There has been some claims that an established posek who errs and permits a woman to remarry when she is still married to her first husband - should be treated with respect and not be banned. Even if he is told by many respected rabbis that he has erred and yet he refuses to retract his heter or even consider that it might be wrong. One of the sources brought was a Birchei Yosef (Y.D. 243:4) which seems to support such a claim.
ברכי יוסף יורה דעה סימן רמג
ד. מי שהוחזק להוראה וטעה אפילו בדבר ערוה, לא זו שאין מנדין אותו אלא אין מורידין אותו מגדולתו ואין מכלימים אותו. הרב מהרש"ל בים של שלמה יבמות פי"ו סימן י"א.
However the Birchei Yosef is simply a summary of the Yam Shel Shlomo. In the original source it says if the posek made a mistake concerning a halacha that bedieved is mutar he should not be shamed or put in nidoi. Clearly if he made a mistake which is prohibited even bedieved - he can be banned and embarrassed - and surely if he refuses to retract or even reconsider the matter despite world wide outrage.
The posek Rav Greenblat says he gave the correct halacha to the case presented to him. The problem is that the facts presented were lies. In response to that claim Rav Greenblatt said he takes no responsibility for the facts - only the halacha. Since he wasn't concerned with the truth of the facts, his psak stands independent of reality!
According to his logic the solution to all the aguna issues is simply to lie to a posek and get a heter for remarriage! We can stop wasting time with beis din or be concerned with a careful investigation of the facts - just have people manufacture fairy tales and have a posek issue his ruling of the fairy tale- totally independent of whether the facts are true. Truly an outrageous enterprise.
=================================================================
Yam Shel Shlomo [1](Yevamos 15:11): A rabbi who is an established posek – even if he errs concerning prohibited sexual relationships such as permitting a wife to remarry if the husband disappears in a sea without visible end or similar issues which are valid only b’dieved – we do not put him in nido (ostracize) or shame him and he is still assumed to be a compentent posek.
Yevamos(121a):[[ Our Rabbis taught: If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end24 or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again];25 so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: [If he fell into] water that has [a visible] end,24 his wife is permitted [to marry again],26 but [if into water] that has no [visible] end27 his wife is forbidden [to marry again].28 What is to be understood by ‘has [a visible] end’? — Abaye replied: [An area all the boundaries of which] a person standing [on the edge] is able to see in all directions.29
Yevamos(121b):[[ A man once went about saying, ‘Who of the family of Hasa is here? Hasa is drowned!’ [On hearing this] R. Nahman exclaimed, ‘By God, the fish must have eaten Hasa up!’ Relying on R. Nahman's exclamation, Hasa's wife went and married again, and no objection was raised against her action.61 Said
R. Ashi: From this62 it may be inferred that the ruling of the Rabbis63
that [if a man had fallen into] water which had no [visible] end, his
wife is forbidden [to marry again] applies only ab initio, but if
someone had already married her, she is not to be taken away from him.
Yevamos(121a):[[ R.
Ashi said: The ruling of the Rabbis [that where a man has fallen into]
water which has no [visible] end his wife is forbidden [to marry again].
applies only to an ordinary person but not to a learned man for, should
he be rescued.39 the fact would become known.40 This, however, is not
correct; for there is no difference between an ordinary man and a
learned man. Ex post facto, the marriage41 is valid; ab initio, it is
forbidden.
Yevamos(121a):[[ Once a man was drowned in the swamp of Samki, and R. Shila permitted his wife to marry again. Said Rab to Samuel: ‘Come, let us place him under the ban’.30 ‘Let us first’, [the other replied,] ‘send to [ask] him [for an explanation]’. On their sending to him the enquiry: ‘[If a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end. is his wife forbidden or permitted [to marry again]’? he sent to them [in reply], ‘His wife is forbidden’ — ‘And [they again enquired] is the swamp of Samki regarded as water that has [a visible] end or as water that has no [visible] end?’ — ‘It is’, he sent them his reply, ‘a water that has no [visible] end’. ‘Why then did the Master [they asked] act in such a manner?’31 — ‘I was really mistaken’, [he replied]; ‘I was of the opinion that as the water was gathered and stationary it was to be regarded as "water which has [a visible] end", but the law is in fact not so; for owing to the prevailing waves it might well be assumed that the waves carried [the body] away’.32 Samuel thereupon applied to Rab the Scriptural text, There shall no mischief befall the righteous,33 while Rab applied to Samuel the following text: But in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.34
Meiri[1](Yevamos
121a):[[
[1]
מאירי (יבמות קכא.): זה שביארנו בטבע במים
שאין להם סוף שאשתו אסורה דוקא שלא לינשא לכתחלה אבל אם נשאת לא תצא ואין גוערין בו
כלל וכמו שאמרו למטה מאן איכא בי חסא טבע חסא ואינסיבא איתתיה ולא אמרו לה ולא מידי
וכתבו גאוני ספרד דהוא הדין לכל שנפלו במקום סכנה העשוי למות שם אלא שאנו חוששין שיצא
אבל חכם שהורה לינשא לכתחלה מנדין אותו
[1] ים של שלמה - יבמות (טז:יא): ... שהרב המוחזק להוראה, אפילו טעה בדבר איסור ערוה, כגון שאם התיר מים שאין להם סוף, או כל כיוצא בזה, שבדיעבד מותר, אין מנדין אותו, ולא מכלימין אותו, והרי הוא בחזקת כשרות:
Very interesting. The defenders of RNG at this point are in bind and have backed themselves into a corner. Either they claim he was duped due to his old age, which implicitly admits his psakim מכאן ולהבא have no תוקף, or they say that he was mislead, which again concedes that he didn't due his due diligence in thoroughly researching such a serious matter. The second option is much worse, for if it is not due to old age, then is his non-investigation to such serious matters a red flag towards his overall approach throughout the many years in which he has been paskening some of the most difficult questions? I shudder at the thought.
ReplyDelete> The problem is that the facts presented were lies
ReplyDeleteWell if you're going to ban Rav Greenblatt, are you also going to ban the rabbonim who cancelled the Lipa Shmeltzer concert based on lies?
he is saying that had the facts presented to him been correct, so would his halacha. So did he give a psak or a theoretical halachic statement?
ReplyDeleteHas he acknowledged the facts to be false?
has he retracted?
You touch on a related subject. Some dayanim are known for making up their minds very quickly, and not pausing to hear the other side. Yet, cause they are talmidei chachamim (or were in their youth), it is considered improper to not use that dayan.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, some ba'alei machshir for kashrut are known to, in the past, erroneously taking back a hashgacha, thereby ruining the owner's business. And refusing to give back the hashgacha, since they 'never make mistakes'.
Allright, these examples are not issues of 'skilah' like 'eishet isi' a married woman, but they often ruin a person's livelihood.
Doesn't even admit that he erred, of which makes it a lekatchila and not a
ReplyDeletebedieved, therefore a meizid and is a Megaleh ponim batorah shelo kehalacha, who
will do it over again if only given the circumstances, where others will learn from
him and do the same. It is for this reason that everything was done hush hush,
and not bekoved rosh, so that nobody should have a chance to REFUTE or WITHDRAW. Even from the limited information that was given to RNG,
he knew or should have known that the Reports have no value without having
spoken to the AF directly regardless of who presented to him those Reports.
Even RNG qualified a disclaimer of not knowing anything about anybody, and yet
not cared to do the minimum check of anything in and around of this Fiasco. He
still doesn't care to find out whether he is in error. He knew that this is a
Din Merumeh from the getgo, and Bas HaYaano'ed it away as if everything is peachy keen. He couldn't care less that the couple
lives in sin or even inform them of such, just let the chips fall where they
may. It is unbecoming to Pasken such serious Issues with such deliberate Gross
Negligence. He admitted that he is not baki betiv in such Mekach T... issues, since this was
only his second time or so ever in his life. Furthermore, he claims that it is the
responsibility of the Mumche to retract his report or for anyone else to refute,
and then and only then does it becomes a Taus, whereby his Heter is diminished automatically on its own and needs no retraction, vesholom olay nafshi. It is unbecoming of an
alleged godol to act in such a careless haphazard manner. This saga is not even similar to mayim she'ein lohem sof. This ben Adam is here, the original TRUE husband is here well and alive, and the eishes ish is also here, which makes it Shtei psilos bener echod, R'L'.
Therefore, מי שלא ההוחזק להוראה וטעה בדבר ערוה, לא רק
שמנדין אותו אלא גם מורידין אותו מגדולתו ומכלימים אותו
with
all the bells and whistles applied!
for your info not to post
ReplyDeleteregarding the next post - the copies of letters taken from ginas verodim
check the last page of that sefer there is one more letter that they printed at the end as it came in late - a very interesting letter
Saying that the Birchei Yosef is a summary of the Maharshal does not address the issue. When summarizing an earlier authority's halachic ruling, you don't simply leave out the most important part - that it only applies to a mistaken psak where bedieved it's muttar.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened here is not that the Birchei Yosef summarized the Maharshal; the Maharshal summarized the Maharshal. Every siman in the Yam Shel Shlomo has a title which summarizes the contents. and then it has the actual contents. In the actual contents section the Maharshal writes:
ואני אומר שמוכח מזה מי שהוחזק להוראה אפילו טעה בדבר באיסורי דערוה לא זו שאין מנדין אותו אלא אין מורידין אותו ואין מכלימין אותו והרי הוא בכשרות הראשונה שהרי שמחו על ככה שלא עשו לו שום נזיפה ורבינו ירוחם כתב בשם הרמ"ה בכל מה שאמרו אין מעידין המורה בהן להתיר מנדין אותו אפילו היכא שאמרו שאם נשאת לא תצא עכ"ל
That is the entirety of his discussion about the posek's status. The Birchei Yosef does not summarize this; he quotes it. Compare his words:
מי שהוחזק להוראה וטעה אפילו בדבר ערוה לא זו שאין מנדין אותו אלא אין מורידין אותו מגדולתו ואין מכלימים אותו
to those of the Maharshal:
מי שהוחזק להוראה אפילו טעה בדבר באיסורי דערוה לא זו שאין מנדין אותו אלא אין מורידין אותו ואין מכלימין אותו
and you can see that they are basically word-for-word the same (although the Birchei Yosef adds "מגדולתו").
The only mention of the condition that it has to be a case which is mutar bedieved is in the Maharshal's summary in the title. The Birchei Yosef, though, was not quoting the title; he was quoting the actual content.
This still leaves us with a few options. We can say that the Birchei Yosef disagreed with the condition mentioned in the title and therefore only quoted the content. We can say that the Birchei Yosef believed that the Maharshal did not hold that such a condition was necessary, as he left it out of the content. Or we can say that the Birchei Yosef only looked at the content (or only remembered the content) when writing his own sefer, and thus left out the condition.
Great logic - so now he was not huchzak le'hora'ah. Care to explain how you reached that conclusion?
ReplyDeleteLipa Schmeltzer was cancelled for very good reason.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/tamar-epsteins-heter-chassidim-against.html
ReplyDeleteThe Yam Shel Shlomo is clearly following the gemora. If the Birchei Yosef was disagreeing it is strange that he didn't mention it. I assume also he included the source
ReplyDeleteI had posted that letter a while ago. Just reposted it so it would be next to the kuntres and changed the title to reflect its contents.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/tamar-epsteins-heter-chassidim-against.html
I stated elsewhete that none of the (litvishe) rabbonim have made any such proclomation. The letter is typical of the chassidishe manhigim but meaningless by all accounts. This is evidenced by the fact that he was invited to and partook of the gittin conference just the other week. And the geirus from yesterday...need I say more? Keeps tomping your feet and posting all you want but RMS stands only with the chassidishe poskim but most of other rabbonim/dayanim in America could care less about what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what planet you are living on but it is clear that the rabbonim from all groups feel that Rav Greenblatt has done something terribly wrong. There are differences regarding what they think the consequence should be. Your summary is a gross distortion or reality
ReplyDeleteDo you have reading comprehension issues? Show me one one letter from the mainstream litvishe poskim/dayanim that has stated the he is not able to be involved in psak or siddur gittin vekidushin.
ReplyDeleteI'm just stating the facts; feel free to interpret them. The fact is that the Maharshal in the body of the siman makes no mention of the condition that this rule only applies in a case where bedieved it's mutar. The fact is that the Birchei Yosef quotes (almost word-for-word) the statement from the body of the siman. And the Gemara on its own does not distinguish between cases where it's bedieved mutar and cases where it's not. The Gemara is only discussing a case in which it happens to be that it's bedieved mutar.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest you reread what you wrote because that is what I responded to especially
ReplyDelete"Keep stomping your feet and posting all you want but RMS stands only with the chassidishe poskim but most of other rabbonim/dayanim in America could care less about what they have to say. "
There are poskim - here and in Israel who do indeed want to invalidate his future gittin. It is not limited to the chassidic world.
As was pointed out the threat of invalidation is a pressure tactic to get him to retract
Yeah, I was wondering what was with the first kidushay to'us p'sak he gave. ..but one thing I am certain: I doubt it was such a 1) hush-hush or a 2) rush rush
ReplyDeleteTook these words out of my conscience.
Not sure why on this blog, he is put in some type of positive light. Had difficulty understanding the post that puts his involvement in new perspective. ....in the meantime, we should make a list of all mamzerim and marriages that have potential to make mamzerim
You don't hold Lipa should be banned?
ReplyDeleteClaiming that they want to does not mean that they have said that. I find it a bit hypocritical that you can claim things that only you know but they cannot be verified. The fact is that they have not said anything other than disagreeing with his psak and saying he must retract. They have not made any threats - only the chassidishe manhigim have done so. Your first response was also off base because I was responding to ehud who said the he was someone who was "lo huchzak" but even the chassidishe letters never went that far. I suggest you read a bit more carefully before you respond.
ReplyDeleteRather strange to claim that I am being hypocritical for revealing information that I have heard that you didn't know about. Why is that hypocrtical?
ReplyDeleteWhen you say the fact is - does that mean that something can't be true if you don't know about it?!
You just keep repeating that if you don't know about it or if it wasn't written in a letter then it doesn't exist.
I would suggest you focus on the discussion instead of trying to dump on people who disagree with you.
What a cruel twist of fate , the main perpetrators of this travesty namely rabbis Shaloam and avshalom get away Scott free since they operate their tradecraft in the shadows
ReplyDeleteI didnt say it cant be true but its quite similar to relying on facts because someone else claims they are true. That is something you and others have been accusing RNG of. I'm calling attention to the fact that you expect everyone to accept that many rabbonim hold the same views because you say so.
ReplyDeleteRabbi eidensohn what do you say about Rav elyashiv paskening on the Indian hair sheitlach based on a certain Ravs very suspect information (which turned out to be totally false, but only after thousands and thousands of dollars of sheitlach were destroyed) or banning making of a gadol based on lies (in this case r nosson Kaminetzky said that r elyashiv told him that the people he based his psak on lied to him but he still didn't want to publish a retraction).
ReplyDeleteThere are other such examples also. What is your geder for applying this.
Your arguments get stranger and stranger. Where did you see me or anyone else say that you can never rely on others for facts?!
ReplyDeleteI also never said I expect everyone to accept... because I said so. I did indicate that you can't simply discard my comments by saying that you didn't know that or that you never saw it stated in a letter.
You are promoting the bizayon of a talmid chochom which is no simple matter. Countless mamarei chazal regarding the gravity of such a sin. Rambam in hilchos talmud torah as well goes on about this. I would assume that before you rally behind it, maybe a bit of evidence that numerous rabbonim in america support this, is in order.
ReplyDeleteNo, they far from got away with it Scott free.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI am promoting one thing - that this disgusting chilul hashem be dealt with and not ignored.
If the involved parties are willing to deal with the issues that the many rabbonim have raised about the validity of this heter - than I have other things I would rather do.
I don't understand your question. I and many others were not in agreement with the way the sheital issues was dealth with nor with the banning of Making of a Gadol (which Rav Sternbuch greatly appreciated). The present case is much worse than either - please reread Rav Feldman's letter about the dangers associated with this case.
ReplyDeleteYou hold Lipa should be banned? Why?
ReplyDeleteCare to explain why?
ReplyDeleteAh... that's simple, just push the *easy* button! RNG knew that this package deal *AS IS* stinks to high heaven, saruach meikro, neveilo utreifo basodeh, beshivtecho, beveisecho, betanurecho, ubekol haolam kulo tsachanoso holech lefonov, asher ein odom yochol la'amod mipnei reichah. Still and all, he accepted it blindly with no questions asked, HAYITOCHEN??? Al echad mishlosha shebechamuros shebaTorah, afilu kal shebekalim yochazeimo ro'ad. Wasn't this a RED FLAG not being allowed to take a sniff of what's really going on here before he paskens one way or another. According to this, it was already a done deal AS IS, and if so, what is his position here in paskening altogether if any? How in the world can you agree blindly, especially when the stench is fuming out of the bottle, reading Reports that haven't got the slightest credibility, a pack of lies and shtussim piled one on top of the other Srukei Ubukei. Someone given hay taking it for face value, without talking to the person of interest whether it is so, making up diagnosis haporchim beavir, sucked out of the thumb, which can break the whole future of a person, Riboine Dealme Kula, IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL A ROFEH MUMCHEH? Wasn't that a RED FLAG not to touch this sirachon? Did he ask who this so called MUMCHE IS? Every step of the way he is forging ahead with full throttle without paying the slightest attention to any of the RED FLAGS at all. Is such a person HuchzaK le'Hora'ah?
ReplyDeleteIf you intend to buy a very expensive Esrog sug Alef Alef Alef, would you take it to your Moire Hoiroeh that he should pasken for it's kashrus AS IS sealed up, or better yet he just doesn't even care to open it, and patches on his boich Kosher Kosher, Bosser Bosser, chad vecholok ve'ein kaan sircha. Would you buy it? Same here my friend. Not only is there a sircha, but the SIRACHON NOIDEF mikaan veholoh ve'al kol pnei TEVEIL. Is this what you would call a BAKI BETIV GITTIN VEKIDUSHIN. WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILDREN MARRY THE PRODUCTS OF SUCH? If he is indifferent about a couple not to inform them to wait up since there is a big chashash in the Kidushin, but just leaves it to happenstance, waits for someone else to refute it or waits for the so called MUMCHE'S withdrawl, leaves it on autopilot, and machshil al chamuros shebechamuros bishat nefesh, hoping it to fall apart automatically, would you call such as one Muchzek Lehoiro'oh?! Shaimu Shamayim!!! Afilu kal shebekalim yodov soldos mize. He must resign, and considered keilu ovar ubotlel min ho'oilom, teikef umiyad. All this is only miktzas min hamiktzas befonov. enuff said
Try to get me the Timetable run down, if you can. that is Proposal of Psak, Heter, Mesader, first time of publicly known as married. ty
ReplyDeleteWon't bother reading anymore of your ramblings. You appear unhinged and a bit of a lunatic. I feel for you but even more for those around you.
ReplyDeleteTimetable for a mamzerim list?
ReplyDeleteI actually figured it out. The HETER posted on ORA was two years in prior of getting married, therefore, the Siddur was not behe'elem achas.
ReplyDeleteYou really just ramble without stopping to think. Pause for a minute and maybe take a breath of some fresh air. Saying something so foolish implies that any posek who makes an error is lemafraya Lo Huchzak. Foolish argument, his being huchzak is not dependent on this one case.
ReplyDeleteVery comprehensive post but I am unsure about 2 things that you say.
ReplyDeleteIf according to RSK there was no doubt that AF is and was always crazy and unfit to be married is it even possible to be דן בפני בעל דין where one party is begeder a shoitah? (Truthfully, if one was a shoitah prior to kiddushin, medoraisa he cannot effect any kinyan and the rabbanan never enacted kiddushin by a shoitah, unlike a deaf person. Why that is not grounds to annul the kiddushin automatically I don't really understand but RMF's heter as well as RNG were based on the concept of mekach ta'aus due to a defect. I must admit that I am not that familiar with these halachos as I never studied E"H in depth).
As to your second point - to my knowledge RMF did not do any one of his בפני בעל דין . Two of his tshuvos were definitely relevant to פוגם בכבודו - the tshuvah to R Drazen and the one about the homosexual. It's possible that the other 2 tshuvos also may have been פוגם בכבוד of the husbands as he was relying on information that did not portray them in positive light - one husband was physically abusive and the other was impotent.
R Shalom Kaminetsky originally told the Balimore Beis Din that he thought they could reconcile. He clearly did not view Aharon as crazy. Similarly Tamar never complained that her husband was crazy just that he wasn't sociable enough. The Baltimore Beis Din wrote that Aharon is normal. The secular granted him unsupervised visitation. If there are any ones crazy it is those who abrupt decided that Aharon was crazy
ReplyDeleteThis is case is significantly different than Rav Moshe Feinstein's cases - where there was objective evidence i.e.,records or hospitalization in a mental hospital, homosexuality - as well as no evidence that the claims in the other cases were ever disputed. In this case the claims are strongly contested and as a minimum Rav Greenblatt should tell Tamar to separate from he new husband until the matter is clarified.
Bottom line - as I have written at great length and have published many letters making similar assertions - the "facts" used by R Greenblatt are lies and Tamar and the Kaminetskys are well aware that the reports that they sent to Rav Greenblatt are lies.
Not so fast, my dear. You just don't seem to get it. Read it over again before you ramble and foolishing here around. Pause and take a break, make sure that you take some deep breaths of fresh air loaded with oxygen as food for thought before uttering more nonsense.
ReplyDelete***
*Therefore, מי שלא ההוחזק להוראה וטעה בדבר ערוה, לא רק
*שמנדין אותו אלא גם מורידין אותו מגדולתו ומכלימים אותו
* Is this what you would call a BAKI BETIV GITTIN VEKIDUSHIN. WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILDREN MARRY THE PRODUCTS OF SUCH?*
****
Have you seen the recent letters Published by the YOSHVEI AL HAMODIN miKol Kitsvei Tevel as per R' Doniel E. pointed you out? Then read on!
Halacha beyadua beYisroel for anyone haYoshev al haModin, that Kol mi she'eino yodea beTiv Gittin veKidushin lo yehei esek imohem. He clearly FITS THE BILL and is not one that is considered a Baki outside of Buki iSruki. Even if - as you claim it's not dependant on lemafrea, Gittin veKidushin needs Chazoko of BETIV from the Getgo, and with all these GROSS violations trasspassing RED FLAGS wholesale before RNG even touched the bare surface, he is either Color blind or did it bi'sheat nefesh. Either case, he is a SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS as a POSEK and should stay away from such Kmtachvei Keshes, if he only knows what's good for him. Therefore, he surely qualifies as a
*מי שלא ההוחזק להוראה וטעה בדבר ערוה*
AT BEST! Al achas kamo vekamo, when he is driving in the wrong way on a One way street, even if it would have been a Plain Vanilla case, his license IS revoked. He is clearly acting as a Shtuyey Yayin putting peple in HARMS WAY for generations to come. There is sooooo... much more to say, but this will suffice and in no need of overkill. My friend, RNG is not only Toeh baderech, but Toeh bidvar Mishne mefureshes, Toeh bidvar Halacha, Toeh bidvar Ervo R'L', veKOl kulo Mekach Taus meikro. Lo zu haDerech veLo zu Ha'Ir.
Shabbat Shalom Umvorach
Mr Ploni's post was pointing out that even if these things were objectively true they would still not allow for a psak in the manner it was given. Your response misses the point - I'm not arguing that the facts are true and therefore the psak should stand. The question at hand is how must a posek go about paskening when presented with such information. As for as the case with RMF having uncontested reports - at the time of RNG's psak the report had also been uncontested, meaning that RNG relied on uncontested information. But even so, having uncontested reports doesn't validate doing it שלא בפני בעל דין.
ReplyDeleteWhen you will listen to his music, you will know and if you don't you should know. When I first heard it, I knew that we have entered a new era and I don't mean for the better. I don't know which singer was condoned by an Odom gadol (although I understand that Rav Aharon Kotler liked Carlbach's SONGS,)but I am certain that he has no backers. (Although I would freely volunteer that Matisyahu is worse and is more certain to NOT have backers.)
ReplyDeleteHey,I never knew that you have to be Litvish in order to be 'mainstream'....
ReplyDeleteElchonon, I would here agree with you, he actually WAS huchzak and now he's defrocked (even though he seems to never have had one)........
ReplyDeleteEvidence my friend is what I asked for. Evidence that Gedolim support rallying/protesting and being mevazeh RNG until he retracts. Your perspective on this case is not evidence to anything. Take breather and read things thoroughly before going on a rant. I'm simply saying that before one engages in bizayon of a talmid chochom, one should make sure that people of stature have expressly written that such talk and behavior is acceptable. To my knowledge, even those who have written letters have never said that. In fact, aside from a select few chassidishe manhigim, none of the gedolim have even rescinded his ability to continue being involved with these inyanim. So to continue shrayring about it and running to protest is simply wrong at this point in time. Until you have hard evidence to the contrary, one shouldn't bet their olam haboh on it, unless of course there is nothing to lose anyway. If that is the case, well, scream away.
ReplyDeleteI think RDE addresses most of you concern regarding point #2. I'll try to address #1 and perhaps sharpen what RDE says for #2:
ReplyDeleteAs far as it not being possible to be דן לפני בעל דין if AF is indeed a שוטה - as you yourself note, had he been a שוטה of that "type" he wouldn't be able to be מקדש ומגרש. This was never even RSK ever tried saying. The word שוטה in this case is used to denote someone who has no capability of normal שלו' בית, which is why the Gemara in יבמות says and the מחבר בס' ס"ז ס"ז, ס"י also paskens that לא תקינו ליה\לה קידושין - the couple will always be fighting around so chazal where never מתקן even קידושין מדרבנן.
Therefore, as far as the Halacha of לפני בעל דין is concerned, of course it's possible. Had ORA thought AF can't give a get, they wouldn't have hounded him all these years.
As to point #2: As RDE notes, the problem here is that the silly טענה that AF is incapable of שלו' בית is totally based on a very subjective DSM diagnosis with a slew of serious and very obvious issues. RMF NEVER did anything like this. He trusted the MH professionals to the extent that they were not making up objective facts - at what point the person was indeed in the hospital and that he ran around naked (as in אהע"ז א' ס"פ) or he was known to be homosexual. HE NEVER RELIED ON MH FOR INTERPRETATION. I've mentioned elsewhere that I personally spoke to a talmid of RMF who told me that RMF was so unhappy with MH in HIS days, that they wanted to set up an alternative training program. It didn't get off the ground because the major donor they where relying on ran into serious legal programs and lost his money. This I heard FIRST HAND.
I think most people here would agree to what you say I was responding to someone who feels that bashing RNG is equally important if not moreso than getting him to retract.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you've seen my most recent response, or not and if it satisfies your needs.
ReplyDeleteIt might help to understand the reason why Chazal were concerned with doing things שלא בפני בעל דין.
Their concern was EMBELLISHMENTS and HALF TRUTHS, whether conscious or not. We need the בעל דין to question and verify the exact truth.
In the cases of RMF, - for example the central teshuva in אהע"ז ס"פ, there was no דין תורה about whether the man was crazy. RMF writes that he was living with his father nd his father didn't want to let the Rabbonim see him, because he was afraid his condition would worsen so much that he wouldn't be able to keep him.
RMF could believe something that nobody disagreed with, because there was nothing ere to embellish.
Here's the Gemara and rashi in שבועות לא.:
מנין לדיין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין (חבירו) קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר
תרחק מנין לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר
תרחק רב כהנא מתני {שמות
כ-ז} מלא תשא לא תשיא
רש"י: שמע שוא. שהמטעים דבריו שלא בפני בעל דינו אינו בוש מדברי שקר:
Now the Chofetz Chaim in כלל יו"ד הי"ד:
פְּרָט הַשֵּׁנִי. לִזָּהֵר מְאֹד, שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְלִיט תֵּכֶף, שֶׁדָּבָר
זֶה הוּא בִּכְלַל גֶּזֶל וְהֶזֵּק וְאוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים וּבֹשֶת וְכַיּוֹצֵא
בָּזֶה, רַק יִתְבּוֹנֵן הֵיטֵב מִתְּחִלָּה עַל פִּי דָּרְכֵי הַתּוֹרָה, אִם
הַדִּין עִמוֹ, וְהַשֶּׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ הוּא הַגַּזְלָן וְהַמַזִּיק וְהַמְבַיֵּשׁ
וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, וְכִמְעַט פְּרַט זֶה קָשֶׁה לְצַיֵּר מִן הַכֹּל, כִּי אֵין
אָדָם רוֹאֶה חוֹב לְעַצְמוֹ, וְכָל דֶּרֶךְ אִישׁ יָשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו, וְאִם
יִכָּשֵׁל בָּזֶה מִמֵילָא הוּא בִּכְלַל מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע, אֲשֶׁר הוּא חָמוּר
מֵאִסוּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע