chareidi
By Yechiel Sever
Another instance of falsely liberating an agunah from her state by a beis din that annulled the kiddushin retroactively through an afkinhu, something which is totally forbidden in these times per the ruling of our Torah leadership of current and past generations, raised a storm of acerbic protest in the world of Halacha and dayonus.
A sharp protest was publicized in Yated Ne'eman in the wake of a severe breach made by a private beis din in which an agunah was attempted to be released from her state through the falsely applied, so called loophole of afkinhu.
Thank you and ye'yasher kochakha, Ha-Rav ha-Ga'on R. Daniel Eidensohn, for the kind compliment and for publicizing this article. Admittedly, the article I sent engages in hyperbole when it writes that nullification of kiddushin through mekach ta'ut is rejected by "the Acharonim, all of whom unanimously maintain that it is altogether forbidden." This overlooks the opinion of R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer I, nos. 79-80. Surely, R. Feinstein was also anAcharon. Nevertheless, the article's point appears cogent because there are limits on what R. Feinstein was willing to do - viz. nullify kiddushin in a case of major insanity, not simply OCD and PPD as is alleged to be the case for Reb Aharon Friedman(*) - and even R. Feinstein is challenged by R. Yom Tov ha-Levi Schwarz, Ma'aneh la-Iggerot, nos. 165 and 168, who points out that R. Feinstein seems to be contradicted by Teshuvot ha-Rosh, klal 43, no. 5 . [R. Schwarz' book is freely available here: http://www.
I do believe that Ms. Epstein is a tzaddeket gemurah and an anoosah since neither the RCA not the Agudath Israel of America have yet announced that she is still halakhically married to Reb Aharon Friedman. Arguably, then, she should not be asurah la-ba'al and therefore it is a mitzvah to encourage her to return to shelom bayit with her first (and only) husband Reb Aharon Friedman (as per the Gemara, Ketubot 63b, that a when a wife rebels against her husband, it is a mitzvah to announce in the synagogues a diplomatic encouragement for her to return to shelom bayit.) However, even the fact that she is anoosah will not help the baby born from her, since a mamzer is a mamzer, even if born be-oness, as Ha-Rav ha-Ga'on R. David Eidensohn has correctly observed on his illuminating website devoted to this problem. Therefore, I urge the Traditional Orthodox Rabbis of America to have pity on the unborn mamzer before such a mamzer is born, and immediately take up this cause. The Traditional Orthodox Rabbis of America should announce that Ms. Epstein is indeed a tzaddeket gemurah, yet also that it is a mitzvah of shelom bayit - and also of preventing the birth of a mamzer - for her to immediately return to her husband Reb Aharon Friedman.
Thank you,
Shalom C. Spira
Montreal, Canada
update
they argue the complete reverse - they say that halacha must have solutions to modern day problems, and those who say we cannot do anything are incompetent
ReplyDeleteThe era of Rav Elyashiv has passed, and there is no one around that can take his place - is the Litvish world becoming like Lubavitch, who still consider their Rebbe to be alive?
The Rambam has thirteen guiding principles of which one is " Zos Htorah lo Thei muchlefes" This Bible (handed down at Sinai) will not change. The "problem" being discussed is NOT modern. It is discussed.
ReplyDeleteModern issues are dealt with by authentic posekim shlita with a mesorah. They don't create new law chas vsholom they appropriately apply Torah law to modern day situations.
Halacha does have solutions to modern day problems.
ReplyDeleteSometimes.
The reality is, that not every problem has a solution, and people need to humble themselves before the Torah, realizing that there is a halachic process that needs to be adhered to.
Just because you have some "problem", that is not license to twist the Torah like a pretzel in order to come up with a "solution".
It's a question of competence, and it's subjective
ReplyDeleteI argue that it is extremely presumptuous to claim that a Rackman style annulment stems from superior competence in halacha, greater than the Torah giants of the past generations.
ReplyDeleteThe same Rambam you refer to says you can beat a Get out of a man with cattle prod, as per the article I posted above. So you claim that Rambam was not an authentic poseq because a few latter day European saints don't accept him?
ReplyDeleteAnd a Sherman style mass annulment of of giur and marriages is acceptable?
ReplyDeleteThere are many stories about Rav Elyashiv being hoodwinked by gabbaim, who did not follow halacha meticulously. One of them was told by Rav Nosson Kamenetsy, when he confronted Rav Elyashiv, who had not followed correct halachic procedure when baning his book. He said that his gabbai told him they ha contacted RNK, when in fact they hadn't.
There is also no obligation to bow to the opinions of another BD , eg in Bnei Brak. The Ritva says there is no obligation of following the majority if they do not sit down together .
I don't see the problem in following a halachic line from previous generations, just because in Bnei Brak they do things differently.
Thanks for your inquiry. Machlokos is an integral part of Torah study. Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel is a prime example. Whether we pasken like one posek or another shouldn't diminish the respect the Torah commands that we display for both posekim.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the opportunity to clarify. Have a pleasant day.
Avrohom
there are solutions to problems that are not being utilised
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I am not a halachist, so it is up to those who are learned in this field to debate and discuss. I am just an observer from the outside.
Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn told me about a Sefer Tshuvos Ha'Rama. This is my understanding of what Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn taught me from a Tshuva in that Sefer. Any mistakes or confusion in the following are mine.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we must examine the concept of a Bais Din and how it relates to Gittin.
Originally, if a woman claimed she wanted a divorce, she was believed. For example, if she claimed she was raped. Rape under some circumstances would require a husband to divorce his wife. Or if she claimed that her husband so disgusted her that she could no longer have relations with him.
The Bais Din could force a Get. The Get would be valid.
Later, however, it was established that women are not to be believed. The concern is that she might have found another man, and that she is manufacturing a story to manipulate the Bais Din to force a Get.
The Rambam rules that a forced Get is invalid from the Torah. A woman with a forced Get (assuming her husband did not subsequently die) who has a child with another man is a Halachic adulteress and the child is a Mamzer.
The Rambam also says a Get may be forced. But that is not in a case where the woman says she wants a Get. It is in a different case.
The case where the Rambam rules a Get may be forced is when a woman comes to the Bais Din and says her husband disgusts her to the point she doesn't want to live with him. She is not believed, as mentioned above. She does not ask for a Get, however.
The Bais Din does an independent investigation and discovers that the facts support her assertion. Say, the husband took a job as a tanner and the court can determine that the job makes him odoriferous much of the time.
Or, in a case the Rama brings, the husband did some crime and went on the lam from Prague where they'd been living and where she'd been raised, and she doesn't want to chase after him.
In that case, since a man is not allowed to live without a wife, and may be engaging in non-permitted sexual activity without a wife, and because the man in discussion only had a girl and not a boy so had not fulfilled Mitzvas Priah Ur'viah, then the Bais Din can force a Get.
Based on the above, the Rambam does not hold that Get may in general be forced. Only under carefully proscribed circumstances may a Get be forced, according to the Rambam.
Please give at least one example of a legitimate halachic solution to a problem, that is not currently being utilized.
ReplyDeleteEddie: "And a Sherman style mass annulment of of giur and marriages is acceptable?"
ReplyDeleteIR: In this case, Druckman, along with his conversion factory rabbis, were the ones violating halacha. Rabbi Sherman [and the other members of his Beis Din, Rabbis Chaim Izerer and Rabbi Avrohom Sheinfeld] operated exclusively within the confines of halacha. In fact they were defending the halacha that geirus performed by “dayanim” who do not insist on “kabbolos mitzvos” is not a conversion.
Re. the claim by R' Nosson Kamenetsky:
If I were to believe R' Kamenetsky's tale, I would be guilty of the same charge he had against R' Elyashev, namely accepting stories from one person about another, without giving the subject of discussion a chance to face his accuser and defend himself.
she is disgusted with him and doesnt want to live with him....
ReplyDeleteOK, so what is your big discovery? Are you saying it only applies to a man who worked in a tannery in those days when they used urine/urea, but since today they use other chemicals it doesn't apply?
you above statement is a fallacy - it is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy. you are saying that the giur of rabbis x,y, and z are not valid because they are not true rabbis, but only your own rabbis are true rabbis. That is rubbish.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1972 case when Rav Elyashiv was Dayan in the same BD, do you know who the dayanim were who converted Mr Brokovsky? No.
Did Rav Elyashiv know who they were? No.
Did Borokovsky know who they were? No.
The reason is that there wasn't a conversion - or at least there was no evidence of one. And yet Dayan Elyashiv considered the man to be Jewish :)
The claims of D' Sherman and also in another case Rabbi Atiya were false -they never investigated the cases, they just made a mass decision based on their own ideology. Again without evidence.
The halachic requirements for giur, as per the sources are actually very thin.
I saw a reference to Rav Elyashiv, when he was younger, stating that a covnert was sincere because they came to live in israel with the Jewish people! I need to check if he was referring to that specific case, or another.
The old view was that if someone converts and observe a generally frum lifestyle for a period of time, eg a few months or years, then you cannot reverse it.
it is only in the case where they go into the mikveh with intent to live as a goy when they come out that it is invalid.
The Chareidi position on conversion is a development of Rav Shmelkes' view , which was just over 100 years ago. This view is contrary to the talmud, rambam and Shulchan Aruch. It is basically a "reform" view, since it goes against the Halacha of the major halachic codes, especially the talmud. Nothign wrong with being machmir for yourself, but the problem with the Shermans of this world is they ae trying to force these Humras on everyone, and go against the talmud! This is why Hareidi ism is like Reform, it is a new development and is divorced from the Oral Law.
ReplyDeleteWhen quoting the Rambam, please quote the Rambam, not the mischaracterizations of some anonymous guy who wrote the equivalent to the Cliff Notes of the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteOnce a wife willingly (or by a Kohen's wife even unwillingly) had intercourse with a man other than her husband, she is forbidden from ever again having intercourse with her husband or living with him and must be divorced. As such it would appear that Tamar must be divorced from her husband Reb Aharon Friedman.
ReplyDeleteThe halachists have already spoken and clearly stated that some problems have no viable halachic solution until Moshiach comes.
ReplyDeleteRav Sherman shlita never annuled any geirus. He simply determined that the alleged geirus never occurred in the first place.
ReplyDeletethe geirus was according to the SA, Rambam, and gemara. ex-Dayan Sherman is following an Ultra-reform chumra which contradicts the halachic sources, hence he is reform.
ReplyDeleteRav Dovid Eidensohn has told many stories of people who had problems eg like mamzerus R'L, and they were directed to go to Rav Moshe ztl, because he had great enough shoulders to find solutions. If the technical solutions were available then, they should also be available now, despite us not having anyone with the gadlus of rav Moshe.
ReplyDeleteBut it is not just mamzerus, it could be kashrus, shemitta, niddah etc.
The greatness of RMF, and his "great shoulders" stemmed from his tremendous knowledge of Torah, where he was able to identify technical halachic solutions for various problems.
ReplyDeleteYou posited, that "there are solutions to problems that are not being utilised". Please give at least one example.
There are many examples, and Rav Moshe's are a whole bunch.
ReplyDeleteThe solution to Ethiopian Jews was already given by Rav Ovadiah Yosef, yet this is not accepted by Ashkenazi Hareidim.
The solutions to giur, for example, the Shulchan Aruch or Rambam, which is the standard applied by courts such as those run by Rav Druckman - but these are rejected by Hareidim.
One solution to Aguna problem is to use a stick, a solution given by the Talmud and ruled by the rambam as being valid , but it is not being used.
You asked for one example, so there you are.
Rav Cardozo is publishing many other such solutions as well.
best wishes
people including Rav Eliashiv tolerated rulings from Rav Moshe that they would not tolerate from lesser rabbis
ReplyDeleteIf you think that geirus can be accomplished without full acceptance of all the commandments of the Torah, then you are sadly misinformed. I have no time to demonstrate this from the Gemara and Rambam.
ReplyDeleteBut it gets worse. This man Druckman actually FRAUDULENTLY signed conversion papers, as if he was part of a Beis Din, when he wasn't even in the country where the alleged geirus took place. By knowingly signing a false statement, Rabbi Druckman called into question his credibility on all the conversions he has arranged under his auspicies.
From 2006
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/956/a-new-conversion-scandal
THIS WEEK investigative journalist Elazar Levin broke a story that revealed just how far some rabbis have been willing to go to expedite conversion and increase the numbers. Rabbi Chaim Druckman, head of the conversion authority in the Prime Minister’s office, Levin revealed, nearly two years ago signed a certificate of conversion, which stated in Aramaic that a particular candidate for conversion had come before a beis din of the three undersigned rabbis to be converted. The only problem was that the alleged geirus took place in Warsaw, and Rabbi Druckman, one of the signatories, was in Israel that day.
When confronted by Attorney-General Mani Mazuz with the discrepancy between the certificate and the facts, Rabbi Druckman explained that he had cancelled at the last minute his flight to Warsaw, but since he had promised the prospective converts (i.e., more than one) that he would convert them, he signed the certificates anyway.
In a subsequent court proceeding, the party mentioned in the falsified certificate testified that she wanted to convert in order to marry and make aliyah. Both the financial incentive and the desire to marry would have rendered her conversion halachically invalid. And given her own express admission as to her reasons for seeking to convert, it appears unlikely in the extreme that there was ever any kabolas mitzvos.
In his letter to Mazuz, attorney Shimon Yaakobi, the legal advisor to the rabbinical court system, mentioned that there were at least ten other cases in his files of affidavits signed by Rabbi Druckman that raised suspicions similar to those in the case under discussion. (In a subsequent letter from Mazuz to Rabbi Druckman, he mentions these other files.)
After receiving Yaakobi’s letter, Mazuz took no action on the file for nearly a year. At that point, he sent Rabbi Druckman a strongly worded letter calling his attention to numerous apparent violations of the law, including: false testimony and violating civil service regulations by performing conversions outside of the country while on the state payrolll. But after the strong admonition, Mazuz informed Rabbi Druckman that he saw no need to open a criminal investigation.
Mazuz, naturally enough, focused on possible violations of Israeli law, rather than of halacha. But the latter were, if anything, even more glaring. If Rabbi Druckman was not present in Poland, as he admits, there is no reason to think that the halachic requirement of a beis din of three was present in Warsaw. Another one of the signatures on the certificate of conversion was that of one Michael Shudrich, a rabbi in Poland. According to a recent written communication from Rabbi Moshe Lebel, the rabbinical director of the Conference of European Rabbis to the Vaad Olami L’Inyanei Giyur, founded by the late Rabbi Chaim Kreiswirth, zt"l, Shudrich is not recognized by the CER to arrange conversions. Finally, as Shimon Yaakobi mentioned in his letter to Mazuz, by knowingly signing a false statement, Rabbi Druckman called into question his credibility on all the hundreds of conversions arranged under his auspicies in the Prime Minister’s office and before that.
R’ Shirman vs. R’ Druckman made simple
ReplyDeletehttp://rechovot.blogspot.com/2008/05/r-shirman-vs-r-druckman-made-simple.html
Firstly, rav Sherman is a relatively unknown figure, and only came to be notorious because of this action and his later investigation by the Police.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Rav Ovadiah Yosef was the Posek hador , and arguably greater than even Rav Eliashiv, at least in terms of the volume of his Teshuvot (and greater than most others by that measure).
Third, Rav Amar is a very great Torah scholar, but he doesn't have the same political standing, nevertheless he was Chief rabbi, and was tipped to be second only to R' Yosef ztl.
Both Rav Yosef ztl, and rav Amar shlita, held that the army conversions were kosher. You are just giving me hareidi mouthpiece publications.
https://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Rotem-haredi-MKs-argue-over-IDF-conversion-bill
I accept that Rav Druckman's conversions were not the same as the army ones, but they probably were even stricter.
"tolerated"....
ReplyDeletehere is the problem.
Sorry Dear Reader, but you are sadly misinformed. You do not know the halacha of Rambam.
ReplyDeletecheck out this:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960662/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Fourteen.htm
This is rambam you are talking about.
Look at his words:
"We do not teach him all the particulars
lest this cause him concern and turn him away from a good path to a bad
path. For at the outset, we draw a person forth with soft and appealing
words, as [Hoshea 11:4] states: "With cords of man, I drew them forth,"9 and then continues: "with bonds of love."10"
So he is giving the halacha, and the SA follows this lead.
According to Sherman et al, Rambam was chas' v'shalom a "heretic". But no, Rambam is the pillar of Torah, Halacha and Rabbinic orthodoxy, and Sherman is relatively a nobody in comparison. IN 200 years time, people will still refer to the Rambam, but do you think they will be quoting Sherman?
The Hareidi problem is that they they bring on new humras which go outside of the major halachic codes, and then think their new testament daas is the real Torah and that the "old testament" of the Rambam and SA , and Gemara, are false and must be discarded.
So far, you have shown that Sherman et al are like reform, Christianity and Islam, in that they created new laws out of their heads, and rejected accepted halacha of the oral law.
The stick is not a general rule that the Rambam permits on a general basis for agunahs.
ReplyDeleteWhat you call hareidi is the only Judaism that descends from Har Sinai.
ReplyDeleteAfter Rav Shach passed away, Rav Elyashiv was the biggest godol HaDor alive. Challah Yosef was a godol of course but there were always a couple of handful of bigger Gedolim during his time.
ReplyDeleteso you think Rambam was also Conservative/reform? makes you an apikores, but we already knew that!
ReplyDeleteyou are talking nonsense dear boy.
ReplyDeleteRav Elyashiv was the Gadol of the Lithuanian Hareidi world but nobody else really accepted his authority.
Rav Yosef was much much greater in terms of halachic output and his teshuvos. Rav Elyashiv was a dayan in the Rabbanut, but rav Michael Tzadok pointed out that books put out comprising his alleged decisions were just rulings from the Rabbanut, not necessarily his own.
In any case, anyone who accepts Rav Yosef is not bound by Ashkenazi rulings or Hareidi DAas.
You are simply arguing that because you follow or accept RYSE , then it must be right. But i have shown that the real halacha is what Rambam says, where you only inform the candidate of some easy mitzvot, and not the whole shabang, so to speak.
The humras on giur are recent, and they are not based on Shulchan aruch or MT, or gemara. Once you invalidate these basic halacha sources, then you are reform. it doesn't matter if you wear a shtreimel or not.
Rav Chaim of Volozhin writes in Nefesh Hachaim that you cannot just make up new halacha - even if 1000 great gedolim and mekubalim come together to invent a new halacha, it doesnt change 1 iota what the halacha is. So the halacha of giur is as per Rambam and SA, but sherman is simply making up new humras and apssing them off as basic halacha, hence violating the shulchan aruch. this is the same with mroe or less all hareidi halacha - eg regular shechita according to SA or Rambam, which is what the Rabbanut would over in a basic certificate. That is kosher , but your lot would say it is treif and like eating at Mcdonalds in Birmingham.
It's a legitimate solution, and is based on the gemara. You didn't comprehend the question posed by Reader, he asked me for an example , and i gave one.
ReplyDeleteIf you say Rambam is illegitimate, then i will say the same about you, but using the Hebrew term for the same word.
No. I was referring to a different Rambam (Isurei Bia'ah 12:17):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960660/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Twelve.htm
Whenever any of the gentiles convert and accept *ALL* of the mitzvot in the Torah or a servant is freed, they are considered as Jews with regard to all matters, as [Numbers 15:15] states: "For the community: there will be one law [for you and the convert]."
The implication is obvious. If they didn't accept ALL the mitzvos, then they are NOT considered Jewish.
This is in line with the Gemara (Bechoros 30b):
עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו. ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפי' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים
The Braisa says, that a Goy who accepts Mitzvos with the exception of one mitzvah, is not accepted as a convert. R. Yossi Bar Rav Yehuda adds that even for a detail that is d'rabonon we don't accept him.
Shulchan Aruch (YD 268: 12) follows the lead, by instructing us to find out if the potential convert has ulterior motives for converting. Perhaps it is for money, honor, marriage?
כשיבא הגר להתגייר בודקים אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה או מפני הפחד בא ליכנס לדת ואם איש הוא בודקין אחריו שמא עיניו נתן באשה יהודית ואם אשה היא בודקין אחריה שמא עיניה נתנה בבחורי ישראל.
If we find no apparent reason not to convert them, we try to discourage them by describing how DIFFICULT it is to keep the Torah.
אם לא נמצאת להם עילה -- מודיעים להם כובד עול התורה וטורח שיש בעשייתה על עמי הארצות כדי שיפרשו. אם קיבלו ולא פירשו וראו אותם שחזרו מאהבה -- מקבלים אותם.
And if there are no grounds for [NOT] converting them, we advise them of the difficulty of the life of Torah and the burden of the life on those who are not scholars, so that they will leave. If they accept that [=the burden of keeping the Torah] and do not leave, it becomes apparent that they returned because of love and we accept them.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch/Yoreh_Deah/268
Is this the way Druckman ran his conversion factory?
Who is the "reformer" who disregarded Gemara, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch?
You are misquoting the Rambam (Geirushin 2:20).
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam did not give a blanket for using physical coercion. He clearly states that this form of coercion is applicable where the husband was OBLIGATED BY HALACHA to divorce his wife, and he refuses. Not in cases where he is not duty bound by halacha to divorce his wife.
מי *שהדין נותן שכופין אותו לגרש את אשתו* ולא רצה לגרש. בית דין של ישראל בכל מקום ובכל זמן מכין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני ויכתוב הגט והוא גט כשר.
When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife51 does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a get written.
Footnote 51
E.g., a man whose wife says she is repulsed by him (Hilchot Ishut 14:8), a man who was married to a woman for ten years without her bearing a child (Hilchot Ishut 15:7), a man who becomes afflicted by [constant] bad breath or an odor from his nose, one who becomes a collector of dog feces, a miner of copper or a tanner or one who becomes a leper (Hilchot Ishut 25:11-12) or a priest who marries a divorcee (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:7).
Absolute rubbish. I demonstrated elsewhere on this page, that Talmud, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, ALL concur that acceptance of ALL the Mitzvos is an integral part of the "geirus" process.
ReplyDeleteYou are making assumptions about Druckman that you have no evidence for. There is prequalifying and rejecting, then there is the actual process. There was the Druckman programme, and also the army programme. These took at least 1 year, i think druckman's was longer. Guess how long the Rambam's programme was?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960662/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Fourteen.htm
א
כיצד
מקבלין גירי הצדק כשיבוא אחד להתגייר מן העכו"ם ויבדקו אחריו ולא ימצאו
עילה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים
ודחופים ומסוחפין ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהן אם אמר אני יודע ואיני כדאי
מקבלין אותו מיד:
it is basically 1 day.
They make a commitment to keeping the whole Torah, ie acceptance, whether they become indistinguishable from an Avreich is a different matter.
why does the Rambam write this?
ואין מדקדקין עליו שמא
יגרום לטרדו ולהטותו מדרך טובה לדרך רעה שבתחלה אין מושכין את האדם אלא
בדברי רצון ורכים וכן הוא אומר בחבלי אדם אמשכם ואחר כך בעבותות אהבה:
That is not a hareidi approach - which basically means you teach them enough to have semicha.
You have linked to some blog, not the views of R' Sherman or R' Druckman, inside.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is conflating 2 or 3 different possibilities.
1) It is clear the potential candidate has no intention to keep mitzvot (eg first Husband of Mrs langer, who was eating chazir in the bathroom of the parents' house)
2) Someone who says they will convert on condition that they don't have to keep x or y, eg shabbat , but will keep yom tov
3) Someone who converts and is shomer mitzvot, but you don't like the rabbi , so the conversion isn't valid (that is the Sternbuch-Sherman-Tropper position)
You are lumping all of these into 1 group.
You are also telling lies - there was 1 single case where Druckman signed a certificate, but was not present, this was a logistical error. You are claiming 200! So your views are not reliable.
Now, Mr leib Tropper, who was once a Rosh Yeshiva and hed of EJF, was involved in Hareidi Daas Torah giur.
http://www.chareidi.org/archives5766/VYK66aflorida.htm
According to the hareid mouthpiece, he was formulating Universal standards , and his partners included N. eisenstein (close to Rav elyashiv), R' Simcha Kook (close to R' Elyashiv), Rabbi R. Feinstein (godol hador), and even R hershel Shachter of YU (who was shouted down by the hareid maniacs at the conference).
These hareidi maniacs were supporting Tropepr, who was dictating new halachos on giur, whcih you accepted at the time. One of these was that it is OK for a Dayan to accept sexual favours from a potential candidate, quid pro quo , in exchange for a hareidi conversion certificate. This same man, Mr Tropepr, who was cavorting with his blonde bombshells, was the oen who was attacking everyon in the Modern and Tzioni world, and supporting sherman.
This is the Hareidi conversion factory https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/43362/rav-elya-ber-wachtfogel-assumes-ejf-leadership-rav-leib-tropper-steps-down.html
ReplyDeleteThey are converting people who have a clear ulterior motive to convert. Why is RRF so cordial about Tropper, the menuval? Tropper was also close to R' Elyashiv, and had semicha from Rav Shach and Rabbi Betzalel Zolty.
Tropper was also pimping out his shikse candidates to his friends. This is the scum and the pride of the Hareidi world, and backed by Gedolim.
He was working with Nochum eisenstein on "halachic conversion standards".
All this proves, that one should not listen to the dogs who bark, even when they wear black , like tropper did, except in that infamous video.
If a woman is repulsed by him, eg his is homosexual, beats her to a pulp, or for whatever reason, then you agree he is obliged to give her a get?
ReplyDeleteThere are many women who are repulsed by their hubbies. You do not really have an argument here. Isn't that the usual reason women want a divorce, because they are repulsed? I am not talking about the notorious case of tamar for example. i am talking in geneal terms of the agunah problem.
Here is what you wrote:
sraelReader Eddie • a day ago
"Please give at least one example of a legitimate halachic solution to a problem, that is not currently being utilized."
So I gave one example, namely the rambam/stick example. In a case where a woman is unable to carry on with him, he is obliged to give a divorce. Do you agree?
If so, tha is one legitimate example.
It is legitimate because it is where women are disgusted with their husbands. But it is not utilized today. It doesn't specify why they are disgusted. There are no requirements that it has to be about his dirty shoes or whatever reason.
thank you, i provided a valid example, there is no more to say on the matter.
First of all, the BD has to check the background and motives of the candidate, so it is not out of personal interests, agreed?
ReplyDeleteCompare eg a Russian with 1 jewish grandparent, who serves in the army in Israel, will allow his milah to be removed, risks his life to defend Jews, and even chas v'shalom against terrorists in Israel. So his motivation could well be he associates with the Jews and Israel, and he is not married.
Then you have the average intermarried american, and the kiruv EJF.
Look at the backing they had:
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/24127/new-eternal-jewish-family-affiliated-beis-din-established-in-detroit.html
Detroit BD has backing of Rav Elyashiv in this story. This was before the sex scandal came out.
So who is being honest about halacha here?
Did rav Elyashiv receive money from Guma ? Did Tropper give any money to Esienstein or anyone else close to him. Even if the money that Guma paid to Tropper was distributed to anyone, any Hareidi organisation , that is related to or connected to Rav Elyashiv, (not to mention the dayan who is brother in law of Rav Shternbuch), it is shochad - bribe.
Bribes in halacha can be monetary, but also according to Rambam - a davar, a thing (not necessarily sex, but .it could also be considered a davar)
This means that none of the statements made by anyone who attended the Horizons or EJF , and staye din a plush hotel is suspect. it means nothing that Eisenstein or his colleagues say is halchically valid, because they have been bribed.
i would add, that the Torah on bribery is so true, it is one of the best proofs of the Torah - of course every line of torah is proof, but the idea that bribes can bend even Tzaddikim, is just beyond human law.
Wow. You provided one example, a minority opinion of the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteYou fail to mention that the other Rishonim pretty roundly rejected his opinion. For example, the Rosh, rules in his responsa (43:3) that one may only force a get in the cases specifically mentioned in the Talmud. The Shulchan Aruch cites the Rosh in 154:5. The Rashba agrees with the Rosh in this respect as well.
Further you fail to mention that the Shulchan Arukh, and poskim say that in a case of Mais Ali where there is clear reason, we cannot force a man to divorce his wife, we are only permitted to inform him of his halakhic obligation.
Rav Yosef's psakim were never accepted anywhere outside the Sephardic world. (And even within the Sefardic world it was never universally accepted.)
ReplyDeleteIf the Rambam were around today he'd categorize the MO and RZ/DL the same way he categorized the Karaim.
ReplyDeleteNo one said anything about illegitimate but you can't follow a specific ruling of the Rambam when the halachic world has virtually always ruled against him on an issue and ruled in favor of his halachic peers who ruled the other way. For example, as with maos alei.
ReplyDelete“R. Bleich writes "Rosh did not rule that a get was necessary" instead of "Rosh did not rule that a get was unnecessary." I have already taken the opportunity to bring these corrections to R. Bleich's attention.”
ReplyDeleteYes, rabbis, at times rule that a get is necessary. When? If the wife fails to please her husband, she leaves him, and wants to marry another man, as: “A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man” (Deuteronomy 24:1-2).
It’s so plain and obvious when to rule that a get is necessary. We don’t need the Rosh to rule to that a get is necessary. Fine. Rosh did not rule that a get is necessary.
Yes, rabbis, at times, rule that a get is unnecessary. When? If the man already divorced that woman and the rabbis rule that the divorce was not a doubtful divorce.
Here it is not plain and obvious that a get is unnecessary. We do need the Rosh to rule that a get in unnecessary. This is an important ruling for a rabbi to make that a get is unnecessary. It’s like my long-running case with Susan. I argue that the court does unnecessary and inappropriate actions to rule the 9/10/2013 NYS civil divorce after Susan’s lawyer, Popkin, admitted in court papers 3/24/1993 “My client has advised me that she received a “get” from your client several weeks ago and has since received the certificate (p’tur) of receiving that Get. It is my understanding that because one or both parties are Cohens, the Get is final and irrevocable. They can never remarry, whether or not the separation action is determined becomes immaterial.”
Thank you, Shalom C. Spira, for making this point that the truth is that the Rosh did not rule that a get is unnecessary. Such cases that a ruling that a get is unnecessary did not come before the Rosh. NYS court should learn from this, that after a final and irrevocable get, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to rule on a NYS civil divorce 10 years later. Follow, Susan?
Wishful thinking on your part
ReplyDeleteThey were. Just not by Lita or hassidim
ReplyDeleteThis is a tragic example in the tamaric case
ReplyDeleteThey also say freeing a mamzer is like building the beit hamikdash
ReplyDeleteI was asked for an example
ReplyDeleteThe hazon ish requires that a ger must keep mitzvot for 30 days for it to be irreversible. By that standard, mr borokovsky who could not complete "shema yisrael" would not be a valid convert. I'm sure most of druckmans gerim know shema, and also went to shul in their first 30 days.
ReplyDeleteSource for Chazon Ish?
ReplyDeleteCI to Yoreh Deah 158: 6-9, as cited by Rav JD Bleich
ReplyDelete