in full force all engines in full thrust forward! This is/was mistake number TWO (2).
How can you say that R'HS never gave a HETER if T.F/F/E is chas vesholom kimat kreiso bein shineho? There never was a moment of a declaration from R' HS retreiving his SMICHA from R' SK, HAYITOCHEN?
Furthermore, although R'HS did not give his blessings to R'SK all over again for the Mekach Taus psak, however, this a contiuation of the same esek bish behelem achas, meinyon leinyon BEOISOI INYAN without any gilui daas of protest and retreiving the ORIGINAL SMICHA, umideshoskei shma mina denichei lei.
Mistake number three (3) R'NG went ahead with Siddur Kidushin of an eishes ish as supported and directed by R'SK, this was mistake number THREE (3). Again no protest, no siyata dishmaya, no nothing etc. etc. etc. umideshoskei shma minei denichei lei. Isn't this a HETER.
Houston, we have a problem! Klall Yisroel is in a crisis, vekabernitah Boshesh lovo, vehayeled eineno, veono onu bo?
Im kein lomo ze onoichi? Vos hab ich dir getohn? Why do you call me a liar and other sheimos hanirdofim? Huh?
You can start with asking mechilah from R' Aharon F (ISH-SHALOM). veani tfilo, halvay sheyimchol lachem.
We have heard this excuse about six thousand years ago. Hashomer ochi anochi. See the letter of recommendation to R'SK. Who comes up with such ridiculous heterim to beat up bnei yisrael, and all for the money. Mendel Epstein yochiach.
He was said to be furious at the time, and the poster was removed.
True. The question is why he was furious. Was it because he disagreed with the supposed "heter," or was it for a different reason entirely. Maybe he is indeed a sponsor of this "heter," just he did not want ORA to be perceived as shopping and advocating for these type of nonsense heterim - as it is bad for business. Did he not issue a public letter to follow all of RSK's declarations and decision? Why is this "heter" different? Why did he also recruit RNG to sign onto his dismissal of the IBD's "resolutions," after he knew quite well of the "heter" that RNG rubber stamped?
Good Lord, more of these idiotic rantings... RHS relied on RSK that AF should give a get. You're extrapolating from there that he GAVE this heter for her to marry without a get!? You really are an idiot and have no place in any intelligent discussion of the issue. (By the way, as a I have noted before RHS letter did not give any consent for beatings, the point of the letter was that you don't need a formal psak from a beis din to pressure the guy to give a get in an aguna situation, because it's a case of kfiya al hamitzvos in which you say naase yado kishliach b"d. The fact that the case in the gemara involves physical beatings is incidental.)
You're still an idiot. "His heter" exists only in your imagination. Maybe it was really Rav Aharon Kotler's heter (af"l), because he's the one who actually gave RSK smicha bishtei yadayim.
His public letter said to follow RSK's declarations and decisions unless it is clear that he made a mistake. (yisbarer lehedya shetaa.) Here RSK claims he never gave a declaration or decision. And Im timtzei lomar he did, well then, It's pretty clear that it was a mistake, nisbarer lehedya shetaa. So there is no basis to assert, even based on the previous letter that RHS supports this heter.
Relax my friend. Take a deep breath because you sound paranoid. Your pretzel logic is irrational. Why stop there, why then not go back to Moshe Rabenu. R' HS gave his Smicha on this very Dvar Halacha of Tamar F/F/E that no one question his instruction, because if so, ....time of Moshe... *********** * I urge you to provide a source or retract the lie.*
Bevakasha, here is your source
If you go the website of this date, you will find Smicha vouching for him with full fledged pishut yadayim veraglayim, such as not even Yehoshua received from Moshe rabenu. Along with a Heter Hoiroeh of Hoiroas zoken, ve'ein leharher..., uMitsva lishmoa..., Emunas chachomim, ...SHEONU TOMID SOMCHIM AL KACH, mistome had Siyata Dishmaya lehoiros kehoigen, Sod H',
UNLESS we clearly discover that he ERRED.
Such a Gevaldige blank Check needs to be STOPPED before you go totally bankrupt, don't you think?
And here is your source for the Smicha delo posek ON THIS VERY ISSUE OF TAMAR from the getgo!
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Rav Schachter: I relied on Rav Kaminetsky
From April 6, 2012
Reposted because of the current interest in evidence that Rav Schachter called for or alluded to the appropriateness of violence against Ahron Friedman. Please click the link for an explicit discussion of the question based on Rav Schachter's recorded comments. Please keep in mind that there is no beis din that has heard both sides and issued a psak. In particular they both signed an agreement to follow the Baltimore Beis Din which has not issued any statement demanding that Ahron Freidman give Tamar a Get.
R' Aron K is turning over in his ...... over this sha'arurya! He would be rather Doiche bishtei yodayim
I heard today from a person who spent years on this problem that the one who permitted Tamar to remarry was somebody else that refuses to publicly admit that he permitted it, but it is known that he did it, and he did tell some people that he did it. A lot of people suspected that he did it, but he refused to admit it publicly. However, some people claim that he did admit it here and there, but now after the uproar, it is unlikely he will publicly admit it.
Hogwash! Read: Please STOP Going on n on n on. Unless stopped befeirush ubehedye , it is a Smicha delo Posek. How else would you know that R'HS is in agreement sheTo'o?
Wrong again! It was rather the Smicha of Pishut yadayim veraglayim befeirush ubehedye, Leoiso dovor ubeoiso inyan, ubeoiso mokom Beir haTmorim hanikro Filfeldelfia, that led to the heter of eishes ish lashuk.
All you need do, just listen to the song at the trial of Epstein the butcher et al, in it's original and it's entirety. Tsu Borscht darf men nit kain tsehn. So much for your intelligence.
True. it tallies with tsadikim gemurim naaseh melachtan al yedei acherim. in Jewland, it was the same, the butler was told that the pain of ......... is unbearable. The rest is history. It is like when you tell a Prodwiler, Get him.
Reb Dovid, are you saying that Rav Greenblatt relied upon a Godol other than Rav Kaminetzky to provide Tamar a heter to remarry, and that Rav Kaminetzky is not the Godol who Rav Greenblatt relied upon for the heter?
"you don't need a formal psak from a beis din to pressure the guy to give a get in an aguna situation, because it's a case of kfiya al hamitzvos in which you say naase yado kishliach b"d."
What on earth are you talking about? Of course you need a formal psak beis din before it is ever permitted to pressure a husband to give a Gett. Otherwise any future Gett is potentially a Gett Me'usa and thus invalid. And the beis din must first determine whether halacha permits pressuring him to give a Gett. By default, it is prohibited to pressure a husband to give a Gett.
And whether a wife is an aguna or not can only be determined by a beis din ruling that halacha requires her husband to give her a Gett and he then refuses to give the Gett despite the beis din psak stating he is halachicly obligated to give it.
In the absence of a formal beis din ruling that the husband is required to give a Gett, he has no obligation to give a Gett and the wife is not an agunah even if she wants a Gett.
SO do all presidents with their ballot. In any case, was just trying to verify that you do read the response, and other than mechane shem and mekallel, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. At this point, R'S...m is struggling to keep his father out of this mess, lest he will have to close shop. Even in EY they keep tab closely on these developments, and the noose is closing in. NO more bread, wine from YU hechsher, no more Gittin from R' NG, and next is veal yevakshu... Umi yodea im laess kazos, that the couple are vacationing where the schvartse feffer wakst Islands. That would be meachoirei Harei choshech, im bnei Adam yoshvei choshech. hashem yerachem
No more silly than someone saying that RHS gave SMICHA bishtei yadayim to RSK and thus agrees with everything he will do forever and ever. Both are stupid arguments. (Especially when RHS statement specifies unless yisbarer lehedya shetaa, which pretty much sums up this case.)
We are still missing a protest letter from the Roshei Yeshiva of BMG who in the past issued numerous protest about matters that affect the Klal or even individuals not associated with BMG.
ReplyDeleteARYEH SHOAG MI LO YIRO?
ReplyDeleteGur aryeh Yehudo... Lo yosur shevet miYehudo, elu Roshei Goluyos shebeBavel...
ARYEH SHOAG MI LO YIRO?
The International Botei Dinim have spoken!
Lo es lachshos, the time for ACTION is NOW.
Yehi Dan nochosh alei derech, Shfifon alei oirach hanoishech ikvei suss, vayipol rochvo achor.
V'es Yehudo sholach lefonov...lehoiros lefonov... Rashi, shemisham teitse hoiro'oh.
ReplyDeleteHarav Shloimeh Miller is the Server acting by Proxy for BG. IMHO In this particular case it is more appropriate for a Moire Hoiro'o to be moiche rather than a Rosh Yeshiva, of which might seem of having Negius.
It's a good letter till the point where they take it upon themselves to say that no one can follow R' Moshe's heter.
ReplyDeleteAs long as we don't have the moetset gedolei Torah on board we have nothing
ReplyDeleteThe penultimate paragraph undermines the Kol Koreh. Like it or not, R' Moshe, Zatzal, was matir based on mekach toas. I do not know much about those that signed this kol koreh, but they clearly do not have R' Moshe's stature. By saying there is never a heter of mekach toas, they change the focus of the kol koreh.
ReplyDeleteGood point
ReplyDeleteThey would have written the same on reb Moshe to
This is what is known as a Pyrrhic victory. Nobody pays attention to Satmar outside of satmar, and even then it depends which faction of satmar.
ReplyDeleteYou might come up with a letter from Reform or reconstructionist rabbis, that is about as useful as one form satmar.
Note also, they refer to the Americas as "Medinatainu" = Our State. This was not the original view of Satmar, who called it a treife medina, and refused to move to America before or during the war.
ReplyDeleteThey are running out of time. If they don't get on board the life rafts now, the Titanic might just take a dive C.V., without any survivors left. The chicken is without a head, and the goose is cooked. Even the little tugboat threw in the towel before jumping ship. The days left are counted, either they do a 180, or do a Kikayon deYonah maneuver.
ReplyDeleteWhat's objectionable about that point? Other poskim also rule that this heter of Rav Moshe is wrong and cannot be used. And there are some rulings of Rav Moshe (i.e. timers cannot be used on Shabbos for the AC) that the Torah world has generally not accepted.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, the reason why מורי הוראה should be involved, and not ראשי ישיבה, is because this issue is הלכה למעשה, which is more in the field of פוסקים, instead of the field of those saying שיעור כללי.
ReplyDeleteR' Moshe himself acknowledged in his תשובה, that his היתר was controversial, since earlier פוסקים had rejected the basis of his arguments.
ReplyDeleteWhy so?
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam (end of introduction to שמונה פרקים) writes:
ושמע האמת ממי שאמרו", "Hear the truth from whoever says it". In other words,
it doesn't matter who says it, the main thing is the substance of the argument
or point that the person is trying to make.
The מתיר stands out alone, without even offering any rationale. Absolutely NO ONE has come out in his defense, or in the defense of the so-called היתר.
Isn't Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky on the moetses? And was he not the speaker at the recent convention? And is the Agudah not strongly connected with liberal politicians who promote toeivo? And did the Agudah not promote a pro-gay program in a bill about the defense department some years ago?
ReplyDeleteAround that time I spoke to two major Rosh Yeshivas in the Agudah and asked them to help fight gays. They both said the exact words, "We are against hate" meaning we don't permit fighting gays. That is pure apikorsus and what about the pesukim in the Torah about hating the wicked especially people who want to uproot the most sacred parts of the Torah. It is time to tell is like it is. The people running the Agudah have no source for their programs other than "Daas Torah" invented by "Gedolim" who care more about pro-gay politicians than Toras Moshe.
why does this letter ommit names? are they cowards? Chazal state where the is chilul Hashem you go all out! unfortunately we live in a cowardly generation
ReplyDeleteHusachdus isn't only Satmar. It's a conglomeration of rabbonim from multiple chasiduses.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, already going back to the 1970s, Gedolim who serve on the American Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel do not recognize or listen to or abide by the calls of the Hisachdus HaRabbanim dominated by Satmar or of their CRC Bais Din, as the still-outstanding and unsettled and unresolved Hazomonas below prove:
ReplyDeleteAnd factually, neither do the Satmer Chssidim themselves fully respect the hithachdithsss. Rav Aaron's chasidim used to feel that they would get a more legitimate ruling in secular court than at the hithachdith Beis Din.
ReplyDeleteA ruling is one thing. A declaration on a Kol Korei titled "Hakezonah yaaseh es achoseinu" is more than stating a halachic opinion.
ReplyDeleteThey write that since the MESADER said that he followed the Rosh yeshiva and the Rosh Yeshiva relied on a rov....
ReplyDeleteWho was the MESADER? Was it not the same Rov?
Why can they not disagree wiith Reb Moshe?
ReplyDeleteAlso, one can argue that there are people who are willing to take the Hetr of Reb Moshe a very long way we must reject it because it becomes a standard practice
They tend to protest any matter that is be NOGEA to the KLAL. Besides the Halacha aspect there is clearly a more general concern here.
ReplyDeleteWhy anything outside the moetzes is 'Nohting'? Please explain us.
ReplyDeleteVery nice! So now you give your "haskoma" to going to Arka'os, something even Rav Shlomo Carlebach did not do to get his rightful severance pay from Fructhandler the money man.
ReplyDeleteAs for Satmar, like by everyone else, they have been suffering from "hiskatnu hadoros".
Rav Yoel Teitelbaum was the great one, he built a malchus and real Chasidus in America, then came his nephew the businessman Rav Moshe Teitelbaum, who in turn has been succeeded by two feuding sons who could not get their act together to keep the Satmar Chasidus united, and fought over, what else, big money, and to set the bar even lower (good pun) they went to secular court to duke it out. Very nice, and you think it's fine and dandy to take justify or prove something from that kind of "chillul HaShem".
Sorry but you are beyond repaid, please return (yourself) to (your) sender please, you know what I mean, stop trolling here, you have gotten away too long with that!
Of course that phenomenon is toevah, but today there is no BD that is empowered to punish them. In the eys of secular law they have rights. It seems you are ok with secular law against beating up people to give a get, even though this is a practice given in the Talmud.
ReplyDeleteSorry but you are beyond repair
ReplyDeleteLOL
Dear, sweet, RaPper. You're cute.
please return (yourself) to (your) sender please
Care to explain this, in 20 words or less?
stop trolling here,
Aww. I'm sorry that you feel threatened by presence here. You will just have to figure out how to deal with it.
So now you give your "haskoma" to going to Arka'os
I never said that, and you know it. You don't let the truth get in the way of your battles. Neat.
The point still stands. Satmer themselves do not automatically accept the proclamations from Hithachdith.
Hey! Can I pass you on some good advice from the RaPper? stop trolling! OK?
Since BMG is a Yeshiva, and from the point of vihyisem nekiyim, it might seem that they want to knock the competition. Ukedei lehotsi milibam shel... However, by now that rov minyan verov binyan of klal Yisroel is Moiche, they will join the rest, ki Berov om hadras melech. For the time being, I don't know how these people can, Motso yodov veraglov beBeis haMidrash, after all, there is such a thing as Asher yechto nassi. At the rate it's going, the manhig is boshesh lovo and looking for more Simchas in Israel.
ReplyDeletePhilly is not in competition with Lakewood. They target bachurim of different ages.
ReplyDeleteThey're simply calling a spade a spade, without any sanitized euphemisms.
ReplyDeleteתלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף צא עמוד א-ב
ReplyDeleteאמשול לך משל, למה הדבר דומה: למלך בשר ודם, שהיה לו פרדס נאה, והיה בו
בכורות נאות, והושיב בו שני שומרים, אחד חיגר ואחד סומא. אמר לו חיגר לסומא: בכורות נאות אני רואה בפרדס. בא והרכיבני ונביאם לאכלם. רכב חיגר על גבי סומא, והביאום ואכלום. לימים בא בעל פרדס. אמר להן: בכורות נאות היכן הן? - אמר לו חיגר: כלום יש לי רגלים להלך בהן? - אמר לו סומא: כלום יש לי עינים לראות? מה עשה - הרכיב חיגר על גבי סומא ודן אותם כאחד. אף הקדוש ברוך הוא מביא נשמה וזורקה בגוף, ודן אותם כאחד. שנאמר יקרא אל השמים מעל ואל הארץ לדין עמו. יקרא אל השמים מעל - זו נשמה, ואל הארץ לדין עמו - זה הגוף.
In the spirit of: סבר שליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין: me and you is two, you and me is 4, one can leave and you still remain with a BD of three. Veyesh lomar, judge, jury and executioner. Veod yesh lomar, Who is on first..... vechozer vechalilo....
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, the RY sent an SOS note in the names of father and son to R'H'S of YU and many others to sign AS IS, and R'H'S' signed it. R'H'S' or R'Z'S if you will, freely declared T.F. is FREE FREE vetoleh ...... beacherim as Kvar horeh hazoken. This package was then sent over to R'N'G' for the clincher and got caught holding the bag. R'N'G acting as master of many trades put on his heter Nisuin cap and gave his blessings. In toch kedei dibur he put on his Mesader cap, and topped it with some more blessings on the house, so that ADAM may kiss the bride. If it is a little complicated to chap, just close your eyes and follow the money trail.
The gedolim both on the hisachdus as well as off in the litvish velt have always looked at the position of this hisachdus and lobbied the hisachdus rabbonim for events they needed their input or support.
ReplyDeleteThe Satmar Rebbe from Kiryas Yoel has rabbonim on this hisachdus.
ReplyDeleteThat is a factually incorrect statement.
ReplyDeleteThe Agudah Gedolim have always sought support from Satmar on matters of vital interest. Rav Hutner sought the Satmar Rebbe's support against Rav Moshe's position on new technologies impregnating women. Rav Moshe himself and the Satmar Rebbe are in many pictures meeting each other to discuss klal issues.
ReplyDeleteAnd today the Roshe Yeshiva of Lakewood, Rav Kotler shlita, is very close to the Satmar Rebbe in Kiryas Yoel, Rav Aharon shlita. Many pictures from many different times, including very recent and not so recent, of the SR visiting Lakewood and of Rav Malkiel visiting Kiryas Yoel are available in circulation.
Rabbi Dovid, what was the *full* exact wording of your question to the two major Roshei Yeshivos about fighting the gays and what was the *full* exact wording of their answer to you.
ReplyDeleteThey can disagree all they want (not that they are remotely in his league). What I object to is them saying that no one else can follow R' Moshe.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, he ruled for the heter. Don't see your point.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. They are stating that let the word go out in all בית ישראל that such a heter is null and void. They don't have the authority (or the plaitzes) to do that.
ReplyDeleteReb Mosheh clearly stated that his heter was only to be followed if it is absolutely impossible to get a GET. Aharon Friedman is willing to give a GET if certain custody arrangements can be improved. Reb Moshe would therefore never permit Tamar to remarry without a GET.
ReplyDeleteSatmar, Brisk, Eidah are at the fringes of , or outside of Orthodox Judaism.
ReplyDeleteThe leaders of Lithuanian Orthodoxy: The Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shach all ztl, have been systematically opposed by these extremist factions.
Once Rav Kotler (who was long maligned by the satmar rebbe) had to ask Reb Yoellish not to go against the Chazon Ish. The Brisk were mevazeh Rav Shach because of his involvement in Reb Malkiel's heter meah rabbonim. The Brisker Rov, who was a Gaon, claimed that the Israeli Rabbanut was idolatry, and it was assur to have any involvement in it. This statement is also problematic, since Rav Elyashiv , Rav Yosef , and many other Gedolei Torah of all traditions were involved in the Rabbanut.
If you are to take these groups seriously, it effectively means that all the Gedolei Yisroel are chas v'shalom sinners and falsifiers of halacha.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteAllow me to disagree with you. I learned by Reb Aharon Kotler, and when he died, the Satmer Rov Reb Yoel came and eulogized him, "To teach the glory of Aharon that he never changed the Torah." To understand this, another story I heard from a good friend who was there when it happened.
In Monsey lived a very wealthy man named Rapaport who was a follower of the Satmar Rov. He made a parlor meeting for the Satmar Rov and many people attended. One of the Satmar Chassidim noticed in the house of Mr. Rappaport an honor for giving fifty thousand dollars to Chinuch Atsmoi, a project of Reb Aharon. The Chosid went to the Satmar Rebbe and asked how a Chosid could be honored like that by an organization so strongly opposed by the Satmar Rebbe. The Rebbe answered, and this my friend heard himself, "He gave it because I told him to give it." When he saw confusion his remark made on the Chosid, the rebbe added "I have to protest and he has to give."
Another case is known that a fund raiser a student of Reb Aharon went to the Satmar Rebbe with a similar organization request and the rebbe gave him a large donation. He asked that it be put into a check form so that other Chassidim would see the check and contribute generously. The rebbe did this and other Chassidim contributed. The rebbe explained, "I would not do things that way, but you have a Gadol who sponsors it, so I contribute."
When the Satmar Rebbe died the Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood was honored to speak at the Leviah and he called for everyone to support the Satmar projects, as I recall.
The Satmar Rebbe did a lot of screaming, against his best friends, among them were Reb Aharon Kotler, the Kupishneter Rebbe and others. He felt that he had to scream and he had to contribute and people have to understand that.
I heard from a good friend who knew the story personally, I believe her heard it from the Kapishnetser Rebbe himself. The Kapishnitser once wrote a very large check for Chinuch Hoatsmei or some such organization. He then went to the Satmar Rebbe and showed him the check. The rebbe started to scream. The Kapishneter then left the house to go back home and he noticed a taxi waiting for him. He went back to the rebbe and said, "You scream at me and then call a taxi for me?" The Kapishnetser later explained, "Can I deny the rebbe the pleasure of Jewish children being saved and If afterwards he wants to scream, that is his business."
The mesader was Rabbi Greenblatt. And he relied on the Kaminetskies. And the Kaminetskies relied on some unknown "Gadol" rachmono litslon.
ReplyDeleteCatskills1,
ReplyDeleteI gave it like it was.Both Rosh YEshivas said the exact words, "We are against hate."
It is wrong to coerce a GET by the Shulchan Aruch, not secular law, although we do obey the law of the land when it is does not conflict with the Torah. And to support those who want to uproot the Torah and its clear laws that gay is TOEIVO is clearly a sin, unless you need the money from pro-gay politicians in New York to build "Torah" rachmono listlon.
ReplyDeleteNot so. They are issuing a ruling.
ReplyDeleteThere must be an overlap in the ages that will suffice for seeming so, besides, there is personal competition in it as well, again seemingly so. Veyesh leyashev bedochak shamati, veyesh lehakshos bedochak lo rosisi. vd"al.
ReplyDeleteNow that there is a Cherem, "Veal yevakshu torah mipihu" ma tehe oleho? If they won't own up to this scandal to fix it soon enough, the yeshiva students might end up leaving in droves just like in YCT, if they know what's good for them. Probably by the time you read this, it cold well be in the making.
Brisk, Satmar and the Eidah are as mainstream orthodoxy as orthodox gets. There entire spectrum of orthodoxy looks to them to hear their views on all vital matters for orthodoxy regardless whether they'll ultimately agree with them or not.
ReplyDeleteIf you insist on finding a group within orthodoxy that isn't mainstream and their views area note held in high regard by the rest of orthodoxy, that would be the Modern Orthodox.
So why did Rav Aharon refuse a Din Torah at this Hisachdus? Why are they still in court?
ReplyDeleteThe unknown Rachmono litslon seems to be the RY of YU. He publicised the note in ORA's site, that T.F/E is FREE FREE.
ReplyDelete"IS" is a Psak in and of itself. Ukvar horeh hazaken is (u) vav mosif al horishonim, that is one more which makes it two. Zoken must refer to the elder K' who sent a drafted up note in his name to be signed AS IS. That leaves R'NG the third, the Baal Heter and the Baal Mesader Kidushin as in multitasking or double dipping. I can't rule out another mystery rachmono litslon rabbi as to whether that was R'NG or someone else, since by the time of the "declaration" of independence of T/F/F, already had to have three Dayonim in order to be allegedly free, and father and son cannot include the three. Yomim yogidu.
This episode sounds so much like the haggadah, veoso soiro deshoso lemayo... or better yet, The eits hadaas, story with lol ADAM, blaming etc. blaming etc...
David Eidensohn says: “It is wrong to coerce a GET by
ReplyDeletethe Shulchan Aruch, not secular law, although we do obey the law of the land
when it is does not conflict with the Torah.”
I quote Sotah
25a
R.
Hanina of Sura said; Come and hear: In the following cases a court of law can
give warning: when the husband is a deaf-mute or has become insane or is
imprisoned. not for the purpose of making her drink did they say this but to
disqualify her in connection with the marriage-settlement. Conclude from this
that she does require to be warned! That conclusion is to be drawn. But why did
not [the other Rabbis] draw the inference from this passage? [They thought]
perhaps it is different in the circumstance where she had no cause at all to be
afraid of her husband. [(8) Since he was incapacitated; but in normal
circumstances, they imagined that she would lose her marriage-settlement
without a warning.]
A court of law has tremendous powers. We could argue that a court of law cannot
coerce a get and cannot approve T.E. to remarry without a get when the court of
law didn’t hear the husband’s side. The wife would be afraid of her husband if
he would appear before the court of law and testify against her.
I’m arguing that the NY Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge
Prus cannot rule without hearing my side replies to Susan court papers. Surely, Judge Prus could demand I pay first
$25,000 fines and demand that I appear. Fine, but then Judge Prus cannot rule
on Susan’s papers.
the Kaminetskies relied on some unknown "Gadol"
ReplyDeleteAre you sure?
I understood that The Mesader (Rabbi Greenblatt) relied on The Kaminetzkies. Rav Shmuel, on the other hand, said that he relied on the Rav Bar Samche (Rabbi Greenblatt). My understanding was that there was no third party being blamed. The hisachdus was quietly mocking the ring-around-the-rosy, a-pocket-full-of-posy..... game being played with Eishes Ish.
You take offense that the Hisachdus rabbis didn't accept R' Moshe's heter. You wrote: "It's a good letter till the point where they take it upon themselves to say that no one can follow R' Moshe's heter".
ReplyDeleteHowever R' Moshe himself acknowledged that there are others who disagree with him. So the Hisachdus is aligned with the poskim who would reject R' MOshe's heter.
I don't see what is confusing here: Rabbi Greenblatt relied on Rabbi Kamentzky for the information, Rabbi Kamenetzky says that Tamar can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt for the pesak.
ReplyDeleteThey're simply calling a spade a spade, without any sanitized euphemisms.
ReplyDeleteAre you of proud Hungarian decent, by any chance? You're either the biggest tzadik or the biggest rosha, correct? We don't believe in nuance - we believe in broad brush strokes, correct?
Lets just take the headline: "Hakezonah yaaseh es achoseinu."
Is rape the same as a disgusting, mistaken and laughable heter? If you see it as the same thing, then you do have the goor heilige hissachdith on your side. They are Yereim Usheimim bechol minei kidishe v'tehare, i'bchol maaseh tov. They are maamesh the Sanhedren sheboireini. Shechinah Hakdoishe medaber mitoich geroinom.
There are others who unfortunately do not properly appreciate these cultural tendencies.
This is why I don't accept the full argument you are bringing.
ReplyDeletea) Shulchan aruch yes, but rambam allows it. Secular law does not permit ( to beat someone until he says yes).
b) You are arguing that some Rabbis follow a particular politician, who is supporting gaiety. That is not really a halachic argument. You might vote for Bush or Obama or whoever, but each of them will do things that is against halacha and Torah. Similarly, in Israel, apart from Satmar/eida, religious parties are part of a secular government that permit gaiety and give rights to the toievah. Thus, you can eithr protest and be totally Eidah/Brisk etc, or be part of the rest of the Hareidi world such as Rav Shteinman, Rav Kanievsky. Your argument, however, also attacks these gedolim, who accept money form the State, but the same state is gay friendly etc.
c) A reminder of a previous debate on here, when i pointed out that Rav Sonnenfeld, who was the greatest leader of the Eidah, who worked with a man called De Haan. De Haan was frum, from his shoulders up. But his behaviour was that of a gay shaagetz menuval, who went to the Kotel to pick up arab boys, and is a major gay figure in both the religious and secular worlds.
Do you know what Rav Sonnenfeld said about him? That he is not responsible for what De Haan does from his shoulders downwards. That means Rav Sonnenfeld was willing to accept this character, because it brought political benefits to his group.
S"A paskens against Rambam and thus one cannot use this Rambam against the psak S"A. If one does, then the S"A and thus normative halacha will consider the future children to be mamzeirim.
ReplyDeleteI don't really follow your rambling, and bringing you opponents supposed lineage or cultural background doesn't reflect intellectual discussion on your part.
ReplyDeletePainting a woman as a זונה doesn't have be done in Fifty Shades of Gray. Just say it as it is, It's the unvarnished truth. Someone who commits זנות is a זונה.
You're probably upset, because the word זונה conjures up in your mind the idea of a hooker, and you think that the Hisachdus is accusing TF of being one. However you should be aware that זונה also means someone who cohabits with a man other than her husband, which TF is allegedly guilty of.
For an example of the two usages, see Yevamos 61b:
והתניא זונה זונה כשמה דברי רבי אליעזר,
רבי עקיבא אומר זונה זו מופקרת
Rashi (ad loc.):
זונה כשמה.
לשון טועה שטועה מתחת בעלה
לאחרים..: מופקרת. ואפי' פנויה
מאחר שהפקירה עצמה לכל קרויה
זונה
As poskim themselves they do have the authority to state that.
ReplyDeleteMoe, you seem oblivious to historical facts. DeHaan
ReplyDeletewas not a ger in any sense, he was born Jewish, and was a BT, but that is not the same as giur.
Your other imaginations are also typical of NKUSA who rewrite history. but we do not rely on satmar/Nk for history, since they are the worst criminals in terms of their brutality towards other Jews , including their own communities.
DeHaan is well known as a feigele, a purveyor of toevah.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/185708/jacob-de-haan-political-poet
May I ask if you also studied under the Satmar rebbe?
ReplyDeleteOh - so why can't latter poskim also rule agasint the Shulhan Aruch or for the Rambam?
ReplyDeletePoskim have ruled the Rambams ruling permitting coercion by maos alei cannot be utilized. Same with poskim ruling that the Yaavetz's psak permitting suicide to punish oneself for certain sins or his ruling permitting a pilegesh cannot be utilized and is not accepted.
ReplyDeleteAs you explain that R' G' relied on R'K and R'K relied on the Bar Samcha R'G, is like as if the K's are tapping themselves on their own backs. What happened to klum Adam me'id al isosoi? It also seems that R'HS is part and parcel to this Quantum psak as posted in the FREEDOM poster crediting the Zoken.
ReplyDeleteHere is a text graph of what transpired, and if quoted wrong, please correct me, anyone.
Rabbi'(s) K'(s) went on a heter mekach taus expedition hunt to be matir an eishes ish lashuk, sending out a predrafted Psak for a rav hamachshir without disclosing any details of the verification of alleged facts to their prospects.
R'HS disclosed that all is well, fine and dandy for TF/E to proceed and move on FREE with life, and no more bound to her previous history (bound by marriage). All this has been accredited to Hazoken R'K. A this point there must have been a BD of three, but that part is not disclosed who those other two might be. When RK has been approached, Hayitochen, he replied I never was matir "Lehafkia" such.
When R'G was approached how and why he was Mesader Kidushin for an eishes ish, R'G replied that he was relying on a Bar Smache such as R'K. In this game of Ping Pong also known as heter Iska/heter (shiksa?) for lack of a better term, for self proclaimed alleged Agunos, there were/are three major Known players, namely R'K, R'HS, and R'G. R'K was the PINGER or SERVER in search of quick responders, the other two were CLIENTS, aka as pongers aka HOSTS working in TANDEM aka cahoots as a team. At this point and time, we are unaware whether there is a missing link to this ESEK BISH, ve'ein ledayan elo ma she'einov ro'os. Each of the dream team player denies and confirms their participation in this T. Epstein episode, how then is it posssible that she is married, not married, never married, loves me, loves me not, he said, she said, I never said, who is on first, and who said what to whom, when, why, or where and still be true to all of the above? The answer my friend is, the newly discovered Chidush of "QUARK NETWORKING". We have multitaskers that can be at two places at the same time, saying two opposite things and doing different tasks independently yet working together, severally and jointly all in the same space, time and Universe. This gevaldige Chidush is of such a large magnitude, that was not even given over to a Talmid Vosik at Sinai. It is nowhere to be found In Torah, Neviim, Uksivim, SA, RAMBAM, ubechol machmanei haTorah. If anyone has a better explanation, or knows better the Toldos of the Heteirim bouncing back and forth pathetically beKaf haKela Please, you are more than welcome!
If you happen to be confused, don't make yourself an Agmas nefesh over it, and welcome to the club!
You're are woefully misinformed. De Haan was a Ger. Your other points are equally wrong.
ReplyDeletea) I did not take offense. I am in no way offended. Rather, I objected to their high-handedness.
ReplyDeleteb) They can align themselves with whomever they choose, but they cannot issue rulings for all of klal Yisrael in opposition to R' Moshe.
They are not remotely in R' Moshe's league, and even if they were, they are not the poskim of all klal Yisrael. They pasken for some of the chassidishe oilam, not for all of it, and not for the litvishe at all.
ReplyDeleteThere is zero competition between them. They serve completely different ages. Don't double down on ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThey needn't be in Rav Moshe's league. Rav Moshe himself, as other poskim do, on certain issues rejects much earlier poskim than himself who he says were of a much higher pay grade as poskim than himself.
ReplyDeleteAnd Rav Moshe, too, want the posek of all of Klal Yisroel. The Chasidim and Sefardim had their own poskim.
You probably missed out on this, "that will suffice for seeming so". And seeming so, is in the eyes of the beholder, regardless of their actual ages. kol h.....
ReplyDeleteThese stories are just stories. the fact is that all of the lithuanian Gedolim were systematically mocked by the extreme right - and even the Chazon Ish was attacked by the satmar Rebbe.
ReplyDeleteThere are also stories about Rav Yosef Soloveitchik giving cheques to his uncle's Brisk, even though they would all the time attack YU.
You can hold by either Rav Elyashiv or the Brisker Rav. The former was in the Rabbanut, whilst the latter banned it, equating it to Avodah Zarah.
There is a story that Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, the son of the famous Rav Kook, would learn at Brisker Rav's shiur. But he would be jeered and attacked each time he went there. Eventually he was persuaded by his colleagues to stop going becasue of this disgraceful behaviour. And that is the same stink in satmar. They spend a lifetime attacking RAK, and at his levayah give a nice eulogy.
The Chasidim ... had their own poskim.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. And that's who the hisachdus paskens for, not for the rest of us. So they don't get to tell us whether or not we can follow R' Moshe.
And you seem to have missed out on the fact that anyone who knows the slightest thing about these yeshivos will not make that mistake, Unless of course they have managed to puzzle out your cryptic pidgin and are thus misinformed.
ReplyDeleteBuddy,
ReplyDeleteWithout all the insults: where is the actual Possuk "hakezona yaaseh ess achoseinu" said? The exact source is mentioned right next to the headline in the Hisachdus proclamation.
It was said in a case of abduction and rape. Shimon and Levi were excusing to Yaakov their murder of all the men of the city of Shchem, since their sister had been abducted and raped.
So no, calling a case of a horribly mistaken psak of permitting zenus rape is far from "calling a spade a spade." It is an exaggeration.
You're probably upset, because the word זונה conjures up in your mind the idea of a hooker, and you think that the Hisachdus is accusing TF of being one.
Please. I really thought you're better than that. At what point should we asking if כל הפוסל במומו פוסל is relevant over here?
However you should be aware that זונה also means someone who cohabits with a man other than her husband, which TF is allegedly guilty of.For an example of the two usages, see Yevamos 61b:....
Thank you. These are valid and meaningful points.
R'HS disclosed that all is well, fine and dandy for TF/E to proceed and move on FREE with lif
ReplyDeleteIs this "heter" of RHS the story behind his letter against the IBD a full year after they went into business? Is it coincidental that RSK wrote his unique denial letter at aproximanntly the same time that RHS wrote this letter? (Both are dated Tamuz of this past summer.)
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.torahweb.org/torah/docs/ibd-machaa.pdf
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bQF-XZQ4aTw/VkSUoIYXwGI/AAAAAAAATv8/oW7BDCShZhs/s1600/Sholom%2BKaminetsky%2527s%2Bdenial.%2Bcroppedjpg.jpg
I have to assume that you have a mission on this forum and that is to protect RSK. I think that you also have to consider the many outstanding talmidim of the Philadelphia Yeshiva. They have done nothing wrong and the longer this drags on the more their reputation is harmed.
ReplyDeleteIt is OK for a Philadelphia Yeshiva talmid to say that on this occasion RSK got it wrong.
now at last we are seeing some interesting points made by Moe, well done.
ReplyDeleteI quote what you wrote previously: "And Rav Moshe, too, wasn't the posek of all of Klal Yisroel. The Chasidim and Sefardim had their own poskim."
So, some poskim may have ruled against Rambam, but not those who follow the Rambam. there are Sefardi practices for example, that "poskim" may have ruled against. But Sefardi poskim may have ruled for.
This is discussion of how halacha works - i am not pushing a particular line, but wish to clarify how things have been historically. Yaavetz is still accepted andpielgesh is still technically feasible. I think there was a Raavad on this, vs the Rambam.
You can argue that the Hishachdus is wrong but if the facts stated are correct then the MESADER relied on the Rosh Yeshiva for the Psak and not just facts. What we are seeing is beyond belief.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Shulchan Aruch paskened against the Rambam, generally the entire Jewish world (other than Teimanim) have accepted the psak in the S"A over the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is your thought why BMG missed out on this protest?
ReplyDeleteYes, it has become widespread and accepted, but I don't see the reason why the sefer Shulchan Aruch has the final status in halacha, and no previous or later opinions can go against it. The fact is, that approx 1000 years ago, there were various works in halacha, Rambam being only 1 of them. There was no "shulchan aruch" at the time, people went by their own regional poskim, eg Rambam, Rif, Rashi, Raavad etc. Raavad is highly critical in his intro to the Yad of the Rambam, and one can only assume he would similarly be critical of the SA, just as the Maharal was. Again, I am not trying to dethrone the SA, but I don't understand how and why it has become so centralised.
ReplyDeleteMaybe for the same reason many prominent poskim (e.g., R' Dovid Cohen) have not joined in. Perhaps they think that R' Nota Greenblatt is a bar samcha.
ReplyDeleteMoe, i think you misunderstand kishkeyum's point, although he wont want me to defend him :)
ReplyDeleteCertain people are on a level to be mechalek on Rav Moshe, e.g. RSZA, Rav Yosef , and maybe even the Satmar Rebbe or Lubavitcher Rebbe. In the big picture, you need to be on that kind of level. Today, Lubavitch does not really have a rebbe or gedolim, so a posek might rely on the late rebbe to disagree on something.
This is actually a very revealing debate, since Moe is using a rationalist or almost OO type argument, and Kishke is using a Hareidi Daas Torah type argument.
The rationalist argument is that anyone can argue with Rav Moshe, if they bring a good sevarah. IN principle I agree with this, but there is something i call "realHalachik", which means the way it goes in practice, and in powerful halachic circles, a small guy cannot usually argue with a big Posek. If some modern professor writes a critique of the Mishna Brura, for example, then nobody would take him seriously. That is essentially what Kish is (apparently) arguing.
RHS did not permit TE to remarry without a get. the poster was done by ORA, who then removed it. RHS is not the webmaster of ORA, that is not one of his roles. They made an error by posting it, and did not consult him. He was said to be furious at the time, and the poster was removed.
ReplyDeleteIf someone has evidence that RHS was involved in the heter, please provide documented evidence or reliable eidut (which is difficult on a blog).
Rav Tzvi Yehudah going to the Brisker Rav's shiur? Doesn't sound right to me. I call your bluff, what's your source on that?
ReplyDeleteR' Hs disclosed a heter?
ReplyDeleteLo hayu dvarim me-olam.
I urge you to provide a source or retract the lie.
It's a lie.
ReplyDeleteR' HS never gave a heter for this. "ehud" is the first to bring his name into this heter.
You seem to be unaware that there is license to "borrow" terminology a פסוק, even if the פסוק is not 100% percent talking about the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, the מליצה happens to resonate pretty well, since the bottom line is that זנות is being permitted (cohabiting with a man other than her husband), which is making אחותנו like a זונה.
Good lord this is total idiocy, more fitting to a 2 year old's overactive imagination.
ReplyDeleteYou are an idiot.
"The Brisker Rov, who was a Gaon, claimed that the Israeli Rabbanut was idolatry"
ReplyDeleteThis is an inaccurate statement. He thought the Israeli Rabbinate would bend torah and halacha for political reasons and was thus extremely opposed to any involvement.
Rav Elyashiv and Rav Ovadya likely disagreed with him on the facts, and did not believe that involvement with the Rabbinate would result in ziyuf hatorah. Alternatively they held that their involvement would minimize the breaches.
Either way, you don't have to "hold of" only one or the other.
when people call my bluff on this blog, I usually come up with the source#
ReplyDeletehere:
http://mevakeshlev.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/stories-about-rav-tzvi-yehuda-kook-from.html
was actually rav Aryeh Levin ztl that convinced Rav Tzvi Yehuda to stop going.
Please explain,
ReplyDelete1)Tamar *IS* FREE = independent statement!
2) Ukvar horeh haZaken = quoting to support, why else?
Let's see how the open and free public perceives these statements.
True, and bederech mlitsa of something that's a fact fitting in perfectly. And that, is part and parcel of talmidei chachomim writing their views, psak etc. baderech tsachos. Midvorov shel odom nikar im hu Talmid chochom.
ReplyDeleteAgain, they don't rule for anyone outside of their machaneh, even among the chasidim, and certainly not for the litvishe. Their kol korei has got no legs.
ReplyDeleteI happen to know they have been working behind the scenes, and may yet go public.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you say that's the reason these poskim did not join in?
ReplyDeleteSo why then is the Yoishev rosh boshesh lovo? klall Yisrael is in a crisis, where are they when needed most. Lo es lachshos, even if only from shmuah rechoike, ad ki yaavor zaam. If it's for reasons of a Simcha, ein Simcha kehatores hasfeikos. You have rov rubo shel Klall Yisroel Uposkei Yisroel Ugedoilei Yisroel befeh echod ubelev echod ubeyiroh haOmdin al haMODIN pleading to recant, all the greatest Mumchim heavy bombers B 52's Baki beTiv Gittin veKiddushin declaring To'oh bidvar Mishnah mefureshes and he is sitting away in silence as if business as usual, is that what you can call a BAR SAMCHA? Ulesamcha zu ma zeh oisoh? Playing ping Pong and misasek is not an option, nor a solution.
ReplyDeleteThe Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter
ReplyDeletehave agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as
authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim "kim li"
against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone
as your "Rebbi", where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing
that happened when, let's say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of
Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar
bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora.
There was no "halachah lmoshe misinai" that told us that the Gemora was
sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same
thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.
Rav Moshe himself writes that other poskim should argue against him if they disagree.
ReplyDeleteno, you are just writing fiction, like dehaan was a ger, even though he was born Jewish and went to Heder.
ReplyDeleteOr was it a typo and you mean gay?
1) Was a statement made by ORA without RHS authorization. As Eddie pointed out, he is not ORA's webmaster
ReplyDelete2) Was not regarding this heter.
Stop with the idiotic lies.
Ah, so you have misquoted the source.
ReplyDeleteIt says to "hear divrei torah from him", it doesn't say that Rav Tzvi Yehuda attended the shiur.
As is known, the Brisker Rav's shiur was limited to a small group of hand-picked scholars. R Tzvi Yehuda was not one of them.
On the other hand, the Brisker Rav's home was essentially open, and anyone could go to daven there, to talk to him in learning, or to hear him talk to others in learning. Presumably this is what R Tzvi Yehuda did.
He did not attend his shiur.
That is what I heard from someone who spoke to him.
ReplyDeleteNo one rules for anyone outside their machne. So what's your point? No one should issue kol korei's ever since no one rules for outside their own machne?
ReplyDeleteNot every prominent posek in the world is expected to join in on every maachoa or protest. Not voicing an opinion doesn't indicate an opinion one way or another. Not everyone in the world joins in every protest.
ReplyDeleteOnce dehaan became frum he was a full fledged frum jew. He did not engage in any of non-frum "lifestyle" after he became a frum jew.
ReplyDeleteThat great great grandchilld you cited is OTD and the article on the frum-bashing Tablet has no value or trustworthy.
Sahadei bamromim that I am reading right of what was posted in his name, and then and there at the time, there was no denial of fake, fraud or phony, and kivan deshoskei...
ReplyDeleteAgain, I reiterate what was stated, Tamar is FREE FREE 2X. *IS free*, was his own heter. Ukvar horeh haZoken, is VAV mosif al horishonim, a separate Heter = 2.
That was my take on it, bli kchal ushrak. if you have a better choice of words, or learn different pshat, you are perfectly free to do so. Hameforsem eino tsorich raya, ask any DT blogger whether it was posted here on the blog. Do not accuse me as if this is a lie, as Midvar Sheker Tirchak, Reb You ben bli shem inclusive.
I have no clue to whom this letter was directed originally or whether posted with his authorization or not. Ask ORA what the situation with this case might have been. Again, Lo Sonu ish es amiso, zu oinoes dvorim. I would be more than happy to retreat if you can clarify what those Rashi osiyos printed at the time what they might have referred to. in any which case, ORA is saruach meikro, RA leShamayim veRA Labriyos.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that?
ReplyDeletelook at this, especially ref 7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isra%C3%ABl_de_Haan
even secular academic research from his native Netherlands demonstrates that his toevah lifestyle and literature extended to his time in Israel. It i actually quite sickening to read about the nonsense he wrote in the name of poetry. He got away with it becasue he wrote in Dutch, and the hareidi community were not as judgemental about his mishkav zachar (or katanim) as the zionists were.
ReplyDeletea google search of his name will show a link to the uva, (Amsterdam university), which tells the background and practices of Reb De Haan. It should not be read by those who do not like secular and "open" literature. I was quite sickened by this, and I have seen movies and TV, so very frum people might not take well to it.
Wikipedia is not reliable as a primary source.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that they have no standing to decide such things for all of klal Yisrael.
ReplyDeleteDear Pal, instead of replying with insults and calling names, Red tsu der zach, if you only can.
ReplyDeleteI heard something quite different in his name, which goes to show that third-party information is often inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteYou really are an idiot.
ReplyDeleteMr Ehud
ReplyDeletei think you are confusing 2 separate issues
the letter that RHS wrote was about protesting to get the husband to give a Gett.
This is not the same as saying the wife can remarry without one. In fact, these are 2 opposite statements.
If RHS sees the need for a Gett, then obviously he cant claim that there isn't a need for one. the criticism you can make is that he allows fair means or fowl, ie beating up someone. But he never was mevatel the kiddushin.
Oh - thank you for your clarification. You actually make a fine point, and I misunderstood your objection. Going to a shiur meaning a yeshiva class, whereas hearing Divrei Torah may be hear him talk or deliver divrei Torah.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good enough distinction.
R' Dovid Cohen) have not joined in
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, why has Rabbi Cohen not come out in support of Rabbi Greenblatt and Rabbi Keminetzky?
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI you say a story about gedolim, about people you never saw, it is true. But when I say stories about people from Gedolim that I personally heard them speaking and I heard from close friends who were very close to these gedolim, that is just "stories."
Thank you Eddie for correcting me, Chotosi ovisi my apologies to all parties concerned!
ReplyDeleteJust searched and found article of - Thursday, January 23, 2014
and it is even getting better. to be continued
One thing that is certain is that when he was asked about it directly on a radio program, he went out of his way to avoid criticizing the ruling.
ReplyDeleteNarishkeit and faltchkeit.
ReplyDeleteI did not hear the program, but even given your assessment of his response, all it shows is that he is careful about what he says publicly. It does not necessarily represent what he actually holds about it.
ReplyDeleteYou can listen at this link (episode 11).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nachumsegal.com/jm-in-the-am/headlines-dovid-lichtenstein/
I agree that third-hand information is often inaccurate, but all that means is that someone should try to get a straight answer from him. In any event, the fact that he is unwilling to criticize it publicly says something as well.
HETER SHMETER MEAH RABONIM, CHIYUV UKFIYAS HAGET, MEKACH TAUS, TAUS SOIFER.
ReplyDeleteTIME TO STOP SHMAYSSING OUR BROTHERS
I hereby continue as promised, as well as how it is even getting better. I looked at this article of
*Thursday, January 23, 2014
Rav Schachter: I relied on Rav Kaminetsky*
stating the following
Lechol man deboiye
in the midst of the paragraph, ...demutar lechovsho im rotse livroach uleagen es ishto, R'HS gives his consent for beatings. He then follows with ...
'Veim hoireh hachochom Harav Shmuel Kaminecki n'y' shemin hanochon leshachnea et habaal sheyegaresh es ishto, az kvar hoireh hazoken, v'ein leharher achar hoiro'osoi ... umitsvah lishmoa divrei chachomim, ... hashkofoh shel emunas chachomim, sheoni tomid somchim al kach shemistome hoyo lehachochom siyata dishmaya lehoyrois kehoigen, ukilshon haposuk, sod H' lireiov. ELO IM KEN YISBARER LEHEDYE SHETO'O.
All this was in reference to Kfiyas haGet at that time, supporting R' SK. Furthermore, this is not only support but Giving full fledged SMICHA with both hands to rely on his Psokim and do as R'SK commands, like a BLANK CHECK, v'ein leharher achrov, mistome also had siyata dishmaya, unless we find him clearly to err.
Mistake number one (1)
We have arrived to the point where R'SK clearly ERRED. First It started out with a Chiyuv and KFIYAS haGet, NOW we are up to - a Mekach taus and IN NO NEED of a Get ALTOGETHER! A turn of events, taking a 180! Lekatchilah may kosover? This was clearly mistake number ONE (1). No siyata dishmaya, no sod H' lireiov either since H' doesn't err. Shall we c.v. say he is NOT lireiov? Not according to - ve'ein leharher achrov, unless we find him clearly he erred, then yesh leharher achrov. If so, WHERE IS/WAS THE PROTEST? Ein kol v'ein oineh! is this not what you call a HETER?
Mistake number two (2)
The reason quoted as per R' NG the Mesader, that since it was a Mekach Taus, there is no need for a GET, and he quoted the RY saying so, he in turn quoted R' Rachmone Litslan unknown Bar Samcha Nero Yoir, and round and round it goes. At this point, we find clearly a Mishna mefureshes that when sovro vekibkla there is NO Mekach Taus, and indeed IN need of a GET as well as according to gedoilei hador uposkim yoshvim al haModin baki beTiv Gittin ve Kidushin saying the same. Again no siyata dishmaya, no sod H lireiov, it is clear that he ERRED, still and all, NO PROTEST, no nothing, all the while the SMICHA bishtei yodov of R' HS is forging ahead in full force all engines in full thrust forward! This is/was mistake number TWO (2).
How can you say that R'HS never gave a HETER if T.F/F/E is chas vesholom kimat kreiso bein shineho? There never was a moment of a declaration from R' HS retreiving his SMICHA from R' SK, HAYITOCHEN?
Furthermore, although R'HS did not give his blessings to R'SK all over again for the Mekach Taus psak, however, this a contiuation of the same esek bish behelem achas, meinyon leinyon BEOISOI INYAN without any gilui daas of protest and retreiving the ORIGINAL SMICHA, umideshoskei shma mina denichei lei.
Mistake number three (3)
R'NG went ahead with Siddur Kidushin of an eishes ish as supported and directed by R'SK, this was mistake number THREE (3). Again no protest, no siyata dishmaya, no nothing etc. etc. etc. umideshoskei shma minei denichei lei. Isn't this a HETER.
Houston, we have a problem! Klall Yisroel is in a crisis, vekabernitah Boshesh lovo, vehayeled eineno, veono onu bo?
Im kein lomo ze onoichi? Vos hab ich dir getohn? Why do you call me a liar and other sheimos hanirdofim? Huh?
You can start with asking mechilah from R' Aharon F (ISH-SHALOM). veani tfilo, halvay sheyimchol lachem.
I quoted his heter. Read further down. Stop resorting to name calling. Read and learn and discover.
ReplyDeleteIt was R' HS himself that brought up the heter. See for your self in my response.
ReplyDeleteWe have heard this excuse about six thousand years ago. Hashomer ochi anochi. See the letter of recommendation to R'SK. Who comes up with such ridiculous heterim to beat up bnei yisrael, and all for the money. Mendel Epstein yochiach.
ReplyDeleteBeen there, done that, and read all about it.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you think so. Sorry to burst your bubble, just read on vetehene.
ReplyDeleteHe was said to be furious at the time, and the poster was removed.
ReplyDeleteTrue. The question is why he was furious. Was it because he disagreed with the supposed "heter," or was it for a different reason entirely. Maybe he is indeed a sponsor of this "heter," just he did not want ORA to be perceived as shopping and advocating for these type of nonsense heterim - as it is bad for business. Did he not issue a public letter to follow all of RSK's declarations and decision? Why is this "heter" different? Why did he also recruit RNG to sign onto his dismissal of the IBD's "resolutions," after he knew quite well of the "heter" that RNG rubber stamped?
Good Lord, more of these idiotic rantings...
ReplyDeleteRHS relied on RSK that AF should give a get. You're extrapolating from there that he GAVE this heter for her to marry without a get!?
You really are an idiot and have no place in any intelligent discussion of the issue.
(By the way, as a I have noted before RHS letter did not give any consent for beatings, the point of the letter was that you don't need a formal psak from a beis din to pressure the guy to give a get in an aguna situation, because it's a case of kfiya al hamitzvos in which you say naase yado kishliach b"d. The fact that the case in the gemara involves physical beatings is incidental.)
You're still an idiot. "His heter" exists only in your imagination.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was really Rav Aharon Kotler's heter (af"l), because he's the one who actually gave RSK smicha bishtei yadayim.
NEWSFLASH: Rav Aharon Kotler gave RSK SMICHA bishtei yadav.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_Kamenetsky
According to your idiot twisted logic, it was Rav Aharon who was matir Tamar without a get (af"l)
As far as I know Rav Aharon Kotler never revoked his SMICHA from Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.
ReplyDeleteHAYITOCHEN???
His public letter said to follow RSK's declarations and decisions unless it is clear that he made a mistake. (yisbarer lehedya shetaa.)
ReplyDeleteHere RSK claims he never gave a declaration or decision.
And Im timtzei lomar he did, well then, It's pretty clear that it was a mistake, nisbarer lehedya shetaa.
So there is no basis to assert, even based on the previous letter that RHS supports this heter.
He also never denied that "Ehud is an idiot"
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean it's not true.
@Going Anon
ReplyDeletePease STOP Going on n on n on.
Relax my friend. Take a deep breath because you sound paranoid. Your pretzel logic is irrational. Why stop there, why then not go back to Moshe Rabenu. R' HS gave his Smicha on this very Dvar Halacha of Tamar F/F/E that no one question his instruction, because if so, ....time of Moshe...
***********
* I urge you to provide a source or retract the lie.*
Bevakasha, here is your source
If you go the website of this date, you will find Smicha vouching for him with full fledged pishut yadayim veraglayim, such as not even Yehoshua received from Moshe rabenu. Along with a Heter Hoiroeh of Hoiroas zoken, ve'ein leharher..., uMitsva lishmoa..., Emunas chachomim, ...SHEONU TOMID SOMCHIM AL KACH, mistome had Siyata Dishmaya lehoiros kehoigen, Sod H',
UNLESS we clearly discover that he ERRED.
Such a Gevaldige blank Check needs to be STOPPED before you go totally bankrupt, don't you think?
And here is your source for the Smicha delo posek ON THIS VERY ISSUE OF TAMAR from the getgo!
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Rav Schachter: I relied on Rav Kaminetsky
From April 6, 2012
Reposted because of the current interest in evidence that Rav Schachter called for or alluded to the appropriateness of violence against Ahron Friedman. Please click the link for an explicit discussion of the question based on Rav Schachter's recorded comments. Please keep in mind that there is no beis din that has heard both sides and issued a psak. In particular they both signed an agreement to follow the Baltimore Beis Din which has not issued any statement demanding that Ahron Freidman give Tamar a Get.
R' Aron K is turning over in his ...... over this sha'arurya! He would be rather Doiche bishtei yodayim
I heard today from a person who spent years on this problem that the one who permitted Tamar to remarry was somebody else that refuses to publicly admit that he permitted it, but it is known that he did it, and he did tell some people that he did it. A lot of people suspected that he did it, but he refused to admit it publicly. However, some people claim that he did admit it here and there, but now after the uproar, it is unlikely he will publicly admit it.
ReplyDeleteHogwash! Read:
ReplyDeletePlease STOP Going on n on n on. Unless stopped befeirush ubehedye , it is a Smicha delo Posek. How else would you know that R'HS is in agreement sheTo'o?
Probably doesn't have his cell phone.
ReplyDeleteWrong again! It was rather the Smicha of Pishut yadayim veraglayim befeirush ubehedye, Leoiso dovor ubeoiso inyan, ubeoiso mokom Beir haTmorim hanikro Filfeldelfia, that led to the heter of eishes ish lashuk.
ReplyDeleteAll you need do, just listen to the song at the trial of Epstein the butcher et al, in it's original and it's entirety. Tsu Borscht darf men nit kain tsehn. So much for your intelligence.
ReplyDeleteTrue. it tallies with tsadikim gemurim naaseh melachtan al yedei acherim. in Jewland, it was the same, the butler was told that the pain of ......... is unbearable. The rest is history. It is like when you tell a Prodwiler, Get him.
ReplyDeleteIs this someone from Israel or America?
ReplyDeleteReb Dovid, are you saying that Rav Greenblatt relied upon a Godol other than Rav Kaminetzky to provide Tamar a heter to remarry, and that Rav Kaminetzky is not the Godol who Rav Greenblatt relied upon for the heter?
ReplyDelete"you don't need a formal psak from a beis din to pressure the guy to give a get in an aguna situation, because it's a case of kfiya al hamitzvos in which you say naase yado kishliach b"d."
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth are you talking about? Of course you need a formal psak beis din before it is ever permitted to pressure a husband to give a Gett. Otherwise any future Gett is potentially a Gett Me'usa and thus invalid. And the beis din must first determine whether halacha permits pressuring him to give a Gett. By default, it is prohibited to pressure a husband to give a Gett.
And whether a wife is an aguna or not can only be determined by a beis din ruling that halacha requires her husband to give her a Gett and he then refuses to give the Gett despite the beis din psak stating he is halachicly obligated to give it.
In the absence of a formal beis din ruling that the husband is required to give a Gett, he has no obligation to give a Gett and the wife is not an agunah even if she wants a Gett.
and do you know the identity of this alleged mattir?
ReplyDeleteGood to see that you upvoted yourself...
ReplyDeleteIs the person they relied upon Rabbi Hershel Shachter of Yeshiva College?
ReplyDelete"falshkeit" (sp.)
ReplyDeleteSO do all presidents with their ballot. In any case, was just trying to verify that you do read the response, and other than mechane shem and mekallel, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. At this point, R'S...m is struggling to keep his father out of this mess, lest he will have to close shop. Even in EY they keep tab closely on these developments, and the noose is closing in. NO more bread, wine from YU hechsher, no more Gittin from R' NG, and next is veal yevakshu... Umi yodea im laess kazos, that the couple are vacationing where the schvartse feffer wakst Islands. That would be meachoirei Harei choshech, im bnei Adam yoshvei choshech. hashem yerachem
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know Rav Aharon Kotler never revoked his SMICHA...
ReplyDeleteWhat a silly argument. Rav Aaron was niftar over 50 years ago.
You can be sure that the one who was masmich Yochanon Kohein Godol also did not revoke the smicha when Yochonan became a tzedoki.
No more silly than someone saying that RHS gave SMICHA bishtei yadayim to RSK and thus agrees with everything he will do forever and ever.
ReplyDeleteBoth are stupid arguments. (Especially when RHS statement specifies unless yisbarer lehedya shetaa, which pretty much sums up this case.)
I happen to have heard that zalman nechemia goldberg was consulted and so was Gavriel Stern
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to R' Fuerst of Chicago?
ReplyDelete