Letter has zero halachic discussion. The only question that is important is would Rav Shternuch hold of the mekach taus heterim that Reb Moshe issued? If not, then his opinion is totally irrelevant, as we in the USA follow Reb Moshe.
High time to focus on the core group of wealthy and powerful Balebatim that are enabling and empowering the resisting rabbis from giving in to what even a Mesivta Bochur can see is a big Avla, the misuse of a Heter to allow a married woman to re-marry a second husband without obtaining a Get from her first and real husband, in effect permitting bigamy by Jewish women, something Rav Moshe Feinstein never intended as a "fad" as it has now become according to the allegations against Rabbis Greenblatt, Fuerst, Kaminetsky and Rackman.
Knocking your head against the stonewalling by the rabbis concerned is becoming an exercise in futility and it is therefore high time to focus on the ones who donate to these rabbis and are paying the piper/s.
There is now a need to name the names of the wealthy "masters of the universe" just as is being done for the rabbis names that are now no longer secrets, who as long as they are free they will continue to enable and empower them by shelling out big donations to the rabbis who are only giving their final "letters" and "signatures"!
These Balebatim are more important to the rabbis giving the Heterim to remarry without a Get, than all the serious Macha'as against them that are coming mostly out of Israel's Rabbanim.
His new letter says that its for the rabbonim and talmidei chachomim to be moche, not just the moreh hora'ah. However its clear that he doesnt think that the hamon am needs to be involved.
It seems from this that Rav Shternbuch is rejecting the heter because he holds that the very concept of mekach ta'os to undo the marriage is flawed (rejecting Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL).
Wrong through and through. Rav Shternbuch already took apart this so called Fiasco mekach Taus, and proved that this is a bad joke. This is not even bedoime to R'MF at all, lo minei velo miktsosei. Since the trickery is being attempted from the back doors, therefore kedei lehotsi milban shel tsedokim, he topped it with tshuvo nitzachas, no matter how you slice it, don't even think about it. veda"l, ve'ein lehoshiv oleho!!!
Moiridike kashe !!!!lichoireh It's a stirah from he says that it's more a chiyuv for talmidei chamomile which is mashma it's a obligation for everybody. you're some Lamdan go back to Philly and listen to shiur one more time
Nonsense. It says for talmidei chachomim as well. Veal koze ne'emar, leolam yasseh odom es atsmo keilu hu talmid chochom. Besides, hochiach tochiach was equally given to All.
You have obviously not been internalizing the discussion on this blog for the last two months . This is not again not a halachic question this is a question of fraud dishonesty racketeering why would he bring up any halachic discussion , when there is nothing to discuss from that angle????
Barry, you in the USA chas v'shalom are not mechallel Shabbos by using a timer to turn your air conditioner on and off on Shabbos, since you in the USA follow Rav Moshe, who assured using timers on Shabbos, correct?
Um, I did. He rejects Mekach Taos. He does not say he rejects the heter because of a bad process, lack of eidus, flawed eidus, etc. He outright rejects Taanas Mekach Taos.
Its pretty clear that RMS is worried about the future usage of mekach taus regardless of whether it fits RMF's criteria. I suggest you reread the last 2 paragraphs.
So why did Rav Shternbuch not mention any of the fraud, etc.? He only rejected the Taanas Mekach Taos. Sounds like he doesn't hold of the whole thing from the beginning, even if there was iron-clad proof that AF was seriously mentally ill in the worst of ways.
No. Its more of a chiyuv for Rabbonim and Talmidei Chachomim than for the Moreh Hora'ah. Why, he doesnt say, but thats how it reads. I imagine that its because they have more standing and stature politically than the typical dayan.
Incorrect, The first letter issued by R Moshe Sternbuch specifically states that in regard to relying on R Moshe's psak, this case is "lo dami klall". There is also a teshuva in Chelek 6 of the Teshuvos V'hanhagos where he works with R Moshe's shita and says that it wouldn't apply due to different circumstances....
Sad! I'm not sure how to get through to you , logic doesn't seem to be working how about think about this dwell on it for a minute, ein odom don gezeira shava meatzmo!, no it has nothing to do with what we're discussing but hey it might clear your mind a bit
Hebrew must be your second language oh well why don't you focus on when he says it has nothing to do with horahah?divrehem hevel , You seem to have an agenda which is clouding your mind
That's possible that he rejects the whole concept , but it clearly says it's not a halachic debate and all the claims are foolishness, more in other letters too.
1. To my amazement nobody has suggested the notion that RMF is an Achron and we dont rely on a psak of someone who lived in our generation when the circumstances are not EXACTLY the same as the circumstances that brought about his psak! We are dealing with Eshet Ish and mamzeirus which is not to be taken lightly and therefore if RMF is not around to listen to all the unique details surrounding this case, we cannot deduce or assume that he would allowed this marriage. Therefore R Nota Greenblatt was erroneous in his presumptionthat RMF allwes it especially since AF was willing to give a get. 2. Raboisai no one ever brought this up, but it is my opinion that this whole fiasco would of never occurred if the evil ORA organization would not be egging the women to stay resolute and not compromise with their husbands. Had Tamar been flexible with AF visitation schedule, she would have had a GET by now. So it turns out that her recalcitrance to reach an amicable agreement left no choice but to seek a bogus annullment and the rest is history. I know of countless other cases where ORA refuses to allow the women to negotiate their position creating a "FALSE AGUNA CRISIS". If we are to bring an end to future kaminetsky fiascos, we must bring ORA down. Even RHS video posted yesterday that the Heter from Greenblatt was erroneous and not kosher, yet RHS is the Rabbi of ORA and they proclaimed Tamar as Free!!
Why didn't he say anything about fraud? Because the political situation is of such that rabbonim try to be brief and sparing in their words when it comes to criticism due to their fears of starting World War III.....
No he is saying the opposite that the rabonim are not being mocheh because of some real rich people the are using their money to keep them quiet and they have yeshiva money men making sure their talmidim are quiet
In Yiddish they say א נאר ווייסט מען נישט קיין האלבע ארבייט (a fool can't understand from a half a job) in other words ; RMS has written at least one letter before the one above! Go read it... and then comment
I agree with Barry. One can legitimately argue, like RHS and others, that the Epstein hetter is invalid because it does not meet the RMF standard. However, letters like this have no relevance when issued by Rabbonim who anyway don't hold from RMF's approach and have never issued even one hetter based on RMF's shitah.
not so - It is a common statement in the Talmud that "even according to your opinion that I disagree with it isn't legitimate"
A posek that disagrees with the heter can legitimately point out that even if you view the concept of mekach ta'us as legitimate - it can't be applied in this case because it is based on lies.
It is also highly questionable if Rav Moshe's teshuva can be *blindly* followed by those who so desire because he is a tremendous Da'as yochid who also goes against generations of poskim prior to him..... (takeh wondering how he was able to get through with it. ...to begin with. ..)
Ah, this reminds me of the known saying that Da'as Baal habayis is contrary to Da'as Torah. ...... (a while ago ,I asked Rav Kamenetsky himself and he told me that it's a TaZ)........
You are out of line with the Da'as of the majority of *gedolim* who have deemed that this approach that you are trying to use is NOT a p'sak (as opposed to simply being a p'sak that they merely don't agree with) and also catastrophic to the future of kedushas Yisroel.
Take green or yellow blood in the dispute Akabia ben Mahalaleel versus the Sages in Eduyoth and Nida I cited earlier . The law is as the Sages. The woman is pure contrary to Akabia ben Mahalaleel who says the woman is unclean and is considered to have started her period. Imagine, that this dispute was today. Imagine the Sages having trouble arguing with Akabia ben Mahalaleel.
Or take the example of Shemaiah and Abtalyon who administered the water, presumably, to allow Karkemith, an emancipated bondwoman, to go back to her husband. The Sages were having trouble arguing with Akabia ben Mahalaleel that Shemaiah and Abtalyon were 100% right, unrelated that Shemaiah and Abtalyon are descendants from converts.
Surely, It would be most unhelpful to the Sages to start praising Akabia ben Mahalaleel. So to, in our case today. It’s most unhelpful to start praising the rabbis of the heter. This is what I see in Rabbi Sternbuch’s letter. ועכשיו ראיתי מכתב עם חתימות רבנים אמי"ם שמהללים...
If these couples would have to compromise there wouldn't be enough "recalcitrant husbands" to justify ORA remaining in "non-profit" business and Jeremy Stern's livelihood would be imperiled.
And since when is it ok to privately give moral support to be machzik yedai ovray avairah? It is chanifa in it's worst form. How may we make him feel supported when he is committing such an atrocity? Would anybody write him a letter of moral support while he is in the process of murdering the 'supporter's' mother? Or do we care less when he is defiling The Torah?
Shlomo and Politically Incorrect - thanks. I did not know about the prior letter and teshuva. ehud - Yes, I am a "jonny come lately". Sorry that I don't spend more time hocking.
It may be worthwhile to note that the bulk source of the agunah problem today stems from these 'ideological' organizations. .....of course I mean the degree of the problem that truly exists, as opposed to the overly inflated figures. ...
You're completely illogical , what friends would it make whether or not he agrees with RMF's opinion . Bottom line is anybody who wants to look at this from a unbiased perspective this is clearly bad process the case was decided on false pretenses , even the rabbinic adviser to ora rabbi Schachter agrees who can care less whether or not in other circumstances he would not agree with RMF's position .your trying to insinuate unfairly that the basis of his objection is really something else and not what he states clearly.That's unfair and dishonest
The truth is that rav Shternbuch is UNCLEAR in this letter as to whether macha should be done by talmedei chachamim only , and one can be medayik either way--there is no way to bring a proof from this letter to either side!
Of course he could legitimately disagree, but how are we to know when the objection is legitimate, rather than driven by agenda? Especially where the objector DOES have an agenda in cases like this -- as does the other side?
Rav Sternbuch and others have assessed that the p'sak of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l is non applicable here. ...better yet, it pretty much *universally accepted* that this scenario doesn't qualify for Rav Moshe's p'sak. No agenda, it's a given and also they are rabbonim with integrity.
And come down they will. The current status as it stands now, it is on a respirator with a directive of a DNR ( Do not resuscitate). These vicious militants operation was to soften up the turf by constant bombarding, before the invasion and going in for the kill. YMSV. After eliminating the big shots that are trampling over the Torah haKdosha, ANSHEI BERA SDOM VA"AMORAH veORA will be next. MAchshirei Aveira is keaveira, and avizerayhu deGilui Arayos.
That number does not seem right either but I was thinking of their classification as "Dispute Resolution, Mediation Services". When have they ever "mediated" a dispute to a resolution?
Thank you. For those debating whether R' Moshe Shternbuch encourages Me'choe for Bal battim as well, he already posted that in previous letters. Why Talmidei Chachomim has been mentioned in this particular one of the above is: because of those Talmidim haMEHALLELIM that joined machlokes Korach by signing and giving support that he is a Godol, which is meaningless. Why is it MEANINGLESS?
Emshol lecho moshol, lema hadovor dome? lehavdil there was a match in Boxing Championship, and the opponent was blown down silly to the ground flat on his back in a Total Knockout, eyes rolling, but refused to throw in the towel. After gaining back his composure the next thing he did, was posting a list of all his supporters all over the place that he is a Big Pro. Little does he know, that when you lose, you lose! NO matter how many signatures you can muster up. A knockout blow, and the game is over!!!
And here is why you are wrong. It had been said by many world's Poskim from all over the world, that such HETER of Mekach taus should never be used, because the next thing you know it will be *ABUSED*. And ABUSED it *was/is*.
We just went rhough a Sha'aruryo Fiasco of Biblical Proportions that A Mekach Taus Heter was concocted by one of the Greatest Roshei Yeshivos in USA, full of lies, chabar, Shochad, swindle, vekol minei Tarfus shebaolam and coaching others to LIE in order to make it FLY! Therefore, it is overwhelmingly FORBIDDEN to utilize such, that is flirting with Giluy Arayos and Mamzeirus matir eishes ish lashuk. We have been warned and put on notice many decades ago, and here it is, *Ani EKRO VELO ATEH*? Not even close!
TOEH UMATEH, CHOTI UMACHTI, SHEKER VESHAV, BEZODON UVMEIZID, UBISHE'AT NEFESH. Meakch Taus my foot! How many times do we find in TALMUD, Gzeirah mipnei this, that, or the other. And this is the PROOF IN THE PUDDING! And don't let the cat get close to the milk ever again. KAMO TZODKU DIVREI CHACHOMOM!!!
Really? Here is the proof for those sitting on the fence, or Poseach al shnei haseifim! " Umah shetoanim shehadovor shayich rak leba'alei hahoyro'oh velo leTalmidei chachomim veRoshei haYeshivos, divreihem hevel, *shekaan lo tsorich HOIROEH*! "
There has been posted lately, that this matter is to be dealt with only by those that have a Say in Halacha, and the greater public should stay out of this. That is as if to say that THIS ISSUE is only a MATTER of CHILUKEI DEOS HAPOSKIM, and for *POSKIM ONLY*.
Therefore, Rav Shternbuch steps in, saying NO! It is not only a difference of OPINION IN HALACHA! You need NO HOYRO'OEH, for it is clear from *within* that there is no basis for such a HETER altogether. IT IS AN *ILLEGITIMATE HETER*, *A FALSE HETER*, *A MEGALEH PONIM BATORAH SHELO KEHALACHA*, therefore, Anyone and Everyone is obligated to be MOICHE BECHOL TOIKEF. Since it is Talmidei Chachomim that realize betvias Ayin in a blink of an eye, that from within and itself that it is a BUNCH OF LIES AND FRAUD and SWINDLE, RAV Shternbuch therefore opts for that nomenclature using *Talmidei Chachomim*, but in reality KOL ECHOD VE'ECHOD BEYISRAEL is OBLIGATED to PROTEST to their UTMOST. Umi hu sheroeh elu yotsin velo yetse? The whole GIST of this letter is to CLARIFY reaching the WHOLE WIDE PUBLIC and not to OBFUSCATE. veK'al
You are misreading it. He is saying that there is no distinction here between poskim and Rashei Yeshivos. He is not saying anything about the hamon am.
Read please again. The mere fact of including Talmidei Chachomim to be MOCHE is to emphasize, that is not an issue of disagreement amongst POSKIM. It belong to entities outside of POSKIM just as well, namely talmidei chachomim as to PROTEST, and not merely a so called DISAGREEMENT. The point of WHY mention talmidei chachomim is, since they are more capable of REALIZING of the CHICANERY INVOLVED. Having said that, it is NOT to EXCLUDE the hamon AM, and all are welcome and obligated to PROTEST AL CHILLUL HASHEM. This is not rocket science.
If someone were to ask Rav Sternbuch whether to allow his child to marry a child born to a woman re-married in one of Rav Moshe's cases, a heter of Rav Moshe himself, would Rav Sternbuch advise to refrain ? If yes, then Shlomo2 seems to be making a valid point.
Then all of the signers are plain idiots. They were fooled into signing a document which doesn't stipulate that it is contingent upon a retraction, with the assurance that in fact it is only being prepared for a future 'just in case' scenario which may or may not ever come to pass, but 'you must sign now because we cant wait until then to prepare this document because we'll be busy with other things then and just now by chance we have the extra few minute needed to do this but rest assured we won't be exercising this document without the unwritten contingency being fulfilled'. I wonder if they would sign away their personal property with such unwritten contingencies of receiving goods or services in lieu of the contract. Or when it comes to their own real interests they would not really be such fools. they're only fools when it comes to putting The Torah on the hook.
So you're trying to sell me this absurd garbage "a private show of moral support to be written now but I promise promise promise it's only to be used later for after he retracts" Try again.
Bais Hillel wouldn't marry those from Bais Shammai that they considered to be mamzeirim even though Bais Shammai paskened that the children were kosher.
So you're trying to sell me this absurd garbage "a private show of moral support to be written now but I promise promise promise it's only to be used later for after he retracts" Try again.
How about you try reading again. Do so. Thank you.
Harry, I spoke to one of the signers. He signed because when he RSK to inquire about the matter, RSK assured him that he and his son had nothing whatsoever to do with the get. The very ehrleich Rav I spoke to believed RSK. The Rav told me he was not following this issue, and trusted a Gadol he has know for many years. It is hard to fault these men for signing; the system they grew up in and believed in, is no longer working.
Seems that the godol took this a step further, and 'lethatchila' referred the question to RNG, assuming that once paskened, the psak would not be challenged.
"Before he signed, he spoke to RSK about the matter; RSK assured him that he and his son had nothing whatsoever to do with the get."
Of course not! And who wrote the following letter? Huh? כל זה נכתב על ידי שלו' קמנצקי, והראתי את הדברים אל אאמו"ר כל הג"ר שמואל קמנצקי שליט"א,
והסכים על הדברים, [וגם הוא שמע כל עדותו של הרופא המומחה יר"ש הנ"ל] וביקש ממני שאציע את הדברים לפני הגהר"ר נטע גרינבלאט שליט"א שהוא בקי בענינים אלו, הצעתי את הדברים לפני הגאון הנ"ל שליט"א ועבר על כל הנידון וגם על דברי שהצעתי לו, והסכים עם הדברים, וגם כתב תשובה להתיר האשה תמר תחי' לינשא, ושוב הצעתי את הדברים לפני אאמו"ר שליט"א ואמר: כדאי הר"ר נטע שליט"א לסמוך עליו להתיר אשה זו מכבלי עיגונה, והרשה לי לכתוב כן בשמו
So the million dollar question, how can both letters be true?
Dvorim: Shoftim: Lo sosur min hadovor asher yagidu lecho yomin usmol. In masechet Shabbos you find a Heter, shnayim sheosu melocho achas pturin. That is even when it's an AV MELOCHO of OISO VE'ES BNO. It is called a *Quark Job* behe'elem echos, something not even a malach can perform, through SOD H' LIREIOV. Therefore, if the Right hand knows nothing of what the left hand is doing, and the left hand has no clue what the Right hand is doing, it becomes an asher lo yoda bein yeminoi lismoiloi, hence a double 'he'elem dovor' like in Vatispoem rucho, velo yoda bein orrur haman leboruch Mordechai on top of that, it is clear that lo motso yodov veraglov beBeis haMidrash, therefore lo yehei lo esek imohen, the whole thing becomes an oness betoch shogeg simultaneously in two different places, hence a Mekach tous bimlo muven hamila, where both letters can stil be true. Oso testifying on his own behalf from the Right, and Bno testifying from the Left holding on his own 'own', comes Lo Sussur and kicks in, and that is what you call a *Quark Job*. If you didn't chap, don't make yourself an Agmas nefesh over it, because they didn't chap either.
I think you misunderstood my post. The Rav I spoke to, by his own admission, knew nothing of the matter, and thus believed RSK. If he knew of the evidence against the RSK, I hope he would not have acted out of blind obedience and refrained from signing..
It is obvious from Rav Sternbuch's letters that he thinks that everyone should protest. Against my better judgment I asked him and he stated that everyone should protest!
"not so - It is a common statement in the Talmud that "even according to your opinion that I disagree with it isn't legitimate""
That is true - but we never find (to my knowledge) even a single instance of where such an argument is taken seriously by anybody wanting to know what that opinion actually holds - on the contrary, all these cases seem to be where one Tanna is asking his disputant to partially retract his view.
He makes money on the side. You don't think he takes a case without a private 'fee' from the ex wife. And a fee from the ex husband to drop the case. Goes into his private pocket, not ORA's account.
At least mendel epstein was known to be an honest guy. While he couldn't guarantee results, he wouldn't steal from a client, andor represent the other side, like other toanim.
No,I think punkt farkert - the Mishnah in Yevomos wherit says that Bais Hillel DID NOT refrain from marrying women from Bais Shammai - even though Bais Hillel held that al pi din it would be a mamzer, but since Bais Shammai were recognized by Bais Hillel, too as poskim with Da'as Torah and that their p'sak was done WITH Da'as Torah, thus Bais Hillel HAD NO PROVE marrying THAT child. Please prove me right or wrong.
I'm going of memory, but I think it says that even Bais Shammai would tell Bais Hillel that you cannot marry this girl because according to your shitta she's a mamzer, even though our shitta is that she's kosher.
that is not what it says Yevamos(14b): Come and hear: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters,15 an old bill of divorce,16 a doubtfully married woman,17 a woman whom her husband had divorced18 and who stayed with him over the night in an inn,19 money, valuables, a perutah and the value of a perutah,20 Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they shewed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace.21 R. Simeon said: They abstained [from marrying] in cases of certainty but did not abstain in doubtful cases.22 Now, if you agree that they23 acted [in accordance with their own views] one can well understand why they abstained. If, however, you assume that they did not so act, why did they abstain? — And how do you understand this? Even if it be granted that they did act (in accordance with their own views], one can only understand why Beth Hillel abstained from intermarrying with Beth Shammai, because the latter, in the opinion of Beth Hillel, were guilty of offences involving kareth and their descendants were consequently bastards; as to Beth Shammai, however, why did they abstain from intermarrying with Beth Hillel, when they were [even in the opinion of Beth Shammai] only guilty of the infringement of a negative precept and [their descendants] were consequently legitimate? — As R. Nahman said elsewhere that the statement was required only for the case of the rival herself, so here also the Statement is required for the case of the rival herself.24
What do you want from there? The Amoraim argue about whether R' Shimon is only מחייב על כל שהו with a בריה, or even without a בריה, and the Gemara tries to prove that he only says it with a בריה, from the fact that he only seems to argue with חטה based on considering it a בריה. The גמרא then refutes this proof, as לעולם it could be that R' Shimon argues even by קמח, but he tries to convince the רבנן to agree with him at least with חטה which is a בריה. But we never learn anything from R' Shimon's words vis-a-vis what the Rabbanan hold - on the contrary, the רבנן disagree with ר"ש and say that only a ברית נשמה is a בריה!
A simple reading of Choshen Mishpat Siman Tes tells me that all forms of Shochad are forbidden, even Shochad Devarim (which can imply anything from simple words to other "favors" - see commentaries). I do not consider myself to be a talmid chocham, but it is painfully obvious that thratening a Rov to issue/not issue a p'sak with cutting off his funding is either Shochad or extortion and a perversion of emes. Perhaps some "talmid Chochom" commentators will have a fun time explaining that threatening or cutting off funding is different that actually giving the shochad. Have at it. In my opinion it is an exercise in "lomdus" but does not change the fact that this method of manipulating Rabbonim via money, politics etc. is what caused this entire travesty in the first place and has no place in a Torah life.
No. Not at all. I am saying that is is Shochad/Extortion to use money and politics to demand that a Rov pasken one way or another, retract a p'sak, issue a p'sak etc. So, if a wealthy donor to Yeshiva XYZ would say to the Rosh Yeshiva, I will give you $$$ or I will stop giving you $$$ unless you pasken this way or that way, it is Shochad. If you don't want to support a Yeshiva because you take issue with something they did - that's your prerogative. Just don't write a check. What I am hearing in this blog comment is a call to manipulate Rabbonim by hitting them "where it counts" - in the wallet (via their well-endowed benefactors) to make them pasken one way or another.
The idea that the רבנן hold of the concept of בריה at all only comes about because of ר”ש's statements. If he would have never said anything we would never know. You are correct that the response of the רבנן is part of it, but ר”ש initiated with his question about an ant. Furthermore, according to Tosafos and other Rishonim (in Chulin on the sugya of בריה) the response of ברית נשמה is either also לשיטתך or requires heavy modification. Ultimately the Rishonim determine the רבנן's position by looking at every possible case where it comes up.
"High time to focus on the core group of wealthy and powerful Balebatim that are enabling and empowering the resisting rabbis...."
"it is therefore high time to focus on the ones who donate to these rabbis and are paying the piper/s....."
"These Balebatim are more important to the rabbis giving the Heterim to remarry without a Get...."
This is financial manipulation, plain and simple.
Or, better, maybe RaP would like to answer the question directly: are you saying that pressure should be brought to bear from Baalei Batim to pasken one way or another, or protest a p'sak one way or another? Yes, or No.
Do you disavow any form of exering financial pressure to attain a p'sak halacha of any form? Yes, or no.
"The idea that the רבנן hold of the concept of בריה at all only comes about because of ר”ש's statements."
Of course - because the Rabbanan explicitly agreed with him! Besides which, the expression אי אתם מודים always indicates that it was well-known that the other Tanna held such a position. But I have yet to find a single place where Tanna A says "Tanna B who disagrees with me, would agree with me in case X", and Tanna B is silent on the subject, and we still takes Tanna A's statement as authoritative vis-a-vis Tanna B's position. If you find a counterexample, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Letter has zero halachic discussion. The only question that is important is would Rav Shternuch hold of the mekach taus heterim that Reb Moshe issued? If not, then his opinion is totally irrelevant, as we in the USA follow Reb Moshe.
ReplyDeleteTime for a new approach!
ReplyDeleteHigh time to focus on the core group of wealthy and powerful Balebatim that are enabling and empowering the resisting rabbis from giving in to what even a Mesivta Bochur can see is a big Avla, the misuse of a Heter to allow a married woman to re-marry a second husband without obtaining a Get from her first and real husband, in effect permitting bigamy by Jewish women, something Rav Moshe Feinstein never intended as a "fad" as it has now become according to the allegations against Rabbis Greenblatt, Fuerst, Kaminetsky and Rackman.
Knocking your head against the stonewalling by the rabbis concerned is becoming an exercise in futility and it is therefore high time to focus on the ones who donate to these rabbis and are paying the piper/s.
There is now a need to name the names of the wealthy "masters of the universe" just as is being done for the rabbis names that are now no longer secrets, who as long as they are free they will continue to enable and empower them by shelling out big donations to the rabbis who are only giving their final "letters" and "signatures"!
These Balebatim are more important to the rabbis giving the Heterim to remarry without a Get, than all the serious Macha'as against them that are coming mostly out of Israel's Rabbanim.
His new letter says that its for the rabbonim and talmidei chachomim to be moche, not just the moreh hora'ah. However its clear that he doesnt think that the hamon am needs to be involved.
ReplyDeleteIt seems from this that Rav Shternbuch is rejecting the heter because he holds that the very concept of mekach ta'os to undo the marriage is flawed (rejecting Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL).
ReplyDeletePlease reread his letter!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWrong through and through. Rav Shternbuch already took apart this so called Fiasco mekach Taus, and proved that this is a bad joke. This is not even bedoime to R'MF at all, lo minei velo miktsosei. Since the trickery is being attempted from the back doors, therefore kedei lehotsi milban shel tsedokim, he topped it with tshuvo nitzachas, no matter how you slice it, don't even think about it. veda"l, ve'ein lehoshiv oleho!!!
ReplyDeleteMoiridike kashe !!!!lichoireh It's a stirah from he says that it's more a chiyuv for talmidei chamomile which is mashma it's a obligation for everybody. you're some Lamdan go back to Philly and listen to shiur one more time
ReplyDeleteNonsense. It says for talmidei chachomim as well. Veal koze ne'emar, leolam yasseh odom es atsmo keilu hu talmid chochom. Besides, hochiach tochiach was equally given to All.
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously not been internalizing the discussion on this blog for the last two months . This is not again not a halachic question this is a question of fraud dishonesty racketeering why would he bring up any halachic discussion , when there is nothing to discuss from that angle????
ReplyDeleteMy foot you follow R' Moshe. Even RNG dared say, if bedoime.
ReplyDeleteBarry, you in the USA chas v'shalom are not mechallel Shabbos by using a timer to turn your air conditioner on and off on Shabbos, since you in the USA follow Rav Moshe, who assured using timers on Shabbos, correct?
ReplyDeleteUm, I did. He rejects Mekach Taos. He does not say he rejects the heter because of a bad process, lack of eidus, flawed eidus, etc. He outright rejects Taanas Mekach Taos.
ReplyDeleteBasically, you are saying "manipulate Rabbonim with money".
ReplyDeleteGross.
Its pretty clear that RMS is worried about the future usage of mekach taus regardless of whether it fits RMF's criteria. I suggest you reread the last 2 paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteA bit presumptive to offer to read the Rov's mind.
ReplyDeleteSo why did Rav Shternbuch not mention any of the fraud, etc.?
ReplyDeleteHe only rejected the Taanas Mekach Taos.
Sounds like he doesn't hold of the whole thing from the beginning, even if there was iron-clad proof that AF was seriously mentally ill in the worst of ways.
Read the previous letters of R' Shternbuch, johnny come lately.
ReplyDeleteReally? Where did you see that? He rejects it in this case. Please remember these three things:
ReplyDelete1) Context
2) Context
3) Context
Thank you. (He already wrote elsewhere that this case is completely incomparable to Rav Moshe's, as you should be aware.)
Rav Sternbuch, in his first letter, explains clearly enough why this scenario cannot comply with Rav Moshe's heter of mekach to'us.
ReplyDeleteZil u'gmor
Barry, someone told me you see the world through a pink lense. .......
ReplyDeleteNo. Its more of a chiyuv for Rabbonim and Talmidei Chachomim than for the Moreh Hora'ah. Why, he doesnt say, but thats how it reads. I imagine that its because they have more standing and stature politically than the typical dayan.
ReplyDeleteOkay....Rav Sternbuch's first letter explains in great detail why Rav Moshe's heter is non applicable here.....
ReplyDeleteIncorrect, The first letter issued by R Moshe Sternbuch specifically states that in regard to relying on R Moshe's psak, this case is "lo dami klall".
ReplyDeleteThere is also a teshuva in Chelek 6 of the Teshuvos V'hanhagos where he works with R Moshe's shita and says that it wouldn't apply due to different circumstances....
The future usage AND the present. ...
ReplyDeleteHe "more" as in *also* talmidai Chachomim. ......that it's not *just* for the morei Horo'oh. ..
ReplyDeleteWE in the USA follow Rav Moshe? Who's *we*?
ReplyDelete.....I thought until now that we follow Rav Soloveitchik.............
Sad! I'm not sure how to get through to you , logic doesn't seem to be working how about think about this dwell on it for a minute, ein odom don gezeira shava meatzmo!, no it has nothing to do with what we're discussing but hey it might clear your mind a bit
ReplyDeleteHebrew must be your second language oh well why don't you focus on when he says it has nothing to do with horahah?divrehem hevel , You seem to have an agenda which is clouding your mind
ReplyDeleteYingeleh! No, try to read read this time with keeping your finger on the place it might help you comprehend what he's writing
ReplyDeleteThat's possible that he rejects the whole concept , but it clearly says it's not a halachic debate and all the claims are foolishness, more in other letters too.
ReplyDelete1. To my amazement nobody has suggested the notion that RMF is an Achron and we dont rely on a psak of someone who lived in our generation when the circumstances are not EXACTLY the same as the circumstances that brought about his psak! We are dealing with Eshet Ish and mamzeirus which is not to be taken lightly and therefore if RMF is not around to listen to all the unique details surrounding this case, we cannot deduce or assume that he would allowed this marriage. Therefore R Nota Greenblatt was erroneous in his presumptionthat RMF allwes it especially since AF was willing to give a get. 2. Raboisai no one ever brought this up, but it is my opinion that this whole fiasco would of never occurred if the evil ORA organization would not be egging the women to stay resolute and not compromise with their husbands. Had Tamar been flexible with AF visitation schedule, she would have had a GET by now. So it turns out that her recalcitrance to reach an amicable agreement left no choice but to seek a bogus annullment and the rest is history. I know of countless other cases where ORA refuses to allow the women to negotiate their position creating a "FALSE AGUNA CRISIS". If we are to bring an end to future kaminetsky fiascos, we must bring ORA down. Even RHS video posted yesterday that the Heter from Greenblatt was erroneous and not kosher, yet RHS is the Rabbi of ORA and they proclaimed Tamar as Free!!
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't he say anything about fraud? Because the political situation is of such that rabbonim try to be brief and sparing in their words when it comes to criticism due to their fears of starting World War III.....
ReplyDeleteNo he is saying the opposite that the rabonim are not being mocheh because of some real rich people the are using their money to keep them quiet and they have yeshiva money men making sure their talmidim are quiet
ReplyDeleteIn Yiddish they say א נאר ווייסט מען נישט קיין האלבע ארבייט (a fool can't understand from a half a job) in other words ; RMS has written at least one letter before the one above! Go read it... and then comment
ReplyDeleteIf you have something to say it. Don't use RMF. You don't own him. If your not a Rov? It's not up to you to be. מדמע מילתה למילתה
ReplyDeleteDid you read his תשובה? Sounds like you DIDN'T
ReplyDeleteKidushei Ta‘ut as (Part of) a Systemic Solution to the Agunah Problem
ReplyDeleteProfessor Avishalom Westreich
https://jofa.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_files/kiddushey_taut_as_part_of_a_systemic_solution1.pdf
I agree with Barry.
ReplyDeleteOne can legitimately argue, like RHS and others, that the Epstein hetter is invalid because it does not meet the RMF standard.
However, letters like this have no relevance when issued by Rabbonim who anyway don't hold from RMF's approach and have never issued even one hetter based on RMF's shitah.
Did Rav Sternbuch see the real letter that was signed by the talmidim or the version with the letzonis added on?
ReplyDeleteFunny you bring in the psak about air conditioners. Reb Moshe said he has no raya there, but feels Chazal would not have been happy with idea.
ReplyDeleteRav Soloveitchik wrote very few teshuvas, as far as I know. Hard to know what he held, unless via 3rd parties.
ReplyDeletenot so - It is a common statement in the Talmud that "even according to your opinion that I disagree with it isn't legitimate"
ReplyDeleteA posek that disagrees with the heter can legitimately point out that even if you view the concept of mekach ta'us as legitimate - it can't be applied in this case because it is based on lies.
Please read this short letter again.
ReplyDeleteועכשיו ראיתי מכתבשמהללים את...
OK, sorry I missed this out: (sarcasm)
ReplyDeleteIt is also highly questionable if Rav Moshe's teshuva can be *blindly* followed by those who so desire because he is a tremendous Da'as yochid who also goes against generations of poskim prior to him..... (takeh wondering how he was able to get through with it. ...to begin with. ..)
ReplyDeleteAh, this reminds me of the known saying that Da'as Baal habayis is contrary to Da'as Torah. ...... (a while ago ,I asked Rav Kamenetsky himself and he told me that it's a TaZ)........
ReplyDeleteYou are out of line with the Da'as of the majority of *gedolim* who have deemed that this approach that you are trying to use is NOT a p'sak (as opposed to simply being a p'sak that they merely don't agree with) and also catastrophic to the future of kedushas Yisroel.
I read Rabbi Strenbuch’s letter. I agree.
ReplyDeleteTake green or yellow blood in the dispute Akabia ben
Mahalaleel versus the Sages in Eduyoth and Nida I cited earlier . The law is as the Sages. The woman is pure
contrary to Akabia ben Mahalaleel who says the woman is unclean and is considered
to have started her period. Imagine,
that this dispute was today. Imagine the Sages having trouble arguing with Akabia
ben Mahalaleel.
Or take the example of Shemaiah and Abtalyon who administered
the water, presumably, to allow Karkemith, an emancipated bondwoman, to go back
to her husband. The Sages were having trouble arguing with Akabia ben
Mahalaleel that Shemaiah and Abtalyon were 100% right, unrelated that Shemaiah
and Abtalyon are descendants from converts.
Surely, It would be most unhelpful to the Sages to start
praising Akabia ben Mahalaleel. So to,
in our case today. It’s most unhelpful
to start praising the rabbis of the heter. This is what I see in Rabbi
Sternbuch’s letter. ועכשיו
ראיתי מכתב עם חתימות רבנים אמי"ם שמהללים...
If these couples would have to compromise there wouldn't be enough "recalcitrant husbands" to justify ORA remaining in "non-profit" business and Jeremy Stern's livelihood would be imperiled.
ReplyDeleteBTW, does something seem amiss with this report on ORA?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=810582070#.Vpj6_E_5wzQ
And since when is it ok to privately give moral support to be machzik yedai ovray avairah? It is chanifa in it's worst form. How may we make him feel supported when he is committing such an atrocity? Would anybody write him a letter of moral support while he is in the process of murdering the 'supporter's' mother? Or do we care less when he is defiling The Torah?
ReplyDeleteShlomo and Politically Incorrect - thanks. I did not know about the prior letter and teshuva.
ReplyDeleteehud - Yes, I am a "jonny come lately". Sorry that I don't spend more time hocking.
It may be worthwhile to note that the bulk source of the agunah problem today stems from these 'ideological' organizations. .....of course I mean the degree of the problem that truly exists, as opposed to the overly inflated figures. ...
ReplyDeleteYou're completely illogical , what friends would it make whether or not he agrees with RMF's opinion . Bottom line is anybody who wants to look at this from a unbiased perspective this is clearly bad process the case was decided on false pretenses , even the rabbinic adviser to ora rabbi Schachter agrees who can care less whether or not in other circumstances he would not agree with RMF's position .your trying to insinuate unfairly that the basis of his objection is really something else and not what he states clearly.That's unfair and dishonest
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that rav Shternbuch is UNCLEAR in this letter as to whether macha should be done by talmedei chachamim only , and one can be medayik either way--there is no way to bring a proof from this letter to either side!
ReplyDeleteYou mean the 380,000.00 I'm revenue?
ReplyDeleteOf course he could legitimately disagree, but how are we to know when the objection is legitimate, rather than driven by agenda? Especially where the objector DOES have an agenda in cases like this -- as does the other side?
ReplyDeleteDidn't say it should.
ReplyDeleteAll I said was there's no value in hearing from someone who holds it never COULD.
R' Dovid Eidensohn has said your first point many times.
ReplyDeleteRav Sternbuch and others have assessed that the p'sak of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l is non applicable here. ...better yet, it pretty much *universally accepted* that this scenario doesn't qualify for Rav Moshe's p'sak. No agenda, it's a given and also they are rabbonim with integrity.
ReplyDeleteAnd come down they will. The current status as it stands now, it is on a respirator with a directive of a DNR ( Do not resuscitate). These vicious militants operation was to soften up the turf by constant bombarding, before the invasion and going in for the kill. YMSV. After eliminating the big shots that are trampling over the Torah haKdosha, ANSHEI BERA SDOM VA"AMORAH veORA will be next. MAchshirei Aveira is keaveira, and avizerayhu deGilui Arayos.
ReplyDeleteThat number does not seem right either but I was thinking of their classification as "Dispute Resolution, Mediation Services". When have they ever "mediated" a dispute to a resolution?
ReplyDeleteThank
ReplyDeleteyou. For those debating whether R' Moshe Shternbuch encourages Me'choe for Bal
battim as well, he already posted that in previous letters. Why Talmidei
Chachomim has been mentioned in this particular one of the above is: because of
those Talmidim haMEHALLELIM that joined machlokes Korach by signing and giving
support that he is a Godol, which is meaningless. Why is it MEANINGLESS?
Emshol
lecho moshol, lema hadovor dome? lehavdil there was a match in Boxing
Championship, and the opponent was blown down silly to the ground flat on his
back in a Total Knockout, eyes rolling, but refused to throw in the towel. After
gaining back his composure the next thing he did, was posting a list of all his
supporters all over the place that he is a Big Pro. Little does he know, that
when you lose, you lose! NO matter how many signatures you can muster up. A
knockout blow, and the game is over!!!
No! What he is saying if you won't support them, they will dry out , vekolim me'eilehem.
ReplyDeleteAnd here is why you are wrong. It had been said by many world's Poskim from all over the world, that such HETER of Mekach taus should never be used, because the next thing you know it will be *ABUSED*. And ABUSED it *was/is*.
ReplyDeleteWe just went rhough a Sha'aruryo Fiasco of Biblical Proportions that A Mekach Taus Heter was concocted by one of the Greatest Roshei Yeshivos in USA, full of lies, chabar, Shochad, swindle, vekol minei Tarfus shebaolam and coaching others to LIE in order to make it FLY! Therefore, it is overwhelmingly FORBIDDEN to utilize such, that is flirting with Giluy Arayos and Mamzeirus matir eishes ish lashuk. We have been warned and put on notice many decades ago, and here it is, *Ani EKRO VELO ATEH*?
Not even close!
TOEH UMATEH, CHOTI UMACHTI, SHEKER VESHAV, BEZODON UVMEIZID, UBISHE'AT NEFESH. Meakch Taus my foot!
How many times do we find in TALMUD, Gzeirah mipnei this, that, or the other. And this is the PROOF IN THE PUDDING! And don't let the cat get close to the milk ever again. KAMO TZODKU DIVREI CHACHOMOM!!!
Did you miss the sarcastic tone?
ReplyDeleteAnd since when is it ok to privately give moral support to be machzik yedai ovray avairah?
Please reread what I wrote. Thank you:
a private show of moral support for after he retracts
Really? Here is the proof for those sitting on the fence, or Poseach al shnei haseifim! " Umah shetoanim shehadovor shayich rak leba'alei hahoyro'oh velo leTalmidei chachomim veRoshei haYeshivos, divreihem hevel, *shekaan lo tsorich HOIROEH*! "
ReplyDeleteThere has been posted lately, that this matter is to be dealt with only by those that have a Say in Halacha, and the greater public should stay out of this. That is as if to say that THIS ISSUE is only a MATTER of CHILUKEI DEOS HAPOSKIM, and for *POSKIM ONLY*.
Therefore, Rav Shternbuch steps in, saying NO! It is not only a difference of OPINION IN HALACHA! You need NO HOYRO'OEH, for it is clear from *within* that there is no basis for such a HETER altogether. IT IS AN *ILLEGITIMATE HETER*, *A FALSE HETER*, *A MEGALEH PONIM BATORAH SHELO KEHALACHA*, therefore, Anyone and Everyone is obligated to be MOICHE BECHOL TOIKEF.
Since it is Talmidei Chachomim that realize betvias Ayin in a blink of an eye, that from within and itself that it is a BUNCH OF LIES AND FRAUD and SWINDLE, RAV Shternbuch therefore opts for that nomenclature using *Talmidei Chachomim*, but in reality KOL ECHOD VE'ECHOD BEYISRAEL is OBLIGATED to PROTEST to their UTMOST. Umi hu sheroeh elu yotsin velo yetse? The whole GIST of this letter is to CLARIFY reaching the WHOLE WIDE PUBLIC and not to OBFUSCATE. veK'al
You are misreading it. He is saying that there is no distinction here between poskim and Rashei Yeshivos. He is not saying anything about the hamon am.
ReplyDeleteRidiculous. Threatening to cut off funding is shochad, plain and simple.
ReplyDeletehow is this shochad?
ReplyDeleteRead please again. The mere fact of including Talmidei Chachomim to be MOCHE is to emphasize, that is not an issue of disagreement amongst POSKIM. It belong to entities outside of POSKIM just as well, namely talmidei chachomim as to PROTEST, and not merely a so called DISAGREEMENT. The point of WHY mention talmidei chachomim is, since they are more capable of REALIZING of the CHICANERY INVOLVED. Having said that, it is NOT to EXCLUDE the hamon AM, and all are welcome and obligated to PROTEST AL CHILLUL HASHEM. This is not rocket science.
ReplyDeleteIf someone were to ask Rav Sternbuch whether to allow his child to marry a child born to a woman re-married in one of Rav Moshe's cases,
ReplyDeletea heter of Rav Moshe himself, would Rav Sternbuch advise to refrain ?
If yes, then Shlomo2 seems to be making a valid point.
no - It is not unusual for poskim to disagree with a psak but not with the results if done by a major posek.
ReplyDeleteThen all of the signers are plain idiots. They were fooled into signing a document which doesn't stipulate that it is contingent upon a retraction, with the assurance that in fact it is only being prepared for a future 'just in case' scenario which may or may not ever come to pass, but 'you must sign now because we cant wait until then to prepare this document because we'll be busy with other things then and just now by chance we have the extra few minute needed to do this but rest assured we won't be exercising this document without the unwritten contingency being fulfilled'. I wonder if they would sign away their personal property with such unwritten contingencies of receiving goods or services in lieu of the contract. Or when it comes to their own real interests they would not really be such fools. they're only fools when it comes to putting The Torah on the hook.
ReplyDeleteSo you're trying to sell me this absurd garbage "a private show of moral support to be written now but I promise promise promise it's only to be used later for after he retracts" Try again.
Bais Hillel wouldn't marry those from Bais Shammai that they considered to be mamzeirim even though Bais Shammai paskened that the children were kosher.
ReplyDeleteRMF was a lion who could and would defend himself against anyone. For us it is different.
ReplyDeleteSo you're trying to sell me this absurd garbage "a private show of moral support to be written now but I promise promise promise it's only to be used later for after he retracts" Try again.
ReplyDeleteHow about you try reading again. Do so. Thank you.
Harry, I spoke to one of the signers. He signed because when he RSK to inquire about the matter, RSK assured him that he and his son had nothing whatsoever to do with the get. The very ehrleich Rav I spoke to believed RSK. The Rav told me he was not following this issue, and trusted a Gadol he has know for many years. It is hard to fault these men for signing; the system they grew up in and believed in, is no longer working.
ReplyDeleteSeems that the godol took this a step further, and 'lethatchila' referred the question to RNG, assuming that once paskened, the psak would not be challenged.
ReplyDelete"Before he signed, he spoke to RSK about the matter; RSK assured him that he and his son had nothing whatsoever to do with the get."
ReplyDeleteOf course not! And who wrote the following letter? Huh?
כל
זה נכתב על ידי שלו' קמנצקי, והראתי את הדברים אל אאמו"ר כל הג"ר שמואל קמנצקי שליט"א,
והסכים על הדברים, [וגם הוא שמע כל עדותו של הרופא המומחה יר"ש הנ"ל] וביקש ממני
שאציע את הדברים לפני הגהר"ר נטע גרינבלאט שליט"א שהוא בקי בענינים אלו, הצעתי את
הדברים לפני הגאון הנ"ל שליט"א ועבר על כל הנידון וגם על דברי שהצעתי לו, והסכים עם
הדברים, וגם כתב תשובה להתיר האשה תמר תחי' לינשא, ושוב הצעתי את הדברים לפני
אאמו"ר שליט"א ואמר: כדאי הר"ר נטע שליט"א לסמוך עליו להתיר אשה זו מכבלי עיגונה,
והרשה לי לכתוב כן בשמו
So the million dollar question, how can both letters be true?
Dvorim: Shoftim: Lo sosur min hadovor asher yagidu lecho yomin usmol. In masechet Shabbos you find a Heter, shnayim sheosu melocho achas pturin. That is even when it's an AV MELOCHO of OISO VE'ES BNO. It is called a *Quark Job* behe'elem echos, something not even a malach can perform, through SOD H' LIREIOV. Therefore, if the Right hand knows nothing of what the left hand is doing, and the left hand has no clue what the Right hand is doing, it becomes an asher lo yoda bein yeminoi lismoiloi, hence a double 'he'elem dovor' like in Vatispoem rucho, velo yoda bein orrur haman leboruch Mordechai on top of that, it is clear that lo motso yodov veraglov beBeis haMidrash, therefore lo yehei lo esek imohen, the whole thing becomes an oness betoch shogeg simultaneously in two different places, hence a Mekach tous bimlo muven hamila, where both letters can stil be true. Oso testifying on his own behalf from the Right, and Bno testifying from the Left holding on his own 'own', comes Lo Sussur and kicks in, and that is what you call a *Quark Job*. If you didn't chap, don't make yourself an Agmas nefesh over it, because they didn't chap either.
Simchat Purim
I think you misunderstood my post. The Rav I spoke to, by his own admission, knew nothing of the matter, and thus believed RSK. If he knew of the evidence against the RSK, I hope he would not have acted out of blind obedience and refrained from signing..
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious from Rav Sternbuch's letters that he thinks that everyone should protest. Against my better judgment I asked him and he stated that everyone should protest!
ReplyDeleteContrary to Yosef and Yehoshua Rav Sternbuch said that everyone has to protest
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said. I just posted those facts reinforcing your claims of this whole farce.
ReplyDelete"not so - It is a common statement in the Talmud that "even according to your opinion that I disagree with it isn't legitimate""
ReplyDeleteThat is true - but we never find (to my knowledge) even a single instance of where such an argument is taken seriously by anybody wanting to know what that opinion actually holds - on the contrary, all these cases seem to be where one Tanna is asking his disputant to partially retract his view.
He makes money on the side. You don't think he takes a case without a private 'fee' from the ex wife. And a fee from the ex husband to drop the case. Goes into his private pocket, not ORA's account.
ReplyDeleteAt least mendel epstein was known to be an honest guy. While he couldn't guarantee results, he wouldn't steal from a client, andor represent the other side, like other toanim.
Rabbi Shternbuch should be placed in cherem
ReplyDeleteOk, if he was misled I guess it's not his fault that he was duped into being machzik yeday ovray avaira. I do truly feel sorry for the talmidim.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much R' doniel for your clarification. I'Y'H' will do!
ReplyDeleteHow do you know Stern does that?
ReplyDeletePlease see מכות יז where the idea of בריה comes about because of the לשיטתך.
ReplyDeleteNo,I think punkt farkert - the Mishnah in Yevomos wherit says that Bais Hillel DID NOT refrain from marrying women from Bais Shammai - even though Bais Hillel held that al pi din it would be a mamzer, but since Bais Shammai were recognized by Bais Hillel, too as poskim with Da'as Torah and that their p'sak was done WITH Da'as Torah, thus Bais Hillel HAD NO PROVE marrying THAT child. Please prove me right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm going of memory, but I think it says that even Bais Shammai would tell Bais Hillel that you cannot marry this girl because according to your shitta she's a mamzer, even though our shitta is that she's kosher.
ReplyDeletethat is not what it says
ReplyDeleteYevamos(14b): Come and hear: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters,15 an old bill of divorce,16 a doubtfully married woman,17 a woman whom her husband had divorced18 and who stayed with him over the night in an inn,19 money, valuables, a perutah and the value of a perutah,20 Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they shewed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace.21 R. Simeon said: They abstained [from marrying] in cases of certainty but did not abstain in doubtful cases.22 Now, if you agree that they23 acted [in accordance with their own views] one can well understand why they abstained. If, however, you assume that they did not so act, why did they abstain? — And how do you understand this? Even if it be granted that they did act (in accordance with their own views], one can only understand why Beth Hillel abstained from intermarrying with Beth Shammai, because the latter, in the opinion of Beth Hillel, were guilty of offences involving kareth and their descendants were consequently bastards; as to Beth Shammai, however, why did they abstain from intermarrying with Beth Hillel, when they were [even in the opinion of Beth Shammai] only guilty of the infringement of a negative precept and [their descendants] were consequently legitimate? — As R. Nahman said elsewhere that the statement was required only for the case of the rival herself, so here also the Statement is required for the case of the rival herself.24
What do you want from there? The Amoraim argue about whether R' Shimon is only מחייב על כל שהו with a בריה, or even without a בריה, and the Gemara tries to prove that he only says it with a בריה, from the fact that he only seems to argue with חטה based on considering it a בריה. The גמרא then refutes this proof, as לעולם it could be that R' Shimon argues even by קמח, but he tries to convince the רבנן to agree with him at least with חטה which is a בריה. But we never learn anything from R' Shimon's words vis-a-vis what the Rabbanan hold - on the contrary, the רבנן disagree with ר"ש and say that only a ברית נשמה is a בריה!
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with you more, Yehuda, I was obviously not talking about him, but those who choose/claim to follow him...
ReplyDeleteA simple reading of Choshen Mishpat Siman Tes tells me that all forms of Shochad are forbidden, even Shochad Devarim (which can imply anything from simple words to other "favors" - see commentaries).
ReplyDeleteI do not consider myself to be a talmid chocham, but it is painfully obvious that thratening a Rov to issue/not issue a p'sak with cutting off his funding is either Shochad or extortion and a perversion of emes.
Perhaps some "talmid Chochom" commentators will have a fun time explaining that threatening or cutting off funding is different that actually giving the shochad. Have at it. In my opinion it is an exercise in "lomdus" but does not change the fact that this method of manipulating Rabbonim via money, politics etc. is what caused this entire travesty in the first place and has no place in a Torah life.
are you claiming that it is a Torah prohibition not to give money to a rabbi or institution that you feel is violating the Torah?!
ReplyDeleteNo. Not at all.
ReplyDeleteI am saying that is is Shochad/Extortion to use money and politics to demand that a Rov pasken one way or another, retract a p'sak, issue a p'sak etc.
So, if a wealthy donor to Yeshiva XYZ would say to the Rosh Yeshiva, I will give you $$$ or I will stop giving you $$$ unless you pasken this way or that way, it is Shochad.
If you don't want to support a Yeshiva because you take issue with something they did - that's your prerogative. Just don't write a check.
What I am hearing in this blog comment is a call to manipulate Rabbonim by hitting them "where it counts" - in the wallet (via their well-endowed benefactors) to make them pasken one way or another.
you should reread the material - you are completely misunderstanding what is being written.
ReplyDeleteBeatings, extortion, and shaming is considered 'mediation'. In their book. Call the IRS.
ReplyDeleteThe forward reported TE/F paid ORA for the metro billboard.
ReplyDeleteThey prefer working with more 'generous' women.
The idea that the רבנן hold of the concept of בריה at all only comes about because of ר”ש's statements. If he would have never said anything we would never know. You are correct that the response of the רבנן is part of it, but ר”ש initiated with his question about an ant. Furthermore, according to Tosafos and other Rishonim (in Chulin on the sugya of בריה) the response of ברית נשמה is either also לשיטתך or requires heavy modification. Ultimately the Rishonim determine the רבנן's position by looking at every possible case where it comes up.
ReplyDeleteReally?
ReplyDelete"High time to focus on the core group of wealthy and powerful Balebatim that are enabling and empowering the resisting rabbis...."
"it is therefore high time to focus on the ones who donate to these rabbis and are paying the piper/s....."
"These Balebatim are more important to the rabbis giving the Heterim to remarry without a Get...."
This is financial manipulation, plain and simple.
Or, better, maybe RaP would like to answer the question directly: are you saying that pressure should be brought to bear from Baalei Batim to pasken one way or another, or protest a p'sak one way or another? Yes, or No.
Do you disavow any form of exering financial pressure to attain a p'sak halacha of any form? Yes, or no.
Not what I am reading, see my comment above. I'd be happy to hear otherwise.
ReplyDelete"The idea that the רבנן hold of the concept of בריה at all only comes about because of ר”ש's statements."
ReplyDeleteOf course - because the Rabbanan explicitly agreed with him! Besides which, the expression אי אתם מודים always indicates that it was well-known that the other Tanna held such a position. But I have yet to find a single place where Tanna A says "Tanna B who disagrees with me, would agree with me in case X", and Tanna B is silent on the subject, and we still takes Tanna A's statement as authoritative vis-a-vis Tanna B's position. If you find a counterexample, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
So read it again
ReplyDelete