I received an email this morning which said that according to unconfirmed reports from reliable sources - Rav Nota Greenblatt has told Tamar and Adam that they need to separate. Baruch HaShem!!!
Given the worldwide outrage from gedolim from diverse sectors as well as the shocked reaction of the common man - and yeshiva students - the only question is why it took so long for R Greenblatt to wake up to the reality that he had made an incredible blunder?
An indication of the severity of damage to the rabbinic credentials of Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky - is the praise that they have received from non-Orthodox and feminist sources. The Times of Israel reported a Conservative rabbi who refers to Rav Shmuel as his colleague!
However the issues is not completely resolved - even if the report is true - because they have not publicly retracted the heter. Without a public acknowledgment of the irresponsible manner they went about giving the "heter" it will be repeated again and again by rabbis saying "annulment for psychological irritation based on a note from a psychologist - even if he never met the husband - is accepted by gedolim". Furthermore it has become clear that the heter of Rav Moshe has been misused and abused to justify many annulments in situations that Rav Moshe would never have permitted - not just this case. A heter that Rav Moshe meant for very rare and severe conditions has become a "cure" for every ache and discomfort in the hands of certain Orthodox rabbis.
The crisis has also revealed the corruption of a number of Orthodox rabbis in giving not only annulments but also in allowing cohanim to marry divorcees and other transgressions. It is not the Open Orthodox that is the main danger to Orthodoxy - but some of our very own poskim and rabbinic leaders. "We have met the enemy and it is us!"
Hopefully this crisis will be used to clean house and provide a mechanism of oversight for the divorce process. Hopefully it will also motivate the rabbonim to work harder to ameliorate the conditions of not only abused wives (agunas) but also husbands that are being publicly accused of all sorts of lies by wives who are being coached by rabbis, lawyers and other women to game the system. Time will tell whether the proper lessons have been learned or whether this is just the beginning of a new era of rabbinic corruption.
Bezras Hashem this should be the start of a tremendous תיקון, and hopefully supporters of RNG and RSK will not respond to this with an "us vs.them" attitude. They should just be מקבל the תוכחה, change and move on.
ReplyDeleteA conservative rabbi will refer to any other rabbi as his/her colleague. Just like a psychologist may refer to another psychologist at a conference as a colleague.
ReplyDeleteWhere have you seen cases of rabbis permitting Kohanim to marry a divorcee and what do such cases have to do with this case?
ReplyDeletethere was a recent case in Toronto
ReplyDeleteIt involved a claim that it was based on the Igros Moshe - but the facts didn't justify the heter
sorry Eddie - that is obviously not what was meant here
ReplyDeleteThe rabbis that allowed that case in Toronto wouldn't have felt comfortable going ahead with it if not for the pirtza that was done in this case. As in going ahead with a heter in Iggros Moshe that was said in a specific case, even though the details of the case didn't compare at all.
ReplyDeleteHow can any Igros Moshe even be twisted to purportedly show it permissible for a Kohen to marry a gerusha?
ReplyDeleteWhat was Rav Gedalia Schwartz of Bais Din Of America's, Heter based on?
ReplyDeleteWasn't it reported here that the last sentence in the RNG hetter said she is permitted 'even to a cohen.'
ReplyDelete2. Unfortunately, there are plenty of cases of rabbonim of all segments of orthodox marrying cohanim to gerushot. Not limitedto OO, MO, or all types of charedim.
Yeah really waiting for the day that a conservative rabbi calls the satmer rebbi his colleague lol
ReplyDeleteWhat this whole incident appears to me is another case of an undeserving offspring abusing the legacy of his forebears. When a grandson of Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, z'tl, went to Rabbi Greenblatt, I imagine he thought of Reb Yaakov's legendary honesty and assumed the grandson was following his grandfather's example. Unfortunately this is not the case nowadays. We have seen unscrupulous individuals and organizations portraying themselves as if they were the same as those who preceded them. For example, Rabbi Ephraim Sturm, zt'l, told me directly that today's National Council of Young Israel is nothing at all like it was in its first 80 years. It became a corrupt, crooked mob that uses the facade of the respectable organization that preceded it. It uses the name for trickery and lies. Throughout the TaNaCh we read how much Hashem despises deceit, lies and hypocrisy. Let's hope Rabbi Greenblatt's awakening will signal the end of liars and tricksters being able to hide their deceit behind false fronts of Torah.
ReplyDeleteOnce you are mafkia a Kidushin, she becomes auotmatically back a *BSULO*, a prerequisite for a Kohen.
ReplyDeleteYehuda hoda velo bosh !!! She will go down in history as an upstanding man wow!!! The question is only the if the K's who lied and took advantage of his trust in them will publicly apologize to him and to all of us or will continue rolling their eyes and claiming their innocence ??
ReplyDeleteI was told that it was based on Rav Moshe in אבן העזר חלק א ׳ סימן יא.
ReplyDeleteI was told to look at אבן העזר חלק א ׳ סימן יא.
ReplyDeleteLet's say this rumor is true.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions:
1. Will Mr. Friedman ever give a get? Has ANYONE focused on having him just give it already?
2. If he does, in fact, give a get, will TE be allowed to then marry AF?
but that was not the heter
ReplyDeletethe heter was not mekach ta'us
ReplyDeleteYes a Get will be given - assuming Tamar is willing to make compromises
ReplyDeleteWhat Tamar's status is after a Get is a complicated question as noted before depending on whether the Rashba cited by the Rema is viewed as relevant to the present case.
Reminds me of the strong opposition of gedolim to reb Moshe publishing his teshuvot, seems that these gedolim has a point
ReplyDeleteReb Moshe created this churban with his own hands, ה' הטוב יכפר בעדו
It seems that the Rabbi's in Toronto agree with the Heter of Rabbi Scwartz. They were married at the B.A.Y.T. Synagauge, and there was no protest by Rav Miller and the Vaad Harabonim of Toronto.
ReplyDeleteTamar will have to permanently end her relationship with her new boyfriend. She is prohibited from marrying someone she committed adultery with.
ReplyDeletewhich gedolim? The fact that the Igros Moshe is widely accepted clearly indicates whatever opposition that might have existed has been far outweighed by the gedolim who accept the Igros Moshe. The Shulchan Aruch was also opposed by gedolim as was the Mishneh Torah - so what?
ReplyDeleteORA is part and parcel of this *KUBAH SHEL Z(*)NUS*, Mamzerim factories enterprise, as AVIZARAYHU DE'GILUI ARAYOS! Not only must the Pied Piper et al retract in Public that they - Erred al shigegoisov veal zadoinoisav, but disclose the Chain of COMMAND of *tenali tenali repku* with ALL IT'S Constituents that are in it, just as well. This Shoresh Poreh Rosh VeLa'ano must be rooted out *Yesterday*. This is the SE'OR SHEBEISSA plauging KLALL YISROEL.
ReplyDeletethat is not clear in this case
ReplyDeletePlease refresh. ty
ReplyDeleteThe steipler for.one, in my day it was.difficult to.find a.igrot Moshe.in bnei beraq
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how much stock to put in to unconfirmed reports...
ReplyDeleteIs any confirmation forthcoming?
So what???
ReplyDeleteLook at the results, reb moshes teshuvot caused a churben!!!!!!
Besulo is not a requisite for anyone but a Kohain Gadol. and there is no way to retroactively make someone a besulo - its a metziyus. Perhaps you mean a non-grusha as she was never married. An almana is permitted to a Kohain.
ReplyDeleteA get will be given? How do you know?
ReplyDeleteRashba and R'MA - citation please - Thanks.
Dear Aron
ReplyDeletePlease dont just give the GET w/o reparations made to your reputation and getting your daughter. The corrupt rabbis and ORA need to see that terrorism tactics doesnt pay. I would also discuss with Rabbi Gestetner how to end it "THE KOSHER WAY"
when i learned in Bnei Brak, you couldn't find a אגרות משה for any money. When i questioned the fact i was told that the Steipler Z"L, although he held the author in tremendous esteem, didn't hold of the actual ספר.
ReplyDeleteHow isn't it clear? Isn't the S"A clear that an adulteress is prohibited from marrying her paramour?
ReplyDeleteYou mean that it was something else than we thought all along ?? Nu..Nu, please tell us already! !
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? *BSULO* is only requirement for a Kohen Gadol.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Can you please help us with mareh mekomos?
ReplyDeleteThe term corruption - I think it was more to do with incompetence.
ReplyDeleteI hate to make any accusations against gedolim from the past generation, but it can safely be said that RMF's heter for smoking was in error, either based on the poor information made avaialble to him, or the halachic reasoning in not finding a way to assur the dangerous habit of smoking tobnacco that claims thousands of lives every year. that was simply a shegega, an error, which is now gradually being recitfied.
Ask the Rabbi's & the Vaad Harabonim of Toronto that question.
ReplyDeleteOne of the yungeleit in BMG spoke to his brother who learns in the Memphis yeshiva. He asked rabbi G if it's true. He adamantly denied it. He says I gave a psak and nothing will make me rescind it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you have missed the whole crux of this issue this was not a disagreement halocho in any what way , this was a case of two obviously unscrupulous and amoral deceitful enlightened rabbis who went shopping for a heter and then finally found a trusting rabbi to give them the heter which they sought . this by no means followed the criteria which r' Moshe laid out , could've just as well blamed it on any other Posek which discussed the issue of mekach taut
ReplyDeleteWhat about the other Rabbonim who signed on to the "heter," have they been asked their thoughts about the recent turn of events? Have they been named.
ReplyDeleteWhile this news is welcome to prevent mamzerim - I think the entire process past RNG still needs to be investigated and brought to light. How do these heters work - is it one Rabbi or several. Why does Rabbi Fuerst (who allegedly agreed to the heter) get a free pass here? If it is true that he took part in this - what investigative steps were taken by him before signing - or did he also just rely on RSK.
At the end - if mainstream Rabbis want to use this method to free agunahs, there needs to be some system of this. Unfortunately, this story with the head of the Agudah and Moetzes allowing his monetary considerations to get involved shows me that almost no one really can be trusted on this issue.
Not correct. The rabbis made a conscious decision not to make a big deal in the hopes that the problem will just fade away. A major mistake in my opinion. But the rabbonim vehemently disagree and actually warned against it before the fact.
ReplyDeleteIf not for reb Moshe Finkelstein akshanus in putting his ridiculous teshuvot In print we wouldn't have these headaches,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the general feeling in BMG? Do the yungeleit and bochurim al pi rov know what's going on?
ReplyDeleteAre the Kamanetskys still respected in Lakewood?
Can she possibly claim anusah, in that she was given a psak that she relied upon? However, in that she had to know that the psak was based on a sheker (ie, that AF is not mentally ill, and that it wasnt actually a mekach taos) would she still be able to claim anusah?
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that Stepler was greater than Rav Moshe. I don'yt think you do either. I'm sure Rav Shach had a set in his house (plenty of teshuvos to him from his days in Europe).
ReplyDeletePure narishkeit.
ReplyDeletePeople are becoming more aware as the days go by. The Kamenetskys have a strong following, primarily by the Philly talmidim. Their support is starting to erode as more and more people become aware of the facts.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, "ki yeshorim darchai HaShem, tzadikim yailchi bom u'poshim yikushlu bum! "
ReplyDeletePeople are aware that she had chupa veKidushin thru RNN and assume it was kosher, if there is no Get people will realize that an Eishes Ish is mutar lashuk without a Get. Therefore it is necessary kedei lehotzi miliban. From the first, because of her Znus. We have to wait and see how this will play out since we have to establish that she cannot blame the BD, they duped her. One step at a time, and first Get from paramour. Look on the Kol Kore's you will find teitse mize umize. I told you veidech zil ugmor. as for MM's see Yevamot mishna on 87 and gemara daf 88:
ReplyDeleteAmen
ReplyDeleteOk, I take it back. Hafkka helps not be a Grusho.
ReplyDeleteIf the 'hetter' and marriage was public (thanks to past actions of TF, the retraction must be public.
ReplyDeleteAs, Mr. Barak, I thought you would say that once you are mafkia the kiddushin, you might as well be mafkia the entire Torah mikoach "hutrah".....be careful, I am getting shimush from you, lol....
ReplyDeleteso what was it?
ReplyDeleteAfter she makes compromises on the custody issue. This has been the husband's position all along.
ReplyDeleteBTW, there is a Tosfos, possibly even a Gemara, that she CAN get back her Besulim, not in this case however, nor was it for a tinoket of less than three years. I never understood how the metzius happens, but had to accept daas torah anyway. Don't ask me to remember where. In any case, that is a whole different ball game.
ReplyDeletethe claim is made that a family that has not always been frum doesn't necessarily have a chazak that they are cohanim. I was told however that it is obvious to the vast majority of rabbis consulted that the heter does not apply to this family. Nevertheless it was given with the instructions that the family was not supposed to act as cohanim. I was told that the aufruf the chasan's brother was given cohen.
ReplyDeleteAre even the Philly talmidim starting to turn against them?
ReplyDeleteOr is their bitul daas (tarti mashma) total and absolute?
Dirt in your mouth. Using your logic the Torah should not be published, for people distort it for all sorts of conclusions.
ReplyDeleteNever said who was greater, it makes no difference, BTW rav shach never ever asked him a halachik question, it was all lomdus and pilpul
ReplyDeleteIt's good that the Kaminetskys found themselves a new colleague. After Rabbi Greenblatt retracted his heter they will need someone else to go to for a heter.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before there were no lack of major gedolim in Israel at that time to pasken halacha. In fact when I came here I was told that Rav Moshe Feinstein was viewed primarily as a major tzadik rather than a posek by the Israelis. That clearly changed after his levaya in Jerusalem. While there are are rabbonim who strongly disagreed with Rav Moshe - his status has changed over time.
ReplyDeleteOriginally in America Rav Henkin was considered the major posek for the yeshiva world. At some time the major roshei yeshiva decided that Rav Moshe was not to be used just for the really difficult issues but they decided to mainstream him. I think that was in the early 1960's You also need to remember that it wasn't clear when Rav Moshe published his first volume of Igros Moshe that anybody in America was interested in it. That has strongly changed.
Bottom line, the Igros Moshe is clearly accepted today as a major source of halacha worldwide - even though you find poskim who disagree on certain issues.
There is no retraction. It seems to be a figment of Rabbi Eidensohn's imagination. :(
ReplyDeleteDo you have a copy of the psak? Can you please post it? Who issued it?
ReplyDeleteWhat a disgusting comment (and your one below as well). You don't reach halfway up Rav Moshes smallest toenail and you have the chutzpah to say something like that. And a complete am ha'aretz to boot.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Rav Moshe didn't realize realize your groiseh cheshbon. Did you ever think there might be mekoros that matir publicizing Halacha that can be used by people for bad purposes?
ב״ב פט ע״ב:
אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אוי לי אם אומר אוי לי אם לא אומר אם אומר שמא ילמדו הרמאין ואם לא אומר שמא יאמרו הרמאין אין תלמידי חכמים בקיאין במעשה ידינו איבעיא להו אמרה או לא אמרה אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמרה ומהאי קרא אמרה כי ישרים דרכי ה' וצדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם
Why don't you write about the churban caused by the tannaim and amoraim. You can start with Rabi yochanan Ben zakai.
(And yes I know you can find mekoros that point the other way. The point is that there are dei'os in each direction and what Rav Moshe chose to and to not publicize was perfectly grounded in Halacha but every anonymous nobody like yourself thinks he can spout off unlearned drivel as if your ignorant personal opinion makes a כי הוא זה of a difference)
If there's anyone who needs to do teshuva its you. I invite you to read the Gemara in brachos about disrespecting talmidei chachomim after their death. See if it makes you a little nervous.
רחמנא שרא ליה למריה.
I apologize for my tone here but the ignorance and arrogance of your comment really set me off.
I heard from chashuv Rav who was in yeshiva at the time that Rav Moshe was very well known in the yeshivas before he published his first volume and that when it finally came out there was a great simcha in the yeshivisheh velt.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be k's machinations his people are claiming that was a retraction to take some heat off themselves don't believe a thing till you see them print and then maybe who knows
ReplyDeleteI am referring to how he was perceived in Israel. Of course there were people who know of his greatness in halacha like Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Shach.
ReplyDeleteHowever he was not considered the posek hador originally but as someone to deal with very difficult issues. The Igros Moshe was not expected by it publisher Jack Goldman to sell very well.
I never said there was a retraction. The psak has no existence as it is now since it was based on lies and the ignorance of the posek regarding Psychology. What I did say was that I had received an email (it is on my computer and I didn't make it up) regarding a rumor that he had told Adam and Tamar to separate.
ReplyDeleteSo far have not heard anything further about whether he did tell them to separate
However I have heard some interesting reports from people who have called Rav Greenblatt up regarding this matter. To some he says that he has paskened the issue already and he will never retract. To others he says he knows nothing about the facts and Psychology and that if the report is discredited then he would consider retracting.
Having trouble understanding what you mean that he wasn't accepted as a posek and only used for difficult issues - if he was relied upon for difficult issues wouldn't that mean that he was a posek that had an even a better understanding than the typical rabbonim and poskim?
ReplyDeleteBite me
ReplyDeleteTruth needs to be told
ReplyDeleteWho is the new colleague
ReplyDeleteThe Kaminetskys made a big mistake from the get-go, something I said right away upon first hearing about this case. The Kaminetskys could have saved themselves all the Agmas Nefesh and Bizyones, and should have thrown out the feuding Tamar couple when they tried to enter the door.
ReplyDeleteR Greenblattt should have stuck to being a small town rabbi and not get into something way over his head that was going to bring down the house on him.
The abuse of Rav Moshe Feinstein's Pesak is not where the problem starts because years ago unfortunately Rav Hutner often belittled Rav Moshe Feinstein in private, even though he did have a high regard for him in public.
Far too many Rabbanim, including many who attacked R Greenblatt also share the blame for trampling on and undermining the status Rav Moshe Feinstein, such as certain Chasidisha Rabbanim in Monsey and Rav Yechezkel Roth in Brooklyn who has led the way in rejecting Rav Moshe Feinstein's Pesakim about NOT having any city-wide or neighborhood Eruvin anywhere in New York City.
Mitzva Goreres Mitzva, Eveirah Goreres Aveirah!
The process of rabbinic corruption in the form of subjecting the words and rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein to abuse and mistreatment should also be blamed on people like Rav Aron Schechter who defied Rav Moshe Feinstein's request to come to him for a Din Torah while Rav Moshe Feinstein was still alive, a very serious matter indeed, so why be surprised that other Rabbanim trample and abuse the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein after he has passed away.
So it should come as no surprise that others feel they can get away with defying and abusing and corrupting what the Posek HaDor Rav Moshe Feinstein Paskened in the first.
A big Yasher Koach to Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn for all his stubborn hard work and fulfilling what Rav Hutner would always write on letters as he signed off on them to raise the Horns/Crowns of Torah!
Why report unsubstantiated rumors ?
ReplyDeletewhy posken on the basis of them?
ReplyDeleteHey Fed, while I do contend that he absolutely owes her nothing, I am not sure if we should sacrifice AF's life for OUR martyrdom. ......think about it
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, "starting to erpde", you mean among Philly talmidim too? How do you know that? Was pondering how the next Philly dinner will look like. .....tempted to go just to see for myself. ...:-!
ReplyDeleteHe was not the first address for mainstream issues. Of course he could posken in all areas. The isues is how he was perceived.
ReplyDeleteRegarding being a specialist and therefore a better posek - you might recall Sanhedrin(5b)
What was the reason that Rab was not authorised to permit the slaughter of firstborn animals? Was it that he was not learned2 enough? But have we not just said that he was very learned? Was it because he was not an expert in judging defects? But did not Rab himself say: I spent eighteen months with a shepherd in order to learn which was a permanent and which a passing blemish ? — Rabbi withheld that authorisation from Rab, as a special mark of respect to Rabbah b. Hana.3 Or, if you prefer, I might say that for the very reason that Rab was a special expert in judging blemishes, he might in consequence declare permissible, with a view to slaughter, [permanent] defects which to others might not be known as such. These latter might thus be led to maintain that Rab had passed cases of such a kind and so to declare permissible transitory blemishes.
Eddie, wake up and smell the coffee. ...no one seems to be buying that. People who are otherwise competent, with a lifetime of competence and success should all of a sudden be incompetent here? That comes down to the vort of Reb Chaim Brisker zt"l. The mitzvah here is macha'ah, condemning in the most certain terms, not being careful of loshon Hora. .
ReplyDeleteIf the Rabbi's vhrmenetly disagreed and actually warned against it before the fact, as you claim, then isn't it pathetic that they did not publicly protest the terrible חילול השם that happened at the B.A.Y.T. Think about, you claim that they conveyed their opposition to those involved, and they were ignored. If they care about חילול השם they should boycott the B.A.Y.T. And issue a stern letter of rebuke.
ReplyDeleteJust to pretend that all is honky dorry For the sake of אחדות is even a bigger חילול השם.
Where is the outcry!
Where are the Vaad Harabonim and Rav Miller!
It seems that they do agree with Rabbi Schwartz.
"The problem fade away"
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding. A Kohen marrying a Gerusha, is problem! No, it's a massive חילול השם, not a problem.
"Fade away", what!
כל מי שיש בידו למחות........
It's seems that we don't have accurate information.
It's clear to me that the Rabbi's agree with Rabbi Schwartz's Heter.
Perfect answer!
ReplyDeleteThe other branches of the family are frum & always were. Are they required to stop "Duchening" and to marry גרושות ?
ReplyDeleteIs the Rashb"a you're talking about in חו"מ סכ"ה ס"ב?
ReplyDeleteIf so, I'm not sure it would be relevant to our case.
The לשון הרמ"א:
וְאִם הוּא בְּהוֹרָאַת אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר ... אֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל דִּבְרֵי קָטָן נֶגֶד דִּבְרֵי גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה (יא) וּבְמִנְיָן, אֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַדַּחַק, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה גַם כֵּן
הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה יָחִיד נֶגֶד רַבִּים, ... וְאִם הָיָה מִנְהָג בָּעִיר לְהָקֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָכָם אֶחָד הוֹרָה לָהֶם כָּךְ, הוֹלְכִין אַחַר דַּעְתּוֹ. ... (תְּשׁוּבַת הַרַשְׁבָּ''א סִימָן רנ''ג) .
Please note that the Rem"a brings the Rashba only by אסור והיתר. Looking in the Rashb"a itself, all the cases he brings are also only pertaining to איסור והיתר.
נדה ט-הל' כל הנשים דיין שעתו, ר"א דמילה-מכשירי מילה בשבת, חולין קיז-רישא דטיסא בחלבא.
If my assumptions in the post that I wrote לפענ"ד @ http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/12/is-there-any-valid-reason-for-posek-in.html are correct - this is NOT a case of איסור.
The same סברות that would require בפני בעל דין, דרישה וחקירה would לכאורה also mean that this is not a הוראה that can be relied on even בשעת הדחק.
For example, I argued that this is a case of דיני ממונות - since the מקור of the heter is מקח טעות.
Except in special cases (that definitely don't apply here) a psak in דיני ממונות has no bearing without a din torah.
Let's think a minute: If a Rov tells Reuvain that he is allowed to take a car belonging to Shimon .. without any Din Torah and without any valid reason to pasken שלא בפני שמעון - would it have the din of a psak AT ALL?
Or. can Reuvain break his monetary agreement with Shimon because his Rov said so ... without a din toarh (I know what people do in the real worls ... I'm talking מדין פסק)?
I won't replicate the whole post here, but In that post I was arguing that there are FOUR reasons why this isn't a simple שאלה of איסורין. All four reasons hinge on the terrible mistake that RNG made, comparing psychology to objective medicine.
Had RNG been right, this WOULD have possibly been pure איסורין. A doctor can offer his expertise that Reuvain has a heart valve problem based on seeing the results of a Cardiac Catheterization without seeing the patient. Not so in the examples above ... or in psychology which is extreemely subjective, according to the REAL מומחים in the field.
My four arguments there: א) דיני ממונות, ב) פוגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו, ג) לאסור אשה על בעלה (דהיינו בעלה הראשון אפ), ד) דין מרומה.
I can see why the מורי הוראה didn't look into the reasons I mention, since it hinges on psychology.
I want to stress that I am not a מורה הוראה, but I wonder if one would take the time to check these dimensions.
No I was not referring to Choshen Mishpat 25
ReplyDeleteRather E.H 17
שו"ע אבן העזר - סימן יז
(נח) אם לא נשאת לשני, אלא נתקדשה לבד, ובא בעלה, אינה צריכה גט מהשני ומותרת לחזור לראשון. וכן מותרת לשני, אם מת הראשון או גירשה: הגה - אשה שנתקדשה, וטעתה וסברא שלא נתקדשה, ונשאת לאחר, תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים הנ"ל בה. אבל אנוסה להנשא, או שהורו לה בית דין בטעות ונשאת על פיהם, הוי כאנוסה, ומותרת לבעלה הראשון (תשובת הרשב"א אלף קפ"ט הובאה בבית יוסף):
Rav Moshe Feinstein did not give a heter to smoke. He said one should not smoke but that he could say it was prohibited.
ReplyDeleteSee Dr. Rosner's article in Tradition
https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwiz04iTiu7JAhXL73IKHbQGCqQQFgg-MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hods.org%2Fpdf%2FRabbi%2520Moshe%2520Feinstein%27s%2520Inf.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHfO2ZB44wyNuX4IFm5yx6yX81EKA&sig2=qJRlqzmynHQp3VeKpkCiJA&cad=rja
Rav Dovid Eidensohn wrote an entire article explaining why she can't go back.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that people are afraid to open their mouths to protest, to confront others. ..
ReplyDeleteSee my comment above in response to this question. .
ReplyDeletethere are people who disagree
ReplyDeletewhat is the practical difference for givng a heter and saying it is not forbidden?
ReplyDeleteIf some Rabbis said it is not forbidden for TE to marry some other guy in Memphis, would you call that a "heter"?
I see.
ReplyDeletebut לכאורה the same סברות would apply, since that's the סימן of עגונות, which is only a pure איסור if there is no second human on the other side of the equationד and as i pointed out in that post, here it's לכאורה not the same. If my סברא is true, here it's דיני ממונות, לאסור אשה על בעלה, פוגם בכבודו, דין מרומה . all issues that need both בעלי דין and דו"ח.
Even if it was pure עגונה, I mentioned that whre there's a חשש ערמה there needs to be דרישה וחקירה : אפי' לענין
להתיר עגונה מבואר באהע"ז סי"ז סכ"א ברמ"א בשם רי"ו שצריך
דרישה וחקירה
the question is therefore - how far can one rely on comparing our case to the Rashba?
How in the world can you blame RAS for the abuse of RMF tshuvos? Just because he and his rebbi RYH had a total disregard for the Gadol Hador and disrespected him both publicly and privately doesn't mean they advocated for the corruption of his paskim. (I was recently told that RCR's being matir the eiruv was not out of disregard for RMF's psakim. Rather, relying on the eruv meant that husbands could bring sheilos to their respective poskim. Apparently he had learned a number instances where young couples were not omed benisayon over shabbos).
ReplyDeleteOk, please let me clarify. What I meant to say "back a Besulo", was the hafka'a being so pwerful as if a besuloh - tounge in cheek, and I overdid it with plitat hakulmus. Suffice it with being a non-Grusho. Furthermore, I believe everyone understood what I meant to say is, one that becomes muteret for a Kohen, as you can see migufo shel hainyan. Veitchem haslicha. There were some recipients of avnei blistraos in the near past, and pounced on it as a shark when it smells blood. See their expression is also of the kind as if when someone robs a bank. In our circles, we are a far cry from hutrah hartzuah. I hope all forgive.
ReplyDeleteEnuff said, case closed
Firstly, I'm not sure who you mean by the major RY? How many RY were there to begin with in the 1960's? Correct me if I am wrong but Telshe, Torah Voda'as, Chaim Berlin, Ner Israel and Lakewood were pretty much all there were (a few of R' Ahron's talmidim opened up shop around that time but they were significantly younger).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the gemarah in Sanhedrin is a direct contradiction to your point - according to the gemara's first understanding it was to give kavod to Rabbah b. Hana and if so in the case of RMF they shouldn't have ever asked him because of the kavod of Rav Henkin (unless of course they believed that even Rav Henkin couldn't pasken the sheila). According to the ikka de'amri - precisely on matters that the public may misunderstand they didn't rely on the greater posek's specialty. If so, they should have only relied on RMF for typical questions that no one could misinterpret but for the difficult things - ie. situations such as mekach a'us for a mentally ill husband, they should have turned only to Rav Henkin.
I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned that gemara in regards to RNG basing his heter on RMF's tshuvoh.
PI - what exactly is your argument? Are you saying being a giant means you cannot err? That is a denial of the Torah, which says the sanhedrin could err!
ReplyDeleteIN fact, Rav Dovid makes the claim that Rav Moshe did err - but in the very issue of mekach taut! I don't disagree with him that it is possible to err. The point being it is less likely for a Tzaddik and genius to be influenced by other matters than for a regular person of only average achievements.
Rav Yakov's son in law Rabbi Diskind told me that Rav Hutner once said to him "Your father in law will have to give din v'cheshbon to justify why he made Rav Moshe into a gadol." At some point early 1960'sthe major roshei yeshiva started telling me to go to Rav Moshe for psak - which they hadn't done except on certain difficult issues.
ReplyDeleteEddie to repeat myself - Rav Moshe said not to smoke but he said it was not prohibited. Did Rav Greenblatt say to Tamar that she shouldn't remarry but that it wasn't prohibited?
ReplyDeleteYour entire comment is asinine. First of all, you are
ReplyDeleteconflating disagreeing with RMF’s psak as opposed to corrupting his psak. Second
of all, there is no Chasiddus that accepted RMF as their posek hador. Those who
make blanket statements that RMF was accepted by all as the posek hador do not
know what they talking about.
Furthermore,
RCR gave many shiurim regarding RMF’s chidushim in eruvin, and argued that RMF
would allow the current eruv (read RCR letter of approbation on the current
eruv where he alludes to this). Hence, on the contrary, RCR respected RMF so
much so that he delved into his teshuvos in order to understand his objections
(halevai all those who oppose would have learnt through RMF’s teshuvos as well
as RCR did).
How do you know that the only way to fulfill Hashem's commandment of הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא is through load public protests? Sometimes there are other methods to use. More so, if they feel that a public protest will not help, then a public protest will only strengthen the silly "matirim."
ReplyDeleteYou are avoiding my question
ReplyDeleteYou say "the Rabbi's made a conscious decision not to make a big deal". Aren't these the same Rabonim that ב״ה made a very big deal about what happened in Memphis. Why the double standard. Furthermore this happened in an orthodox Synagauge in Toronto. Shouldn't they be more preoccupied & concerned about the חילול שם שמים in their own backyard.
ReplyDeleteWhy are they so fickle when it comes to dealing with a local issue & where they have skin in the game!
No Yosef I did answer your question - you don't like the answer but I did answer it.
ReplyDeleteThe passuk that you referenced in you're comment above, is reffering to an individual that sinned.
ReplyDeleteHere you have an Orthodox Synagauge that publicly sanctioned a כהן marrying a גרושה in house. The Rabbi of the BAYT, Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin officiated at that wedding. That is a terrible חילול שם שמים. We must publicly decry the חילול השם that happened in Toronto. It's not about being effective, rather it's do demonstrate that we care about God and the Torah, and consequently when we see a public display of חילול שם שמים בפרהסיה we are pained, and thus we express our צער. If it will help or not is totally missing the point.
There is no public protest because the Rabbi's in Toronto are totally in agreement with Rabbi Schwartz.
ReplyDeleteYou know that!
Not one Rabbi in Toronto objected to the marriage, and Toronto has a lot of Rabbi's.
Aren't these the same Rabonim that ב״ה made a very big deal about what happened in Memphis.
ReplyDeletePlease understand that a hammer is not always the appropriate tool for a tradesman to use. The Tamar Epstein fiasco had to be battled the way it was. RGDS is a completely different story. Besides for the fact that there is a huge difference between a Kohen defiling his Kehunah and adultery, there is a difference between the people behind it. RGDS has "annulled" many a marriage in his career at the BDA.
As regrettable as RGDS's behavior may be, he is not a major influence on Torah life, nor is he percieved that way. As opposed to RSK and the Philadelphia Yeshiva.
In reality RSk had also done major damage when he joined and legitimized with the "botei din" and organizations that he did. Well, now.....
Do you have any source for your feelgood zealtory as a requirment? Please provide the sorces that require us to publicly decrie every sin that people commit, in every sitation. I suppose that you stand outside a conservative shrine every Shabbos and decry the Chilul Shabbos there? How is it that you feel that you are able to decide how others should react to every sin?
ReplyDeleteRabbi N. Daniel Korobkin proudly received his Master of Arts degree in medieval Jewish and Islamic thought from UCLA's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and his Master of Science degree from the Johns Hopkins University School for Engineering at the Applied Physics Laboratory.. While he did
that's not what I heard. I was told that most rabbis in Toronto felt the marriage was against halacha
ReplyDeleteActually, you did not answer his question. he asked you a question about your actions, and you "answered" it by referencing the actions of somebody else.
ReplyDeleteyou are splitting hairs,
ReplyDeletethere may be a difference between a heter and something not being prohibited, but if something is not prohibited, then it is mutar, ?
If you cannot find a prohibition for strawberries, there is not a problem in eating them.
We need reconciliation, peace, harmony and love among
ReplyDeleteourselves. I write on the reconciliation
of Judah and Joseph, Jacob and all Israelites http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18108#.VnklspuIrIU
No hairs being split Again what would have happened if Rav Greenblatt told Tamar even though there is no prohibition to remarry - don't do it!
ReplyDeleteR Greeenbatt's irresponsible reliance on a rumor produced an adulterous relationship, a threat to observance of halacha in the area of Gittin etc etc. He furthermore treated the rumor as if it were fact because he is totally ignorant of elementary knowledge about Psychology that the vast majority of the rest of us - including elementary school children - have. He has caused a major chilul HaShem as well as a severe blow to emunas chachomim etc etc because he relied on a rumor which he didn't bother validating
ReplyDeleteThe person who questioned me is not bothered by the above but is bothered by the fact that I reported a rumor - which I labeled a rumor - from a person I consider a reliable source of information. Why?
The rumor provided some ray of hope in this tragic case, it was saying something positive about Rabbi Greenblatt Why is that problematic?
The burden is on the two of you to explain why my reporting a rumor in this case is a problem.
1: There you go again. Where did you get the idea that YOSEF is not bothered by the pesak of rabbi Greenblatt? He asked you about what you did, and your response is basically: "Well, other people do worse things"?
ReplyDelete2: "The burden is on the two of you to explain why my reporting a rumor in this case is a problem." First of all, I don't know who "the two of you" is; I just pointed out that you are being evasive. But I would like to know: Was any attempt made to contact Rabbi Greenblatt to ask him if this is true?
she would still have remarried, since she would not belive she is married. maybe a quickie kiddushin somewhere else. the issur here is the biah. think about the logical pitfall of your argument.
ReplyDeletein fact, your argument becomes weaker since in RMF's case, he said once you are in the smoking addition, u are not forced to stop. Whereas in this case, he might agree to tell tehm to separate.
it is not a perfect analogy,and i am not claiming chas v'shalom that RMF did anything WRONG. I am arguing that RNG made a huge error but is not necessarily a heretic
you are the one who is splitting hairs
ReplyDeleteyehoshua please read Yosef's comments - they are a collections of very critcial comments against me for getting involved in this matter. They are not critical of Rav Greenblatt. This last comment is of the same type. Attack me for doing X rather than deal with the issue of the heter. Yosef is a troll who is attacking the messenger because he says the messenger has no business being in the delivery business.
ReplyDeleteAttempts have been made and Rav Greenblatt has given inconsistent answers.
Did you read the above post?
ReplyDeleteI second emotion. I would tend to believe that RNG did so and through a messenger, in order to save face. That's one step forward in the right direction. Saving face is the same reason for replying mixed messages as for them to depart. The next thing is a followup of *In the making of A Sha'aruryo* MI VOMI HAHOLCHIM! Veoz yishoket ho'oretz.
ReplyDeleteAfter all is said and done, all the kannaim here are fighting for the major principle that if a man feels he made a major mistake in choosing a spouse due to information unavailable to him at the time, he can leave, but if a woman feels that way, she cannot. Certainly a great and major moral principle that is worth making a life cause. Even at the expense of insulting Reb Moshe Feinstein.
ReplyDeleteAs Reb Chaim Brisker so aptly put it, he is not a meikil in laws of Yom Kipppur, but a machmir in laws of bein adam lachaveiro.
There is a story that is told about the Brisker Rov, that when he was dealing with a similar story in the 1950's and a person came to the Brisker Rov with an argument that let us have more אהבת ישראל etc. He responded as follows. איך ווייסט וועגען דיר דריי זאכען. איר זענט א שונא השם, א שונא תורה און א שונא ישראל״. וד״ל.
ReplyDeleteI am told that Rabbi Shlomo Miller, Rabbi Uri Mayerfeld, and Rabbi Mendel Brotsky sent a personal letter to Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin a few days before, requesting that he refrain from being Mesader Kidushin. He complied with the request, and backed out of being Mesader Kidushin. Instead he was an Eid.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand 'Iddish, but he is presumably asking how do you make peace with a soneh Hashem?
ReplyDeleteThe quote from R Chaim Brisker was "I'm not meikel on Yom Kippur, I'm machmir on pikuach nefesh"
ReplyDeleteYour misunderstanding of that quote leading to think that bein adam lechaveiro is somehow a heter to matir an eishis Ish.
Unfortunately that line of reasoning is quite Conservative.
You are correct, we don't stand outside a Conservative Shrine to protest everything that goes on inside it, and for precisely the same reason we don't make our weddings there either. Here you have a mainstream Orthodox Shul where the Toronto community has been making weddings for decades, and their Rabbi and Board completely disregarding normative Halacha, and allowing a כהן to marry a גרושה in house.
ReplyDeleteWe should refrain from making our weddings there until the BAYT issues a statement clarifying that they regret hosting this תועבה and precipitating this חילול השם, and in the future that they will consult with the Vaad Harabonim of Toronto in cases where Halachik status is unclear or controversial.
Yes a lofty moral principle we received from on high at Sinai , you obviously have a problem with that Oh well so does shalom. but you obviously missed the point here no one is even discussing that it's the corruption of procedure the, deceit and dishonesty which is so disturbing
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect about Rav Dovid, I have been told by a friend who corresponded on the smoking issue and R Dovid told my friend that the medical information in RMF time was not conclusive as to say that וודאי someone who smokes will get cancer, thus the heter of שומר פתאים ה׳ would apply. But said R Dovid now that it has been proven scientifically that there is a direct link of smoking to cancer, even R moshe would Assur it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who you are or what you're agenda here is, but if you're quoting from Reb Chaim at least get it right:
ReplyDelete"I am not meikil on the laws of Yom Kippur, I am machmir on the laws of Pikuach Nefesh."
And by the way that sounds like another MO distortion, of what r'chaim said, the correct version is I am being machmir in sakanas nefashos . Self evident!
ReplyDeletesince RNG is not a Gadol or genius that his Rav was, it is easier for him to fall into deep error.
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteI will translate for you.
"I know about that person that he is a hater of God, a hater of the Torah, and a hater of Jews".
Making the point that an abundance of supposed אהבת ישראל in this kind of setting is not reflective of authentic אהבת ישראל, rather it is rooted in שנאת השם, שנאת התורה & שנאת ישראל.
Not quite...
ReplyDeleteTranslation: "I know about you three things: I know you're a Soneh Hashem, a Soneh Torah and a Soneh Yisroel."
ReplyDeletePure projection as he is the one that is probably going through the din vecheshbon for his disrespect towards RMF. And RAS will also have to appear before the Bais Din Shel Ma'aleh for his defiance. Was it arrogance or jealousy that led RYH to make such a statement?
ReplyDeleteDoes RYH even compare to the geonim of the past generation that were kol kulo Torah (as RMF himself was me'id al atzmo in one of his tshuvos). Did his stint in The University of Berlin give him time to reflect on who was qualified to be a Gadol?
Even the pre-war Gedolim marveled at RMF - Reb Chaim Ozer once remarked about RMF and his brother - צו דא צווי ברודאר אין רוסלאנד וואס זיי לערנען תורה ווי די פריערדיקע
(Another nusach of the story is that he claimed they learn like the ראשונים but even to compare them to the previous generations is astounding.)
And that applies if you have enough Emunas Chachomim that he innocently relied on that information, but if you feel why should we judge only RNG favorably and not RSKs, coupled with the understanding that to make such a p'sak of astronomical ramifications in Hilchos Ishus with doing such minimal research and in this one in particular, then you may consider this as mentioned before 'willful blindness '.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that it is not possible for them to err. You seem to be espousing that it is out of the question that it wasn't done deceptively, when by looking at the whole picture, it is hard to say that it was not.
ReplyDeleteWrong barry, we are all with the rosh on this one, להשוות כח האשה לאיש, all we want is the Halakha to be followed
ReplyDeleteYes, I may have absent-mindedly misquoted it, but quoted it correctly elsewhere on this blog. Makes no difference. Simply semantics.
ReplyDeletePoint is that if the Kaminetskys decided to be machmir on freeing a woman from igun, does not make them any less frum than the kannaim here. Two halachos can be at loggerheads, and one needs to choose which takes priority. There is no great moral principle here that kannaim can rally behind, such as I am fighting for the Torah. The Torah itself recognizes that igun is a horrible state and one must help in any way.
Just as you can't force a woman to marry against her daas, makes no sense that if she finds the day after that she was unaware of a character flaw for which she would not have gone ahead with marriage, that she should be stuck, any more than a man would be in that situation. Especially in the frum dating syatem where they may only have met a handful of times.
The only issue was whether custody was resolved in the best way. But the courts have final say, anyway.
You are a fool and an idiot.
ReplyDeleteHe said that when someone comes to him and complains about ahavas Yisroel, he knows three things about the person: The person hates Hashem, he hates the Torah, and he hates Jews.
ReplyDeleteRav Dovid has openly stated that Rav Moshe ered on mekach Taus. He argues several ways, one of which is that Rav Henkin was greater and he disagreed.
ReplyDeleteRegarding smoking, Rav Daniel cited an article by dr Fred Rosner on the subject. Dr Rosner, who visited Rav Moshe ztl regularly, points out that the american Surgeon General had already made the warnign that smoking can kill at the time the psak halahca was given. Part of the psak is based on the fact that Talmidei hachamim had smoked in that and previous generations. Maybe Rav David is right and I am wrong. He would also argue, that Rav MOshe would not give the heter onmekach taus today.
You're point is well taken, however the conversation and controversy here is not about Rav Gedaliah Schwartz. It is about a well known and respected mainstream orthodox Shul in Toronto that allowed a כהן to marry a גרושה in house, based on a problematic Psak that was solicited from Rav Schwartz.
ReplyDeleteThe BAYT is a major influence on Torah life in Toronto, and that is why it should matter so much to the Torah community, and specifically the Toronto community what happened at the BAYT a few weeks ago.
It's a slippery slope. Next,they will allow an אשת איש with a phony Heter to get married there as well.
Oh! but no worries, Rabbi Daniel Korobkin won"t be מסדר קידושין. He will serve as an עד קידושין instead.
"There is no great moral principle here that kannaim can rally behind, such as I am fighting for the Torah."
ReplyDeleteHave you even been paying attention for the last 2 months?
Between the lies that Sholom fed to Rav Nota, the massive conflict of interest that should have precluded Kamenetsky involvement in the first place, and the blind reliance on the Kamenetsky name, you really can't find any moral principles here to rally behind?
Get your head out of the sand.
"The Torah itself recognizes that igun is a horrible state and one must help in any way"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely false. One must only help in ways that are halachically acceptable. Which obviously excludes the travesty that took place over here.
I believe you are referring to R Dovid Eidensohn, while Mefaresh thinks you are talking about Rav Dovid Feinstein.
ReplyDeleteBarry, I am machmir on the mitzva of tzedakah, so let me put a gun to your head and take your wallet so I can give the money to the poor.
ReplyDeleteI think that how one prioritizes the halachos is what is in debate here.
I have not offered any comments against your invovement. I have just questioned a couple of your statements. But It seems that someone who has the nerve to question you is considered a troll.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that clarification Mr Anon - worst thing is to start having a debate about nothing!
ReplyDeleteYosef your generally rude comments say otherwise
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying that, In general Stam R Dovid is R Dovid Feinstein. I apologize for the confusion
ReplyDeleteRav Dovid Eidensohn has lamented about Rabbi GD Schwartz doing "annulments". Perhaps he should be next.
ReplyDeleteShmerel, you hit the nail on the head. Now th the problem has to be tackled.
ReplyDeleteYour remazim are passed my scope. You must add commentary to your comments. I thought I was yored l'sof datuch in last comment. Hopefully in less than 40 years.
ReplyDeleteYou call that conservative?? I think it's pretty liberal! :-)))
ReplyDeleteTo equalize the power of the woman to the man? Didn't see that attempt over here by the general clientele. Perhaps to do the Ratzon HaTorah - even while being POLITICALLY INCORRECT!
ReplyDeleteIf anything, in the case of Aharon Friedman and Tamar, the issue is to give him some type of equality- nowadays considered my so gin is tickets. ..
could be
ReplyDeleteForty years is for kabbalah. Let me preface with a maisse shehoyo if you don't mind. In Yerushalayim there was a Baal Mekubel that used to cut his nails after the Mikvah on Fridays. Someone that happened to notice wanted to know what is the inyan of it al pi Kaboleh. The Baal Mekubel replied that you have to fast three times to understand the sod. He so did, and then the Baal mekubel told him that the sod is poshut, after the Mikveh the nails are soft to cut. The nimshal is, that not everything has a deep meaning al pi sod. i do quote maamorim from Talmud, nach etc. bederech ktsoro, since many think my comments are too long, I am therefore mekatser leshanos biktsoro. Having said all that, let me explain in no uncertain terms. The dynamics of Hafka'a is that it is oiker a Kiddushin lemafrea as if it never happened, and she gains back her former status of lifnei hanesuin, hence a non-grusho, of which is necessary in order to be able to marry a Kohen. Please note my makeshift Quotation marks on *BSULO*, saying it tounge in cheek ;-D. For those applying Hafka'a when it's not called for, I was making choizik as a joke that their hafka'a is so powerful, a turn back in time that even her besuleho chozrin. We all know that for a Kohen, hafka'at hanesuin will suffice without going thru a Gerushin and obviously cannot make it into Gan naul ma'ayan chatum (shir hashirim) with the *Same Shmayss* :-). Therefore my friend, not everything is al pi sod, at times ein hamikro yotse midei pshuto. Please, all forgive for my pun. ty
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Daas Torah is reluctant for whatever reason, to cover this story in depth.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of covering this story in a responsible and comprehensive way is huge.
To cover the story properly requires someone to gather the facts carefully. That requries a tremendous amount of time.
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply send me letters from Tortonto rabbis who have taken a position in this matter?
Ah.........................., I said 40 years in order to be omed al Da'as raboi! Thanks
ReplyDeleteCustody issues must be decided by a Bais Din Al Pi Halacha just as all other issues need to decided by a Bais Din Al Pi Halacha. Some people are Machmir on that as well.
ReplyDeleteBarry and I are friends (and chevrusos) since the mid-70's, so it is no wonder we think along similar lines (even though we thoroughly enjoy arguing with each other), and also both use our real names.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to slog through all the comments, but something that struck me about our distinguished host's blog is the paucity of comments by women - unless they are all using male pseudonyms.
Intriguing.
Nu, Let's petition Da'as Torah!
ReplyDeleteIt's clear to me that the Rabbi's agree with Rabbi Schwartz's Heter.
ReplyDeleteHave you contacted any of the rabbis in question? If not, how clear can it possibly be? Clear as mud.
Do you have some other beef with the rabbis of Toronto that you're not telling us about? For someone with few facts at his disposal, you are strangely strident.
ReplyDeleteif a man feels he made a major mistake in choosing a spouse due to information unavailable to him at the time, he can leave
ReplyDelete..with consequences. He must pay his wife the Kesubah.
but if a woman feels that way, she cannot. Certainly a great and major moral principle that is worth making a life cause.
1) The very first step in your "moral principal" should be to actually even it out, and require the woman to pay an equal Kesubah if she chooses to way out. Anything else really reveals that your true intentions are not equality.
2) What percentage of woman initiate divorces? Furthermore, what percentage of women who initiated divorces fully regret their decision?
The only thing left to determine is whether you first chose your "moral" cause, and then sought arguments to support it, or you actually do have an open mind to see and understand the complete issue.
I am not familiar with the circumstances of this case, but if there was verbal admission from anyone in the putative Cohen's direct maternal lineage that she had relations with a goy before marriage, he would be considered a challal and hence be allowed to marry a gerusha, based on Shevet Halevi Even Ha'Ezer 11:277. I could understand why it would be considered inappropriate for such an admission to be made public.
ReplyDeleteand the rest of the family would have to be declared not to be valid cohanim
ReplyDeletethey are
ReplyDeleteUnderstood. It was only a pun, forgive again. lol, I have a soft spot for politicians, I therefore mefaresh
ReplyDeleteWhat are you trying to insinuate? I think the maaleh of this blog is that most (for sure not all, unfortunately) are readily able to discuss and argue the substance of the matter of what the halacha IS by buttressing their points with sources and straight logic. As opposed to some others blogs; one of which you are a prominent participant, instead the comments feature arguments of what the halacha "should be" or that they divine "what G-d intended", arguments based off of pure emotion and devoid of halachic principle. The writer of this blog instead of arguing "Oh, he's a big rabbi with a black hat, and he's a big rabbi with a black hat, so how can one be wrong!, and how dare you point out in a serious and clear way that they are wrong!", instead does his due diligence to report, investigate and argue the facts of the cases. He reports the facts of the case and demands accountability of those who are making unprecedented psakim. Is it so crazy to ask of RNG to write a teshuva explaining his opinion and how he came to his conclusion? Since when in the history of Klal Yisroel has that become an unfair request?
ReplyDeleteYou have written in other forums that this whole saga has been overblown due to the bloggers of the world taking on this issue. Do you not agree that this case will have massive negative effects on future divorce cases? Or that is has shown light upon a very questionable process of Dayanus and Psak Din (as evidenced by the case in Toronto)? Do you honestly believe there is no toeles for this to be discussed in the public forum?
Thats more intriguing.
This is a place to come to discuss halacha, not feelings of how things ought to be in your perfect Utopian society. Oh, I forgot. You've made it clear that you don't really care about halacha. Thanks for using your real name, so that everyone can know to stay away from you and your treifene shittos.
ReplyDeleteRav Henkin passed away 13 years before Rav Moshe, and even during Rav Henkin's lifetime, it was not he Who generally decided major Halachos issues in the public arena.
ReplyDeletebut there was a shift of his status to becoming the posek hador which is not where he started out even after coming to America
ReplyDeleteAll these points about who and when are not absolute. The pattern existed in the Israeli Gedolim and Poskim. Rav SZ Auerbach was a leading posek, but during his time RAv Elyashiv was also important. Rav Shach was dominant on major public issues, but in halacha, RSZA has published much more. At any time, there may be several leading figures, and one may be most prominent.
ReplyDelete"At some point" being when Rav Aharon passed away, And Rav Aharon wasn't a "posek," he was a manhig. He didn't deal with halachic issues other than sheilos posed by his talmidim (those that wanted to listen to him anyway. The "frummies" considered him a liberal regarding Cholov Yisrael and destroyed teh Lakewood mikvah which Rav Aharon held was kosher).
ReplyDeleteFactually -- not pie-in-the-sky hearsay stories and opinions, when Polish-chassidish relatives of mine arrived from Europe in 1949 and had a complex sh'eilah about a business and hilchos Shabbos, every Rav they consulted sent them to Rav Moshe.
I wrote and deleted several times explanations of Rav Hutner's remark. To keep it brief, he was his own man and certainly felt he deserved to be the manhig.
The Satmar Rav also waited till after Rav Aharon's petirah to try to marginalize Rav Moshe, even though Rav Moshe's teshuvah was written and promulgated years earlier.
Barry, your comment reminds me of a vort that I heard from Rav Mordechai Schwab, zt"l :
ReplyDeleteHis rebbe, Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, zt"l, the famed author of "Birchas Shmuel" and one of the most prominent prewar roshei yeshivos, was to the surprise of most individuals, a kana'ii (even though he was very much known as quite genteel).
He said, "how will I merit olam haba? Torah? I haven't that. (! - despite what the average person would guess! ) other ma'alos? I don't have either. But I will merit in that I was an ohev Yisroel". (And here I would add another exclamation mark).
So, Barry, what are you doing to make sure to protect Klal Yisroel from issur aishes ish and contamination of mamzerim. .....not just for now, but for doros to boot?
1. Rav Hutner was one of the dor's gedolei yisroel according to all accounts, acknowledged by all communities, even if one disagreed with his shittos sometimes or oftentimes.
ReplyDelete2. So was the Satmar Rebbe in the same vein as Rav Hutner.
3. Rav Hutner is the one who asked the Satmar Rebbe to write a teshuva opposing Rav Moshe's position on aritificial insemination.
4. Rav Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Hutner got along with each other and respected each other immensely, agree or disagree on whatever number of issues.
Not sure if anyone holds by RMF's position on AI...
ReplyDeleteAt least here you can give a dissenting opinion, whereas on some feminist blogs you are bumped off for differing views. Ask Rabbi Oliver. Same happened to another acquaintance of mine. .....perhaps they have nothing what to answer for their views. .......
ReplyDeleteOne more thing, Rabbi Bechhofer, if I may: perhaps if you were taken to court - in violation of halacha, with false and lurid allegations piled up against you, with not being able to see your kids , with money taken away from you , again, in violation of halacha, with being arrested, again, in violation of halacha, etc, perhaps you might understand where others are coming from. .......
B"H, quick on the pickup. Addressed the next day!
ReplyDeletethis is nice http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4743567,00.html
ReplyDeleteReport: Ultra-Orthodox in Israel healthier, live longer
Perhaps. Al tadun es chavercha ad she'tagia l'mkomo. But these issues do not apply to the Epstein case.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you for using the pseudonym of a brand of beer. Na'eh v'ya'eh lecha!
ReplyDeleteWhat's the case in Toronto?
ReplyDeleteAnd no, there really is no to'eles.
They are what?
ReplyDeleteIn the interests of honesty, as I have no negios one way of the other, and don't know either Tamar or Aharon, let me raise 2 points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the issue here can possibly be boiled down to what constitutes mekach taus. It might be argued from Reb Moshe, that although he allowed for mekach taus in certain situations, but the standard was that nobody would live with this individual. Hence in a case of shigaon, or lack of koach gavra he ruled the marriage could be anulled. By his use of the gemara ein adam dar im nachash bekefifa achas, this means that nobody would be willing to live with such a person. In our case, perhaps Tamar genuinely couldn't live with him because of some very unpleasant personality trait that she believed he had. And very possibly, if she knew in advance, she would never have consented. But if the standard is that nobody could live with him, that might not be sufficient, as perhaps other women might not mind.
Hence this would explain why the Kaminetskys got a psychological opinion. At first, one could ask why it was necessary. The gemara does not say a doctor needs to certify he has a disorder, only that nobody could live with him. (And case in gemara was where a man says he won't support family, a clearly nasty person.) So one could say that either the current psak is extending Reb Moshe to cases where only the wife couldn't live with him, although other women perhaps could. Or alternatively, latzais yedei shneihem, get a psychologist to certify that nobody could live with him due to a clear disorder. At least one examiner did meet with both husband and wife together in this case.
My second comment is that if the only reason Aharon is withholding a get is because of custody, perhaps he should consider leaving his job and moving to Philadelphia. He has a superb resume, and people with such experience are in high demand. George Stephanopoulos and Ari Fleischer and others who have been presidential spokesmen have all gone on to major positions in news or with other companies. The fact is that due to the geographical distance, it makes no sense for the daughter to shlep back and forth, especially since she is a young schoolgirl, and it's a long trip. Parents frequently give up lucrative positions to be with their kids. Then he could see much more of her, and even get joint custody or 50% or whatever is possible, and the get fight would end.
Thanks to Rabbi Bechhofer for his supportive words. Yes, we fight plenty, but es vaheiv bsufa.
there are women commenting
ReplyDeleteMefaresh
ReplyDelete•
yesterday
You are incorrect about Rav Dovid, I have been told by a
friend who corresponded on the smoking issue and R Dovid told my friend
that the medical information in RMF time was not conclusive as to say
that וודאי someone who smokes will get cancer, thus the heter of שומר
פתאים ה׳ would apply. But said R Dovid now that it has been proven
scientifically that there is a direct link of smoking to cancer, even R
moshe would Assur it.
The halakhik standard for mekach taut is that almost no women will live with a man having these conditions
ReplyDeleteWhy should Aaron have to uproot his entire life and move? It was the adulteress who selfishly absconded their child and moved! If there was to be some of sort compromise like that, the adulteress should have asked the Baltimore Bais Din to impose it. She didn't! She just started slandering Aaron and got Jeremy Stern's gangsters of ORA to harass him. The adulteress has shown she should NOT have custody at all since she has shown contempt for the Torah by her actions.
ReplyDelete“R Greeenbatt's irresponsible
ReplyDeletereliance on a rumor produced an adulterous relationship, a threat to observance
of halacha in the area of Gittin etc etc”
This is a case of bad faith. (internet);
“The fraudulent deception of another person; the
intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual
obligation. Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or Negligence. One can
make an honest mistake about one's own rights and duties, but when the rights
of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct
demonstrates bad faith. Bad faith is a term commonly used in the law of
contracts and other commercial dealings, such as Commercial Paper, and in
Secured Transactions. It is the opposite of Good Faith, the observance of
reasonable standards of fair dealings in trade that is required of every
merchant.”
Rabbi Greenbatt and Rabbis Kamenistky failed to
observe reasonable standards of halacha as is required of any rabbi. They did intentional and malicious refusal to
perform proper duties expected of a rabbi.
Their aim was to help Tamar Epstein.
There’s no honest mistake here.
In the interests of honesty, as I have no negios one way of the other
ReplyDeleteReally? Did you not state that you feel that the Torah is immoral in not providing a woman an immediate escape root when she suffers some buyers remorse? Did you not state that you feel you should turn this into a life cause?
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/12/tamar-epsteins-heter-battle-against.html#comment-2421357024
1. Not true.
ReplyDelete2. Definitely not true.
3. Underscores what I wrote regarding point 1
and proof that your 4 is total narishkeit.
4. Total rewriting of history. RMF had times where he tried to keep RYH out of meetings between the gedolei yisrael. RMF got along with them as he was an extraordinary ba'al midos and tzaddik but lets not think that they were chummy chummy.
The to'eles is that hopefully there will be a retraction
ReplyDeleteAnd if not,
Hopefully they will separate
And if not,
Hopefully people will make a registry for non kosher gittin and non kosher children
And if not, hopefully individuals (at least some) will be saved from marrying mamzerim, chalolim, etc.
Guess that bottom line is that we gotta do what we can do. ....
l might contend that these issues may not be relevant to the Epstein case - until you or somebody you know went through court proceedings to see your kids like Aharon Friedman did, have your child taken away from you like Aharon Friedman did, have a bogus siruv put against you like Aharon Friedman did and be put through other stuff as was done to Aharon Friedman.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I recall typing the second paragraph in response to other posts of yours.
This goes against what I heard and read about these gedolim (even though they sometimes may have had vehement disagreements). I kept quiet for days about this discussion. Please submit proof.
ReplyDelete