שו"ת הרשב"א חלק
ד סימן רד
שאלת על ענין האשה שנתקדשה
לאחד באנקוזא ואחר כך נתקדשה ונתייחדה לאחר במקום אחר. והוציאה מתחת השני וגירש הראשון.
ואח"כ התירוה ב"ד לשני זה אחר גירושי הראשון. אם אותו ב"ד בר נדוי הוא
או לא,
תשובה הדין נותן שהוא בר נידוי.
דכיון שהיא אסורה לו וב"ד זה מתירין אותה לו שמותי משמתינן ליה. וכההיא דסוף יבמות
(דף קכא) בההוא דטבע באגמא דסמקי ושריא רב שילא לדביתהו. וא"ל רב לשמואל תא נשמתיה.
וכההיא נמי דאמרינן בס"פ ואלו מותרים (דף כ). השתא דאמרו רבנן לא מזדקקין ליה,
בי דינא דמזדקק ליה שמותי משמתינן ליה. ומיהו אם טעו בהוראת ולא עשו במזיד אלא בטועת
לא משמתינן ליה. וכדמסקינן בההוא דסוף יבמות. דרב שילא שהבאנו דשלא להו רב שילא בעצמו
מטעה טעאי ולא שמתוה. אבל אם עשו שלא מחמת טעות הוראה הרי אלו בני נדוי.
What about the couple? No nidui?
ReplyDelete2. Nidui can / must be removed by complying. Here, a public statement must be made ordering the couple to separate (if they won't separate after private statements.)
The question will hinge upon, whether this is considered a case of מזיד, or was it טעות בהוראה. Another question is, if someone doesn't admit that he made a mistake in his הוראה, is he considered a מזיד?
ReplyDeleteThank you for continuing to point out the truth.
ReplyDeleteThese three people are under the impression that most will forget their lies after a while. While that maybe true, this blog is doing the correct thing, by calling them out for what they are....
“Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: A beis din/rav that allows a married woman to remarry - are they placed in nidoi?”
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 121a
Once a man was drowned in the swamp of Samki, and R. Shila permitted his wife to marry again. Said Rab to Samuel: Come, let us place him under the ban [For permitting a married woman to remarry]. Let us first, [the other replied,] send to [ask] him [for an explanation]. On their sending to him the enquiry: [If a man has fallen into] water which has no [visible] end. is his wife forbidden or permitted [to marry again]? he sent to them [in reply], His wife is forbidden. And [they again enquired] is the swamp of Samki regarded as water that has [a visible] end or as water that has no [visible] end? It is, he sent them his reply, a water that has no [visible] end. Why then did the Master [they asked] act in such a manner? I was really mistaken, [he replied]; I was of the opinion that as the water was gathered and stationary it was to be regarded as "water which has [a visible] end", but the law is in fact not so; for owing to the prevailing waves it might well be assumed that the waves carried [the body] away Samuel thereupon applied to Rab the Scriptural text, “No harm befalls the righteous, But the wicked have their fill of misfortune” (Proverbs 12:21). While Rab applied to Samuel the following text: “For want of strategy an army falls, But victory comes with much planning.” [“Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”] (ibid. 11:24) [Rab was spared the injustice of placing the innocent R. Shila under the ban.]
ומיהו אם טעו בהוראת ולא עשו במזיד אלא בטועת לא משמתינן ליה. וכדמסקינן בההוא דסוף יבמות. דרב שילא שהבאנו דשלא להו רב שילא בעצמו מטעה טעאי ולא שמתוה. אבל אם עשו שלא מחמת טעות הוראה הרי אלו בני נדוי.
The Rashba says that judges that erred in an instruction but didn’t do so purposely, but only through error [mistake], no nidoi. Yevamoth 120 shows R. Shila himself erred and made a mistake and thus no nidoi. There is nidoi if [a judge] rules not from a mistake.
Clearly Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter was a purposeful misruling not a mistake.
She never wrote so in her diary of any insanity, did not depart immediately while they claimed she started to pack for three months, even so, it is mishnah mefureshes she is released with Get only, they knew there was no credible direct assessment, the letter of meolam lo hitarti, each blaming the other, her reasoning was she can do better, sheker ein lo raglayim and needs patching chadoshim labkorim, for only a few. Shogeg? Shogeg my foot. Did they take it out of the hands of BBD also betaut?
ReplyDeleteWhen he specifically says, again, that the old psak may be relied upon, he is actually making a new psak. It is not the same as a person who made a mistake but did not acknowledge it.
ReplyDeleteThis supposed heter was being 'shopped around' for months, no one accepted him. All of a sudden, a rav from a thousand miles away accepts it (supposedly on investigation by a known to be biased source, rejected by everyone else) on a matter known by all to be extremely controversial and not readily accepted today and in that day,
ReplyDeleteAnd you want to say it was a mistake in hora'ah law? Not purposely or negligentu? By a very well off ($$$) family?
Only the Agudah is to Blame
ReplyDelete