Attached is a letter from R Yitzhak Scheiner to gedolim that requested that he account on paper his interaction with Rav Elyashiv at the time when another prominent Rav wanted to be matir with mekach ta'us.
He writes that he was a messenger from R Aharon Shechter and R Feivel Cohen, he went in to him with the son of R Sholomo Miller in the name of his father.
The most important part of this letter is, that the Rav actually retracted with dignity even though he was of the opinion that he was absolutely right. He ends of the letter with a plea, that everything should be done to be מתקן this פרצה!!!
The point of my posting the letter is to show that major rabbis eg., Rav Belsky did not have a problem of publicly retracting his psak when there was a major rejection of his psak of mekach ta'us by many rabbonim - not just Rav Eliashiv. That was a case where Rav Belsky thought he was correct. In the present case there is no evidence that the Kaminetskys or Rav Greenblatt still think their heter is valid - they simply are refusing to publicly retract or criticize it - despite universal condemnation of the heter.
Is this referring to the case Rav Belsky was involved in?
ReplyDeleteThis does not look good for the contention here that there was something wrong with the way the heter was issued. In fact, the letter makes clear that Rav Elyashiv was opposed to any use of mekach taus, period. But since we have Reb Moshe to rely on, that is nullified. And since Reb Feivel Cohen was involved in both cases, he is probably following Reb Elyashiv's approach, in our case as well. Therefore, since he provided no reasoning in his previous letter, it can be discounted, until one can prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWho's rabbi Shlomo miller
ReplyDeleteFrankly I think this letter is does more damage than good . It seems to Petray portray the debate as being a question of following RYSE position or RMF's . That is not the central question here but rather that this was done with absolute disregard for good process fraud, lies, and misrepresentation, as anyone following can see
ReplyDeleteEven r nosson k took back, per rav elyashiv.
ReplyDeleteDa'as Torah, who was the rov who retracted?
ReplyDeleteIf it is I dont understand its relevance here. R Eliyashev was against mekach taus in principle.
ReplyDeleteSounds like it...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/89023695/Rav-Besky-vs-Rav-Miller-and-Rav-Schecter-20120411104504?secret_password=l1j2diad1q39dbbrf5l
Interesting letters from Rabbis Shlomo Miller, Aaron Shechter, and Feivel Cohen blasting Rabbi Belsky's hetter. In the ongoing saga, two of the above rabbis has already issued public statements. Where is the third? Does he feel that this case is different?
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/rav-y-belsky-objections-of-rav-s-miller.html
ReplyDeleteRDE reports: "I happened to have had a meeting with Rav Belsky at this time and he
noted that there were wall posters all over Jerusalem signed by Rav
Eliashiv but he told me that in reality Rav Eliashiv agreed with him".
FREE TRANSLATION OF RAV YITZCHOK SCHEINER'S LETTER (by RaP with comments in parenthesis):
ReplyDelete"With The Help of Heaven
3 Shevat 5776 (January 13th, 2016, dated the day after Rav Feivel Cohen's letter, so this is a coordinated plea/ruling)
To the honorable Gedolei Torah who requested of me to testify about the views/rulings (Da'as Torah) of the Gaon (Genius) Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv, may the memory of the righteous and holy be for a blessing, that in the year 5763 (2002-2003) I came to/entered (the home) of our Master the Gaon (Genius) Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv, may the memory of the righteous and holy be for a blessing, together with my Talmid (student/disciple) Rav Sholom Miller, may he live a long and good life, son of the Gaon (Genius) Rav Shlomo Miller, may he live a long and good life, on behalf of/as an emissary of a member of the (American Agudath Israel's) Council of Torah Sages (Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah) the Gaon (Genius) Rav Aron Schechter, may he live a long and good life, (and on behalf of the Posek) Rav Shraga Feivel Cohen, may he live a long and good life, concerning the great breach (in Halacha) that a certain Rav (Rabbi) who wanted to permit/rule that a (Jewish and Orthodox) married woman should be free to the world/(to marry any other Jewish man -- without receiving a Get/Jewish Divorce from her first husband) to remarry (as she wished) by means of him (this rabbi) annulling her prior Kiddushin (legally binding Jewish marriage) on the grounds that it was a Mekach Ta'us (mistaken sale/purchase/transaction/i.e. marriage) that shocked/horrified Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv, may the memory of the righteous and holy be for a blessing, and he (Rav Shalom Yoseh Elyashiv) said with (obvious/evident) great pain/anguish, that it is forbidden (according to Jewish Law/Halacha/the Torah/God) to do so to allow a (Jewish) woman to the world (by mistakenly freeing her like that) based on the (false/inapplicable reasoning in this case) of Mekach Ta'us (mistaken transaction, because) the childern/any offspring (from such a forbidden union of a woman marry a second husband without a proper Get from the first husband) would be forbidden/impermissible (Assur) to the entire congregation (of Israel/the Jewish People, because they would obviously and automatically be called/and be Mamzerim i.e. illegitimate/bastards forbidden by the Torah to marry any other ordinary Jews) and he (Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv therefore) sent an emissary to the rabbi (who was contemplating doing this forbidden thing/by giving a dangerous and anti-Halachic ruling) to recant/reverse himself from his mistaken ruling and to retract it and to (thereby) correct/fix his error/what he messed up, and after a few days (went by) he sent a letter to our Master (Rav Shalkom Yosef Alyashiv) that he is reversing himself (and had recanted and corrected himself and had annuled his own mistake ruling).
I (earnestly) request that anyone who is able to (and can help to) fix/correct this terrible (egregious) breach (of Jewish Laws regarding Marriage and Divorce) and (do something/speak up about/act against) this (latest ruling) to allow a married Jewish woman to remarry (a second husband) without having first gotten a Get (from her first husband) should do whatever you can do (and can possibly be done to protest and undo the damage and harm from this shocking recent ruling to allow a married woman to re-marry without first getting a Get from her first husband.)
(Signed) Yitzchok Scheiner"
Before we all start jumping all over this letter I think we should wait for R' Shlomo Miller to sign off on it so we can save half the comments, did he write it? Is it true what he wrote? and once it authenticated we can start the dialogue.
ReplyDeleteSo now we have a machlokes gedolie haposkim Maran Rav Moshe Zatal. And Rav Elyashiv Zatzal any accepted posek has the right to pasken how he sees it especially in the USA were Maran Rav Aaron Kotler referred to MaRan Rav Moshe as " The POSEK HADOAR " many many times. Before Rav Elyashiv Zatal left heichel Shlomo the bnei Torah asked him as many shaylos as they asked Rav waldenburg
ReplyDeleteSo let's keep things in prospective. Rav Chaim ozer praised RMF teshuvos when he was in his early 20s. That he learns as well as 200years ago!
This sounds like R' Elyashiv was opposed to any heter of mekach ta'us. Unlike Igros Moshe.
ReplyDeleteI think it was Rav Belsky
ReplyDeleteBefore we continue with this issue, can anyone confirm as to whether the couple indeed live together?
ReplyDeleteI dont understand its relevance here
ReplyDeleteYou do not want to understand its relevance. Rav Shmuel can simply say that he is going to follow the opinion of the gedolim, even though he is right. Rav Sheiner is giving RSK a respectful way out. Of course, a guy like Kleinman would never understand that.
Salty has been desparately trying to make this point - but it simply doesn't make sense as has been repeatedly pointed out - especially with Rav Miller's appended letter that he agrees with Rav Feivel.
ReplyDeletethat is not the point of my posting the letter. It was to show that major rabbis eg., Rav Belsky did not have a problem of publicly retracting his psak when there was a major rejection of his psak of mekach ta'us by many rabbonim - not just Rav Eliashiv. That was a case where Rav Belsky thought he was correct. In the present case there is no evidence that the Kaminetskys or Rav Greenblatt still think their heter is valid - they simply are refusing to publicly retract or criticize it - despite universal condemnation of the heter.
ReplyDeleteRDE, looking at the incident from over 10 years ago, I don't recall Rav Belsky issuing a public retraction. I believe the retraction was done privately, with the couple involved, behind closed doors. And back then, too, like now, there was a public brouhaha over the original heter. Though there are no publicly available documents indicating Rav Belsky retracted.
ReplyDeleteAre you a female ?Run back to your kitchen the Shabbos Kugel is burning!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. He is doing a very bad impersonation, ve'ein lo chochmo ela biPlach. others noted that as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to believe RNG & RSK don't hold the היתר is valid. Otherwise they would be making them separate.
ReplyDeleteAfter being yoitsei bidei macho'o, it is time to move on. All the the K's are doing is lesame es hoenayim. Confirming thir gadlus through recruiting their roshei sanhedro'ois, blackmailing others to retreat, denying mecho's as to it's authenticity vechol minei diversions. It is time for sanctions R'L'. Cut off their funds from the supporters meheichan shehayerek ze chay, veal yevakshu Torah mipihu. At the rate this is going, the cows will come home.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, that is why this post with this new letter from Rav Scheiner breaks new ground and sheds new light on the past, and Rav Schenier is attesting to it in public in writing. Hard to contest. it also clears up the fake arguments of some posters here that Rav Feivel Cohen was not talking about the "Mekach Ta'us" angle, which this letter from Rav Shceiner indicates it's all about disagreeing with the way that ruling was deployed. Rav Moshe Feinstein in his time could talk about and do such things, and maybe a very strong like iron Beis Din HaGadol could still use it, but not by relative rabbinic pigmies and not now when it has becomes abused to the point of being Mesayei'a Lidvar Aveira and the Hefsed from this Mekach Ta'us-Kiddushei Ta'us Heter is greater than any possible "benefit" that only seems to work to help immature VERY RICH spoiled young women who are just immature brats.
ReplyDeleteThat may be disturbing to me for various reasons. One reason is that why is it that Rav Elyashiv didn't want to see him? Or so I heard. Was it before he decided to sign? Can you obtain the note where he was modeh al ho'emes?
ReplyDeleteService in a rap....Thank You so much!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your first paragraph, which of why I questioned RDEs description of Rav Belsky's retraction as having been done "publicly". It was done privately. Perhaps that can be a template for this case, too, with the heter being retracted privately as was done by Rav Belsky. Heck, perhaps it was already privately withdrawn in this case, just as in the case from over a decade ago.
ReplyDeleteReally? Which two retracted?
ReplyDeleteIt happens not to be desperate but knoweing thefacts and haveingthem backed up by R' Yitzchok Scheiner I think gives more credibility to my story then yours. I guess that is the closest I will get to you agreeing with my point so. As far as RSM adding his signature to another letter doesn't say anything about the intent of the letter writer. Knophler added a whole paragraph to the supposed signature of R' Chaim Kanievsky does that all of a sudden tell us that Reb Chaim agrees with Knophler.
ReplyDeleteHe said Rav Elyashiv really agreed with him? On what basis? The same type of "criteria heter"were along the same lines as here. I wouldn't believe him. If he said that, I would put him under a polygraph test.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason for Rabbi Belsky retracting was Reb Elyashiv ZTL. If he would have retracted because other gedolim held like that why did he only respond to Reb Elyashiv? Unfortunately we don't have anyone as big as Reb Moshe or Reb Elyashiv who have either accepted or rejected the Heter that would compel someone to listen to them even if they think they are right. As far as your statement that there is no evidence that the heter is viewed as valid. Is not the fact that Adam and Tamar are still together proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? There have been enough letters, retractions new letters and letters confirming that they didn't change their mind, that the only thing that hasn't changed from the beginning is that a Heter was issued and no retraction has been issued.
ReplyDelete"It also clears up the fake arguments of some posters here that Rav Feivel Cohen was not talking about the "Mekach Ta'us" angle", Wrong! it actually reinforces the argument that R' Feivel did not go through all the facts in the case and determined the Heter is a farce.He more then likely based his letter on what R' Elyashiv held. That position doesn't work well for a number of people on this blog since they want to say even R' Feivel went through the information and says the psak is flawed. R' Elyashiv held even if all the facts are true you cant use hafkas kedushin. It just so happens to be that R' Moshe held you can use it.
ReplyDeleteDishonesty, Reb Shmuel didn't pasken he can say what he wants it was RNG and others that paskened. Rav Scheiner isn't giving Reb Shmuel anything he probably wasn't even told that Reb Shmuel is involved. and to take cheap shots at people which have no relevance to the discussion at hand I would imagine is what Rabbi Feldman meant when he said this aveirah is worse then eishes ish. I think even Honesty can understand that.
ReplyDeleteThe public must know that Rabbi Fuerst's signature is on that "heter", just like he was involved now. He also needs to retract, especially if he has done about 15 such "heterim" as of now!
ReplyDeleteYou probably mean that they "hold" one way, but believe otherwise. ..
ReplyDeleteAny possibility of getting his letter of retraction?
ReplyDeleteThanks so much, awaiting. Please inform. ..thanks again
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious. The whole situation is so ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that these people are truly holy talmidei chachomim and yet they can't see how silly the whole thing is. And they dig in their heels and let these people be mezaneh just stam because? Wouldn't any reasonable person tell them to separate - at least for the meantime until the many serious issues have been resolved?
If you substitute either RNG or RSK in this story with a modern orthodox rabbi, people would be condemning him to the point of saying that he's off the derech and you can't eat in his house. Something does not make sense. RSK is not a kal and neither is RNG.
It was several years later that Rav Elyashiv refused to see him - when he came to argue with Rav Elyashiv about the anisakis bug.
ReplyDeleteAs I suspected all along you wont post the comments that undermine your position. I understand, its your blog and you have an agenda.
ReplyDeleteDishonesty, Reb Shmuel didn't pasken he can say what he wants it was RNG and others that paskened. Rav Scheiner isn't giving Reb Shmuel anything he probably wasn't even told that Reb Shmuel is involved. and to take cheap shots at people which have no relevance to the discussion at hand I would imagine is what Rabbi Feldman meant when he said this aveirah is worse then eishes ish. I think even Honesty can understand that.
ReplyDelete"It also clears up the fake arguments of some posters here that Rav Feivel Cohen was not talking about the "Mekach Ta'us" angle", Wrong! it actually reinforces the argument that R' Feivel did not go through all the facts in the case and determined the Heter is a farce.He more then likely based his letter on what R' Elyashiv held. That position doesn't work well for a number of people on this blog since they want to say even R' Feivel went through the information and says the psak is flawed. R' Elyashiv held even if all the facts are true you cant use hafkas kedushin. It just so happens to be that R' Moshe held you can use it.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason for Rabbi Belsky retracting was Reb Elyashiv ZTL. If he would have retracted because other gedolim held like that why did he only respond to Reb Elyashiv? Unfortunately we don't have anyone as big as Reb Moshe or Reb Elyashiv who have either accepted or rejected the Heter that would compel someone to listen to them even if they think they are right. As far as your statement that there is no evidence that the heter is viewed as valid. Is not the fact that Adam and Tamar are still together proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? There have been enough letters, retractions new letters and letters confirming that they didn't change their mind, that the only thing that hasn't changed from the beginning is that a Heter was issued and no retraction has been issued.
ReplyDeleteIt happens not to be desperate but knowing the facts and having them backed up by R' Yitzchok Scheiner I think gives more credibility to my story then yours. I guess that is the closest I will get to you agreeing with my point so. As far as RSM adding his signature to another letter doesn't say anything about the intent of the letter writer. Knophler added a whole paragraph to the supposed signature of R' Chaim Kanievsky does that all of a sudden tell us that Reb Chaim agrees with Knophler.
ReplyDeleteAh, tehor ainayim m'r'os b'ra....Gevaldig. ..
ReplyDeleteRabbis Shlomo Miller and Feivel Cohen recently issued letters condemning the recent saga. They didn't retract anything.
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn't he named in the 5763 protest of the gedolei Yisrael?
ReplyDeleteHe was a no-name. Protest will only happen with people who are respected as the "real-deal" rabbis.
ReplyDeleteReb Shmuel didn't pasken he can say what he wants
ReplyDeleteI do understand that that was his excuse. Yet, he did defend the "heter," in the typical K no-holds-barred bully way. He encouraged, and is still encouraging, the adultery. Blaming it on RNG is sorry excuse.
Rav Scheiner isn't giving Reb Shmuel anything he probably wasn't even told that Reb Shmuel is involved.
Incorrect.
and to take cheap shots at people which have no relevance
Please explain what you mean. Cheap shot at who?
I do not have to defend RSK for his position fact is he didn't give the heter. As far as R Yitzchok Scheiner is concerned. It is correct that RSM didn't say a word about Reb Shmuel K. involvement. Knowing good and well that he wouldn't have signed if he did know. Your cheap shot at Kleinman.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I thought. Also, holding my confusion for a few days since this post is up: didn't he go against Aharon Friedman? Also, didn't he give a haskamah to Mendel Epstein's book, "The Jewish woman and divorce" (not sure of the precise title), Also, wasn't he together with Mendel Epstein in that kiddushay to'us p'sak from 12 years ago that is so starkly similar to our Tamar case? And mentioning Chinn in today's post (or at least in a few comments) where Avrohom Rubin was beaten up by Mendel Epstein hand in hand with Belsky's p'sak, where exactly does his status stand with Da'as Torah? Also, do we start davening for Mendel Epstein too?
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I can imagine is that he led a low profile. ...I strongly think that he should not be spared this time, nor the 15 he did such kiddushay to'us p'sakim that he supposedly has already done. They all should agree not to do so anymore AND investigate those done already. ....
ReplyDeleteI was asking which 2 retracted from the heter. .
ReplyDelete