The whole Purim incident came about through much of the Jewish leadership being out of order with their conduct at Achashverosh's marathon party.
Today, we also have much of the leadership out of order as witnessed through how they conduct themselves in regard to Tamar Epstein's ongoing living with a man not her Halachic husband.
I don't know. That's what I was taught. In the beginning of the Megila there is a reference to Achashverosh drinking from the utensils that had been looted from the Bais Hamikdash by the Babylonians. The Persians conquered the Babylonians and took possession of these Kelim.
The Jewish leadership was under duress, and basically had to make a showing at the party. However, there is a concept of wearing clothes on the outside fitting for a King's party, but wearing sackcloth underneath.
The leadershp should have been smiling on the outside and mourning on the inside at the spectacle of the Temple's holy vessels being desecrated. But they didn't do that.
The leadership had gotten too comfortable with the conditions of Galus. They needed a wakeup call. "Vayavo Haman".
This is what it means when the Megila says Mordechai knew. Mordechai knew that Haman's plan was a manifestation of displeasure from Heaven.
This is Rambam's view - even in his time, and before , there was the problem that he was describing. The trick is not about finding those whose entire motive is L'Shem Shomoyim, but seeing through those who act as though it is.
It was a Tikun for her/his family. This is why Mordechai says to her that she and her family will lose out if she fails to act. Shaul stumbled in regard to Amalek, keeping Agag alive, who took advantage of the extra time and procreated. Esther, Shaul's descendant, fixed it by bringing about the end of some of Agog's evil progeny.
Bravo on Rabbi Spira’s excellent essay, 28 pages with notes. “Teshuvot Beit Avi Vol. 4, by R. Yitzchak Isaac Liebes. R. Liebes, Teshuvot Beit Avi IV, no. 169, addresses the question of whether a get granted by a husband to avoid money being seized by a secular judge is a valid get” The secular judge seizing money, clearly takes from the man and gives to the woman. We have a money issue where the man may feel that the judge is a bad judge. What can he do? Can he file court documents for decades, hoping to get before SCOTUS as I’m doing? I’m the only man in history... Kethuboth 77a Mishnah. A man in whom bodily defects have arisen cannot be compelled to divorce [his wife]. R. Simeon B. Gamaliel said: this applies only to minor defects, but in respect of major defects he can be compelled to divorce her. Mishnah. The following are compelled to divorce [their wives]: a man who is afflicted with boils, or has a polypus, or gathers [objectionable matter] or is a coppersmith or a tanner, whether they were [in such conditions or positions] before they married or whether they arose after they had married. and concerning all these R. Meir said: Although the man made a condition with her [that she acquiesces in his defects] she may nevertheless plead, I thought I could endure him, but now I cannot endure him. The Sages, however, said: she must endure [any such person] despite her wishes, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she [by her intercourse] will enervate him. It once happened at Zidon that there died a tanner who had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages ruled: she may say, I was able to endure your brother but I cannot endure you. I very much like R. Meir’s view here. “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; then this latter man rejects her, writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; or the man who married her last dies. Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her to wife again, since she has been defiled [i.e., disqualified for him]—for that would be abhorrent to the Lord. You must not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a heritage.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Wow דברים פרק כד פסוק ד לֹא יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה כִּי תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה
The problem is that R. Greenblatt and R. Kamenetsky will not permit showing us a critical document, namely the fake/phony PhD psychology letter... “I hereby return to that which I wrote regarding this matter concerning the lady Ms. Tamar Epstein, who married one gentleman who was subsequently diagnosed with mental illness, such that physicians testified his condition is incurable, and immediately she began to separate from him. And it is agreed by the poskim that mental illness of such magnitude that it is impossible for a spouse to live with him, similar to that which they said no human can live with a snake etc., is a worthy reason to annul kiddushin for it is mekach ta‘ut” Behind my Scotus 18-7160 is the fact that Judge Prus and Myla Serlin will not permit showing me a critical document, namely the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation, follow Joseph Orlow? I suspect that Susan did both the fake/phony PhD psychology letter and the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation.
Here we have a deterministic view that the Jews would be saved one way or another. Perhaps Mordecai had nevuah. Sadly we either didn't have a Mordecai in the time of the holocaust, or we did and he was ignored.
Hashem has promised there will always be a Jewish Nation. At the time of Esther, there was a mass repentance movement. People fasted for three days straight. And that includes the first days of Passover, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning, they were willing to listen to Esther even if it meant foregoing the Passover Seders. That shows true allegiance to following the Torah. A key element of the Torah is letting the leaders determine what is and isn't Torah. In this case, Esther and Mordechai were the leaders.
And don't think Mordechai didn't take flak over it. "Why did you let Esther be taken into the palace? Why are you hanging out by the palace and politicking when you should be in the Bais Medrash learning!"
At the end of the Megila, it says Mordechai was accepted by the majority of Jews. But not by everybody.
There was no widespread repentance movement in Europe before the war. Leading up to the war, some intellectual Jews in Germany began exploring their Jewish roots. During the war, Jews rose to the occasion, as the partisans demonstrated, as well as shown by acts of heroism in the death camps, and courage of Jewish soldiers fighting with the allies, including Jews who fought as soldiers in the Soviet army.
No one really expected the Germans to set up concentration camps. I think the Germans only did it once they realized that much of the Jewish leadership in Europe by and large would unwittingly or otherwise actively participate in setting up the conditions to kill millions of Jews. But by Purim, the word had gotten out a year in advance: all Jews are to be wiped out. So the two epochs are not really comparable.
Well, several people warned of what would happen. The Ohr Sameach, Theodor Herzl, and Rav Kook. The secular ignored the Ohr Sameach. The reform and ultra orthodox ignored Herzl. Those who followed Rav Kook tried to move to eretz Israel. I guess you could argue those who moved to America also did well.
Good points. Someone from the Binyamin Region in Eretz Yisrael visited our Shul in the U.S. a while back. At Shalashudos he went through a series of sources, writings by Rabanim, at least one, I think, who lived in the late 18th century, who warned of the dormant danger within the German populace.
Yaakov Avinu said it all when he noted that Esav was capable of killing mothers and children.
Still, I maintain that the German aptitude for engineering being put at the disposal of violence against civilians was not something easily predictable. Warfare, yes: rockets, better machine guns, submarines, etc. That was not a surprise. But mass death camps? That was almost outside human historical experience.
Joseph Orlow says “Today, we also have much of the leadership out of order as witnessed through how they conduct themselves in regard to Tamar Epstein's ongoing living with a man not her Halachic husband.” Excellent. “Tamar Epstein's ongoing living with a man not her Halachic husband.” Surely, Rabbi Greenblatt’s written “I hereby return to that which I wrote regarding this matter concerning the lady Ms. Tamar Epstein, who married one gentleman who was subsequently diagnosed with mental illness, such that physicians testified his condition is incurable, and immediately she began to separate from him. And it is agreed by the poskim that mental illness of such magnitude that it is impossible for a spouse to live with him, similar to that which they said no human can live with a snake etc., is a worthy reason to annul kiddushin for it is mekach ta‘ut” is garbage. Rabbi Greenblatt marriage ceremony of Tamar is garbage. Pesachim 118a: R. Shesheth also said on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: Whoever relates slander, and whoever accepts slander, and whoever gives false testimony against his neighbor, deserve to be cast to dogs, for it is said, You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs.” (Exodus 22:30) which is followed by “You must not carry תשא false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty רשע to act as a malicious witness” (Exodus 23:1)” שמות כ"ג א' לֹא תִשָּׂא שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא אַל תָּשֶׁת יָדְךָ עִם רָשָׁע לִהְיֹת עֵד חָמָס Surely, In my SCOTUS 18-7160 Judge Prus’s NYS civil divorce 2013 me and Susan is garbage.
The Rabbi Greenblatt marriage of Tamar to Tamar’s lover is nothing. Here is from Eben Hezer Tur. הלכות חופה וקדושין אבן העזר אי תפיסת קידושין טור אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן יז אשת איש בכלל עריות ולא תפשי בה קידושין בד"א בודאי אשת איש אבל ספק אשת איש כגון שקבלה גט או קידושין ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה או שגירשה בגט הכתוב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים כלל או עד אחד או שיש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן אם קדשה אחר צריכה גט משניהם וכן כל פסול שאירע בגט כגון שגרשה בגט קרח והיה במזרח וכתב במערב או ששלחו לה בח"ל ולא אמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ושאר פסולי גט דרבנן שיתבארו לקמן בה' גיטין בע"ה אם קדשה אחר צריכה גט משניהם ואם נשאת לשני יש מהן שתצא ויש מהן שלא תצא כאשר יתבאר לקמן בע"ה: אשת איש שקבלה קידושין [בפני בעלה. וכתב הרא"ש דכל שהוא בעיר כשנתקדשה לאחר מיקרי בפניו אבל יש חולקין] בפני בעלה מקודשת דכאילו אמרה גירשתני דמי ואשה שאמרה לבעלה גירשתני נאמנת שאין האשה מעיזה פניה בפני בעלה אבל אם נתקדשה לאחר שלא בפני בעלה או אפילו בפניו ויש עד אחד שמעיד כדבריה אינה נאמנת שאז מעיזה בין שהעד מסייעה ואין הקידושין כלום:
“The wife of a man is part of the rule of forbidden relations where marriages don’t hold. When does this apply? If she’s certainly a married woman, but a doubtful woman's wife, such as receiving a divorce or a kiddushin, close to him, close to her...And it is forbidden to take a divorce from both of them, as well as any wrong that occurred in a get, such as divorce from a baguet of ice, and it was written in the East, and it was written in the West, There are two of them that will come out, and some of them that will not come out when Levman is explained...: The wife of a man who had received a marriage before her husband [the Rosh says if he was in the same city...} is like a woman who told her husband that he divorced her, she is believed since no woman would dare face her husband and lie and say he divorced her. If she was married not in front of her husband or even not in front of his face, and there are witnesses who attests to her words that her husband divorced her: she is not believed though she dare brings a helper wittnes. There is no kiddushin.”
The Rabbi Greenblatt marriage of Tamar to Tamar’s lover is nothing nothing nothing. What am I trying to achieve in SCOTUS 18-7160, you ask? Similar, that the divorce 2013 Judge Prus signed is nothing, just garbage. No, I’m not seeking money. Money never interested me. I consider writing court documents free since I have no lawyer expenses. Thanks Daattorah for allowing me to copy you in my court documents. Thanks KA and a few others for the upticks. Surely, I have many supporters here, yes? I making order in the NYS court system, yes?
Purim significance?
ReplyDeleteThe whole Purim incident came about through much of the Jewish leadership being out of order with their conduct at Achashverosh's marathon party.
ReplyDeleteToday, we also have much of the leadership out of order as witnessed through how they conduct themselves in regard to Tamar Epstein's ongoing living with a man not her Halachic husband.
Was the Sanhedrin at the party? Where does it say that?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. That's what I was taught. In the beginning of the Megila there is a reference to Achashverosh drinking from the utensils that had been looted from the Bais Hamikdash by the Babylonians. The Persians conquered the Babylonians and took possession of these Kelim.
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish leadership was under duress, and basically had to make a showing at the party. However, there is a concept of wearing clothes on the outside fitting for a King's party, but wearing sackcloth underneath.
The leadershp should have been smiling on the outside and mourning on the inside at the spectacle of the Temple's holy vessels being desecrated. But they didn't do that.
The leadership had gotten too comfortable with the conditions of Galus. They needed a wakeup call. "Vayavo Haman".
This is what it means when the Megila says Mordechai knew. Mordechai knew that Haman's plan was a manifestation of displeasure from Heaven.
If so, why did Mordecai need to give Esther to ahaseuros?
ReplyDeleteAnd why did he say to her, if not through you, then through someone else?
In other words, why did Hashem require this through Esther rather than through the equivalent of Yosef or Moshe?
Is there a way to download this document without paying for a subscription to Scribd?
ReplyDelete" So that when his teacher bids him “learn this פרשה (section), or
ReplyDeletethat פרק (chapter), and I shall give you a dinar or two,” he learns with
zest in order to obtain that money which to him is of more value than
the learning, seeing that it constitutes the final aim of his studies.
When, further, he reaches the age of greater discretion, this prize also
loses its worth for him. He recognizes its paltry nature and sets his
heart upon something more desirable. His teacher then says to him,
“Learn, in order that you may become a Rabbi, or a Judge; the people
will honour you, and rise before you; they will be obedient to your
authority, and your name will be great, both in life and after death, as
in the case of so and so.” The pupil throws himself into ardent study,
striving all the time to reach this stage of eminence. His aim is that
of obtaining the honour of men, their esteem and commendation.
But all these methods are blameworthy. For in truth it is
incumbent upon man, considering the weakness of the human mind, to make
his aim in his acquisition of learning something which is extraneous to
learning. And he should say of anything which is studied for the sake of
gaining reward, “Of a truth this is a silly business.” This is what the
Sages meant when they used the expression שלא לשמה “not for its own
sake.” They meant to tell us that men obey the laws of the Torah,
perform its precepts, and study and strive, not to obtain the thing
itself, but for a further object. The Sages prohibited this to us in
their remark, “Make not of the Torah a crown wherewith to aggrandize
thyself, nor a spade wherewith to dig” (Avot 4:7). They allude to that
which I have made clear to you, viz. not to make the be-all and end-all
of learning either the glorification of men or the acquisition of
wealth. Also not to adopt the Law of God as the means of a livelihood,
but to make the goal of one's study the acquisition of knowledge for its
own sake."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Maimonides%27_Introduction_to_%22Helek%22_(Abelson)
This is Rambam's view - even in his time, and before , there was the problem that he was describing. The trick is not about finding those whose entire motive is L'Shem Shomoyim, but seeing through those who act as though it is.
You can copy and paste page by page if you have the savlanut
ReplyDeleteDoesn't really work, but thanks anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt was a Tikun for her/his family. This is why Mordechai says to her that she and her family will lose out if she fails to act. Shaul stumbled in regard to Amalek, keeping Agag alive, who took advantage of the extra time and procreated. Esther, Shaul's descendant, fixed it by bringing about the end of some of Agog's evil progeny.
ReplyDeleteBravo on Rabbi Spira’s excellent essay, 28 pages with notes.
ReplyDelete“Teshuvot Beit Avi Vol. 4, by R. Yitzchak Isaac Liebes. R. Liebes, Teshuvot Beit Avi IV, no. 169, addresses the question of whether a get granted by a husband to avoid money being seized by a secular judge is a valid get”
The secular judge seizing money, clearly takes from the man and gives to the woman. We have a money issue where the man may feel that the judge is a bad judge. What can he do? Can he file court documents for decades, hoping to get before SCOTUS as I’m doing? I’m the only man in history...
Kethuboth 77a
Mishnah. A man in whom bodily defects have arisen cannot be compelled to divorce [his wife]. R. Simeon B. Gamaliel said: this applies only to minor defects, but in respect of major defects he can be compelled to divorce her.
Mishnah. The following are compelled to divorce [their wives]: a man who is afflicted with boils, or has a polypus, or gathers [objectionable matter] or is a coppersmith or a tanner, whether they were [in such conditions or positions] before they married or whether they arose after they had married. and concerning all these R. Meir said: Although the man made a condition with her [that she acquiesces in his defects] she may nevertheless plead, I thought I could endure him, but now I cannot endure him. The Sages, however, said: she must endure [any such person] despite her wishes, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she [by her intercourse] will enervate him. It once happened at Zidon that there died a tanner who had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages ruled: she may say, I was able to endure your brother but I cannot endure you.
I very much like R. Meir’s view here.
“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; then this latter man rejects her, writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; or the man who married her last dies. Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her to wife again, since she has been defiled [i.e., disqualified for him]—for that would be abhorrent to the Lord. You must not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a heritage.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
Wow דברים פרק כד פסוק ד
לֹא יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה כִּי תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה
The problem is that R. Greenblatt and R. Kamenetsky will not permit showing us a critical document, namely the fake/phony PhD psychology letter...
“I hereby return to that which I wrote regarding this matter concerning the lady Ms. Tamar Epstein, who married one gentleman who was subsequently diagnosed with mental illness, such that physicians testified his condition is incurable, and immediately she began to separate from him. And it is agreed by the poskim that mental illness of such magnitude that it is impossible for a spouse to live with him, similar to that which they said no human can live with a snake etc., is a worthy reason to annul kiddushin for it is mekach ta‘ut”
Behind my Scotus 18-7160 is the fact that Judge Prus and Myla Serlin will not permit showing me a critical document, namely the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation, follow Joseph Orlow? I suspect that Susan did both the fake/phony PhD psychology letter and the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation.
Thank Joe, very interesting
ReplyDeleteHere we have a deterministic view that the Jews would be saved one way or another. Perhaps Mordecai had nevuah. Sadly we either didn't have a Mordecai in the time of the holocaust, or we did and he was ignored.
ReplyDeleteHashem has promised there will always be a Jewish Nation. At the time of Esther, there was a mass repentance movement. People fasted for three days straight. And that includes the first days of Passover, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning, they were willing to listen to Esther even if it meant foregoing the Passover Seders. That shows true allegiance to following the Torah. A key element of the Torah is letting the leaders determine what is and isn't Torah. In this case, Esther and Mordechai were the leaders.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't think Mordechai didn't take flak over it. "Why did you let Esther be taken into the palace? Why are you hanging out by the palace and politicking when you should be in the Bais Medrash learning!"
At the end of the Megila, it says Mordechai was accepted by the majority of Jews. But not by everybody.
There was no widespread repentance movement in Europe before the war. Leading up to the war, some intellectual Jews in Germany began exploring their Jewish roots. During the war, Jews rose to the occasion, as the partisans demonstrated, as well as shown by acts of heroism in the death camps, and courage of Jewish soldiers fighting with the allies, including Jews who fought as soldiers in the Soviet army.
No one really expected the Germans to set up concentration camps. I think the Germans only did it once they realized that much of the Jewish leadership in Europe by and large would unwittingly or otherwise actively participate in setting up the conditions to kill millions of Jews. But by Purim, the word had gotten out a year in advance: all Jews are to be wiped out. So the two epochs are not really comparable.
Well, several people warned of what would happen. The Ohr Sameach, Theodor Herzl, and Rav Kook. The secular ignored the Ohr Sameach. The reform and ultra orthodox ignored Herzl. Those who followed Rav Kook tried to move to eretz Israel. I guess you could argue those who moved to America also did well.
ReplyDeleteGood points. Someone from the Binyamin Region in Eretz Yisrael visited our Shul in the U.S. a while back. At Shalashudos he went through a series of sources, writings by Rabanim, at least one, I think, who lived in the late 18th century, who warned of the dormant danger within the German populace.
ReplyDeleteYaakov Avinu said it all when he noted that Esav was capable of killing mothers and children.
Still, I maintain that the German aptitude for engineering being put at the disposal of violence against civilians was not something easily predictable. Warfare, yes: rockets, better machine guns, submarines, etc. That was not a surprise. But mass death camps? That was almost outside human historical experience.
Joseph Orlow says “Today, we also have much of the leadership out of order as witnessed through how they conduct themselves in regard to Tamar Epstein's ongoing living with a man not her Halachic husband.”
ReplyDeleteExcellent. “Tamar Epstein's ongoing living with a man not her Halachic husband.” Surely, Rabbi Greenblatt’s written “I hereby return to that which I wrote regarding this matter concerning the lady Ms. Tamar Epstein, who married one gentleman who was subsequently diagnosed with mental illness, such that physicians testified his condition is incurable, and immediately she began to separate from him. And it is agreed by the poskim that mental illness of such magnitude that it is impossible for a spouse to live with him, similar to that which they said no human can live with a snake etc., is a worthy reason to annul kiddushin for it is mekach ta‘ut” is garbage. Rabbi Greenblatt marriage ceremony of Tamar is garbage.
Pesachim 118a:
R. Shesheth also said on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Azariah: Whoever relates slander, and whoever accepts slander, and whoever gives false testimony against his neighbor, deserve to be cast to dogs, for it is said, You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs.” (Exodus 22:30) which is followed by “You must not carry תשא false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty רשע to act as a malicious witness” (Exodus 23:1)”
שמות כ"ג א'
לֹא תִשָּׂא שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא אַל תָּשֶׁת יָדְךָ עִם רָשָׁע לִהְיֹת עֵד חָמָס
Surely, In my SCOTUS 18-7160 Judge Prus’s NYS civil divorce 2013 me and Susan is garbage.
The Rabbi Greenblatt marriage of Tamar to Tamar’s lover is nothing. Here is from Eben Hezer Tur.
ReplyDeleteהלכות חופה וקדושין
אבן העזר אי תפיסת קידושין
טור אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן יז
אשת איש בכלל עריות ולא תפשי בה קידושין בד"א בודאי אשת איש אבל ספק אשת איש כגון שקבלה גט או קידושין ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה או שגירשה בגט הכתוב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים כלל או עד אחד או שיש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן אם קדשה אחר צריכה גט משניהם וכן כל פסול שאירע בגט כגון שגרשה בגט קרח והיה במזרח וכתב במערב או ששלחו לה בח"ל ולא אמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ושאר פסולי גט דרבנן שיתבארו לקמן בה' גיטין בע"ה אם קדשה אחר צריכה גט משניהם ואם נשאת לשני יש מהן שתצא ויש מהן שלא תצא כאשר יתבאר לקמן בע"ה:
אשת איש שקבלה קידושין [בפני בעלה. וכתב הרא"ש דכל שהוא בעיר כשנתקדשה לאחר מיקרי בפניו אבל יש חולקין] בפני בעלה מקודשת דכאילו אמרה גירשתני דמי ואשה שאמרה לבעלה גירשתני נאמנת שאין האשה מעיזה פניה בפני בעלה אבל אם נתקדשה לאחר שלא בפני בעלה או אפילו בפניו ויש עד אחד שמעיד כדבריה אינה נאמנת שאז מעיזה בין שהעד מסייעה ואין הקידושין כלום:
“The wife of a man is part of the rule of forbidden relations where marriages don’t hold. When does this apply? If she’s certainly a married woman, but a doubtful woman's wife, such as receiving a divorce or a kiddushin, close to him, close to her...And it is forbidden to take a divorce from both of them, as well as any wrong that occurred in a get, such as divorce from a baguet of ice, and it was written in the East, and it was written in the West, There are two of them that will come out, and some of them that will not come out when Levman is explained...:
The wife of a man who had received a marriage before her husband [the Rosh says if he was in the same city...} is like a woman who told her husband that he divorced her, she is believed since no woman would dare face her husband and lie and say he divorced her. If she was married not in front of her husband or even not in front of his face, and there are witnesses who attests to her words that her husband divorced her: she is not believed though she dare brings a helper wittnes. There is no kiddushin.”
The Rabbi Greenblatt marriage of Tamar to Tamar’s lover is nothing nothing nothing.
What am I trying to achieve in SCOTUS 18-7160, you ask? Similar, that the divorce 2013 Judge Prus signed is nothing, just garbage. No, I’m not seeking money. Money never interested me. I consider writing court documents free since I have no lawyer expenses. Thanks Daattorah for allowing me to copy you in my court documents. Thanks KA and a few others for the upticks. Surely, I have many supporters here, yes? I making order in the NYS court system, yes?
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Haredi-rabbi-Even-Nazis-knew-to-separate-men-and-women-584440
ReplyDeleteIdiot r'y.
So the idiot rosh yeshiva takes his mussar from the Nazi scum?
ReplyDelete