“Response to R. Shmuel Kamenetsky on the Methodology of Resolving Cases of Iggun” Excellent Rabbi Shalom C. Spira. I especially like: “Here, by contradistinction, R. Feinstein uses the term agunah/iggun in a fundamentally different way. Here, both the husband and wife are on the same wavelength; both husband and wife seek to return to shelom bayit but there is a ritual question of Hilkhot Mikva’ot that is interfering with that quest. The iggun or “chaining” is the hindrance from the wife returning to her own husband and the husband returning to his own wife, as they both reciprocally seek.” Beautiful. Yes, I fully agree. Nidah 6a-6b “Come and hear: It once happened that Rabbi acted [In the case of a young woman who did not suffer a flow during three consecutive periods (of thirty days each)] in accordance with the ruling of R. Eliezer [That the period of uncleanness is to be reckoned from the discovery of the flow and not retrospectively. The Rabbis who differ from R. Eliezer hold this ruling to apply to an old woman only (whose senility might be assumed to be the cause of the irregularity) but not to a young one (cf. prev. n.).], and after he reminded himself he observed, R. Eliezer deserves to be relied upon in an emergency [lit., in the time of pressure].“ Excellent: “As students of R. Feinstein, we can readily grasp why this case of aguanh/iggun – where the husband and wife are both on the same wavelength, and it is simply a question of ritual prohibition that is hindering their return to shelom bayit – should be markedly different than the classic case of agunah/iggun where the wife seeks to be freed from her original husband without that husband’s expressed consent. When the husband and wife are both on the same wavelength and the problem involves a halakhic question of ritual prohibition, one can sometimes argue that a minority view among the poskim to be lenient is sufficiently authoritative to serve as a basis for reliance in a time of duress ( she‘at ha -dechak ), as per the Gemara, Niddah 6b that “Rabbi Elazar is worthy for reliance in a time of duress.” 14 By contradistinction, in the classic case of agunah/iggun, when there is a contest between wife vs. husband, under no circumstances can one rely on a minority view among the poskim to [ostensibly] “rescue” the wife from her agunah condition. After all, the same way there is a she‘at ha -dechak for the wife, there is a countervailing she‘at ha -dechak for the husband. Indeed, this principle is included within theTorah commandment “thou shall not favour a pauper in his dispute [with another litigant]” (Exodus 23:3). Viz., although the pauper is in a state of distress, the countervailing litigant is also in a state of distress,”
Back to this week’s parsha מקץ. Joseph was not in a state of distress for those 12 years he was in the pit in Egypt. “So Joseph’s master had him put in prison, where the king’s prisoners were confined. But even while he was there in prison, the Lord was with Joseph: He extended kindness to him and disposed the chief jailer favorably toward him. The chief jailer put in Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in that prison, and he was the one to carry out everything that was done there. The chief jailer did not supervise anything that was in Joseph’s [lit. his] charge, because the Lord was with him, and whatever he did the Lord made successful.” (Genesis 39:20-23). This is us today in Israel. We’re not in a state of distress, ב"ה. It was in appropriate for Joseph to say “But think of me when all is well with you again, and do me the kindness of mentioning me to Pharaoh, so as to free me from this place. For in truth, I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews; nor have I done anything here that they should have put me in the dungeon” (Genesis 40:14-15). See, when Pharaoh tested Joseph in knowledge of the 70 languages, Pharaoh spoke to Joseph in Turkish, Hungarian, Spanish, Hungarian, French, German, Buddah languages etc Joseph answered, fluently, in the same language. Then Joseph spoke in Hebrew to Pharaoh. Pharaoh made Joseph swear that Joseph would not reveal that Pharaoh doesn’t know Hebrew. All’s well that ends well. We have to be grateful to G-d that we’re not in state of distress, that we have Netanyahu our prime minister and Donald Trump president of the US. Yes we worry and pray to G-d. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/255606 “Iranian officials say missile tests will continue, deny they are in breach of UN resolutions.” I say this to the wicked mullahs in Iran: “Let not the foot of the arrogant tread on me, or the hand of the wicked drive me away. There lie the evildoers, fallen, thrust down, unable to rise.” (Psalms 36:12-13).
“response to Rav Shmuel Kamentsky” states on page 1: “Namely, R. Kamenetzky points to the fact that R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt ruled that the original kiddushin between Epstein and Friedman were nullified by virtue of mekach ta‘ut (mistaken acquisition) occasioned by the husband’s mental illness.” The problem is that No one believes Aaron was insane when he married Tamar, no one except Tamar and people Tamar persuaded… The fake/phony PhD psychology letter is proof of corruption on K-G … Yevamoth 116a: “DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER etc. What is to be understood by DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER? Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: When [a wife] says to her husband. Divorce me! Do not all women [lit..all of them also] say this? [When they are angry. They do not mean it seriously. Why, then, should a woman, because of a momentary outburst, be suspected of inventing a tale about her husband's death?] Rather [this is the meaning]: When she says to her husband. You have divorced me! Then let her be believed on the strength of R. Hamnuna's ruling; for R. Hamnuna ruled: If a woman said to her husband, You have divorced me, she is believed, for it is an established principle that no woman would dare [to make such a false assertion] in the presence of her husband! — [Here it is a case] where she said. You have divorced me in the presence Of So-and-so and So-and-so, who. when asked, stated that this had never happened [לא היו דברים מעולם abr. להד"מ, lit.. the things never were.] What is the reason in case Of DISCORD? [Why is not a wife in such a case believed if she states that her husband is dead?] R Hanina explained: Because she is likely to tell a lie [Out of hatred she might deliberately invent the tale that her husband was dead so that by marrying again she might become forbidden to him forever.]. R. Shimi b. Ashi explained: Because she speaks from conjecture [Though she might not deliberately tell an untruth, her hatred would prevent her from finding out what exactly happened to her husband if ever he was placed in a position of danger. The likelihood of his death would be regarded by her as a certainty.]. What is the practical difference between them? [ R. Hanina and R. Shimi. Is not her word mistrusted in either case? ] The practical difference between them arises in the case where [the husband] created [lit., accustomed, i.e., introduced] the discord [While the wife showed no hatred towards him. As she does not hate him she would not invent a lie in order to get rid of him but would nevertheless readily believe that he was dead should he ever have found himself in a position of danger. She would not take the trouble to ascertain whether her conjecture was not groundless.]. Using Gamara reasoning, Tamar shows hatred for Aaron and not visa versa. We should not believe Tamar and not believe the fake/phony PhD psychology letter. Follow, Rabbi Spira, Eddie, Yehoshua, IsraelReader, etc?
“Response to R. Shmuel Kamenetsky on the Methodology of Resolving Cases of Iggun”
ReplyDeleteExcellent Rabbi Shalom C. Spira. I especially like:
“Here, by contradistinction, R. Feinstein uses the term agunah/iggun in a fundamentally different way. Here, both the husband and wife are on the same wavelength; both husband and wife seek to return to shelom bayit but there is a ritual question of Hilkhot Mikva’ot that is interfering with that quest. The iggun or “chaining” is the hindrance from the wife returning to her own husband and the husband returning to his own wife, as they both reciprocally seek.”
Beautiful. Yes, I fully agree.
Nidah 6a-6b
“Come and hear: It once happened that Rabbi acted [In the case of a young woman who did not suffer a flow during three consecutive periods (of thirty days each)] in accordance with the ruling of R. Eliezer [That the period of uncleanness is to be reckoned from the discovery of the flow and not retrospectively. The Rabbis who differ from R. Eliezer hold this ruling to apply to an old woman only (whose senility might be assumed to be the cause of the irregularity) but not to a young one (cf. prev. n.).], and after he reminded himself he observed, R. Eliezer deserves to be relied upon in an emergency [lit., in the time of pressure].“
Excellent: “As students of R. Feinstein, we can readily grasp why this case of aguanh/iggun – where the husband and wife are both on the same wavelength, and it is simply a question of ritual prohibition that is hindering their return to shelom bayit – should be markedly different than the classic case of agunah/iggun where the wife seeks to be freed from her original husband without that husband’s expressed consent. When the husband and wife are both on the same wavelength and the problem involves a halakhic question of ritual prohibition, one can sometimes argue that a minority view among the poskim to be lenient is sufficiently authoritative to serve as a basis for reliance in a time of duress ( she‘at ha -dechak ), as per the Gemara, Niddah 6b that “Rabbi Elazar is worthy for reliance in a time of duress.” 14 By contradistinction, in the classic case of agunah/iggun, when there is a contest between wife vs. husband, under no circumstances can one rely on a minority view among the poskim to [ostensibly] “rescue” the wife from her agunah condition. After all, the same way there is a she‘at ha -dechak for the wife, there is a countervailing she‘at ha -dechak for the husband. Indeed, this principle is included within theTorah commandment “thou shall not favour a pauper in his dispute [with another litigant]” (Exodus 23:3). Viz., although the pauper is in a state of distress, the countervailing litigant is also in a state of distress,”
Back to this week’s parsha מקץ. Joseph was not in a state of distress for those 12 years he was in the pit in Egypt. “So Joseph’s master had him put in prison, where the king’s prisoners were confined. But even while he was there in prison, the Lord was with Joseph: He extended kindness to him and disposed the chief jailer favorably toward him. The chief jailer put in Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in that prison, and he was the one to carry out everything that was done there. The chief jailer did not supervise anything that was in Joseph’s [lit. his] charge, because the Lord was with him, and whatever he did the Lord made successful.” (Genesis 39:20-23).
ReplyDeleteThis is us today in Israel. We’re not in a state of distress, ב"ה. It was in appropriate for Joseph to say “But think of me when all is well with you again, and do me the kindness of mentioning me to Pharaoh, so as to free me from this place. For in truth, I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews; nor have I done anything here that they should have put me in the dungeon” (Genesis 40:14-15).
See, when Pharaoh tested Joseph in knowledge of the 70 languages, Pharaoh spoke to Joseph in Turkish, Hungarian, Spanish, Hungarian, French, German, Buddah languages etc Joseph answered, fluently, in the same language. Then Joseph spoke in Hebrew to Pharaoh. Pharaoh made Joseph swear that Joseph would not reveal that Pharaoh doesn’t know Hebrew. All’s well that ends well. We have to be grateful to G-d that we’re not in state of distress, that we have Netanyahu our prime minister and Donald Trump president of the US. Yes we worry and pray to G-d. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/255606 “Iranian officials say missile tests will continue, deny they are in breach of UN resolutions.” I say this to the wicked mullahs in Iran: “Let not the foot of the arrogant tread on me, or the hand of the wicked drive me away. There lie the evildoers, fallen, thrust down, unable to rise.” (Psalms 36:12-13).
you have a problem now that Rav Edelstein is Gadol hador
ReplyDeletehttp://matzav.com/rav-edelstein-vote-like-rav-shmuel-kamenetsky/
“response to Rav Shmuel Kamentsky” states on page 1: “Namely, R. Kamenetzky points to the fact that R. Nota Zvi Greenblatt ruled that the original kiddushin between Epstein and Friedman were nullified by virtue of mekach ta‘ut (mistaken acquisition) occasioned by the husband’s mental illness.”
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that No one believes Aaron was insane when he married Tamar, no one except Tamar and people Tamar persuaded… The fake/phony PhD psychology letter is proof of corruption on K-G …
Yevamoth 116a:
“DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER etc. What is to be understood by DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER? Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: When [a wife] says to her husband. Divorce me! Do not all women [lit..all of them also] say this? [When they are angry. They do not mean it seriously. Why, then, should a woman, because of a momentary outburst, be suspected of inventing a tale about her husband's death?] Rather [this is the meaning]: When she says to her husband. You have divorced me! Then let her be believed on the strength of R. Hamnuna's ruling; for R. Hamnuna ruled: If a woman said to her husband, You have divorced me, she is believed, for it is an established principle that no woman would dare [to make such a false assertion] in the presence of her husband! — [Here it is a case] where she said. You have divorced me in the presence Of So-and-so and So-and-so, who. when asked, stated that this had never happened [לא היו דברים מעולם abr. להד"מ, lit.. the things never were.] What is the reason in case Of DISCORD? [Why is not a wife in such a case believed if she states that her husband is dead?] R Hanina explained: Because she is likely to tell a lie [Out of hatred she might deliberately invent the tale that her husband was dead so that by marrying again she might become forbidden to him forever.]. R. Shimi b. Ashi explained: Because she speaks from conjecture [Though she might not deliberately tell an untruth, her hatred would prevent her from finding out what exactly happened to her husband if ever he was placed in a position of danger. The likelihood of his death would be regarded by her as a certainty.]. What is the practical difference between them? [ R. Hanina and R. Shimi. Is not her word mistrusted in either case? ] The practical difference between them arises in the case where [the husband] created [lit., accustomed, i.e., introduced] the discord [While the wife showed no hatred towards him. As she does not hate him she would not invent a lie in order to get rid of him but would nevertheless readily believe that he was dead should he ever have found himself in a position of danger. She would not take the trouble to ascertain whether her conjecture was not groundless.].
Using Gamara reasoning, Tamar shows hatred for Aaron and not visa versa. We should not believe Tamar and not believe the fake/phony PhD psychology letter. Follow, Rabbi Spira, Eddie, Yehoshua, IsraelReader, etc?