Igros Moshe (Y.D. 01:101): My dear friend you ask how is it possible to rely on new views such as I have expressed, in particular when they are against certain achronim? Do you think that there is an end and limitation – G‑d forbid! – to Torah? Do you think that contemporary halachic decisors can only express the views that have previously been published? Do you feel that if a question comes up that has not been previously discussed and published in a book - that we should not issue an opinion - even though we understand the issue and are capable of expressing an opinion? In my humble opinion it is prohibited to say such a thing. There is no question that it is still possible for Torah to expand and develop even in our times. Therefore there is an obligation for all those who are competent to make halachic decisions, to rule on all matters that come to them to the best of their ability after solid research in the Talmud and poskim with the use of clear reasoning and proper proof. Even if this results in something new which has not been previously been discussed in the halachic works. Furthermore even if this has been previously been discussed, there is no question that a posek needs to understand it fully and to clarify it in his mind before he issues a ruling. He should not issue a ruling simply because he saw an authoritative source expressing such an opinion. This is the same as poskening mechanically from one’s notes that the gemora (Sotah 22a) condemns: Tannaim who teach halacha from their notes without paying attention to the reasons behind them destroy the world Even if these rulings are occasionally against the views of Achronim - so what? There is no question that we have the right to disagree with Achronim and also sometimes against particular views of certain Rishonim when we have clear-cut analysis and especially also correct reasons. On such matters our Sages (Bava Basra 131a) say, “A judge can only rely on what he sees” This ability to disagree is in those situations where the ruling doesn’t go against the well-known decisors of the Shulchan Aruch whose views have been accepted everywhere. On a related matter it is said, “They have left us room to be creative.” This is in fact the approach of the majority of the responsa literature of the Achronim when they decide practical halachic issues. However one should not be arrogant in making halachic rulings and it is necessary to show restraint as much as possible. However in a situation of great need and surely in a situation where a woman is an aguna as in our present case – there is no question that we are obligated to make ruling when it seems that we have the basis for a permissive judgment. Furthermore it is prohibited for us to have humility and cause a Jewish woman to remain an aguna or to cause someone to violate a prohibition or even to cause someone to lose money. Gittin (56a) says that the humility of Rav Zechariya ben Avkulas caused the Temple to be destroyed. Why does the gemora blame his humility? What does this have to do with his humility? Maharetz Chajes gives a proper explanation to the matter. This is truly in agreement with what I have said. Therefore we are forced to make halachic rulings in practice when we have convincing proofs and clear understanding and especially in cases of aguna such as this. We need to remove the pitfalls.
This should be on the IBD website 😀
ReplyDeleteWhen was this teshuva written?
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously assuming that this beis din has the stature of Rav Moshe!
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you a well known secret - it doesn't
Nope - he wouldn't be writing this to himself only.
ReplyDeleteNope!
ReplyDeleteIt is not dependent on his self evaluation but how he is regarded in the world - reread the letter from Rav Shacter
"There is no question that it is still possible for Torah to expand and develop even in our times. Therefore there is an obligation for all those who are competent to make halachic decisions, to rule on all matters that come to them to the best of their ability after solid research in the Talmud and poskim with the use of clear reasoning and proper proof. Even if this results in something new which has not been previously been discussed"
ReplyDeleteHe is talking about any posek. Whether a specific bd is competent to rule is separate question.
Rabbis kamenetsky and greenblatt are competent to rule. They are gedolei hador.
ReplyDeletetheir psak wasnt accepted by most poskim!
ReplyDeleteA psak which is rejected by most poskim is worthlesss
ReplyDeleteNope. Rav Moshe made leniencies , eg chalav regulated akum.
ReplyDeleteRav Obadiah made many psakim which were not widely accepted. Worthless is not the correct or respectful description. I've never heard anyone call seridei ha'aish worthless, even if they don't agree with some of it.
False modesty.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't include this requirement in this teshuva.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I know very little about Halacha, and I have not served great masters. So I'm very much a layman.
really depends on issue. Permitting a brand of hot dogs is different than mamzer
ReplyDeletewell rav moshe's leniency on reform mariages, wasn't acceptd by all. So technically, they are mamzerim too, if remarried
ReplyDelete"However in a situation of great need and
ReplyDeletesurely in a situation where a woman is an aguna as in our present case – there
is no question that we are obligated to make ruling when it seems that we have
the basis for a permissive judgment. Furthermore it is prohibited for us to
have humility and cause a Jewish woman to remain an aguna or to cause someone
to violate a prohibition or even to cause someone to lose money."
He is emphasizing that he is not talking about hotdogs, but about agunos, where it is an obligation to be lenient.
There is a lot of "dialectic" or double talk here. Obligation to be lenient, - no, have to be strict. No more innovation, yes we must innovate.
I don't remember which teshuva it was about disagreeing with gedolim, but he said we don't have that kind of Gadol anymore, that we can't disagree with. But then some claim, no, the buck stops with the Chazon Ish and we can no longer pasken halacha now that he's gone (ridiculous claim).
Innovation in halakha is fine as long as (a) it follows the rules of psak (b) it is the only possible response to an important need. The longest chapter in Shulchan Aruch is all the innovations that were developed to help agunos but there are limits to everything.
ReplyDeletemamzer is no different to treif , they are both forbidden , however, being a mamzer itself is not forbidden, just the acts leading up to it.
ReplyDeleteWhy are only marriage /conversion and mamzerim the factors that determine "kedushas Yisroel"? They are quite mistaken - idolatry, fake sacrifices, impurity in the Temple are all factors which affect Kedushah.
There are areas of Judaism, where the Greats have ruled idolatry, and yet certain practices and beliefs have become widespread. Is this because the same ones who object to flexible halacha are themselves caught in the grip of idolatry? An example is the dualistic notion of L'shem Yichud Kdushe B'hu and Shekhinateh - which is a dualism, essentially idolatry, and outlawed by rambam, and the Noda B'Yehuda. Yet is is widespread and has entered many siddurim and "Temple " practice.
Are you serious?
ReplyDeleteor just playing troll?
Even if most poskim disagree with your claim?
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteCan the Posek justify his position? Did he follow the rules of psak in coming to his conclusion?
ReplyDeleteAnd individual psaks that no one else agrees with happens. Look at Lubavitch. If the Rebbe declared that eggs are blue, then the psak is incumbent on all Jews because the Rebbe is the Nasi HaDor (another individual psak no one else agrees with)
Look at the example of the Seridei Eish, zt"l, who found a way to permit stunning before shechitah. Yes, Rav Grodzinsky, zt"l, told him not to implement it because not because he thought it was a bad psak, but because of how it might get misused.
The duty of the halachic leaders is both to maintain the strictest possible standards, and also to prusue Tzedek Tzedek.
ReplyDeleteWhether they succeed is a different matter. Their critics argue that they can inadvertently contribute to the problem by being too strict, which is why RMF mentions ben Avkulos. Rabbi Rackman wrote a book about these issues, 40 years before his disasterous BD. But it was also a success, because now people are recreating it, until they get things right. I know you see things in Black and white, but in reality many things are grey.
Did you read Rabbi Rackman's criticism of Rav Moshe on this topic? he disagrees with you
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/search?q=rackman+one
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/11/r-rackman-solution-to-aguna-is-being.html
ReplyDeleteIt's not criticism it is praise but he just argues that the door should be opened even further
ReplyDeleteread it again
ReplyDelete"making virtually all marriages easily annullable and such liberalism might destroy the sanctity of marriage - one of Judaism's most cherished values and desiderata. Rabbis and laymen would raise a hue and a cry that marriage bonds in Judaism are made of straw. The stability of marriages would be adversely affected. Instead of being viewed as indestructible, marriages would be regarded as ephemeral. That is why our Rabbis in the past so hesitated to suspend the requirement of a Get. That is why they so formalized the procedure for a Get. That is also why the forbade conditions and the inclusion of capricious agreements in the original marriage contract.
I don't understand your point.
ReplyDeleteRackman is saying that rmf was good, and this is the basis of solving the agunah problem.
So are you saying that expanding the application of a Halacha is rejecting Halacha?
Rmf himself says it's a Mitzvah to innovate so that is the creative licence that rackman is taking.
ReplyDeleteRakkman wasn't a recognise Posek,
So his suggestions are not accepted.
Even Rav YY Weinberg was not able to promote a solution, and he was a world class gadol.
you missed his final statement!
ReplyDeleteNo Rackmman is saying his solution is for those who reject halacha
ReplyDeleteWhat other alternatives are there? We can isolate all who are loyal to Halachah from the rest of the worldwide Jewry, outlaw their intermarriage with the rest of their coreligionists, and let those who suffer as Agunot because of their commitment to Jewish law resign themselves to their fate as the will of God. For those to whom these alternatives are not acceptable, the only available road is that initiated by two Gedolim. of our day
ReplyDeleteThere is a gestalt here.
ReplyDeleteYou could say Rav moshe was the halacha, end of. Except he also had opponents.
Rav moshe is saying its a mitzvs to innovate. So his advice itself is "rejection " according to you.
Rackman is arguing for solutions to complex problems. Elsewhere in thst same book, he says some rely on "eis l'aasot".
R shmuel Kamenetzky used essentially the same flexi-halacha as Rackman.
If Rackman were still alive, he would be writing a celebration of the Kamenetzky -Greenblatt psak, and claim it is wholly within traditional halacha, yet extremists attack even the hareidi gadol hador. - in fact, that's precisely what R Rakeffet said, even though he rejected Rackman! Where is the logical consistency there?
Final note - i am not advocating any of these solutions, just trying to better understand the nature of halacha.
The simple and obvious fact you are ignoring is that concerning marriage and divorce you need wide acceptance of a psak in order to preserve some sense of unity in Judaism. Rackman acknowledge that annulling marriage would experience widespread opposition which is what happened also concerning the IBD unless you do it privately like Mordechai Tendler claims he has done
ReplyDeleteRabbi Kaminetsky acknowledged the heter he got from Rav Greenblatt was no good but he said Tamar can rely on the Heter that Greenblatt gave.
Greenblatt is known as someone who never retracts a psak. Rabbi Riskin also has claimed to use the annullment process.
Nobody has gotten such a heter will publicize it it is not something to be proud of and the consequences that future children are considered mamzerim is a very strong deterrent for all those concerned with halacha
if they remain "agunot", they have 3 options:
ReplyDelete1) go secular/reform and get remarried anyway, which produces vadai mamzerim
2) remain celibate, whcih is very difficult, so unlikely
3) find a semi- or teleo-halachic solution, such as those mentioned above.
Rackman used to counter argue that those who do not use halachic methods 9which he claims are 100% kosher) will face th wrath of heaven for their callousness. Whether there is any basis to that counter claim or not, there are no otehr options, as far as i can see, than the 3 above.
there is a story I heard from a friend , many many years ago, when the Chief Rabbi of England was Immanuel Jakobovits. He was on the Bimah in a shul when a woman came in and threw her ketubah at him.
ReplyDeleteRackman, in his book, tells of how he has had to tell many women in this situation that he cannot do anything for them. he then argues that to say halachah does not have solutions to every problem is to declare it bankrupt. So the reasons and pressures were building up, and as evidenced with the British hief rabbi, it is a universal problem.
and therefore that justifies anullment?!
ReplyDeleteThis from a conservative rabbi
ReplyDeleteToday, it seems, there are an increased number of agunot where a recalcitrant husband flatly refuses to grant a get in retaliation for perceived mistreatment at the hands of his civilly divorced wife, or as leverage for gaining a more favorable civil settlement, or simply as a means of extorting financial concessions. Especially in cases such as these, some contemporary rabbis are inclined to be halakhic activists when it comes to remedying the agunuh problem and are in favor of annulling marriages (See, for instance, Rabbi David Novak, Halakhah in a Theological Dimension, Brown University Judaic Studies Series, no. 68, Chapter 3). This conforms with the ruling of Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel who wrote that finding a way for permitting an agunah to remarry is deemed a great mitzvah (Teshuvot haRosh 51:2). Nevertheless, our tradition also teaches that in such serious matters where permission to remarry may result in mamzerut, i.e., children born of an illicit union, a broad consensus of other rabbi’s is required before any annulment can take place (Rabbi Moses Isserles, Shulhan Arukh, Even ha’Ezer 17:34). Until such consensus develops, this panel would not presume to annul any halakhically initiated marriage.
Rabbi David Novak for the Panel of Halakhic Inquiry.
https://utj.org/viewpoints/responsa/may-a-jewish-marriage-be-annulled/
That he is Conservative and Machmir worries you? Karaites are also more machmire , eg no heter for fire to burn on its own on Shabbat.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I am making is that uisng mamzerut as a bogeyman does not really cut any ice, since if they turn to other solutions, they will still be mamzerim. In the Goren case, the brother and sister would have married regardless, and the secular Govt was about to insititute secular marriages and divorces (that is an important point I missed out in the last round). It just displaces the problem. Perhaps you can say it is better if the mamzerim are preduced in reform /secular court than in Rabbinic courts.
ReplyDeleteI have no answers - there are dilemmas, and it is a lose-lose situation.
You basically want to be more maikel than conservative rabbis - that should indicate how untenable your position is. So you agree with Rackman that you are willing to ignore normative halacha to have a solution.
ReplyDeleteSo you agree there is no acceptable halachic solution?
ReplyDeletefalse argument. Conservative is not measured by whether they are machmir or maikel. They are measured by what part of the Torah - if any - they accept from Sinai. What if they are more machmir than Rav Moshe? Does that, according to your logic, render rav Moshe "conservative"? It is absurd. Or maybe not - this is what Savitsky argued against rav Moshe, in the book "Maaneh L'Igros", on the issue of AI donors, and other things, prompted by Satmar rebbe.
ReplyDeleteSo far, yes.
ReplyDeleteOn. a. bigger picture , RE Halacha in general, some authorities opposed codification of Halacha, most notably the Maharal. He said it is better to pasken directly from the Talmud, even if mistakes are made , than to do it through shulchan Aruch. In general - does anyone, or can anyone do this today? Actually, a posek I knew in Manchester said the same thing.
ReplyDeletevery interesting, I just read some of the comments we made below
ReplyDeleteIt's a dilemma wherever you stand