Wednesday, June 5, 2019

bitul kiddushin



16 comments :

  1. What psak of the IBD are these letters referring to? (Looking at their website, the latest dated psak there is March 2017.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is the famous last Mishnah in Nedarim. 90b:
    “Mishnah. At first it was ruled that three women must be divorced and receive their kethubah [she wins completely]: She who declares: I am defiled to you [i.e., unfaithful, adultery]; or Heaven is between you and me [i.e., her husband is impotent — a thing that, apart from herself, can be known only to Heaven]; and May I be removed from Jews [Including her own husband. By this vow she showed that cohabitation was unbearable to her, and therefore could demand to be divorced and receive her Kethubah, the Rabbi Rackman famous heter]. But subsequently, to prevent her from conceiving a passion for another [lit. casting her eyes at another man] to the injury of her husband [בעלה על מקלקלתA difficult phrase. According to the rendering adopted, the meaning is: She will purposely make one of these declarations in order to obtain her freedom against his will. Ran explains: She may go to a place where nothing is known of her vow and marry there. He seemed to have taken this phrase as denoting: She will act unseemly (whilst still) with her husband, and as referring only to the declaration May I be removed from Jews] the ruling was amended thus: She who declared, I am defiled unto you, must bring proof: Heaven is between me and you. They should engage in prayer [That his impotency might cease (Tosaf.). Lit., They should act by way of a request. Ran: attempts should be made to placate the wife. Rashi: the husband should be asked to agree to a divorce], and May I be removed from Jews. He [the husband] must annul his portion [i.e., as far as he personally is concerned], and she shall minister to him, whilst remaining removed from Jews.”
    Beautiful Mishnah! The final law is not clear. Rabbi Rackman has a leg to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 6, 2019 at 12:38 AM

    Thank you Gerald!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cold Stone “What psak of the IBD are these letters referring to? (Looking at their website, the latest dated psak there is March 2017.)”
    No.
    See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23983
    “President Donald Trump can and will successfully apply to the Supreme Court the moment the US House of Representatives passes any Impeachment resolution,”
    The particular psak of the IBD is not important. The dates on the documents are: י"ז אייר תשע"ט for the Rabbinical Court of Greater Montreal and כ"ט אייר תשע"ט for the bet din in Beit Shemesh.
    The US House of Representatives would like a simple show of hands, yes or no, if members support Trump impeachment resolution. As Alan Dershowitz wisely points out that will fail in SCOTUS.
    The Rabbinical Court of Greater Montreal and the bet din in Beit Shemesh are adamantly against the Rabbi Rackman theory. Yes the Rabbi Rackman theory has a leg to stand on. The Rabbinical Court of Greater Montreal and the bet din in Beit Shemesh are within their rights to be adamantly opposed to the Rabbi Rackman theory. The US House of Representatives are not within their rights to pass an impeachment resolution. See Department of Justice June 4, 2019 letter to Jerry Nadler.
    The particular psak of the IBD is not important. This is like Mendel Epstein cases where it may have been abundantly clear that the husband is wrong and the wife is right---still, Mendel Epstein with a kangaroo bet din should have done his best not to get involved. The Rabbinical Court of Greater Montreal and the bet din in Beit Shemesh are not kangaroo bet dins. I’m against ORA and Agunah International because they are kangaroo bet dins. The US House of Representatives, if they pass the Trump impeachment resolution will be behaving like a kangaroo court. Follow, ColdStone?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 6, 2019 at 12:07 PM

    Did you meet Mr Corbyn? 😄

    ReplyDelete
  6. No I don't follow Gerald.
    Each of these letters refers to a specific psak. I asked which psak they were referring to. If you don't know the answer to my question you can just say so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 7, 2019 at 1:26 AM

    This is straight out of the Sabbetai Zevi textbook:


    "Shmuel Tal.


    Tal is considered a brilliant and charismatic leader who,
    following the traumatic disengagement from Gaza, ceased being a Zionist.
    He established an insular community in Yad Binyamin, considered to be
    very ascetic, with strict rules, especially in matters of modesty Some
    claim that it has the characteristics of a cult. The rabbi's word was
    absolute.








    Reportedly, [T]al used his position to engage in illicit
    relationships with women from the community. Among other things, he
    allegedly caused a woman to divorce her husband promising that he would
    then marry her and that he had received divine inspiration telling him
    that they would give birth to the Messiah."


    from Ynetnews

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cold Stone says “No I don't follow Gerald.”
    I say “The US House of Representatives would like a simple show of hands, yes or no, if members support Trump impeachment resolution. As Alan Dershowitz wisely points out that will fail in SCOTUS”
    Why? Because the US House of Representatives will then be a kangaroo court. The Democrats so deeply resent/hate Trump they don’t look at evidence.
    Kangaroo court = an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor. "they conducted a kangaroo court there and then"
    I suspect, StoneCold, friend, you deeply resent those bet dins that adamantly reject The Rabbi Emanuel Rackman Agunah International Beit Din L’Inyenei Agunot. Ok, that’s your privilege. I don’t have a position myself. I see that Rabbi Rackman has a leg to stand on. I maintain that we outsiders in cases about fights between husband and wife should not get involved.
    “A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears. Like a madman scattering deadly firebrands, arrows, Is one who cheats his fellow and says, I was only joking. For lack of wood a fire goes out, And without a querulous man contention is stilled. Charcoal for embers and wood for a fire And a contentious man for kindling strife. The words of a querulous man are bruising; They penetrate one’s inmost parts.” (Proverbs 26:17-22).

    ReplyDelete
  9. you simply are blind to trump.s many serious failings

    ReplyDelete
  10. משלי פרק כו
    (יז) מַחֲזִיק בְּאָזְנֵי כָלֶב עֹבֵר מִתְעַבֵּר עַל רִיב לֹּא לוֹ:
    (יח) כְּמִתְלַהְלֵהַּ הַיֹּרֶה זִקִּים חִצִּים וָמָוֶת:
    (יט) כֵּן אִישׁ רִמָּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאָמַר הֲלֹא מְשַׂחֵק אָנִי:
    (כ) בְּאֶפֶס עֵצִים תִּכְבֶּה אֵשׁ וּבְאֵין נִרְגָּן יִשְׁתֹּק מָדוֹן:
    (כא) פֶּחָם לְגֶחָלִים וְעֵצִים לְאֵשׁ וְאִישׁ מִדְיָנִים לְחַרְחַר רִיב:
    (כב) דִּבְרֵי נִרְגָּן כְּמִתְלַהֲמִים וְהֵם יָרְדוּ חַדְרֵי בָטֶן:
    My theory is that Trump is not the madman scattering deadly firebands (v. 18). False that if only Trump would be quiet there would be contention (v. 20). A truly querulous man, not Trump, makes fires like charcoal for embers and wood for a fire (v 21). A true querulous man not Trump says words that deeply offend innocent parties (v. 22).
    Troll = In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Those attacking Trump are the true trolls. Bravo what Trump is doing re misdeeds (scattering deadly firebands etc) of some in Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Hong Kong, Turkey, Iran, China etc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Failings are not impeachable.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MiMedinat_HaYam says “Failings are not impeachable” Yes. See
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-report-standoff-echoes-1982-fight-involving-neil-gorsuchs-mother-11560159001
    “Mr. Barr, who was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration at the time of the showdown involving Ms. Burford, is also expected to be cited for contempt. House Democratic leaders have scheduled a vote this week on a contempt resolution that would authorize a House lawsuit for access to the full Mueller report on Russian election interference. The Trump administration has said the report is protected by executive privilege. Another House committee is considering a separate contempt effort against Mr. Barr over census documents.... Pressure on Ms. Burford eventually forced her resignation and the White House backed down on the fight over the subpoena, giving Congress most of what it demanded. The conflict had an impact on the future Justice Gorsuch, who was a teenage prep-school student in Washington, D.C. According to Ms. Burford’s memoir, her son was “really upset” when she resigned as EPA administrator.”
    contempt = the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn. "he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly" synonyms: scorn, disdain, disrespect, deprecation, disparagement, denigration, opprobrium, odium, obloquy, scornfulness;
    Impeach = call into question the integrity or validity of (a practice). "there is no basis to Searle's motion to impeach the verdict" synonyms: challenge, question, call into question, cast doubt on, raise doubts about "the headlines did much to impeach their clean image" BRITISH charge with treason or another crime against the state. US charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct. "the governor served only one year before being impeached and convicted for fiscal fraud" synonyms: indict, charge, accuse, bring a charge against, bring a case against, lay charges against, prefer charges against, arraign, take to court, put on trial, bring to trial, prosecute;
    MiMedinat_HaYam is right. Why? In 1982 William Barr tried to defend the mother of Judge Gorsuch from Congress’ overreach. This is a SCOTUS question: can US House of Representatives conduct an ad hoc trial, with a yes/no vote by its members over a request for unduly fast and unworkable demands for documents? My SCOTUS 18-9390 asks can a court refuse me to see a critical document? The US House of Representatives is biased against Trump and Trump supporters. That’s there prerogative. The NYS courts were biased against me. I claim, for example, in SCOTUS 18-9390 “Susan wins every time in NYS courts starting from "Court: Kings Supreme Court Index Number: 0023213/1991 Case Name: ARANOFF, SUSAN vs. ARANOFF, GERALD Case Type: MATRIMONIAL MOTION Tack:Standard RJI Filed: 08/23/1991 Attorney/Firm For

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 11, 2019 at 2:50 PM

    This man, rabbi tal, was considered a "gadol" by some in the DL community. Note that just like scheinberg (rabbi from the North), he was deep into kabbalah. He was telling an eishes ish about giving birth to the Messiah. This is pure textbook sabbateanism.
    To put it another way, gaavah is a central part of rabbinic authority (London Dayan case), and kabbalah /brainwashing are part of the yeshiva programme. Sabbateanism is a form of unbridled orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kalonymus AnonymusJune 11, 2019 at 2:57 PM

    Rav shmuel auerbach's haskomo to the menuval/frankist rabbi tal:
    https://mekorjudaica.com/tal-chayim-by-rav-shmuel-tal.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Policy is not impeachable.
    Only high crimes and misdemeanors.

    ReplyDelete

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