Sunday, January 20, 2019

Who Wrote the Late Volumes of Igrot Moshe?

seforimblog

Though this article deals with a factual question, it often seems to devolve into an ideological one. I therefore wish to state: I have no horse in this fight. I have not taken halakhic positions from Igrot Moshe volumes 7-9. I went into this with a genuinely open mind, and in the course of researching this question, I have taken the affirmative and negative sides of this question at different points.
Ever since Igrot Moshe volume 8 was published, and to a lesser degree volume 7, people have cast aspersions or directly accused it of being a forgery. The claim, generally, has been some variation of direct accusation or insinuation that somebody, usually either one of the Tendlers or R. Shabtai Rappaport, inserted his own teshuvot into the volume. Volume 9 is, as they say, ‘right out’. Some even call these volumes ‘Igrot Moshe David’.
As an example, Hirhurim several years ago published this quote from R. J.D. Bleich, though the comment thread is likely a better example.


Given
the preponderance of evidence that the later Igrot
Moshe volumes
are real (and spectacular), I think we can put the various theories
of alternative authorship to rest. The claims of the editors — that
the latest teshuvot were
dictated[6] — explains the ‘steroid spike’, and all available
evidence supports their central contention, that they didn’t change
the actual content. In short: it’s legit.

28 comments :

  1. The question isn't so much whether the entire, or even most, if the volumes in question are forgeries or mostly forgeries. The real is whether even a very small number of fake or more likely modified Teshuvos were inserted between an overwhelming number of real Teshuvos.

    The problem if that scenario is what occurred, is that it may be impossible to determine which ones are the fakes or modified ones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We know that Dr. Tender goes around falsely quoting his father in law's position on brain death.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You mean because he's a scientist, therefore he's lying? Rav Moshe's sons agree with him, so they are also lying?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anything your group disagree with must be a forgery. But people disagreed with Rav Moshe when he was alive. Rsza was also meikil on some matters, so what?

    ReplyDelete
  5. His lying has nothing to do with whatever positions he takes in science. His lying has to do with his falsehoods he makes regarding Rav Moshe's halachic position. Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven certainly do not back up Dr. Tendler's misrepresentation of Rav Moshe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those things have nothing to do with the Brooklyn Bridge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh so you were Rav Moshe s scientific advisor?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 21, 2019 at 1:01 PM

    Your view of what Rmf should have written is not the same as what he did write. R rappaport also confirms what Rav tender says.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You must be talking to someone else. Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Irony. I'm aware of a couple of times in which RMF, zt"l, dealt with a troubling halachic opinion or potentially heretical view held by a major authority by dismissing that position as a forgery. And now the same accusation is levelled against some of his teshuvos. Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM

    Talking more to your other comment.
    Re forgeries: it can be said about any thing, when the author is no longer alive or able to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 21, 2019 at 5:26 PM

    Rav Dr Tendler - more on halachic criteria for death: http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=114


    (note, Rav Dr Bleich is not a Doctor of medicine or science, but has a PhD in Law or something like that)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Those volumes of the Igros Moshe were published posthumously, after Rav Moshe's petira. So obviously the criticisim that it may have some responsa that are forgeries or at least alterations of what Rav Moshe wrote must be pointed out after Rav Moshe was no longer with us. After all, the volume itself was only published after Rav Moshe was niftar and could no longer review it before it was published.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 21, 2019 at 6:14 PM

    Yes, that's possible. Possibility isn't proof though

    ReplyDelete
  15. “Who Wrote the Late Volumes of Igrot Moshe?”

    Good question. My claim is that the 1995 Rigler Order of Separation is a forgery. Rigler died and Garson took over and Garson sat in jail 4 years for bribery then died. Judge Prus ruled: “ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Separation Judgment dated March 7, 1995 an original of which is on file with this court along with a transcript of the proceedings and Order of the Supreme Court Kings County by Judge Rigler and incorporated herein by reference, shall survive and shall not be merged into this judgment, and the parties are hereby directed to comply with all legally enforceable terms and conditions of said judgment as if such terms and conditions were set forth in their entirety herein, and this Court retains jurisdiction of this matter concurrently with the Family Court for the purposes of specifically enforcing such of the provisions of said Agreement as are capable of specific enforcement to the extent permitted by law with regard to maintenance, child support, custody and/or visitation, and of making such further judgment as it finds appropriate under the circumstances existing at the time application for that purpose is made to it, or both.”


    Now that Judge Rigler and Judge Garson are no longer with us, all the more, a fair judge should allow me to see the fake/phony Rigler 1995 Order of Separation. Similarly, who wrote the fake/phony PhD psychology letter behind the Kamenetsky-Greenblatt heter?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 22, 2019 at 1:32 AM

    Many such seforim exist, eg the Zohar, the Yerushalmi, and many other books which were published after the author/s had passed away.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes; so what? Are you keeping up with the conversation? No one said anything about posthumously publishing being problematic in of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 22, 2019 at 2:13 AM

    yes, you did. Anyway, the actual article has some interesting links, check them out, and they boil down to Rav Dr Tendler shlita

    ReplyDelete
  19. This can be checked - My rov told me that even reprints of Rav Moshe's old teshuvah seforim have been altered.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rav Moshe was a posek, giving real life teshuvas. People asked, and he gave decisions. It's not that he was an author and we waited for his next book to come out.
    Rav elyashiv gave piskei Halacha in the rabbanut, and these were put together in kovetz, which according to Rav Michael Tzadok, were altered , and Rav elyashiv said we can't rely on them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 22, 2019 at 1:26 PM

    the problem is that we see these this books as though that was the literary output of a great Posek, just like we wait for the next Harry Potter novel to come out. In reality, that is not what a Rav does. He answers questions put to him throughout his career, and these might be letters or verbally. So his son in law would be his medical guide, and deal with medical problems.


    An example, I was told by my friends in Lubavitch, many years ago, that RMF's heter for chalav Yisroel was only a wartime heter, when there were food shortages. So I asked a major dayan in London, and he rebuffed that explanation, and said the teshuva was valid even now (25 years ago). Sadly, the Dayan was niftar, I don't have a letter, and even if i did, you cold say he wouldn't approve it even if he were alive today. (I'm allergic to milk btw)
    Now with Rav Tendler, he spent 2 years studying the science of brain death and took Rav Moshe to several patients and has a copy of the handwritten psak.

    So it's political. In truth, Rav Elyashiv's psak has ben altered and the books published do not represent what he truly said in the rabbanut,

    ReplyDelete
  22. Only the last volume was published after RMF passed away.
    It's specifically written in the book

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 25, 2019 at 2:47 PM

    Yerushalmi too. Bavli is essentially divrei chachamim of the previous centuries

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nothing wrong with being published posthumously. But if there are valid concerns about containing forgeries, it needs to be addressed. Obviously if something's published in the author's lifetime, that can alleviate concerns regarding forgeries by the author himself reviewing it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. many things are and can be claimed to be forged.
    Rav Tendler has hand-written teshuva of his father -in-law, yet it is not accepted - how/why would he have forged that letter int eh same ktav yad?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ksav Yads have been known to be forged too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Kalonymus AnonymusMarch 7, 2019 at 3:39 AM

    Rav tendler shlita writes: http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=127

    Interesting, none of the people who attacked him were meshamesh Rav Moshe ztl in medical Halacha..

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's already been clearly demonstrated on other issues that Tendler is a false witness as to his father-in-law's positions.

    ReplyDelete

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