Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: A reader asks, What is the real agenda of this blog in protesting corruption of halacha and adultery?

We have been dealing for a long time with the issue  of a recognized gadol - R Shmuel Kaminetsky - being involved in the slimy task of corrupting halacha and refusing to accept responsibility to stop the adulterous relationship of Tamar and Adam. R Kaminetsky and son conducted a worldwide campaign to produce a psak from R Greenblatt in which he investigated not a single one of the phony facts presented to him. R Greenblat married the couple solely on the say so of Rabbi Kaminetsky. "It is chutzpa to question what a gadol says!" Worldwide outrage was expressed in letters from most of the leading poskim against the heter. [see the post at the uppoer right corner of this blog] In spite of that we still have people - as seen in the comment below - who say, "What is your agenda?"


in short: what is the real agenda here? to try and get RSK to force Tamar out of current situation thru the blog pressure (which does not seem to be happening), or to somehow allow him to 'save face' , but to get the desired result

 There are a few issues here.

1) Did something horribly wrong take place in the producing of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter which threatens the foundations of yiddishkeit by damaging the collective emunas chachoim?

2) Do we ignore or tolerate horrible actions by gedolim because they are gedolim and therefore- We -the "fungus under their feet" - have no right to question them?

3) Is there an imperative to protest this corruption of Torah - as we do any other corruption - or is it a task only for other gedolim to deal with?

4) Is it a fact that the protests on this blog have not produced results?
=============================
We have dealt with the other issues at length. I would like to address the last issue.

It is clear from the feedback that I have gotten -- that the protests have in fact registered. While it is true that Tamar and Adam are still living in sin - but the protests have not been in vain

1) R Kaminetsky and his extended family are highly irritated by the protests - based entirely on their claim that R Kaminetsky has done nothing wrong and has clearly acknowledged that Rabbi Dovid Feinstein has said the heter is garbage. In particular, that he never paskened that Tamar could remarry and thus he has no obligation to do anything. He feels no responsibility for the campaign that his son conducted - in direct consultation with him and his approval of every step - to find poskim who would agree to the heter nor the phony psychiatrist report that his son produced to support the heter. In short, he claims he is totally innocent of wrong doing  and that the responsibility is solely that of R Greenblatt. It doesn't bother him that Tamar is relying entirely on the heter of R Greenblatt that he engineered - because after all she has a major posek to rely on. This despite that R Greenblatt relied totally on the facts that were presented to him by the Kaminetsky's - including the false claim that Aharon Friedman is totally insane. However as one family member told me, "the whole thing stinks and is a grave embarrassment" [yes there are family members who are ashamed of what R Kaminetsky has done]

2) Talmidim and admirers of R Kaminetsky are alternatively angry with me and embarrassed by the fact that they have no intelligent explanation for R Kaminetsky's conduct in this sordid affair. But after all he is gadol hador so they struggle with their cognitive dissonance as best as possible. Some by attacking anyone who questions R' Kaminetsky's actions and others by a strong sense of shame and embarrassment which they heroically suppress.

3) There is in fact widespread awareness amongst the yeshivas students and avreichim - as well as the rabbis and poskim of our generation. This includes of course the many rabbis who wrote letters denouncing the heter. Most have no idea of how to deal with this - but they are very bothered by it. They understand that R Kaminetsky is the "bank that is too big to fail" as well as that their jobs and their future employment and shidduchim for their children are in danger if they make any public statements. R Kaminetsky is a very important figure in the Torah world and he has a high level of influence - not only personally but through marriage. One of the major rabbinic players told me a long time ago that it was clear to him that R Kaminetsky was acting against the halahca "But who am I to criticize the gadol hador - no one will listen to me."

So yes - there is a need to continue the protest against what R Kaminetsky has done and against the fact that he has not publicly stated that the couple needs to separate and has not apologized to Aharon Friedman for the slander and "dirty halachic tricks" he has used against him.

It is Elul for gedolim also!

37 comments :

  1. I think there is another important purpose here. To give the message to people not to be a shvontz. R' Akiva Aiger in sadly no longer with us. Those who we have today are not on that league AT ALL. They are not gedolim. They are simply people who were at the right place at the right time or who have a certain charisma and charm which appear to simple folks as having something to do with Torah greatness but in fact dos not, or opportunists who know how to position themselves well and fool the people. Do not follow them blindly. They are bot worthy of such following. USE YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dvorim 13:2 Ki yokum bekirbecho Novi...lemor neilcho achrei... lo sishma el divrei hanovi hahu... *ki menaseh H' Elokeichem eschem* loda'as hayishchem ohavim es H'... achrei H' E' telechu... ve'ss mitzvoisov tishmori uvkolo sishmou veosso sa'avodu uvo sidbokun.

    Even a Navi has no immunity, kal vachomer ezovei kir when they are Mesalef and Megaleh panim baTorah. The reason none of them want to retrieve and admit they erred is mipnei habusha since their hands were *caught* in the cookie jar, and for that even at the expense of sin.

    Ok, so much for bedinei shomayim, but even from the point of midinei odom they should make an end to this logically, for all this was the akshanut to spite Aron that he is expendable to do away with him, and she can do much better. At the end of the day, is this the result of what they promised her to do *better*. This scandalous saga that will never stop and never end, they should have fixed long time back, so why didn't they. The answer is, Mipnei habusha that they allegedly erred? No, as things point out after the facts, that it was bezadon with tricks, smoke and mirrors, not doing their job in due diligence, since it was *bogus and humbug* to begin with. It was so designed and engineered piecemeal in bits and bytes and pieces bemachshovo tchila bimechuven, so in case they get caught each can blame the other and say, I didn't do it, not my psak, he lied to me and did not have the chutzpah to ask for proof and be a shnayim sheossu melacha achas and be potur. The norm would have been, when you ask a shailo, you present the facts up front in it's entirety keshulchan orech so that before any Psak, all things be considered. Not so when you dan a Din Torah with a Piece by Piece Shuttle Bus back and forth, e.g. I told my father vehiskim al yodi (psak), I told RNG vehiskim imodi (psak), thereby, when one fact was presented the rest of the story already was off the table, and things tend to get lost and obfuscated in the shuffle. It's like a rag of many colors put together from bits and pieces and not uniform. Ani bincho - take a breath - Eisov bechorecho - take another breath. The breaths are all not in the right places, and same goes for the punctuation's. Such are not "Ve'ele hamishpotim asher tossim lifneihem", - keshulchan he'aruch umuchan le'echol lifnei heodom, having Hors D'oeuvres, all dips and spices in synch and right order as needed or called for, otherwise, you have no clue who is on first, what's on second and what pairs with what, same goes here, you have no clue who said what to whom and when.

    Now, mipnei haBusha is not that they innocently made a taus bidvar mishnah ubidvar halocho, kvar hoyo dovor meolam, elo ma? ...mipnei ha*Busha* that their hands got stuck and caught inside the cookie jar lifnei kol haolam kulo, and therefore, for that - even Tamar is expendable, and so is R' Dovid's Psak. In their own thoughts who knows, they would like to have people think that they must have some ace under their sleeves.

    As we are closing in to the Yom haDin, yemei horachmim vehaslichos somuch venireh, memashesh ubo, yefashfesh bema'asov, Umodeh veozev yerucham!

    ReplyDelete
  3. יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו

    There definitely is a problem of how to identify leaders. This has been a problem since the days of the prophets, where we were overrun by false prophets who claimed to be legitimate. But there are definitely authentic and legitimate talmiday chachomim around.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a very important article. Everyone is unfortunately capable of human error and failure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A real Talmid Chacham is mekabel toichocho. If they resist and choite umachti es horabim that is a chochom lehera without the chochom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "in short: what is the real agenda here?" With the permission of the Rav, I would like to offer my answer: "Mamzer prevention".

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have a larger concern regarding RSK besides the ones that you mention: what was the motivation for this 'heter';

    But i think you are ignoring the main point of my contention, perhaps because it

    was expressed thru a number of posts, and maybe it was lost, so allow me to repeat myself:
    1.- Recently, in different newspapers and websites, there was a lot of pictures and articles about RSK visiting and being welcomed by R' CHK and R' Shteineman; Do we infer from that publicity that they do not have any current problem with RSK not issuing a clear public statement, that Tamar is obligated to separate?



    2.- Your response to that: you can get me a psak from a barmitzva boy that they do need to separate;



    3.-

    ReplyDelete
  8. 3.- Why don't you try to get this Gdolim to write a letter of condemnation of RSK
    for not issuing a clear public statement that Tamar has to separate?

    That is what makes me question you agenda:
    Has there been some benefit from this open forum and discussion? I would surely agree to that. But to me, the largest concern is the danger which is palpable: is this opening the doors to a flood of people getting this kind of heterim...
    And the fact is that will the noise which has been generated here and elsewhere, Tamar is still there, waiting for all to the storm to pass.
    So even though there is what to protest about, it seems to be taken first spot on the agenda, instead of what is really the main issue.

    Thnx

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'll tell you a big secret. Everybody - including the rabbonim who wrote letters against this heter are well aware of this and even stated this issue in their letters. Let me give you an example of the problem at the top.

    I went with a dayan to the son of Rav Steinman to get an appointment with Rav Steinman to encourage him to write a letter against the heter. He read the documents we provided. He said it was a big problem for all the above reasons and then said "MY FATHER DOESN'T DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES IT IS A CASE FOR RAV ELIASHIV" When it was pointed out the Rav Eliashiv was not long alive - he said he couldn't help.

    One of my well connected friends said simply. Of course they are not getting involved in publicly criticizing R Shmuel. Do you understand how much money comes to Bnei Brak from the supporters of R Shmuel? This explains why even when they wrote the letters most were careful not to mention R Shmuel by name or to criticize him.

    Bottom line - the only ones who are free to say the truth publicly are people like my brother and myself who have no dependency on the Kaminnetsky. They have absolutely no leverage because we are not part of their extended family. We don't have jobs that are dependent ont their good graces and there is no significant fall out for us if they don't appreciate what we dol

    This is what is known as shochad. But it is clear that the Kaminetsky's are in fact hearing loud and clear that the protest against this heter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The flood of pictures of RSK is apparently a pr gambit to try and give the impression that all is well. In fact it is just a coating of fresh paint over a moldy, rotten reality that there is widespread upset with this heter - BUT R SHMUEL IS TOO BIG AND POWERFUL TO BE CONFRONTED PUBLICLY AND THERE IS GREAT FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN IT IS MADE PUBLIC. There is fear of the consequences to emunas chachomim when it is publicly confirmed that all that I have written on this blog is 100% true and that the gadol hador of America has promoted adultery and the corruption of halacha and that the silence of the rabbis has allowed this foul situation to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As well as living in sin prevention.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Talmidim and admirers of R Kaminetsky are alternatively angry with me and embarrassed by the fact that they have no intelligent explanation for R Kaminetsky's conduct in this sordid affair.”
    This reminds me of the Left media in Israel. The feminists agenda is dominate among talmidim and admirers of R. Kamenitsky. They give silly answers, ignoring serious points. The Left media in Israel is terrible.
    See http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Media-Comment-That-ethnic-cleansing-clip-467743
    “In our minds the reason is obvious: a mistrust of the media and their capability to provide a politician with a fair stage from which to present her or his political and ideological position on any issue. One does not forget so quickly how Yonit Levy mistranslated the prime minister during his speech to the joint session of US Congress on the Iranian issue. The silly response of the mainstream media to the clip is another reason. By going through YouTube, anyone can access the prime minister’s remarks, getting them from the horse itself rather than through the filter of the commentators.”
    Hello, talmidim and admirers of R. Kamenitsky. Please give serious response to the charge of corruption of halacha and adultery.

    ReplyDelete
  13. First of all Let me tell about Yiftoch. He knew the entire Torah and he is mentioned in the saider hakabalah from generation to generation of giving over the entire Torah. The gedolim (most) who are referred to today as gedolim do not know the entire Torah, and not even most of it,(and some very little of it). So don't give the Yiftoch bedoro talk because it doesn't refer to these people to whom you refer in this post.

    The idea of blindly following someone against our better judgement, probably can no longer be applied today. We have talmiday chachomim (mostly small mediocre ones and not many serious ones though) but that doesn't mean they are gedolim in the sense of blindly following them. If you don't know something, then of course you ask someone, a rov, who knows, and you rely on him because you don't know and he seems to know. But when you know and the rov says something which goes against your senses, don't blindly follow him. (Obviously if enough people tell you you're wrong, reconsider your position and don't be obstinate.)

    Most major changes made today which are changes for the better, are made from the bottom up. That means there is no leader/gadol initiating it, but rather the people are demanding it and the leader/gadol eventually follows if enough pressure from below is present. Pnay hador k'pnay hakelev. For example, the gadol will say it's mesirah and destroying a family to whistleblow on a predator, until the common folks apply enough pressure and then they suddenly become 'leaders' to lead in the direction to which they have been led to lead.

    ReplyDelete
  14. WOW! Now you are saying that R' Shteineman is selling the Tora for a few dollars? Maybe they hold that since RSK accepted the psak of RDF , there is no more for him to do; or perhaps something else; but now you have RALSH AND RCHK selling the torah for cheap? and stating that as a fact in public based on the speculation of your well connected friend?

    In any case, even if your premise could be entertained, (which i surely disagree with) it would surely be motzei shem ra if it's not true - correct? and you have no factual basis for making such a statement .

    IN any case, even if there were some pressure on them , as to not making big statements (and RCHK did sign a letter against the hetter, to the best of my recollection), they would not have to receive him at their homes, and have all the PR which ensues; They could just quietly refuse to meet him , on any lame excuse;
    So in my mind the question is still valid: why do they receive him like if nothing happened?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just when a video is becoming public about a goy fooling a godol hador into making a certain bracha, you argue that a godol is never fooled?

    (I don't say it's common, but you have to see the wider picture before deciding, particularly in this unfortunate situation where the damning evidence is available.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. "he is mentioned in the saider hakabalah from generation to generation of giving over the entire Torah."

    Which sefer says that?? On which page?

    ReplyDelete
  17. “We have been dealing for a long time with the issue of a recognized gadol - R Shmuel Kaminetsky - being involved in the slimy task of corrupting halacha and refusing to accept responsibility to stop the adulterous relationship of Tamar and Adam. R Kaminetsky and son conducted a worldwide campaign to produce a psak from R Greenblatt …”
    Greenblatt-Kaminetsky were riding high with the once popular violent feminism:
    (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."
    Today’s Jerusalem Post:
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Twilight-of-American-Jewry-467862
    “The problem is that a large contingent of prominent Jewish Republicans has decided to commit political suicide…. As the public soured on Bush’s war policies, the first to be blamed for his failures were the Jewish Republicans who had been so outspoken about their roles in shaping his policies…. With the radical takeover of the Democratic Party, these Republican rebels cannot hope to receive influential roles in a Clinton administration even if she throws some table scraps in their direction. And by attacking Trump and his voters, they are dooming themselves to political homelessness for at least a generation.”
    Prominent rabbinical leaders Mendel Epstein et al, Greenblatt-Kaminetsky, Schachter, Ralbag, have doomed themselves to political homelessness for at least a decade. The American-Jewish public has turned abruptly hostile to the once popular violent-feminism, due in part to this blog. Mendel Epstein et al, Greenblatt-Kaminetsky, Schachter, Ralbag, etc could redeem thesemlves by expressing remorse, admitting error, and trying to make amends --- תשובה.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You cannot just make things up. Yiftach may have known Chmash, but there is no evidence that he was knowledgeable in the entire Torah. Proof please! Exact source.

    Again, indisputably, in every generation the legitimate talmid chochom is considered like Shmuel in his generation.

    Strawmen arguments have no relevance. I find it absurd that so many of those who claim that nowadays no legitimately trustworthy Torah personalities exist, will trust any nonsense spewed forth by CNN or some duntz who has a LMSC title. If you don't believe in blind faith in humans, how do you throw it behind secular culture?
    As long as we had prophets, we had a huge problem with false prophets. Some claimed to be in Hashem's name, while others were straight out prophets of idolatry. Nowadays we have false rabbis who claim to represent the Torah and Hashem, and we have the idolatrous prophets of academia. Nu.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How do you know if they are aware that he told Tamar that she may continue living in sin???? In all likelihood, they erroneously assume that he accepted Rav Dovid's psak, when in reality he did not accept it! Had he accepted that this is the truth, he would not tell Tamar that she may rely on an erroneous or false psak. Is the Torah some sore of plaything C"V that you tell people to rely on false psakim?? How can an adherent of the Torah not do everything to stop the desecration that he was a part of its cause?!

    ReplyDelete
  20. No I am not saying R Steinmen is selling the Torah. I said we went to his son - who is a major gatekeeper to his father. Rav Steinman is surrounded by people who filter information and people.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Honesty, don't accuse me of making things up. Horatio reject just asked, although I can do without the multiple question marks.

    If you have a mishnayos Yachin Uboaz or Zecher Chanoch which has in Nezikin 2 after Maseches Avos, Pirush Machzor Vitri, Seder mekablay haTorah velomdeha, see the first page of that. In Zecher Chanoch it's page תצג. Look in the top text wgere it seems like there are 2 girsaos where Yiftoch is placed in the order, but he is certainly there, and look at the bottom text and you will also see him there.

    And Honesty, you used the word indisputably, and I wonder why you don't need to bring a reliable source for that? t's quite a big statement to give someone who doesn't know the entire Torah the authority given to Shmuel Hanavie, and you say it's indisputably so. And then you use the words 'legitimate talmid chochom'. I wonder what your requirements are to be considered a legitimate talmid chochom. You don't have to know the entire Torah, so what do you need? To be a charismatic speaker on shmiras halashon?

    And you are correct that we shouldn't trust the media. Who said anything about trusting the media? Or is it that because you used the term 'strawman argument' you felt you should present one of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here is the link.
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37946&st=&pgnum=498

    What did you think up until now? Did you really think that Yiftoch didn't know The Torah but yet he was a shofet for all of Klal Yisroel and everyone had to blindly follow the words of an am ha'aretz? Or are you so used to such ideas in our times that this never occurred to you as being a problem? The Torah tells us to obey The Shofet. So what is the criteria of the shofet. Is it just about being a war general? Should we blindly follow Benyamin Natanyahu's Torah rulings then? (Or maybe only for those who recognize the Medina) Why would The Torah give Torah authority to someone who doesn't have sufficient Torah knowledge? I repeat. YOU NEED TO USE YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT to know that this can't be what The Torah requires. Even if someone is a talmid chochom to a degree, that can't be enough to require everyone to follow him blindly in all areas of Torah, especially when we see that The Torah says otherwise, because after all this person might know something but doesn't know everything in The Torah. So in an issue which we clearly see that they are wrong, we should realize that this belongs to the part of The Torah that this person doesn't know.

    In your opinion should there be no test of kol Hatorah kula that a person needs to pass before we consider him a gadol? On what basis are we calling someone a gadol? Is being a rosh yeshiva proof of knowledge of kol Hatorah kula? Or writing a sefer? The answer must be that these don't prove it at all. But still you say we should follow these people blindly?

    Why? For heavens sake, why? So you mention Yiftoch, which has no bearing on this discussion what so ever, because Yoftoch was a worthy shofet who knew The Torah and paskened by his thorough Torah knowledge. Just because he wasn't on the madraiga of Shmuel doesn't disqualify him since he has all the necessary qualities. That is the meaning of יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו. It has been totally been taken out of context to include many many people who don't begin to be anywhere near this category.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I knew someone will ask that? (And I expected it to be none other than yourself, DT) I don't have all of the answers to all of the questions. Is it your intention do say that Yiftoch was not a mamshich of the kabalah of the entire Torah? Obviously not, because my sources are solid and reliable to the contrary. So you have a kasha. So let's discuss it by a Shabbos meal, or maybe someone can deliver a shalos seudos Torah on the subject, but the fact remains that he was a worthy shofet who knew the entire Torah and could pasken by his Torah knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Harry - the basic situation is that you are wrong. Yiftach was an am haaretz. Your obvious question is how do I know? Shabbos night I mentioned the question to Rav Malinowtiz. He said there is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to whether Yiftach in fact sacrificed his daughter. He added that according to the view that he sacrificed his daughter he was definitely an am haaretz - He gave me two seforim Daas Mikrah and Daas Sofrim and told me to look up the Malbim and Abarbanel. And added that for such issues he usually uses Aspaklaria - which the shul didn't have and I obviously couldn't use the computer.

    Anyway. Das Mikrah and Daas Sofrim both said he sacrified his daughter according to Chazal. Daas Sofrim said, "Yiftach was an am haaretz who became pious." Then I looked up the Malbim. The Malbim gave a whole drasha about how he didn't kill his daughter but ended by saying, "However the view of Chazal is the he did in fact sacrifice his daughter." I looked up Redak who gave a long derasha to say he didn't kill his daughter but ended, "But Chazal say he did sacrifice is daughter and if they have a mesora on this then it has to be accepted."
    There is a gemora in Taanis (4a) that says he killed his daughter. Tanach says that he attracted to him a gang of bums. From this verse, Chazal say we see that birds of a feather flock together.
    ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים ריקים, מנא הדא מילתא דאמרי אינשי מטייל ואזיל דקלא בישא לגבי קינא דשרכי... שנוי בנביאים ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים ריקים... (שופטים פרק יא, סו)

    כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, שלא יהיה בכם שום ליצנות, שלא תבא לידי חיוב, ממי אתה למד, מיפתח, מה כתיב בו והוא בן אשה זונה... ובשביל שהיה בו שום של ליצנות, נפלו בו כל האוכלוסין... (תצא ג)

    Aspaklaria is http://www.aspaklaria.info

    Medrash Tanchuma says he was an am haaretz
    כיון שבקש לקרבה היתה בוכה לפניו, אמרה לו בתו, אבי, יצאתי לקראתך בשמחה ואתה שוחט אותי, שמא כתב הקב"ה בתורה שיהו ישראל מקריבין לפני הקב"ה נפשות אדם... מן הבהמה ולא מן האדם. אמר לה, בתי נדרתי והיה היוצא, שמא כל הנודר יכול הוא שלא לשלם נדרו, אמרה ליה והרי יעקב אבינו שנדר כל אשר תתן לי וגו' (בראשית כ"ח), ונתן לו הקב"ה שנים עשר בנים, שמא הקריב להקב"ה אחד מהם, ולא עוד אלא חנה שאמרה ותדר נדר וגו' (שמואל א' א'), שמא הקריבה את בנה לפני הקב"ה, כל הדברים האלה אמרה לו ולא שמע לה. כיון שראתה שלא שמע לה, אמרה לו הניחני וארד אצל בית דין, שמא ימצאו פתח לנדרך, שנאמר הרפה ממני שנים חדשים, ואלכה וירדתי על ההרים וגו', אמר רב זכריה, וכי יש אדם יורד על ההרים, והלא בני אדם עולים להרים, אלא אלו סנהדרין, כמה שנאמר (מיכה ו') שמעו הרים את ריב ה'. הלכה אצלם ולא מצאו פתח ליפתח ולהתיר לו את נדרו, בעוון ששחט משבט אפרים, ועליו הוא אומר (משלי כ"ח) גבר רש ועושק דלים מטר סוחף ואין להם, זה יפתח שהיה רש בתורה כגרופו של שקמה, שהיה עושק את הדלים, שנאמר ויאמרו לו אמור נא שבולת וגו' והיה שוחטן, לפיכך מטר סוחף אין להם, שהיה לו מי שיתיר את נדרו, אלא ודאי ואין להם, שהעלים הקב"ה את ההלכה, שלא ימצאו פתח להתיר לו את נדרו. עלה ושחטה, ורוח הקדש צווחת נפשות הייתי רוצה שתקריב לפני, אשר לא ציויתי ולא עלתה על לבי... (בחוקתי ה)

    The sources i.e. Rishonim who say he didn't sacrifice his daughter are going against Chazal. This is a clear example of what Rav Dessler has said, that those Rishonim who give an explanation contrary to Chazal are doing it as apologetics for those confused people who can't accept Chazal and as long the explanation doesn't contradict halacha is ok to do such.

    ReplyDelete
  25. “Do we ignore or tolerate horrible actions by gedolim because they are gedolim and therefore- We -the "fungus under their feet" - have no right to question them?”
    No, we are forbidden to ignore or tolerate horrible actions by gedolim. Whosoever knows facts concerning horrible actions by gedolim in the Greenblatt-Kamenistky heter used to sanction Tamar marrying her boyfriend with her husband alive and well and refusing to divorce her---has a duty to speak up.
    I quote:
    Arachin 17b:
    [When it is written:] He being a witness, [“If a person incurs guilt— When he has heard a public imprecation and—although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter—he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment; (Leviticus 5:1)] would you here, too, say that he must be a fit [witness] from beginning to end? And if you will say: Indeed so! Surely it was taught: If a man knew testimony [to give] for another before he became his son-in-law, and then became his son-in-law; or if he then could hear and now became deaf; could see and now became blind; was of sound mind then and now became stupid, then he is disqualified [as witness]. But if he knew testimony [to give] for him before he became his son-in-law, then became his son-in-law, and after that his daughter [the father-in-law's. i.e., his wife] died; or if he could hear, became deaf, and now regained his hearing; or if he could see, lost his sight, and now recovered it; or was of sound mind, lost his mind, and now recovered it, then he is eligible [as witness]. This is the general rule: Whosoever was capable at the beginning and, again, at the end, is eligible? [Whereas above the condition was made that he must be of one quality or condition from the beginning to the end.] It is different there because Scripture says: If he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity [Lev. V, 1]. The Divine Law has made the matter dependent on seeing and hearing, and that is found here [The Torah here insists that it is sufficient if he be fit at the time of seeing and telling, rendering his condition at any other time irrelevant.]. But then what is the need of: He being a witness? Because of what has been taught: If he saw a company of men standing, among whom are his witnesses, and he says: I adjure you that if you know a testimony on my behalf you come and testify for me, one might have assumed that they then are obliged [to do so], therefore the text states: He being a witness, whilst he has not singled out his witnesses. One might assume that [the same applies] even if he said: Whosoever [of you knows a fact to testify to. etc.], therefore the text states: He being a witness, and he has singled them out. [He must single out those whom he adjures to give testimony on his behalf, because the Biblical He being a witness indicates that a definite person must be involved. When the adjurer says: If someone among you knows etc., he speaks in general terms, hence does not affect those few who know among the majority who do not. But if he said: Whosoever of you knows, then he is addressing himself individually to each who does, hence he does oblige those who can give testimony on his behalf, to do so.]

    וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ:

    ReplyDelete
  26. What do you do with the sources that I brought? The fact that he sacrificed his daughter in and of itself doesn't say he was an am haoretz. Even though we don't understand his actions, if we clearly see that he was the mamshich of the mesoras Hatorah and therefore knew kol Hatorah kula, we could remain with the kasha of why he sacrificed his daughter. The midrash Tanchuma which says he was Rash Batorah would seem that e was in fact an am haaretz, but the word rash could be nidchak to mean in a particular aspect of quality of his Torah. I would not say this if not for the sources I brought, but because of those sources I would say that. I brought very strong sources, and this is just what I remembered without searching, and ther might be more sources that bring him as the mamshich of the kabolas Hatorah, but the sources I brought are good enough by any standard. Obviously Daas Mikra and Daas Sofrim could have had a mistake here by not knowing of this fact that he was mamshich The Torah. They are not man deomrim against Those sources.

    So my question remains

    ReplyDelete
  27. As I noted Chazal disagree with you and your sources. Since he sacrified his daughter he is an am haaretz period!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Harry you cite a single source from Machzor Vitri. I looked it up. Doesn't say he was a major Talmid Chachom. In fact the text of the Machzor Vitri didn't mentioned Yiftach - that was added later as noted in the footnotes.

    Citing seforim that list the members of the chain is not very helpful - since these were primarily polemical works - not scholarship.

    It is perhaps more relevant to note that the Rambam's list of mesorah does not list Yiftach. Not sure why Yiftach was needed when Pinchas was the Torah expert in those days. In fact Pinchas was punished because he didn't correct Yiftach's elementary errors inTorah that led to his daughters death

    Bottom line - the sources clearly indicate that he was an ignorant man who killed his daughter because he didn't know basic Torah halacha
    Seder HaDoros notes that Yiftach's daughter was married to Cham (Noach's son) and that her father schechted her and that R Chanina ben Tradyon was a tikun for Yiftach and that his why he was burned alive.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1.- When a gadol appoints someone to represent him, you must assume that he is representing him indeed; (it does not always happens , as we see from gechazi and others, but until that is proven, you can;t assume the contrary)
    2.- Now you are being motzei she ra on his son, without any factual basis, other than the sugestion from your friend about money coming from RSK supporters;

    3.- What about RCHK? he signed the letter, and there are plenty of pictures of RSK in his house , all smiles

    ReplyDelete
  30. appoints ?- who appointed him.
    if you present a case which the person agrees fully regarding its seriousness and then says to go to a gadol who is no longer alive...
    and therefore?

    ReplyDelete
  31. if you had to go thru him to talk to RALSH , then obviously his father appointed him...
    his response: not sure how he said it, but sounds to me like he meant that RSH does not get involved in this kind of issues; and to go from whatever he answer to say that his son is then selling the torah for dollars , it;s a very long step, which could very well be motzei shem ra, if untrue
    IN any case: what about RCHK? why don;t you answer anything about it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I am simply judging him favorably. That what seems to be totally irrational behavior could make sense if major institutions would suffer major losses.

    Don't know about RCHK. He has issued statements on various topics which were later modified. Not sure how free is his access to information or what he has been told are the facts

    ReplyDelete
  33. favorably? to say that for money he is endorsing a mayor issue of eshes ish? and potentially opening a floodgate of similar cases by people who are not so 'charedi' and even the 'chareidi'?

    so if you don;t know about RCHK maybe you ought to find out why he receives him before you continue
    writing what you do againsT RSK.

    ReplyDelete
  34. didn't say he was endorsing anything. He said he was not getting involved.

    No I don't have to answer and justify everyone's actions. It is clear that a terrible perversion of halacha has happened. The question as to why various gedolim have their pictures taken with RSK is a reason to not publicly discuss the issue as well as the actions of various public figures.

    ReplyDelete
  35. it would seem to me that for sure is a reason to inquire as to why they are doing it, before continuing with the public criticism; don't you think so? or do you think you have so much better judgment than all this gedolim?

    ReplyDelete
  36. To react to what seems to be a harmful situation requires a different approach than one who wants to provide the definitive account of the what has happened. That is an inherent part of the halachos of rodef and not standing idly.

    Not sure what you think you are accomplishing. If you don't like what I do so go find something else to do with your spare time.

    You keep trying to create a fight between me and the rest of the world. That simply is not what is happening. After repeatedly explaining it to you and you don't like what I said - that is your problem not mine.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.