I heard Rav Shternbuch on the radio tonight (Motzei Shabbos at 11 PM in NYC, and he will be on again) it was advertised in full page glossy ads in both the latest English Mishpacha and Modia magazines and they spoke about the Tamar case mentioning her by name as well as other parts of the case. It was interesting and a privilege to hear Rav Shternbuch speak, it was by phone and sounded like it was pre-recorded. The interviewer Dovid Lichtenstein seems to know some Halacha and tried to lead Rav Shternbuch along, but Rav Shternbuch was the consummate Halachist, very cautious, only responding to hard questions and Shaylos and not responding to speculations or theoretics that the interviewer threw in. Rav Shternbuch made the same points that you have conveyed on your blog and I have to tell you that I think you have done a much better job of conveying Rav Shternbuch's views because Rav Shternbuch speaks with that heavy English accent like an old English gentleman so the words are not always clear especially for an American audience not used to such an accent, so therefore as I say your Blog presents the case and Rav Shternbuch's point of view with greater clarity and with less distractions.
But as I say it was worthwhile listening and even my wife paid attention and listened to the entire interview with me. One needs great familiarity with sources because Rav Shternbuch is not talking as if to babies, it is after all the Rosh Bais Din of the BADATZ so he is brief, concise and to the point, very judicial which I am sure the average layperson is not familiar with. But for me it was a privilege and worthwhile. Surprised you don't know about it. Ask one of Rav Shternbuch's grandsons it seems who was mentioned as organizing it.
The other stuff will just have to play itself out and let's see where all the pieces fall when all the dust settles.
Here is this program with Rav Shternbuch - his voice sounds very old, very English and hard to follow because he is speaking as a Posek and such kind of Rabbanim are very concise and matter of fact about Shaylos, they don't go on and on and on. But the interviewer was gabbing away and trying to "make conversation" with Rav Shternbuch and that sort of trivialized the importance of what Rav Shternbuch was trying to say even though the interviewer David Lichtenstein did speak out in some detail what was going on with the Tamar case and mentioned some background as an introduction.
I see that "Moe Ginsberg" mentions on the post about that ad about the interview that this interviewer David Lichtenstein is on the "liberal side" of the Halachic spectrum which I also thought I picked up on the interview which was a little confusing because Rav Shternbuch was NOT conveying a "liberal" position. For example, the interviewer was trying to get Rav Shternbuch to agree with him that "pre-nups" could be good for Frum couples in America because there is so much divorce going on, and of course Rav Shternbuch objected to that.
So if you get a chance, mention to Rav Shternbuch that he should be more cautious about granting interviews on shows even though the interviewer might agree with Rav Shternbuch on certain points, like the Tamar case, but on the other hand this David Lichtenstein clearly favors pre-nups and he cited all sorts of "Mekoros" to back up his words and agenda, and then Rav Shternbuch answers back and it gets confusing who to believe and what was said and then people may be left with the WRONG impressions that Rav Shternbuch "said" something when he did not, all he did was "speak" with a guy, but did NOT agree with him but was being polite and did not say it strong enough since as a Dayan he speaks in a cold deliberate clinical matter-of-fact way.
But the interviewer stuck in that pre-nups may help to solve the problem of having Agunas, as if he wants to stop the problem of Agunas with pre-nups, and Rav Shternbuch told him that there have always been Agunas and even unmarried women, and that we try to do what we can to help them, each case is different, but if we cannot help them, we just cannot help them. It seems the interviewer had his own agenda and was milking this topic and hoping he could get something out Rav Shternbuch indirectly while siding with the idea that there can be no annulments. It was just an interview with all the risks that comes with it, the person being interviewed is at the mercy of the interviewer, one does not want to be rude and it is hard to know what will come next and how to respond to surprise questions, etc.
The interviewer threw in shaylos about genetically modified fish and was trying to get a "Pesak" from Rav Shternbuch about that, but Rav Shternbuch could not answer clearly because it was a hypothetical question that would come to be "Lema'aseh" in two years and as you know Poskim only answer the immediate Shaylo, they don't Pasken on hypothetical questions about "what might be" or "what could be" or "what will be" in two years time. Rav Shternbuch basically said that it is a Shaylo in Halacha if we go according to the Simanim, or according to the facts, and basically the interviewer was trying to get Rav Shternbuch to say that all genetically changed fish or animals with genes from non-kosher animals should be Assured while Rav Shternbuch answered that while it may be that at some point all Fish may be a problem because of the genetic changes when they add genes from non-kosher fish, but Rav Shternbuch chuckled a bit when he was told it would be a problem in two years time and of course he cannot Pasken on the air as to what would be in two years time.
By the way, the latest Mishpacha has an important interview with Degel HaTorah MK Moshe Gafni and he confirms what I previously posted on your blog that the passing of the latest Israeli budget by a razor thin majority of 61-59 was a victory for removing the dangers of criminalizing those who learn full time. He describes the inner workings of his efforts and the way he has worked as an emissary of Rav Shach, Rav Elyashiv and now Rav Shteinman, and much much more of how a disaster was just averted for the Charedi world in Israel had this fallen through. Very worthwhile article, that even my non-political wife read every word of it and then we had a serious discussion about it which is very unusual because she never focuses on politics, that is my department ;-} Try to get hold of it and post it if you can it is a seminal piece!!!
Be well and have a Freilichen Chanuka!
RaP
====================================
Postscript:
====================================
Postscript:
The point I am making is that while in the case of the written word,
like on this Blog, we can see and read in black and white what is being
said and there are no distractions, because "oisiyois machkimois" it is not the same when being interviewed or in a live debate, where there are all sorts of other auditory and visual factors that come into play and can swing debates on STYLE and not on content.
The
best known example of this in modern times, is the famous Nixon-Kennedy
debates, when on radio and on paper it looked like Nixon had for sure
won with his better content and grasp of the facts, but that was not so
for those who viewed the debate on TV where Nixon came across as having a
"five o' clock shadow" and was sweating and looked jowly and scary,
while Kennedy looked the more handsome and charming candidate, something
that the Nixon team had not bargained on happening and so Kennedy won
on STYLE while Nixon won on SUBSTANCE but lost the 1960 USA presidential
election to Kennedy in the end by a very slim margin.
CH"V I am
not comparing Rav Shternbuch to "Nixon" but even in the glossy ads
advertising the radio shows, Rav Shternbuch is wearing a Shtreimel and
looks like the old sage that he is, while Dovid Lichtenstein looks like a
cool dude and a "regular guy". And who do you think the crowd that
reads Mishpacha and Ami identifies with most? Not the Rav Shternbuch
types but it's geared for the modernisha Yeshiva crowd, the so-called
"FBCs" "Frum But Cool" (that are the big supporters of the Kaminetskys)!
And many of these types are the ones who WANT to have pre-nups and all
sorts of Heterim for their fragile and shaky marriages that are
increasingly breaking up (it is because today we are dealing with the
"me-generation" of spoiled brats who have no clue how to be married and
the hard work and Mesirus Nefesh that goes into family-building and
running a Torah-true home.) So David Lichtenstein knows who he is
speaking for and to, and it is NOT to or for the BADATZ Eidah HaCharedis
type crowd that we can be sure of!
It's complicated real-life
theater on and off the air and online for that matter and you have to be
clever to spot to understand what is really going on!
There is a
thing called "ambush journalism" and even "frum" journalists can and do
indulge in it to some degree as you can see from this David Lichtenstein
character, he sets things up HIS way and then invites Choshuva guests,
who may be thinking they are going to get another "Kibbud" (honor) to
"speak at the Ommud" but what they are in for is "Bizyones" (abuse)
instead!! And then this radio or TV host throws things at them, curve
balls, and just by doing that he is getting away with Chutzpa. Because
he is acting like a "To'en" (advocate) and not an impartial honest
broker who just wants to help Rav Shternbuch convey his message.
Thus
Rav Shternbuch and others in that position are forced to fight through
the static and run through the gauntlets and well-laid traps that types
like Dovid Lichtenstein set for them, and then everything gets
confusing, and the listeners who are neither Halachists nor Poskim, do
not know what to think. The may easily be misled to think Lichtenstein
is just as great a "Lamden" as Rav Shternbuch merely because
Lichtenstein cited all sorts of "Mekoros" when he was just showing that
he has no Sechel and displaying his Divrei Hevel!
CONCLUSION AND
WARNING: Therefore, know that not everyone is smart enough or
experienced enough to come away and know what is important and what is
not. That they should be listening CAREFULLY to Rav Shternbuch and not
to the half baked bobba meises of smarty pants radio or TV hosts.
"So if you get a chance, mention to Rav Shternbuch that he should be more cautious about granting interviews on shows even though the interviewer might agree with Rav Shternbuch on certain points."
ReplyDeleteR' Moshe Shternbuch is a big boy. I think he is capable of having an interview with someone who does not agree with him on every matter. It is cowardice to preach only to the choir, and to refuse to engage in substantive discussions with those who disagree with you. You write that the interviewer stuck in all sorts of "mekoros" to back up his position, and R' Shternbuch had to respond to them. Why is that not a good thing?
Here's an interesting quote from a psak din rabbani that has just been published:
ReplyDeleteגם במקרה דידן, האב אינו מציע או דורש שהבת תגור עמו אלא רק רוצה לעכב את מעבר האם ולכך אין לו זכות מהטעמים המבוארים לעיל. גם אם היה דורש זאת, ודאי שקטינה בגיל כזה טובתה היא לגור עם האם ואין האב יכול לעכב.
עוד נראה כי גם במקרה שבני הזוג אינם גרושים עדיין קיים הדין שהבת אצל אמה לעולם. ראה בשו"ת ישכיל עבדי (ח"ה סי' סח אות ד) שכתב:
"אשר לטענת הבעל, כי כל זמן שהבנות נמצאות עם האשה בבית הוריה, לא מגיע להם מזונות, הרי הלכה פסוקה הבת אצל אמה לעולם, ואף דדין זה נאמר בגרושה, הרי מתשובת הרא"ש כלל פב סי' ב מבואר במפורש דגם ביש קטטה בינו ובין אשתו הדין אינו משתנה, דנידונו שם הוא בקטטה, ונשאל על בן שהוא פחות משש ורוצה האב שיהיה אצלו והשיב שהדין עם האב, דאע"ג דאמרינן בכתובות הבת אצל האם, הני מילי בת, אבל בן שחייב ללמדו תורה ולחנכו למצוות צריך שיהיה אצל אביו. הרי דאפילו על מקרה של קטטה כתב "הני מילי בת", ומזה מבואר דהדבר פשוט אצלו דזה שאמרו הבת אצל האם, הוא באופן מוחלט באין חילוק בין מקרה למקרה."
וכן כתב הישכיל עבדי (ח"ג סי' ח אות לח), וכך כתב גם השואל ונשאל (ח"ד סי' י).
ראו בפסק דינו של ביה"ד האזורי צפת־טבריה משנת תשע"ב בתיק 839795/8 אשר פסק כי אין להשיב בנים אל אביהם במקרה שהאם עברה מרמת הגולן לאזור המרכז, מרחק של 170 ק"מ ממקום מגורי האב. על פסק דין זה הוגש עירעור לביה"ד הגדול בתיק מס' 887455/1, ביה"ד הגדול דחה את העירעור ואישר את פסק דינו של בית הדין האזורי.
אף עתירה שהוגשה לבג"ץ (בג"ץ 6104/12) נגד ביה"ד האזורי וביה"ד הרבני הגדול בעניין זה, נדחתה.
על אחת כמה וכמה, במעבר מבאר שבע לת"א מדובר על מרחק קצר יותר מאשר מרמת הגולן לאזור המרכז ואין כל מניעה שהאם תעבור עם בתה לאזור המרכז.
The psak can be found here:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1300
Any link to the audio available?
ReplyDeleteLichtenstein tried to pull that same shtick with Rav Nochum Eisenstein shlita when he had him on his program about a month ago. He tried to corner Rabbi Eisenstein into supporting prenups by citing the standard YU/RCA halakhic sources they throw out to bolster their prenup. Rav Eisenstein had none of it and gave him sources in halacha opposing prenups. What finally shut Lichtenstein up was when Rav Eisenstein told him that Rav Elyashiv has a teshuva ruling prenups are halachicly assur and causes a Get Me'usa
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nachumsegal.com/jm-in-the-am/headlines-dovid-lichtenstein/
ReplyDeleteI am not arguing with you , so stop trying to pick a fight.
ReplyDeleteThe point I am making is that while in the case of the written word, like on this Blog, we can see and read in black and white what is beings aid and there are no distractions, because "oisiyois machkimois" it is not the same when being interviewed or in a live debate, where there are all sorts of other auditory and visual factors that come into play and can swing debates on STYLE and not on content.
The best known example of this in modern times, is the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates, when on radio and on paper it looked like Nixon had for sure won with his better content and grasp of the facts, but that was not so for those who viewed the debate on TV where Nixon came across as having a "five o' clock shadow" and was sweating and look jowly and scary, while Kennedy looked the more handsome and charming candidate, something that the Nixon team had not bargained on happening and so Kennedy won on STYLE while Nixon won on SUBSTANCE.
CH"V I am not comparing Rav Shternbuch to "Nixon" but even in the glossy ads advertising the radio shows, Rav Shternbuch is wearing a Shtreimel and looks like the old sage that he is, while Dovid Lichtenstein looks like a cool dude and a regular guy. And who do you think the crowd that reads Mishpacha and Ami identifies with most? Not the Rav Shternbuch types but its geared for the modernisha Yeshiva crowd, the so-called "FBCs" "Frum But Cool"!
There is a thing called "ambush journalism" and even "frum" journalist indulge in it as you can see from this David Lichtenstein character, he sets things up HIS way and then invites Choshuva guests, who may be thinking they are going to get another "Kibbud" (honor) but what they are in for is "Bizyones" (abuse) instead!! And then this radio or TV host throws things at them, curve balls, and just by doing that he is getting away with Chutzpa. Because he is acting like a "To'en" (advocate) and not an impartial honest broker who just wants to help Rav Shternbuch convey his message.
Thus Rav Shternbuch and others in that position are forced to fight through the static and run through the gauntlets and well-laid traps that types like Dovid Lichtenstein set for them, and then everything gets confusing, and the listeners who are neither Halachists nor Poskim, do not know what to think. The may easily be misled to think Lichtenstein is just as great a "Lamden" as Rav Shternbuch merely because Lichtenstein cited all sorts of "Mekoros" when he was just showing that he has no Sechel and displaying his Divrei Hevel"!
CONCLUSION AND WARNING: Therefore, know that not everyone is smart enough or experienced enough to come away and know what is important and what is not. That they should be listening CAREFULLY to Rav Shternbuch and not to the half baked bobba meises of smarty pants radio or TV hosts.
Tnaks.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't up yet when I checked yesterday.
Well, if you think that someone offering a criticism of what you wrote is "trying to pick a fight with you," that goes a long way toward understanding your characterization of someone asking questions based on "mekoros" as "an ambush." Dovid Lichtenstien is not "an impartial honest broker who just wants to help Rav Shternbuch convey his message," as you would know if you listened to his program every week, not only when he talks to people about divorce and kiddushei ta'us. He challenges the rabbonim he has on his program no matter what the topic is, whether grama on Shabbos or the efficacy of the current Choshen Mishpat Beis Din system. Usually, his pointed questions force his guests to articulate cogent replies, thereby leaving everyone with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you are trying to say. Pick a fight with someone else.
ReplyDeleteWhat Dovid Lichtenstein does is burn the candle on both ends, and it's not clear what he is trying to shed light on, his own agendas or the agendas of the guests on his shows.
Supposedly he is a businessman and knows how to play the business game, and he seems to be applying that to the world of Pesak, and it's unclear what he accomplishes.
One gets this strong suspicion that at the end of the day he is out to promote...........himself! Poskim do not do that, they do not promote themselves, they don't need to have radio shows and artificial means to be recognized.
Whatever, you should want to pluck sentences from here and there and make a fuss, just tell us, do you agree with the need for pre-nups to avoid messy divorces and Agunas from being chained? Can you tell us what is Dovid Lichtenstein's own true position without the hide and seek games you acknowledge he plays, being the devil's advocate one minute and then speaking for Poskim he cites the next minute.
As that classical question goes: Will the real Dovid Lichtenstein please stand up? At this point all one sees is a person playing games, maybe it's Leshem Shomayim, but games nevertheless.
Have a Happy Chanuka! Maybe we should have Dovid Lichtenstein play a game and pose Shaylos that we should light eight Neiros the first night like Bais Shamai and see what response he gets from some random famous Posek who gets enticed tp go on his show?
Where is the last post t h at Rav Chaim Kanievsky signed with Rav Karelitz, and others? .....
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the post from the Israeli Gedolim, including Rav Chaim Kanievski and Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Zilberstein?
ReplyDeleteR' Daniel: i saw earlier a letter signed by R' Chaim Kanievsky , R. Nissim Karelitz and others; why did you remove it?
ReplyDeletethnx
Some important people from Bbnei Brak demanded it. They said the want more signature before they want it published.
ReplyDeleteOK, TY
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
ReplyDeleteFew questions - 1) Any idea whose signature they're working on getting?
2) Who has to sign against in order for there to be a retraction?
3) How exactly would a retraction work here? Who would be the one that needs to retract? RNG says he relied on Shalom for the facts, and Shalom says RNG paskened. Who needs to issue the retraction?
more signatures?
ReplyDeletedid they also demand naming the posek involved in the matter?
Rabbi Mr lichtenstein does this quote other marei mekomot / sources all the time, eitherto be even handed, to show other sources, to show his 'bekiut' expertise. (RMF does that occasionally in IM. ROY does it all the time, giving obscure and not so obscure sources toone side, then paskens / decides otherwise.)
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Kennedy / Nixon debates, another reason is Kennedy wore a light blue shirt, which shows as white on black and white tv (and pretty good on color tv; in the 60s, most tv was black and white) and Nixon wore a white shirt, which looks terrible in black and white. The comment about Nixon losing the 60 election is today discredited by historians; mayor daley of chicago arranged enough cemetery (and forged) votes (no voting machines in those days). The numbers never added up; Nixon knew that, but was gracious in not protesting the count.
If the RASHK"BHAG signed it, then everybody signed it! There is no more a zecher of the Titanic turned Luxury Cruiser anywhere in sight or out of sight. There is no money in the world to bribe the Captain to keep on sailing in the doldrums. Even Reb Y. Berra wil admit that it's over and time to throw in the towel. No ORA's, goon squads, karate kickers, ME. Prodders, Ham Sandwich beater uppers can reverse the situation. Vechol mi sheyesh loi lilmod zchus aleihem ad arboim yoim yovoi veyilmod. Oy lohem me'elbona shel torah, R'L'. When you make a choizik of matir eishes ish lashuk, he said she said, I never said, who is on first, as if it's a joke, sooner or later it will catch up with you, and you will have to shovel it up and eat it yourself.
ReplyDeleteFrom the first few minutes of the recording, it is obvious that Rav Sternbuch did not hear Lichtenstein properly.
ReplyDeleteHonesty, what did Lichtenstein say and what did Rav Shternbuch respond to?
ReplyDeleteYou're more than welcome to listen to the recording.
ReplyDeleteRav Shternbuch was living in the Stamford Hill area of London, or learning there, which is the same neighbourhood I spent my early years in. It is a very Hassidishe neighbourhood, and is perhaps London's equivalent to Brooklyn.
ReplyDeleteHis accent is English/Yeshivish (eg Gateshead).
This is just a shmuze interview , and the interviewer is a fast talking American. I don't think that is the way to interview a Zakein Gadol . Talk to a young modern or media savvy rav like that, but a very old Posek is from a different world. Also, I assume that any Posek of standing will reference many seforim for every word he writes, so it is not a reliable interview.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteWhen did the Stamford Hill neighborhood become Chassidish? I thought that it used to be and UWS type of crowd - an upscale Secular Jewish neighborhood - prior to it being bombed during WWII.
Ted koppel had a trick he used on nightline. He always interviewed people on air, using earphones only. He used a full duplex speakerphone, and the interviewee was given an earpiece, even if he was in the same building (he always put him in another studio, even if it was next doorj
ReplyDeleteNo idea what it was like before WWII, but Stamford HIll has been almost entirely chassidish for decades.
ReplyDeleteOy, Ehud, with all your mixed metaphors and disrespect for ANY language, English, Yiddish, Aramish, and whatnot you make no sense. You have shown that you are capable of writing in clear English prose with good syntax, so PLEASE do that, otherwise it's gobbledygook "beshivim leshoines".
ReplyDeleteWorld War Two was a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteTrue. When did Rav Sternbuch leave Stamford Hill?
ReplyDeleteTrue. When is it that Rav Sternbuch left Stamford Hill?
ReplyDeleteA little honesty please. What's really bothering you, Huh? I see plenty of Kol Kores in all kinds of languages, metaphors and all, ve'ein poitse peh umtsaftsef, hagido no li achi vechi ma pishii ma chatosi ki dolakto acharoy?
ReplyDeleteHarav MosheSternbuch. A: Founder, Vilna Gaon Torah Centre, Yeoville, Johannesburg, circa 1980-84
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jewishgen.org/SAfrica/rabbis&cantors/names-a2z.htm
Observation: You know, most people have never really spoken to
ReplyDeletegenuine Poskim and gotten to know how they work, speak and Pasken. Most people
don't know that a Posek is not your "buddy" and that he talks to you at his
convenience and not the other way around.
One asks the Shaylo and the Posek gives you the
Pesak, but he is not to be taken for a "Chavrusa" or Rebbe. The whole way Poskim
speak and expect to be understood has it's own modus operandi.
Unfortunately this radio interview created the
wrong impression. Rav Shternbuch was saying something definite in the beginning
about the Heter and his objections to it, and it should have been left at that
or maybe he could have been asked to repeat and maybe explain what he just said,
instead this guy Lichtenstein fardreid a kop and created a "debate
atmosphere" and introduced unhelpful tangents which was sneaky, totally
inappropriate and even very disrespectful.
I found Lichtenstein to be outright annoying,
typical American wise guy out for his own glory, when everything is going up in
flames. Lichtenstein was adding fuels to the flames and definitely did not help
put out the fire, even though he says that he gives the impression that he does
not support the concept of the Heter yet by the same token almost in the same
breath he makes it clear that he is supportive of pre-nups as an alternative
"pre-emptive solution" to the problem of Agunas.
Like a doctor who claims he can cure an illness and
then proceeds to introduce another illness.
You are once again missing the point of the radio program. It is not about giving poskim the opportunity to pronounce their views. It is about a back-and-forth discussion of the issues, and has been from day 1. If you want to go to a shiur, go to a shiur. That is not what this program is.
ReplyDeleteI was born after WW2 , and my memories of Stamford Hill are that is it largely Hassidish. There are many Hassidic dynasties there that you do not find in other parts of London.
ReplyDeleteHe left in the forties, and has not lived in London since his marriage, to the best of my knowledge.
ReplyDelete