I received this email this morning and thought it important to post along with my respoonse
Rabbi Eidensohn,
I believe that the spurious Hetter granted to Tamar E. upsets and distresses me no less than it does for you and all other Shloimei Yisroel, but I have to protest most strongly the direction I am hearing your blog has been going recently.....as long as you are attacking the Hetter itself (as vehemently as necessary) you are on safe ground, but recently you have been attacking people and attaching their pictures, which is far more questionable...
Reb Nota, and more so Reb Shmuel K., are very respected Zkanim. Besides the dubious gain (their admirers now consider them "Nirdofim" and more simplistic Yidden are completely confused as to how to view respected Rabbonim and Roshei-Yeshivos), this is a huge Halbonas Ponnim Berabbim, which - even when allowed - has to be completely LeShem-Shomayim (see Igros-Moshe about "Kano'im Pogim), and who can be secure in that....that the likes of Yuddel Shain have joined this campaign only detracts from the way it's perceived!!
Get back on track,
======================Kol Tuv
I understand very well your point. But I also understand that by their continued refusal in the face of world wide condemnation by rabbonim from all circles - the situation is changing.
It is no longer that two widely revered and liked gedolim inadvertently made mistakes of a serious nature - which does indeed require a focus on the deeds and not the person. It is now their refusal to acknowledge and retract an error - which is obvious to most people - that is destroying emunas chachomim and creating a huge chilul haShem that is the problem. It is no longer about what they did - but who they are.
When rabbonim call for the rejection of Rav Greenblatt's gittin - it is rejection of Rav Greenblatt as a gadol b'Torah. When Rav Kaminetsky is pointedly uninvited by senior rabbis in England from a conference - it is rejecting Rav Kaminetsky as a gadol b'Torah. It is not my blog which has shifted the focus to their stature as gedolim - but rabbonim around the world. My blog is merely reflecting this change - which everyone knew would eventually happen.
The longer they refuse to acknowledge their direct role in causing an adulterous relationship through a corruption of the halachic process - with the consequences of producing mamzerim - the greater is the damage to Klall Yisroel and the greater is the need to use stronger measures.
The fact that they are - or perhaps were - highly respected men who have devoted their long lives to successfully developing Yiddishkeit and helping others - makes the damage they are causing that much greater. They are running out of time to save their well deserved reputations and stem the serious damage they are causing to all that they hold dear.
I don't think either of them would allow one of their devoted followers to persist in stonewalling against such an obvious error - why do you think they should not be held to the same standard. Why do you think that they should not be held personally accountable for this travesty?
It is their continued refusal to acknowledge they were wrong that is now the problem. It is no longer so much about Tamar's heter - but it is about gedolim who can not say they were wrong and do teshuva.
Part of the problem is that it’s hard to “divorce” (excuse the pun) your and your brother’s activism on the Epstein issue from your broader approach to matters of gerushin. The fact is, as much as you and your brother may not like it, Charedi dayanim on the rabbanut, whose scholarly records are certainly no less than yours or his, often take a very different approach on the latter to the one promoted on this blog. Waging two battles at once, with one of those battles effectively directed against the reasoned piskei din of leading dayonim, is not a recipe for public confidence in your motives.
ReplyDeleteHere are two examples of such piskei din:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1308
http://www.dintora.org/article/311
See Vayikro Rashi 4: 22: "Asher Nasi Yechto, ashrei hador shehanosi sheloi nosen lev lehevi kaporo al shigegosoi, KAL VACHOMER shemischaret al zedoinoisov".
ReplyDeleteThe Poskei ugdoilei haDor have spoken vehi oimed besheloi. We now got to the stage of bemakom sheyesh chilul hashem ein cholkin kavod larav. It is becoming choite umachti chas veSholom.
I don't understand your point. We have been presenting the views of the majority of accepted poskim. You are claiming their are some chareidim dayanim who work for the Rabbanut who take a different approach. So what?!
ReplyDeleteRabbi E Shlita
ReplyDeleteOnce again you - and only you - have been able to properly analyze this situation and explain to the world what is really happening,
im Yirse Hashem, you should be zoche to continue to assist Klall Yisroel ad Maya Veesrim Shana.
Yeyasher Kochacha.
They disagree with your understanding of many of those poskim (and they happen to be right, imho). Anyway, it's nice of you to admit that your fight is against the dayonim who are actually paskening a majority of these shailos on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteJ you are making some rather nasty statements . Why? I never claimed to be representing the views of the rabbbanut. The views I have cited are the mainstream ones. You are accusing me of distortion and hypocrisy because I do not cite the rabbanut but only the main poskim?!
ReplyDeleteWhy are you trying to make this into a fight against the dayonim - by citing the mainstream views which go against the dayanim?! You clearly view the dayanim of the rabbanut as superior - that is clearly not my view nor most of the people in the yeshiva world.
“Tamar Epstein's heter: It is no longer what Rav
ReplyDeleteGreenblatt and Rav Kaminetsky did but their stature as gedolim that is being
criticized”
I have a theory. Mendel Epstein et al and this obviously
fake heter is feminism radicalization, affecting otherwise good Orthodox Jews
and rabbis. The radical feminists look
for more and more radical (and evil) ways to achieve their objectives.
Susan speaks of firing bullets to force a get
(internet 2012):
“Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon
Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring
Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have
protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a
website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official
congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah
International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media
has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after "all the
bullets have been fired."”
Rav Greenblatt and Rav Kaminetsky have been
radicalized feminists. They took the
feminist’s battles for a get on demand to a whole new level. Why? Because, as Susan says social media has
little effect because many husbands still are resistant after "all the
bullets have been fired."”
A few weeks ago in one of your comments, you said that the Yeshiva system is not a good place to understand the dynamics of halacha. Dayanim are the ones who pasken day to day halacha.
ReplyDeleteWhether you agree with them or not, that is halacha l'maaseh.
As a matter of interest, Rav Elyashiv spent many years as such a Dayan in the rabbanut , and under Rav Herzog found many heteirim. He became much more strict in his later years.
Your assumption that the Charedi dayonim are going against the consensus of "mainstream" poskim is simply unjustified. And that's besides the fact that, particularly among Charedi sefardim (e.g. Rav Amar and Rav Yitzchak Yosef), many of the world's top poskim on these issues actually work (or worked) for the rabbanut. Rav Yitzchak Yosef often signs off on piskei din.
ReplyDeleteEddie please cite my words and not what you think they were or what you remebered they were.
ReplyDeleteThe yeshiva world is not oriented to learning practical halacha - so what? The point is that it relies on the words of the major poskim - who are concerned with practical halacha. Dayanim of the rabbanut - even if chareidi - are not viewed as halachic authorities especially if they disagree with the major poskim
To accuse me of hypocrisy or concealing or distorting halacha because I don't cite dayanim of the rabbanut is absurd. I have never concealed who I view as authoritative and it is not the rabbanut. Just because J thinks the rabbanut is more authoritative than the major poskim - is not my problem but his. I generally cite and often translate my sources.
Bottom line J is seriously distorting the reality of the yeshiva world if he insists that the rabbanut dayanim have greater authority than the major poskim- and so are you.
J we obviously live in different worlds. Rav Eliashiv or Rav Moshe Feinstein's words are more authoritative than Rav Amar and Rav Yitzchak Yosef. The psakim of the rabbanut by and large are not utilized for practical halacha in the yeshiva world. The yeshiva libraries I utilize have the Igros Moshe, Rav Eliashiv etc etc but not one volume labeled as being from the rabbanut.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Rav Eliashiv and other major rabbis have worked for the rabbanut - does not make the rabbanut psakim of great value. Psakim that Rav Eliashiv made when he was working for the rabbanut is something else - but it is not because he worked for the rabbanut.
So which contemporary sefardi poskim do you consider authoritative as opposed to Rabbis Yosef and Amar?
ReplyDeleteJ what does this have to do with the nasty comments you have been making about me?
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that the stature of Rabbi Kamenetzki and Rabbi Greeblatt comes from the high regard they are/were held in the chareidi yeshiva world.
ReplyDeleteThe rabbanut dayanim are not all, perhaps not even majority, chareidim and they are not all agreement with each other. And by and large chareidim have their own butei dinim outside of the rabbanut system, I.e. Rav Karelitz in Bnei Brak, and the rabbanut is unrepresentitive of chareidim.
ReplyDeleteNo one admitted that is a fight against the dayonim who are actually paskening a majority of these shailos. And certainly not a majority of Chareidi poskim or shailos.
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why every tom dick and harry has to jump in and add his two cents.
ReplyDeletelet R Sternbuch call RSK up and ask him to justify his pesak or publicly retract it.
As an occasional visitor to this site who thankfully doesn't follow this case in all its great detail, the only impression I get from all these posts and mecho'os and denunciations is Bizyon and Bushah and Chilul hashem.
Issuing a faulty pesak is not grounds for a witchhunt, and certainly not by online blog commenters.
No-one needs every Rov in town to demonstrate and make mecho'os. This is an ugly, distasteful custom from Eretz Yisroel that the Eidah, for example, are so fond of. It rarely helps the issue or increases kevod shomayim.
Charedi dayonim are by and large certainly not going against the consensus of "mainstream" poskim. Indeed they are by and large paskening in accordance with the positions of the poskim presented here by RDE.
ReplyDeleteRav Elyashiv did not become stricter later. His earlier positions are in sync with his lawyer ones.
ReplyDeleteI specifically quoted from psakim that had been authored/signed off by Charedi dayonim. In the case of Rabbis Amar and Yosef (who didn't author the linked piskei din, but have signed off on many similar ones), they're not just Charedi, but leading poskim for the Sefardi Charedi tzibbur.
ReplyDeleteMost chareidim are Ashkenazim. So what does this comment have to do with your earlier ones?
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDeleteI am not accusing you of those things. My argument is that dayanim are involved in practical halacha, like it or not. That doesn't make the dayanim infallible, and it also doesn't contradict the authority of the major poskim.
ReplyDeleteRav Ushinsky, the author of the first psak linked in my comment, is a dayan who is affiliated with (and whose candidacy was promoted by) Degel Hatorah.
ReplyDelete" J is seriously distorting the reality of the yeshiva world if he
ReplyDeleteinsists that the rabbanut dayanim have greater authority than the major
poskim- and so are you."
Firstly, i am not saying Rababnut dayanim have greater authority than poskim, but it is important to note than many Gedolei hador were such dayanim of the rabbanut, including ROY, Rav Elyashiv, to name but a few.
Many of the piskei halacha of Rav Elyashiv are from his time at the rabbanut. It is a question of chicken and egg. He was of course a young ilui, but his Gadlus was achieved during his time as a dayan. he was never a Rosh Yeshiva.
I have to refer you to Dayan Sherman again, for this specific point. He made certain very controversial psak regarding annulment of geirim, and had the backing of the Hareidi world. But this act itself was much worse than both what Goren and Kamenetsky did, since it permitted eishet ish on a multiple basis.
Rav Aharon Feldman and the Baltimore beis din are not part of the Eidah not after they in Eretz HaKodesh, and yet they and other American and Israeli rabbonim have issued public protests. (Regarding your comment about every Tom and Harry, I concur.)
ReplyDelete>> it is about gedolim who can not say they were wrong
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately this statement goes to the heart of many of our problems in the frum community. In Las Vegas there is now a passul eruv causing people to violate Shabbos because 10 years ago R. Peretz Steinberg could not accept that a Bais Din found his testimony to be incorrect. He went so far as to commit PERJURY rather than acknowledge his error and correct it.
(The details are at http://cleanupyoungisrael.blogspot.com/)
What would I say without rabbinic endorsement? I would bring the Gemara Brochos 19? that says that if one sees kilayim on his friend that he forcefully remove it even in the shuk AND EVER IF IT IS HIS REBBE. Look, they abrogated, mutilated, defecated and urinated on MY Torah and threatening to contaminate MY Klal Yisroel with mamzerim. We must all scream while the fire is burning, not after we are all burnt.
ReplyDeleteThe Eidah HaChareidis asked for macha'os, although I understand that was for botei din to initiate. Rav Sternbuch asked for macha'os and I heard Rav Shlomo Miller's rebbetzin this past Friday on the phone that he was in support of the Motzei Shabbos protest.
When they will retract in writing (as is requested of them by Hisachdus - in their letter,) and it will be clear that the death knell to pilfering kedushas Yisroel has reverberated in all directions of the earth where there is an Orthodox Jewish community and that even if some Kal will attempt it and that even if it went through, that this avla will be hotly contested and relentlessly pursued, then this can stop, but not until then.
Kudos to R. Eidensohn. If it wasnt for blogs people would be chicken to stand up for the truth. We are living in a feminist driven generation that has pushed many rabbis into their camp and are doing outrageous acts against the torah. Rabbi Gestetner has stated that THE GREATER TRAGEDY than the Tamar debacle is the day to day "forced Gittin" that is being procured by people like Kaminetsky which most people dont realize produces the SAME MAMZERIM as Tamars union with Adam Fleischer. Kaminetsky has been doing this for many years ! Yet, you dont hear a peep about the forced Gittin because thats where the bread and butter business is for the rabbis! Many of you dont know that some of the rabbis signing on to the protest letters against Kaminetsky and Greenblatt themselves procured 'Forced Gittin" and therefore are just as guilty as Kaminetsy/Greenblatt!
ReplyDeleteI have to say this whole situation really hit me with full force this morning in shul when I came to the bracha "Hashiva Shofetainu". May it be His will.
ReplyDeletethe rabbis and the feminists have no direction any longer. Now that mendel epstein will face jail, kaminetsky/greenblatt were criticized for the annullment, what else is there left for the woman who cant receive a GET? Take a look at what they did to Aharon Friedman, they kicked him out of shul even after Tamar remarried! Whats their problem! if the marriage is valid, let him come to shul as she has been freed, and if its not valid, then kick out Tamar and Adam from Shul???? Thats my point! the feminist Rabbis are confused and dont know how to react. THE SOLUTION is like I always stated, is NEGOTIATIONS! every divorce is a give and take and this is how you resolve conflict! But ORA believes the woman gets everything and this is why we are stuck today with our situation. We must abandon ORA and its supporters!
ReplyDeleteRemember when the Kaminetskys urged everyone to call Aharon Friedman AND HIS EXTENDED FAMILY to harass them that Aharon should give a get. Apparently Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky feels that is the proper way to act. So using his direction as to methodology, maybe everyone should start calling the Kaminetskys - including their Yeshiva and their EXTENDED family, brothers cousins etc - to demand a retraction and an apology for their misdeeds.
ReplyDeleteWe are just using the Kaminetsky methodology. The Rosh Yeshiva said (against the Psak Bais Din I may add) everyone should protest against Aharon and his extended family. What is good for the goose ids good for the gander.
ReplyDeleteMr. Moderator Shilita:
Could you post phone numbers for the extended Kaminetsky family as well as Agudah - Chafetz Chaim Heritage Foundation as well the Philadelphia Yeshiva
"J" writes:
ReplyDelete"Charedi dayonim on the rabbanut, whose scholarly records are certainly
no less than yours or his, often take a very different approach towards
the latter to the one promoted on this blog"
Dear "J": Did you ever take the time to actually read what's in the links you furnished?
The devil is in the details - IT'S ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS!
I think that very often - including the specific Ahahron Freidman case - you're comparing apples and oranges.
Besides for what RDE argues about different psokim - I'd like to say the following:
הלוואי we in America had even the minimal type of due diligence that the non-corrupt Rabbunut iDayanim in Israel offer. ... and that's coming from a Chareidi!
For example, your link to http://www.dintora.org/article/311
Assuming that what The Rabbunut writes is true, they took a controversial stand, but there is something to "stand" on. . The case deals with מאיס עלי עם אמתלא and cites the poskim allowing הרחקות דרבינו תם. Controversial, yes ... but at least there was an אמתלא.
In their words:
טענתה המרכזית של התובעת הינה נתק רגשי מהנתבע, כשתוצאות הנתק הלכה למעשה
הינן הפסקת יחסי אישות, טענות על התנהלות כלכלית, צורת הלבוש וכדומה. תגובת
הנתבע החוזרת על עצמה "היא מגזימה", דהיינו הבעל מודה על עיקר הטענות רק
טוען שזה מוצג בהגזמה.
In cases like Aharon's, it centered on Tamar's wanting Aharon to be more social, and her family's and therapist's INTERPRETATION of such lack of sociability as "not being nice" and then as a serious character deficit and eventually as an incurable personality disorder. It is indeed likely that at a certain point Tamar felt מאיס עלי.
There is however strong reason to believe that the מאיס עלי was, driven by bad family and Rabbinic advise and lack of knowledge of good mental health research. This is NOT a good אמתלא.
You see, there's good reason to believe that his lack of sociability was actually the epitome of "niceness", but that Tamar's family and therapist followed their own cultural interpretations and therefore besmirched him.
In the Rabbunut case there was no mention of dehumanization and stigmatization. In Aharon's case there was plenty - and it PRECEDING the purported הפקעת קידושין. He has a right to clear his name, and quite possibly to monetary damages - ע' שו"ת אבני צדק או"ח ס"ה
My main point is - there's a crying need for some serious scholarly work here in the US of A and not just appealing to the rabble-rousers.
I doubt someone like R' Elayashiv would have forced Aharon to divorce - even in his younger years.
ReplyDeletelet R Sternbuch call RSK up and ask him to justify his pesak or publicly retract it.
ReplyDeleteRSK has decided that he is above the law, and that he does not have to retract - since he wrote a letter claiming it wasn't him.
Issuing a faulty pesak is not grounds for a witchhunt
Witch-hunt? Was it RSK who turned this into a public case? Was it RSK who, through ORA, involved every Tom Dick and Harry? But more importantly, we all accepted arvus on the Torah. We all have an absolute responsibility to protest when people are megaleh punim B'Torah shelo k'halacha. All suffer when people believe that they have the right to matir a marry woman to run off with a beau.
Where were you when ORA - through RSK's instruction and approval - was using every Tom, Dick and Harry to harass the Staten Island Yeshiva? etc. etc.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say. I know nothing about the AF case or American batei din. I'm talking about the principles.
ReplyDeleteFor heaven's sake, enough with this "pasul eruv" nonsense. Take a box of matza, be mezakeh it to everyone in the community, put it in your house or some other accessible place, and presto, the eruv is kosher.
ReplyDeleteWhere does Aharon daven during the week and on Shabbos?
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, All the Dayonim should be doing that, and ask Yelamdenu no Rabeinu, meheichan dantani?! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
ReplyDeleteAhhh.... this might be the French Connection to the ORA scoundrels YSV. Shmor li ve'eshmor loch, scratch my back, n I'll scratch yours rofl %-} with a rain check, le'eis metsoi.
There is no need to overly demonstrate that there was no אמתלא in the Tamar case. The Baltimore Beis Din would have had to formally rule there was אמתלא, if there was. They never found and declared אמתלא in the case. Thus it is clear, official and obvious that there is no halachic basis that אמתלא existed as the Beis Din with jurisdiction of the case that heard both sides never found such.
ReplyDeleteAs things are B"H rolling, they are next in line. Let's first see what mendele E will bring us.
ReplyDeleteYechi R' Aron F!!!
Mr. Ploni, above, demonstrated how your first linked psak is not how you represented it and is different than this case and does not prove anything you claimed to.
ReplyDeleteYet those cases do not demonstrate what you claim they do.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea. And what about the terrible mass protests made against Aharon and the efforts to get him fired? Why not do that also? Can we get Shalom Kaminetsky fired from Philly Yeshiva?
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDeleteROFL! Right on.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think I claimed? They very much demonstrate exactly what I say they do.
ReplyDeleteWow, two baseless assertions in the same sentence. Where did I mention Tamar?
ReplyDeletealthough, not sure R Greenblatt is a Gadol - is (was) he?
ReplyDeleteI think we shouldn't get distracted by who and for what motive there is a outcry in this situation or how exalted the rabbis who are backing this ruling . To all those apologists there is but one question,if hashem yirachem the kamenetzkies get their way will you allow your child to marry the children of Epstein , assuming of course they can find another shidduch?
ReplyDeleteThe cases you linked don't show a psak in significant discordance with the positions RDE has been citing here on this DT blog.
ReplyDeleteActually, majority of them are Chareidim, and follow the Hareidi Gedolim. It is the DL movement who have been fighting a losing battle to get more modern Dayanim on the Rabbanut. Of course, there is a degree of independence too when it comes to the Chareidi dayanim.
ReplyDeleteThere have been big problems also when Hareidi dayanim are appointed through nepotism, ie their contacts in the Hareidi world. I say "dayanim" but R' Metzger wasn't even a qualified dayan. Then there was a Rabbi kook who is married to one of Rav Elyashiv's granddaughters. He is called a Kabbalist and tzaddik, but he messed up very badly producing many invalid gittin and thus causing untold problems in eishet ish and mamzerut.
Of course, since he had "proteksia", there was no outrage in the Hareidi world.
Did you and Gerald get together yet?
ReplyDeleteThe passul eruv is the least of the problems there in Las Vegas. And yes, your solution to fix the eruv has been considered. But that does not solve the greater problem of a community following the leadership of apikorsus who tells them to drive to shul on Shabbos (using the same logic as the Conservative Movement does) and the ongoing torment to the widow. What is necessary is undo the damage National Council of Young Israel caused by undermining the Bais Din that declared him a moser.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure where he davens but I was told that no one accepts him
ReplyDeleteNo one has answered this question - can someone please do so:
ReplyDeletewhat are RNG and RSK doing as a practical matter about the potential mamzer issue and the actual znus issue?
So am I.
ReplyDeleteThe principle that bother me is the unbelievably dismissive attitude to the most minimal principles of fact checking, that should precede character assassination.
This is not an Ahahron Freidman issue - this is a pervasive problem in mental health and also in some Rabbinic circles who feel no compunction ignoring very valid criticisms of questionable Pesukim. Tom Insel, the recently retired Director of the NIMH (largest funder of MH research in the world) recognized it as such.
Have you seen ANY point-by-point rebuttal of the very detailed and serious critiques of the AF annulment posted on this blog?
A disinterest in truth-seeking touches on the core issues of Judaism. Why are we sacrificing so much for a religious lifestyle? is it all just another cultural thing?
THIS IS PRINCIPLE, my friend.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteI'm flabbergasted by commentators who never took the time care about specifics and just throw out blanket statements .. as if every case is the same ... and everything involves the Chareidi - MO divide.
I strongly believe that in MANY cases, once someone takes the time to verify facts, it becomes clear that often we're really talking about basic human rights - People's rights to protect themselves against unwarranted הוצאת שם רע.
As I noted, I doubt he would agree with ORA's stance in many cases.
ReplyDeleteI'm not speaking from any personal experience, B"H, but simply from experience with the field ... spanning well over 20+ yrs.
If you care for change - start with fact checking and continue to proper interpretation, based on Halacha, Hashkafa and solid research, ok?
which is? a vague "principle"?
ReplyDeletePlease explain WHICH principle you're trying to prove?
That all men are villains , all women are saints .. or will the reality some day hit you that people are individuals .. and the only way to separate villains from saints is by investing LOTS OF SWEAT EQUITY. Do fact checking .. get proper interpretation..
Sorry to burst your bubble.
But then you have to allow the LAS widow and others into your home.
ReplyDeleteAnd AF of silver springs into your home.
To get at the matzahs.
Sure! Ki seishev lilchoim im moishel bin tovin es asher lefonecho Im haRav Domeh....veim lav al yevakshu
ReplyDeleteVeal tisavu lematamoisov.
He was mamash yored lechayov. Phew
Boom Boom Boomerang. What goes around comes around
Rav Amar and Rav YiY are living, whereas Rav Moshe and Rav Elyashiv ztl are from the previous generation.
ReplyDeleteRav Ovadiah Yosef was just as relevant as Rav Moshe, and not only sephardi rabbis relied on his psak. It is like saying that Rashi was relevant but not the Rambam.
On the other hand, you are right, when an imposter like R' Metzger was placed into the Rabbanut by the Hareidi parties,his psak was not relevant. The psak of Gedolim who were the de facto Chief Rabbis for the National Religious, eg Rav Ariel, Rav Amar were and are still relevant.
http://israelsdocuments.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-passing-of-rabbi-yosef-shalom.html
ReplyDeleteIn his work with Rav Herzog he was not as strict as he was as the Litvish gadol Hador. Generally, becoming the Gadol hador will lead to stricter positions, since the responsibility for the wider Yeshivot and Hareidi community becomes a much greater burden.
The point we should be making is that not every Tom Dick and harrry should be rendering judgement on the psakim of well known Gedolim. This is a dispute among Gedolim and for anyone else to criticize or belittle any of them , comes under the serious prohibition of Bizzui Talmeday Chachamim.
ReplyDeleteI heard that there is a letter out from בני ברק. Any truth to it?
ReplyDelete"Issuing a faulty pesak is not grounds for a witch hunt"
ReplyDelete100% correct.
Issuing a faulty pesak is not grounds for a witch hunt But issuing a fraudulent Psak is ground for a witch hunt. This case has been filled with fraud since the day the Kaminetskys called for demonstrations against the wishes of the Bais Din involved in the case.
Mike, i find troubling with this statement is that it takes so much corruption to have the meaning of this bracha hit you at full force and that the stuff occurring until then was considered 'bearable'. Perhaps you haven't been to Bais Din or court.
ReplyDeleteCan I be clear here. You and apparently your readers are against, as someone put it, 'divorce on demand'. If a woman comes to beis din and says she is unhappy, let's assume she tried counselling but it didn't work, you think that she has no right to divorce just because she is unhappy and doesn't like her husband. Basically you are saying a woman should live out her life in misery, living and sharing a bed with someone she despises. Maybe she just thinks she can do better or met someone else, you think she should still stay chained to whichever guy she first married. Do you actually believe this?
ReplyDeleteWho besides Landesman procured forced gittin?
ReplyDeleteYosef you are making this up. Please provide a legitimate psak that says such a thing.
ReplyDeleteDavid we are not talking about "whether we believe this?" The issues is what is the halacha. You obviously don't think there is any reason to invest time learing what the halacha is but it is simply enough to decide what you think is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteIf I am mistaken then please produce the Torah sources for Get on demand.
If I am correct, they have so far just diaassociated themselves as much as they can, with RSK writing a letter that he never gave TE a heter and with RNG writing that he based his siddur kidushin (or could it be also his heter nisuin????) On the younger RSK's words (to which we indeed see a letter from him to RNG asking for the heter)...
ReplyDeleteThat's quite an imagination you have. I haven't said a word about gittin on demand, AF, ORA or anything else. So it's frankly odd for you to suggest that I need to check my facts when I haven't referred to a single "factual" (or otherwise) situation.
ReplyDeleteThe principle is simply a far broader range of scenarios in which dayonim are either mechayev a get or institute sanctions against husbands than those advocated on this blog. I'd be more than happy to stand corrected regarding the Eidehnson brothers' position.
Rav Ushinsky uses Rabbeinu Yerucham in a way explicitly opposed by R. Dovid Eidehnson. If he agrees, let him say so.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed it had any shaychus to the Epstein case.
ReplyDeleteThe Shulchan Aruch says you're wrong david. The S"A gives scenarious where when a wife asks for a divorce we tell her that her request is denied. Ironically one of the examples you gave, where she met someone else, the Shulchan Aruch says explicitly that she is not given a divorce.
ReplyDeletePlease share any examples of where a chareidi dayan was mechayev a get in a situation where Rav Daniel E. brought sources here showing there is no chiyuv get.
ReplyDeletethe issue was discussed a number of years ago
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rabbeinu-yerucham-forcing-husband-to.html
Dayan Sherman didn't annul any geirim. Dayan Sherman simply found that the so-called conversion of those folks was a farce and fake and they were never converted in the first place and they were never Jewish despite having taken a mikva dunk. There is nothing new in finding that a purported conversion was not real and effective.
ReplyDeleteEddie you periodically bring up this case and I think you cite it incorrectly as Catskills1 points out.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you write a guest post showing why you think your understanding of Dayan Sherman's ruling is correct.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the cases you cited demonstrate even on a generic theoretical level that chareidi dayanim rule in a manner that the sources RDE cites disapprove of. If you have any examples, list specific cases where a dayan ruled in a way that RDE's sources do not permit, and specify which position RDE cited differs from that dayan's psak.
ReplyDeleteNu, let the Eidehnson brothers tell us whether they agree with the conclusions of the piskei din as they are presented.
ReplyDeleteIn most circumstances even if the husband wants to stay together, at some point he's going to give up. Normal people do not bedavka keep their wives chained up against their will. But the husband does have rights, and in most of the "agunah" cases we hear about today the wife refuses to play by the rules of halacha and that's the only reason they can't get their get. That's not an agunah. That's a self made problem. Nobody on this blog condones the actions of the creep who just wants to be metzaer his wife by keeping her married against her will. Even if that is his right according to halacha, like it or not.
ReplyDeleteJ I will repeat - the main stream poskim are the basis of my halachic understanding. It is irrelevant what a dayan of the rabbanut says. In the same way it is irrelevant what a dayan of the Beis Din of America says. You are the one who decided that it is important - I don't accept your view.
ReplyDeleteNormal people do not bedavka keep their wives chained up against their will.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone is normal.
So? That's how an eruv works. If Asher Kaufman wants a kosher eruv in Las Vegas, let him do it.
ReplyDeleteOh, so the problem is not the eruv. Well, then, stop pretending it's the eruv.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think I can dare speak for everybody that nobody here endorses creeps. In almost every contested get, each party is holding back because they want something. As the Gemara often exclaims, "otu b'shuftani askinun?" - "Are we dealing with fools?" To put it simply: logical arguments [deciding halacha] can only be made if we assume we are dealing with logical people. Mind you, all this being said while simultaneously bearing in mind that there is no halachic and more so moral or ethical cause for get on demand.
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteScrolling through your comments I have to admit that you've been consistent in advocating exactly what you claim - that some "dayonim are either mechayev a get or institute sanctions against husbands than those advocated on this blog".
And "Waging two battles at once, with one of those battles effectively
directed against the reasoned piskei din of leading dayonim, is not a
recipe for public confidence in your motives"..
I think RDE's answer would be sufficient for that gripe - namely that he has a different set of dayanim.
But, pray do tell me - why is there a problem "Waging two battles at once" .. that causes you to lose confidence in RDE'S motives?
Is there a problem with "קבל האמת ממי שאמרה"? Is there a reason that MOTIVES are important when dealing with the very detailed FACTUAL matters that were clearly noted here?
Do you see the issue of Tamar's annulment as a minor footnote in the bigger question of sanctions and כפיית גיטין?
So?
ReplyDeleteThank you, that's all I wanted.
ReplyDeleteWell RDE clearly thinks it does.
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah,
ReplyDeleteWhen the Shulchan Aruch says the husband is not obligated to give a Get, it is not recommending that a Get not be given and is not saying that it is ideal behavior to not give a Get.
Just like you understand that when the Gemara says that a
husband can give a Get if the wife burns the Chulent, it is not recommending the husband to give a Get, so too why don't you understand that that when the Gemara says that a husband is not obligated to give a Get, it is not recommending that the Get not be given.
So you and David could both be right. You are right that the Shulchan Aruch says that the husband is not obligated to give a Get, but David could be right that the husband could be morally wrong for not giving the Get.
J, RDE makes an excellent point. The psak halacha teshuvos recorded and written in Sh"Ut seforim are the most relevant. What some modern day individual dayanim employed by the Zionist State of Israel on its rabbanut system have ruled in some individual cases is not nearly important add mainstream Chareidi written psak that RDE had been citing here for years.
ReplyDeleteI simply said it wasn't relevant
ReplyDelete“Tamar Epstein's heter: It is no longer what Rav
ReplyDeleteGreenblatt and Rav Kaminetsky did but their stature as gedolim that is being
criticized”
I predict that Rav
Greenblatt and Rav Kaminetsky’s will make public teshuvah over the fraudulent
heter then were party to.
Mendel Epstein et al will make
public teshuvah over the evil hitting and kidnapping the FBI proved in court. Court
papers state: “As
to the Chaimowitz and Teitelbaum kidnapping, Aryeh Ralbag testified that
defendant Stimler appeared before him and admitted his role in that kidnapping,
and not merely the fact that he was a witness to the get, but that he
knew that the victims were bound and wanted to be released.”
I expect Rabbi Ralbag
and all radicalized feminists supporters’ public teshuvah after the sentencing
of Mendel Epstein et al. I’m expecting
Susan and her lawyer, Myla Serlin, public teshuvah, over the fraudulent 2013
NYS civil divorce of me and Susan.
See me http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18035#.VmfITZuIrIU
The wicked Antiochus’s
downfall was when he brought an idol to the holy Temple and sacricied to it.
Yes, R. Dovid Eidehnson, in a blog post, disagrees with how leading Charedi dayonim apply Rabbeinu Yerucham lemaaseh.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not. I personally think that it is very important indeed. But I have seen many people, at least in the earlier stages of this story, not taking it sufficiently seriously because the charge was being led by those who are anyway known to have a very specific "take" on hilchos gittin.
ReplyDelete"Not everyone is normal."
ReplyDeleteTouche! Had a good laugh from that!
"If I am mistaken then please produce the Torah sources for Get on demand."
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's Hiskatnu HaDoros and Gezeira She'ein HaTzibur Yachol La'amod Bo and hence it's just an Eis La'asos LaShem Heifeiru Torasecha, as in the way the Talmud explains why the ritual of Sotah was stopped because of "Mipnei Shehirbu" that once their was a plague of too many Sotahs (wives suspected of adultery, and probably more adultery period) so the Chazal STOPPED the Torah-mandated ritual of Sotah.
There is a tremendous Yerida and Shinnui HaTeva going on and marriages and people are very weak today.
Just some thoughts, what does the Oilem think?
J you are making a big deal about something which is not a big deal or even relevant to the discussion.
ReplyDelete1) Rabbanut dayanim are not accepted as authoritative in Chareidi circles when they go against the major poskim
2) Finding examples of apparent specific conflicts doesn't necessarily mean anything even if you consider the rabbanut relevant because it is possible that you are misunderstanding the dayanim or because there is no consensus amongst the dayanim.
3) the fact that this is a big issue for you doesn't make it a big issue for anyone else. For most of the readers of this blog it isn't.
The shulchan oruch says we don't force him to give a divorce. That doesn't mean he shouldn't give her one. The shulchan oruch also doesn't say we force someone to give food to a starving person or force someone to be moral or nice or anything else.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot infer from the lack of an obligation top stop an act that that act is ok. Just that it is beyond the power of the courts; It is not beis dins job to force people to be moral human beings.
However it is a jews job to be one and that fact that you support misery and blame it on halacha is very sad.
1) You are assuming they go against the major poskim. I disagree, and I am sure they do too.
ReplyDelete2) The piskei din give room for other dayonim to disagree. But overall, the words speak for themselves.
3) Nu nu.
That is exactly my point - some leading dayonim use the Rabbeinu Yerucham in a way that R. Dovid Eidehnson disagrees with.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my first post, I am not clear what YOU sir* are adding to the position. How are you helping out? Who needs you and your angry blog posts?
ReplyDelete(* Or the other 50 commenters on here)
"We all have an absolute responsibility to protest when people are megaleh punim B'Torah shelo k'halacha."
ReplyDeleteI am sure you are as Makpid on every other Chiyuv in the Torah as you are on this one [sarcasm].
While I am aware the Gedolim have a responsibility to protest, and if they don't, the Gemorah considers it as if they themselves sinned. Where does it say the Hamon Am also have an "absolute responsibility" to protest?
Gezeirah that the tzibbur cannot endure would apply to a gezeirah mid'rabbonon, but not to d'oiraisoh, such as forced gittin and issur arkaos. I think the only aforementioned item that is being religiously observed is haifairu torasechoh.
ReplyDeleteNot funny, but true. As Rav Nochum Eisenstein said, the entire agunah crisis is a manufactured crisis that is blown way out of proportion, because the vast majority of cases are self-inflicted. We do not need to make takanos for the one-off situation dealing with not normal people. Those cases are so uncommon that they don't even show up on the radar screen.
ReplyDeleteAnd the point of my "so?" comment was to say that conflating the horrible character assassination of Aharon Freidman with ongoing Halachic disagreements is more than a bit disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteThe silence and stonewalling from Tamar's side speaks VOLUMES. Why not comment about that? Claiming unfamiliarity with the details just won't do, my friend. The details are all over this blog.
Is this a case of willful ignorance .... meant to deflect by changing the subject?
Do you mean to say that you're playing "devil's advocate"?
ReplyDeleteIt didn't come across that way, since you didn't mention anything about the CURRENT issue. unless, I missed it (like I originally missed your goal in commenting).
Not at all. I have nothing to add regarding the Epstein "heter" on this blog. I have written at length against it and publicised relevant documents in other fora, such as on Otzar HaChochma.
ReplyDeleteDisagree. Our numbers are much greater than they once were, so that a statistically small percentage can still be a good number of people. There are some very vindictive people out there. It's not a "one-off situation" by any means.
ReplyDeleteHelping out by keeping the heat on ... I would think that's obvious.
ReplyDeleteTo me, rabbanut dayanim are to be taken no less seriously than chassidishe dayanim, and perhaps more so.
ReplyDeleteSo that's cleared up.
ReplyDeleteI tried posting on Otzar HaChochma but couldn't get the right to post.
The caliber of posters there is impressive and I wanted (among other things) to mention issues about where therapy and Halacha clash and to find out if any Rabbonim on OH are familiar with navigating such clashes and if the issue of possible oversight of therapy was ever raised - at least oversight of "frum" therapists who mean well but don't know better.
An example:
When Aharon & Tamar originally went to therapy the main sticking point was her wanting him to socialize more at meals in Philly - which are often long winded communal affairs. It turns out (verified) that from his perspective there was an issue of לשה"ר, דיבורי חול בשבת, ביטול זמן. Tamar also writes in her diary notes that he is נזהר בשמרית הלשון, איש אמת ... so there's backing from her own notes.
In therapy, the שיטה is not to get involved in moral and ethical issues, though even secular ethical humanists complain, for example, see
https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/the-strange-idea-of-quot-therapeutic-neutrality-quot/
This שיטה is not so פשוט even according to APA ethics rules, which require "cultural competence" and awareness of clients' religious sensibilities, but that's a discussion for itself. I'm focusing here on Halacha.
Interesting is that in חו"מ ס' רכ"ח ס"ג: צריך ליזהר באונאת אשתו לפי שדמעת' מצוי':
Yet the ערוך השלחון there ס"א writes אבל במילי דשמיא אם מונעת אותו מדרך הטוב אסור לשמוע לה וכו'
See ח"ה הל' לשה"ר כלל ו' ה"ה ... where he talks specifically about being among a group who speak דיבורים אסורים and he says that staying requires three conditions .. and notes the problem שיחזיקו אותו לשוטה ...
הל' לשה"ר כלל ו' ה"ה: אִם יָשַׁב בַּחֲבוּרַת אֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ (ח) לְעִנְיַן מָה, וְהִתְחִילוּ לְדַבֵּר דְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים, וְהוּא מְשַׁעֵר, (ט) שֶׁדִּבְרֵי תּוֹכַחְתּוֹ לֹא יוֹעִילוּ לָהֶם מְאוּמָה ... צָרִיךְ
ג' פְּרָטִים, ... א. יַחְלִיט בְּנַפְשׁוֹ בְּהֶסְכֵּם גָּמוּר, (יג) שֶׁלֹּא לְהַאֲמִין לְהַדִּבְרֵי גְּנוּת, שֶׁמְסַפְּרִין עַל חַבְרֵיהֶם. ב. (יד) לֹא יִהְיֶה נִיחָא לֵה בִּשְׁמִיעַת סִפּוּרֵיהֶם הָאֲסוּרִים הָאֵלֶּה. ג. (טו) גַּם יַעֲמִיד עַל עַצְמו, שֶלּא לְהַרְאות לִפְנֵי הַמְסַפְּרִין שׁוּם תְּנוּעָה, שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מִמֶנָּה, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים לְדִבְרֵיהֶם, אַךְ יֵשֵׁב כְּאֶבֶן דּוּמֵם. וְאִם יוּכַל לְהַרְאוֹת לִפְנֵיהֶם פָּנִים נִזְעָמִים, שֶׁיָּבִינוּ מִמֶנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ מַסְכִּים לְדִבְרֵיהֶם הַהֲבָלִים, בְּוַדַּאי הוּא טוֹב יוֹתֵר.
במ"ח יא) מפני שילעגו עליו. ... ובאמת הרוצה לצאת ידי שמים לכתחלה צ''ע איךיתנהג, כי לכאורה יש לפוטרו מטעם שבזמננו בעו''ה יחזיקו אותו לשוטה ופתי עבור זה וכו'
My point - there seems to be a "smoking gun" that the whole thing started from Tamar's not knowing better and failing to get the right guidance from either Therapists (who follow their training, which contradicts Halacha) nor the Rabbonim involved (who don't seem to care about details, but instead just work from per-conceived notions that easily פסל people שלא כדין). This is what I meant when I wrote about lack of due diligence.
I wish someone could find out if any Rabbonim on אוצר החכמה area aware of this issue and have an interest in rectifying it.
Is this something you'd like to pursue?
Litvish poskim and Chasidishe poskim are frequently integrated on the same butei dinim. The Eida is a mix of Litvish and Chasidim and Rav Karelitz's beis din has some chasidishe dayanim even though it could be called a Litvish beis din.
ReplyDeleteI would take Litvish and Chasidish dayanim equally seriously.
On the other hand, the rabbanut has daati leumi dayanim including some on the left-wing spectrum. While there are some chareidim mixed into the rabbanut beit din along with their daati colleagues, overall I would certainly take the rabbanut beit din system less seriously than most chareidi butei dinim, whether chareidi chasidish or chareidi litvish.
And even the chareidim who do take jobs with the rabbanut as judges are generally of a lesser tier than the dayanim on butei dinim such as Rav Karelitz's beis din, the Eidah beis din, the Hisachdus beis din and other mainstream chareidi butei dinim,
Not only did the baltimore bet din not find an 'amatlah', she never even made such a claim that an 'amatlah' would help.
ReplyDeletekishkeyum, i am trying very hard not to like you, but it is not working!
ReplyDeleteWhere can one read the posts on Otzar HaChochma? (link)
ReplyDeleteSorry, thanks for giving me opportunity to clarify myself:
ReplyDeleteThe first paragraph explains why it is incumbent upon us to protest from a logical point their is damage done and a lot of potential damage that can be done.
The second paragraph explains that now all the more so, we are to protest, since the gedolei hador have requested us to do so.
The third paragraph explains when the job would be done, so we can stop.
Again, thanks for pointing this out.
Hope it helps.
I am sure you are as Makpid on every other Chiyuv in the Torah as you are on this one [sarcasm].
ReplyDeleteSo, do you violate Shabbos every week? Why not - are you perfect in every other Mitzvah? Please.
While I am aware the Gedolim have a responsibility to protest, and if they don't, the Gemorah considers it as if they themselves sinned. Where does it say the Hamon Am also have an "absolute responsibility" to protest?
Where does the Gemara say that it is only gedolim who have a chiuv to protest? It says that anyone who has the ability to protest, must protest... Yes, the public pressure has helped in this case.
There are some very vindictive people out there.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is something that is not limited to men. There are an equal amount of vindictive women out there. The vindicitve women use the whole "agunah" cry to do the most horrible things. Since people are more sympathetic and "helpful" to women, they are much more successful in their vindictiveness. No "takana" or "correction" can be successful if does not simultaneously address the negative behaviors of both men and women.
Google "otzar forum תמר"
ReplyDeletehttp://forum.otzar.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24608&start=120&mobile=on
http://forum.otzar.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24608&sid=d028e16ebff0d29edceccab944a281fe
ReplyDelete8 pgs. lately been quiet there
david, The Shulchan Aruch says in many cases she shouldn't be given a divorce. In the very example you yourself raised in your earlier comment, where she met someone else, is an example of where the S"A says explicitly that she is not given a divorce. Not merely that we don't force him. But that her divorce request is outright denied. Per halacha as recorded in S"A. And that is just one example. A wife is not entitled to a divorce simply because she wants one. Not morally, not halachicly and not legally. Often her divorce request is outright denied per straightforward halacha. In these cases the morally correct and halachic obligation is for the wife to accept she is to
ReplyDeleteIn theory, that sounds very interesting. However, I'm just a private individual, not based in either America or Israel, who currently has only a limited history on the Otzar forum. I suspect that this is something that needs to be done in person.
ReplyDeleteMeeting in person isn't a problem, if necessary. The problem I'm having is that's it's very hard to find people who are intimately aware of both the Torah and MH worlds and care to fix things, especially finding MH professionals who understand underlying theories, and don't just act like robots.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, יישר כחך.
You can't see past your own 4 amos. Yes there's alot of noise on this blog. But to the outside world, even those who have been paying attention, this tumul is no more earth shattering than the tumul sorrounding the heter of setting your oven on yom tov using shabbos mode.
ReplyDeleteJust do a google search https://www.google.com/search?q=shmuel+kaminetsky&tbs=qdr:w. That's right, in the past week only the Eidensteins and Yudel have anything to say. Oh, and Harry giving some sociological commentary.
The noise on this blog notwithstanding, R' Shmuel's kovod b'mkmomo munach
A commitment must be kept.
ReplyDeleteRav Sternbuch recently wrote regarding prenuptial agreements that Rabbeinu Gershom took away the right for a man to force divorce because he wanted to MINIMIZE divorce - opposite of what ORA is doing - INCREASING and EXECUTING divorce.
Lot more to be said, but brief we'll get.
Ploni/J: Which Rabbonim post on Otzar Chachma and in what sense is the caliber of discussion there high?
ReplyDeleteThey usually use screennames, just like we do, so I don't know names..
ReplyDeleteHow do I know that they're Rabbonim? A) from the תוכן .. the מקורות brought up in many of the conversations show a בקיאות and deep understanding of the issues (not everyone - but some). B) They sometimes say so, like the fellow who wrote that he was מסדר many גיטין but doesn't feel qualified in this area, since the סוגיא is מקח טעות and not אהע"ז.
As to caliber - the dialogue is much more respectful - usually attacking the message and not the messenger.
There are many, although I’m not sure they want their names disclosed. One who I know does not mind being identified is Rav Yehoshua Inbal, a rosh kollel from Kiryat Sefer (if I am not mistaken), a member of the editorial board of Yeshurun and an incredible talmid chochom.
ReplyDeleteHis article analysing the differences between the Mishnah Berurah, Aruch Hashulchan and Chazon Ish can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B42f3gFEQEOFSExpZkpLVDNjbTA/view?usp=sharing
And here’s another article he wrote, surveying the roots of several important halachic disputes:
http://forum.otzar.org/forums/download/file.php?id=29501
Here’s his review of the latest volume of Teshuvos Vehanhagos:
http://forum.otzar.org/forums/download/file.php?id=29718
And finally, here’s his critique of Dr. Benny Brown’s
biography of the Chazon Ish:
http://forum.otzar.org/forums/download/file.php?id=9483
None of the recent famous "aguna" cases were situations where a get was withheld "just because." Name one case that we've all heard of.
ReplyDeleteThe oven controversy is very different for a number of reasons. For one there's a major posek who still holds of his psak and will tell you so if you call him on the phone (rightly or wrongly). Here there isn't one rov standing up and saying this hetter is valid.
ReplyDeleteThat said, you may be right about Rav Shmuel, but I doubt Rav Sholom gets away scot free.
typical of Moe, denying all history to suit his own fictional beliefs
ReplyDeleteWolf Jonas Eybeschutz was an open Sabbatean
"Firstly, the "protest" made by רב יהודה was a respectful question he
ReplyDeleteposed to שמואל. That is not at all what has been taking place on this
blog."
The protest matches the circumstances. There, the עוולה was non-involvement in a monetary matter. No fraud, no coercion, no הוצאת שם רע based on untraceable "diagnosis", followed by stonewalling. If you request, I'll bl"n look for "tighter" matches in Chazal. There are many, but time constrains don't allow me to quote them now. Yes, you are right about my comparison not being spot-on.
"nowhere have you shown that that the layman is required to protest what those who are greater than him say, even respectfully".
Sounds like you didn't look up my source at יו"ד רמ"ב, also see ערוך השלחן there באריכות.
"Moreover, I could quote the Sifri "אפילו מראים בעיניך על שמאל שהוא
ימין, ועל ימין שהוא שמאל - שמע להם" and claim that you are required to
follow blindly"
Thanks for bringing up the ספרי. you see, the idea of attempting to live a truthful life is in the INTEGRATION of seemingly contradictory חז"ל's. I do not blame you for cherry picking, since I'm aware that many of us are נתחנך on cherry-picked Chazal's and we therefore don't know different. You see, the Chazal you quote contradicts הוריות ב: regarding תלמיד שהגיע להוראה being required to bring his own חטאת and not being פטור with the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Furthermore, the Rmabam in הל' שגגות says the same even by תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה.
Several years back, the בית דין of רב ניסים קרליץ quoted this in warning EVERY INDIVIDUAL not to follow פסקים of a certain רב which they understood to be beyond the pale. For a longer discussion, please see קובץ שיעורים קונטרס דברי סופרים פ"ב regarding the parameters. I'm quoting from memory, so I might be a bit off.
"I think it would be just as intellectually dishonest as your last post"
I try to be intellectually honest. If after checking the sources you feel I'm still missing something, please get back.
"there are many possible ways to be החזיק that don't necessarily include
protesting those greater than you because you believe they are in
violation of halacha"
If it would be subjective, correct. as pointed out on this blog ad infinitum, in great detail, it is not.
I'm not aware of anyone C"V not learning R' Yonoson's brilliant seforim. Are you?
ReplyDeleteevidence?
ReplyDeleteEvidence?
ReplyDelete(And, no, not some irreligious website.)
Proof.
None? As suspected.
Maybe the arch hashulchan states it but there is no explicit mention in shulchan aruch.
ReplyDeleteYou get an A+ for brevity ... How would you grade yourself for content?
ReplyDelete(Just saw that my original DID get posted, oh well!)
I dont have the time to respond to every point but will adress the one thing i think is important enough to debate. And i reiterate that you are qyite dishonest with tour use of words because you are translating way out of context. There is no mechaner that calls for a talmid to 'rebuke' his rebbe. I must asmit that I am relying solely on memory but I never saw any mechaber or rama that states what u are saying. I do recall that we only protest when there is an issue of a deoraisa but not a derabanan. The protest is ALWAYS done the way rav yehudah did it - in question form ie. biderech kavod. NOWHERE is the any distinction between aveira chamurah in regards to HOW the protest should be made. You have a habit of reading things the way you want them to read. I will not respond to you again until you quote sources correctly and accurately. My argument here is that there is no excuse for lambasting those who erred and claiming that this practice is justified based on the shulchan aruch. When you clarify I will discuss the rest of your points.
ReplyDelete" must asmit that I am relying solely on memory but I never saw any
ReplyDeletemechaber or rama that states what u are saying. I do recall that we only
protest when there is an issue of a deoraisa but not a derabanan."
a bit odd that you rely solely on memory, esp. on "we only
protest when there is an issue of a deoraisa but not a derabanan".
I told you exactly where to look!!!!
So, "When you clarify I will discuss the rest of your point(s)"
Then we can talk about "lambasting".
So, you have the prerogative to avoid looking up the source that contraicts what you say and then claim that "you are qyite dishonest with tour use of words"
Shame on you..
there are a number of sources
ReplyDeletehttp://www.virtualjudaica.com/Item/29249/Binah_le-Itim
http://aleph.nli.org.il/F/1PSSMR44D446V7QCXYY7DQLPMLC1VXU2QR7CEC6AV9IQEXB2GR-06012?func=find-b&=&=&=&request=000205106&find_code=SYS&local_base=RMB01&pds_handle=GUEST
It is also mentioned in one of Scholem's works on the subject.
whether there is any religious literature on the matter, I do not know. Sid Leiman is mentioned in the first link, regarding his theory on the matter.
Scholem? Are you kidding? That rabidrabid "Jewish" anti-semite who hated religious Jews and the Torah more than he loved himself. He is the ultimate final "source" for all these sorts of untruths that he dreamt of of cloth.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I was traveling the entire day (and still am) so I cannot look up any sources. I'm sorry i was not clear - by a derabanan it is only le'achar ha'maaseh. Yes you do ASK but not prior to him doing the deed. My point was that your distinction between what type of averah is non existent while mine does yet still exist. (For what it's worth there is a de'ah that there is another difference between him being moreh a hoira'ah or doing an averah himself the former one we do not initially protest as must assume that he did his due diligence and therefore we must not know as well as he does. It is not be applicable in this situation because this case is a deoraisah but that is not our argument). My point the entire time is HOW it is done - macha'ah is not rebuke as you said earlier. NOWHERE does anyone say a talmid reserves the right to disrespectfully show his rebbi that he is wrong. The source about lafrushei meisurah is entirely taken out of context by you as it is dealing with being mafrish a third party in front of a rebbi. They key word is always 'lehakshos'. Translating a macha'ah as rebuke is just wrong when all the poskim clearly discuss machaa'h as ASKING. Aside from calling attention to what you perceived as my mistake I was merely stating that there are certain distinctions that exist in shulchan aruch and ones that while they clearly don't you feel that they should. But feel free to continue skirting the issue.
ReplyDeleteShame on you...
Well that's a terrible showing , many people like you don't seem to care even when the evidence is damning , and don't even have to put up a good cover-up story . It smells it's rotten Oakerres let go of my life what does that say about our society really pathetic if you ask me . And wonder if the exact same case happened but it wasn't the holier than thou , well-connected,kamenetzky? but someone like Rabbi Belsky you be run out of town and the web would be full . this story is an indictment of our society
ReplyDelete1) I'd like to lower the level of vitriol from my side and focus on the technical application of Halacha etc. I hope you can do the same.
ReplyDelete2) I think our difference of opinion has to do with our comparing the current case to different parts of Shulchan Aruch. I hope to be free and have יישוב הדעת iy"h late afternoon / night to compose a lucid comment. From my perspective, It also touches on RDE's post at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/12/tamar-epsteins-heter-was-rav-greenblatt.html
In any case, if your traveling, it will be hard to discuss sources. Do you expect to have Seforim accessible soon?
I do have access to sefarim now and will gladly check the new sources you post later. I check the sources you provided earlier this morning and as I said previously no such distinction is made. Perhaps elsewhere there is but as of yet you have provided a sufficient basis for this.
ReplyDelete1) What criteria would you believe are necessary for this סעיף to be applicable:
ReplyDeleteיו"ד רמ"ג ס"ג: וְתַלְמִיד חָכָם הַמְזַלְזֵל בְּמִצְוֹת וְאֵין בּוֹ יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּקַל
שֶׁבַּצִּבּוּר?
There are plenty of Halachic and ethical lapses in the case of AF- is that in doubt? Before bringing a bunch of details as to these lapses, the question is - will it ever make a difference?
Do you recognize a difference between a שאלה of איסורים and that of הוצאת שם רע where in the latter whether we look according to Hlacaha or ethics codes requires conditions very similar to that of a valid din torah? See חפץ חיים הל' רכילות פ"ט ה"א, where in the במ"ח he talks of warning someone a bout a bad מקח and even there requires many conditions to be מתיר, many of which were never fulfilled by the case of AF. As the ח"ח explains, in במ"ח סק"א, being גורם צער לחבירו is also אסור, even though גרמא בניזקין פטור, because the איסור remains....
Does it make a difference if a talmid chochom ignores יו"ד ס' רמ"ב סל"ו רמ"א: הגה: וְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאָמַר דְּבַר הֲלָכָה בְּדָבָר הַשַּׁיָּךְ לְדִידֵיהּ (תוס' בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ תָּם ונ''י), אִם אֲמָרָהּ קֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ; וְאִם לָאו, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ (ש''ס פ' הֶעָרֵל רֵישׁ דַּף ע''ז וְתוס' ונ''י שָׁם ד''מ סוֹף סִימָן רמ''ה) . וְדַוְקָא שֶׁאָמַר: כָּךְ קִבַּלְתִּי, אֲבָל אִם אוֹמֵר דָּבָר מִסְּבָרָא וּמַרְאֶה פָּנִים לִדְבָרָיו וְהוּא נִרְאֶה, שׁוֹמְעִין
לוֹ. (נ''י בְּשֵׁם הריטב''א) . אֲבָל אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין (מג) לְדִידֵיהּ, דִּלְמָא מְדַמֵּי דְּבָרִים לַהֲדָדֵי שֶׁאֵינָן דּוֹמִים. אֲבָל אִם הוּא (מד) פָּשׁוּט, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ (רַבֵּנוּ יְרוּחָם סוֹף נָתִיב ב' וּבְשֵׁם הָרֹא''שׁ) .
I'm also not aware of any מקור that someone who is not רבו needs to only be addressed בלשון כבוד של כך כתוב בתורה, especially after he doesn't listen to תוכחה בנחת which many ת"ח tried doing even before the whole issue hit the blog. Instead, such a person has all the גדרי תוכחה ... according to רב that means עד הכאה. The שו"ת מהרש"ל סנ"ה says that by תוכחה לתלמיד חכם the שיעור is עד הכאה, is that בדרך כבוד?
2) Regarding what you wrote: "I do recall that we only protest when there is an issue of a deoraisa but not a derabanan".
The only צד not to protest a דרבנן is only by a ספק איסור, not a וודאי. As the יו"ד רמ"ב סכ"ב רמ"א ואם רצה לעבור רק על איסור דרבנן אפ"ה צריך למחות בידו. The ש"ך סקמ"ב brings the תרה"ד is מסופק by a ספק.
Lets clarify 1 thing before continuing this discussion.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about the proper approach to protesting RNG and senior RSK. This particular thread is about them and their status. RSK claims that he had nothing to do with this witch hunt. That is subject to debate as there is evidence to the contrary but RNG has clearly not involved himself any more than saying that a heter, based on the information he was presented with, was warranted.
Therefore in response:
1) Please explain the zilzul in mitzvos. You have a habit of using terms very loosely. When a posek says something that is not correct that is not a zilzul in a mitzvah - if it was then the the point is moot and you can do away with the set of halachos we discussed in the previous posts.
2) Pointing out that there is a difference between issur
and hotza's shem ra'ah stil doesn't justify your claim that there is a difference between methods of protests. I don't have a chafetz chaim at hand at the moment but from you have written all I see is unrelated to what we are discussing.
3) If you look at what RNG wrote he quoted from his rebbi - it was as not sevarah denafshai. It was also modem lama'aseh (of the kiddushin) as he gave the heter years ago. The claim that the full set of requirements that RMF gave were not made is also questionable but that doesn't qualify anything that you have presented till now in terms of how to protest. The requirements of shulchan aruch on how to protest remain.
4) Based upon this the entire siman is irrelevant because we are not talmidim. I can't argue with that but realize the gravity of what you are saying. Would you have walked up to the Chafetz Chaim or RMF if you felt that they erred and talked to them shelo bederech kavod because you were not his talmid. Taking it one step further you can rebuke all leaders of klal yisrael as they are not your rebbe. I don't have a mekor to back up my opinion and I am not currently able to search for one but I do believe that certain things are devarim peshutim. And I find it funny that that the siman you quoted from in the past several posts (including your last one) you know believe to be totally irrelevant!
I am unfamiliar with the meharshal but the fact that you have quoted elsewhere leads me to believe that is a daas yochid and not necessarily so simple.
5) I stand corrected. But again unrelated to our discussion.
"That is subject to debate as there is evidence to the contrary"
ReplyDeleteNot really any debate. The evidence to the contrary is clear and was never refuted, only met with stonewalling. This detail is extremely important. מודה על האמת is not a minor detail, but rather as the חזון איש says, a Talmid Chochom who can't separate his נגיעות loses his claim to fame, as they would say.
"but RNG
has clearly not involved himself any more than saying that a heter,
based on the information he was presented with, was warranted"".
Not true. He did the Siddur Kedushin. He was told that the diagnosis is a pipe dream and asked if he would retract if six other MH pros said otherwise and didn't say he would. i heard this from the original source, not hearsay. News now is that he is ready to retract. There are attempts being made to make sure this is true, since I know that in the past it wasn't true.
Based on the aforementioned:
1) the zilzul of mitzvohs is the זלזול of the INSTITUTION of fact checking in דיני תורה and איסורים חמורים. RNG does not have a heter to blindly rely on RSK to do a siddur kiddushin based on the fact that he trusts the messenger (RShalomK), Still, we all make mistakes. the bigger problem is that he doesn't set up a system for verification IMMEDIATELY upon being notified of his error. Tamar is still living in sin, after all these weeks. Af still has no idea who פסל'd him. These are SYSTEMATIC problems, that point to a זלזול.
2) The reason for the mode of protest (not so much from my comments, but from others) is because the points mentioned in #1 point to the fact that this is a case similar to רמ"ג ס"ג - of זלזול. I stayed away for reasons of being דן לכף זכות, as I mentioned in other comments and won't go into know.
The Chofetz Chaim was just an additional angle, that when פסלing a person serious due diligence is necessary.
3) "The claim that the full set of requirements that RMF gave were not made is also questionable"
No, not questionable - obvious to anybody willing to take the time to delve into the details. Here again, we all make mistakes. the problem is with the actions and inactions in the aftermath of the mistakes made, some of which I pointed out in #1.
4) "Would you have walked up to the Chafetz Chaim or RMF if you felt that they erred"
Chas V'Sholom. Neither of the two would ever have done anything remotely similar to what is mentioned here. 100% guaranteed. I have to admit that if you talk to some of my friends from Satmar they would vehemently disagree about RMF. That would be becuase they're not differentiating between basic זלזול and reasoned argumentation in halacha (which is how you understand the current case). RMF ALWAYS gave his sources and allowed for fact checking. I'm not aware of any stonewalling (yes, I'm old enough to have actually asked him שאלות).
5) i mention it because you did, Agree that it's not germane to the discussion.
Who's pretending? The posul eruv is result of the problem. When the main part of the problem is solved the eruv will then be kosher.
ReplyDeleteYou still have absolutely no proof to your method of protesting against a gadol batorah.
ReplyDeleteTrying to fit this situation into zilzul is taking the words of the Tshuvos HaRosh entirely out of context. RNG did his due diligence at the time he gave the heter - he saw a signed MH report and relied on others who he felt were reputable and hold a dignified status in the torah world. So he was supposed to ask around to see if they had a negiyus. I presume that you think RMF and all other poskim througout the ages have done so when they were presented with sheilos chamuros. Personally I think its safe to assume that when they were asked by an adom gadol they assumed he had a chezkas kashrus and answered accordingly. All other claims that he is stonewalling, fraudulent report or the need for proper forensic analysis still doesnt make him a mezalzel bemitzvos. Mistaken in his psak - perhaps but you avoided looking the birkei yosef beshaim the meharshal on the sif you quoted. I assume it doesnt fit your needs here.
Saying that RMF would never do something similar does not answer the question and again you cleverly avoided discussing the point I was making. That they would never do it says nothing about how you would react if they had.
I see no point in further discussion here.
"claims that he is stonewalling, fraudulent report or the need for proper
ReplyDeleteforensic analysis still doesnt make him a mezalzel bemitzvos"
Pray say, why not?
"taking the words of the Tshuvos HaRosh entirely out of context"
I never quoted any Tshuvos HaRosh here.
"birkei yosef beshaim the meharshal on the sif you quoted"
Which סעיף. Do you perhaps mean סוף ס' רמ"ב? I sure did look up the ברכ"י, though I don't remember each מקור by name. The ברכי יוסף actually strengthens my argument manyfold, by saying that to be מחזיק a פסק is considered נגיעות.
"I assume it doesnt fit your needs here"
"you cleverly avoided discussing the point I was making".
"Intellectually dishonest" (earlier)
Wow! What an honor. A bit ironic that you seem to be in such a "positive" mood. Is seeing evil conspiracies in everyone who disagrees with your take part of the mitzvah of כבוד חכמים, as you see it? Ever hear about being דן לכף זכות ... as in maybe we see things a bit differently?
I find it ironic that you keep insisting on your position without qualifying it with any proof. You also both ignore the sources which say the contrary is true. The birkei yosef is on the sif about being mezalzel and the mekor for that halacha is the Teshuvos HaRosh. The simple meaning of mezalzel bemitzvos is simply a talmid chacham who openly has disregard for mitzvos ie. he is not careful to perform them properly or doesn't perform them at all. RNG gave a pesak based on information he believed was reliable. Until it has been proven without a doubt that the contrary is true and that there is absolutely no truth to anything he relied on even your idea of mezalzel is not applicable. Furthermore you refuse to provide an answer to my question regarding RMF and the CC merely stating that they would never do it. If I wouldn't see a pattern of trying evade the questions perhaps I would be dan lekaf zechus. Evil conspiracies is hardly what I claimed.
ReplyDeleteYou are ignoring the source of the Birkai Yosef - the Yam Shel Shlomo - which clearly disagrees with your understanding.
ReplyDeleteים של שלמה מסכת יבמות פרק טז
שהרב המוחזק להוראה, אפילו טעה בדבר איסור ערוה, כגון שאם התיר מים שאין להם סוף, או כל כיוצא בזה, שבדיעבד מותר, אין מנדין אותו, ולא מכלימין אותו, והרי הוא בחזקת כשרות:
There is no question he is wrong. How many poskim have to criticize him before you accept he was wrong? What posek refuses to investigate whether he made a mistake in such a matter after rabbis world wide have said he is wrong?