“More than 100 Charedi women trapped” Wow: “An amendment to the statutory guidance under the Domestic Abuse Act now says that withholding a get can be a form of domestic abuse. If it is deemed controlling or coercive behaviour, the man could be charged and, if found guilty, imprisoned.” Allow me update to my 30 years personal case.
Supreme Court of the United States letter August 18, 2021: “Supreme Court of the United States Ofice of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543—0001 August 18, 2021 Gerald Aranoff 8 Miriam Haneviah Street Bnei Brak 51583 Israel, XX RE: Aranoff v. Aranoff NYCA No. (?) Dear Mr.\ Aranoff: The above-entitled petition for writ of certiorari was postmarked August 8, 2021 and received August 11, 2021. The papers are returned for the following reason(s): The lower court opinion(s) must be appended. It is impossible to determine the timeliness of the petition without the lower court opinions. Please be advised a letter from the clerk's office at the New York Court of Appeals cannot be construed as a lower court judgment or opinion this Court can review In Forma Pauperis petitions must be on 8 1/2 x 11 paper pursuant to Rule 33.2 Please correct and resubmit as soon as possible. Unless the petition is submitted to this Office in corrected form within 60 days of the date of this letter, the petition will not be filed. Rule 14.5. A copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel. When making the required corrections to a petition, no change to the substance of the petition may be made. Sincerely, Scott S. Harris, Clerk By: Susan Frimpong (202)479—3039 Enclosures”
Thank you God in heaven, SCOTUS is supportive to me. Yes I did a corrective petition with no change to the substance of the petition. I merely added:
Appendix D Judge Eric I. Prus September 10, 2013 Judgment of Divorce states This action was submitted to this court for consideration this 1st day of August 2013. The Defendant was served personally outside the State of New York Plaintiff presented a Summons With Notice and Verified Complaint and Affidavit of Service proving service on the defendant. The Defendant has failed to appear and an Inquest was held setting out the facts of this matter. The Court accepted written proof of non-military status. The plaintiff's address is 498 East 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York and social security number is 092-40-5101. The Defendant's address is 8 Miriam Haneviah Street, Bnei Brak, Israel, New York and social security number is 267-78-9897. Now on motion of Titone & Serlin, the attorneys for plaintiff it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Referee's Report, if any, is hereby confirmed, and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the PLAINTIFF SUSAN ARANOFF has been granted a divorce and the marriage between SUSAN ARANOFF, plaintiff and GERALD ARANOFF, defendant is hereby dissolved by reason of: the parties having lived separate and apart pursuant to a degree or judgment of separation dated March 7, 1995, for a period of one or more years after the granting of such decree or judgment, pursuant to D.R.L. \S170(5).
These feminists in the UK pushing to attack their husbands as in Agunah International and similar should know they face a risk to themselves if they lie: liar liar pants on fire.
Hunter set up a bear trap in the forest. He then set up signs throughout the forest: "WARNING! BEAR TRAP".
Bear woke up and ventured out of his cave. Hunter noticed Bear was up and around.
"Bear!" said Hunter.
"Yes...?" said Bear.
"I have placed a bear trap in the forest. I have placed warning signs throughout the forest that say 'WARNING: BEAR TRAP'."
"Yes," said Bear wryfully. "I noticed."
Bear went to get a drink by the forest water hole.
"Bear," said Squirrel.
"Yes," said Bear.
"Hunter has set up a bear trap in the forest. Signs EVERYWHERE!" chirped Squirrel.
"I KNOW," growled Bear.
Bear wandered around the forest. He finally found the Bear trap.
"Ho hum," said Bear as he contemplated the Bear trap. He gingerly placed his foot in the trap. This triggered a mechanism that closed the claws of the trap tightly around his ankle.
And the Moral of the Story is: If a woman allows a man to put a ring on her finger with witnesses for the sake of Kiddushin she may end up trapped. So women should stop marrying with Kiddushin and start marrying as Pilagshim.
The Rackman -Morgenstern court released that many. At teh time, Rackman was in his 90s, but Morgernstern was younger, and got beaten up by Hareidi thugs.
R' Rackman stated that most of the husbands came and voluntarily gave their gets once the annulment had been made .
What can be reaccepted? And until then you are saying it should be treated as if it had been accepted. Chicken and milk might be accepted - do- you drink milk with chicken. Pork might one day be kosher so you have bacon for breakfast!? Potential halacha is treated as halacha according to your understanding - which idiot taught you that?
no, no, no The Mishnah in Eduyot asks why we mention minrotiy and majority views together, and ther eason is because what is today the minority may one day become majority halacha. There is no minority opinion on bacon, it is assur d'oraita. On the other hand, the rambam is a major halachic source , even if he is a minorty, his view may one day become majority.
Torah thought on parsha אתם נצבים “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.” (Deuteronomy 30:1-3)
Interesting. A woman gets trapped, e.g. “When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house 2and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife, 3and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
The Jewish people never get trapped.
Megilah 29a “It has been taught: R. Simon b. Yohai said: Come and see how beloved are Israel in the sight of God, in that to every place to which they were exiled the Shechinah went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, Did I reveal myself unto the house of thy father when they were in Egypt [I Sam. II, 27. This is taken to mean that God revealed himself to Aaron in Egypt even before Moses came]. They were exiled to Babylon, and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, for your sake I was sent to Babylon [Isa. XLIII, 14. E.V. (incorrectly) have sent]. And when they will be redeemed in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, as it says, Then the Lord thy God will return [with] thy captivity [Deut. XXX, 3]. It does not say here we-heshib [and he shall bring back] but we-shab [and he shall return]. This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return with them from the places of exile.”
Update on me. Yesterday I see that TIAA paid me $2117, my full pension, to my NY Chase Bank account. A big good surprise. I made the bracha shehechiyanu, my wife and 1 daughter answered amen. Thank you God in Heaven. KA, Mendel Epstein et al lied: liar liar pants on fire. Examples? Judge Freda Wolfson granted Rabbi Ralbag immunity for his testimony...Rackman/Morgenstern, were they any different?
“UK, Labour Peer Jon Mendelsohn has said.” Hey this is KA’s territory and specialty. KA, do you support Rackman/Morgenstern rulings?
Mishna - Mas. Eduyyot Chapter 1 Mishnah4. And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel to set them aside? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world [viz., Hillel and Shammai] did not persist in their opinion. Mishnah5. and why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halachah [the accepted ruling] must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. for no court may set aside the decision of another court [A former court if it decided according to the opinion of a majority. But if that court decided according to the opinion of an individual, its decision may be set aside even when the condition named here is not fulfilled.] unless it is greater than it in wisdom [The wisdom of its president as compared with the wisdom of the president of the former court.] and in number [of the members of the court. V. Ab. (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 7]. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number [[According to another explanation: Where there is the opinion of an individual to appeal for support, a subsequent court can set aside the decision of a former court even if it is not greater than it in wisdom and number, and this justifies the recording of the opinion of a single person among the many, v. Tosaf. Yom Tob a.l. and Halevy, Doroth. I, 200 f.]]. Mishnah6. R. Judah said: if so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside [In cases where the individual opinion is untenable, and no court would ever agree to it.]? So that if a man shall say, thus have I learnt the tradition, it may be said to him, according to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it?
Bravo DT here: “What can be reaccepted? And until then you are saying it should be treated as if it had been accepted. Chicken and milk might be accepted - do- you drink milk with chicken. Pork might one day be kosher so you have bacon for breakfast!? Potential halacha is treated as halacha according to your understanding -which idiot taught you that?”
KA, Do you support what UK, Labour Peer Jon Mendelsohn has said?
Nobody not even modern Orthodox accepted him as a major posek and as you note he is no longer paskening about anything. So where is your proposed revolution coming from?
Don't need a revolution. As you have admitted, there simply is no solution, so it is an emergency situation. Or can adopt a Yemenite minhag, following Rambam rather than the shulchan aruch. It's fun being a rambamist, no mourning in the omer or 3 weeks.
So you claim that any problem without specific solution is hefker and you can do anything you want- that is the claim of many non orthodox and also homosexuals who say since there is no heter in halacha - they will do what is pleasant to them. The same obvious;y applies to pedophiles, adulterers, thieves and murderer as well as those who want to text on Shabbos.
In sum, all desires to sin create an emergency in your eyes which then allows any and all actions against the accepted majority. Wow do you consider yourself Orthodox?
"all desires to sin create an emergency" - really? There was an emrgency in Israel with starvation, and some proposed heter mechirah - including RIE Spektor ztl - quite an innovation! And what did the Netziv say? that it is acceptable to violate Sheviis altogether in case of an emergency. rather than sell E'Y to nochrim!
So now you claim Rambam was reform or Conservative? If that is the case, i am happy to be labelled that way too!
In any case, it is enough to say a minority opinion may one day become majority, that is what the Mishnah says. I am not saying that any tom , dick or harry can make up up their own opinions today.
Why do you think his rejected views might be accepted eventually. Please tell me the name of any posek who advocates for the Rambam's rejected view regarding ma'os alei. If no one advocates it - how will it possibly become halacha ?
Was heter mechira halacha before it was innovated? I see your argument, and yes, my claim would not be accepted - for a number of reasons.
R' Rackman said he asked Rav Soloveitchik if there is a solution to every halachic problem - and the Rav said yes. You obviously disagree with this claim?
I can analyze that question and view it from different perspectives.
1) - think back, if we lived in the time of the Rambam, do you think there was an already existent Shulchan Aruch which had already looked at all his views, and agreed on some, but disagreed on others? If we wer tehre and we asked him a question, would he - the Rambam - pasken like his Mishneh Torah? Or would he say "I'm not a Rabbi you can rely on, wait 500 years, and Rav Karo will come and go through my books, the Rif, the Rosh etc and only then we can have real halacha" Such a question is unanswerable, but perhaps if you look at his Tzitzit, and those worn by the rest of the world - today only yemenites (and Rambamists) use his Tzitzit. So his halacha was real, and was accepted, regardless of what the rest of the world thought or did.
2) The other way I can answer your question - not unconnceted tot he first - is look at techelet. Today, many people wear teckhelet - even though - as far as i know, it is not widely accepted int eh hareidi world, Rav Elyashiv rejected it - and was there a Gaon greater than Rav Elyashiv who started the movement? Rav Herzog was interested in it, I don't know if he actuall wore it himself. So a concept mght take hold by its own accord, as did tekhelet, although it has not got major backing - perhaps Rav Herzog, Rav Belsky, and Rav David bar Hayyyim.
And you also believe in the tooth fairy. Your schemes are simply fantasizes. The bottom line is the existing halacha upsets you and you wish it were something else. We live by existing halacha - not what if schemes. You are commanded to go to the rabbis in your days. Not what was or what might be in the future.
the comment you have responded to is not yet approved .
The rabbis in our day - that's a dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban, as far as i recall. Tekhelet, the example i gave, did not come about that way - unless Rav Herzog was the authority of the generation.
Also, it does not specify which rabbi to go to, assuming that is referring to post Lishkat Hagazit.
There is a Mishnaic principle of Aseh lecha Rav - that rav can be anyone I choose - it can be Rav Nachman of breslav, RY of Ponovitch, YU, Satmar, Lubavitch, Mercaz haRav, Eidah, Har Etzion, Chief Rabbi of UK, , Yemenite, Sephardi, Rav bar Hayim etc. it can even be Rabbi Sperber or Yankelovitch.
Also, the Ritva says there is no obligation to follow the majority - if they do not sit together. Even as a code of law - there is no obligation from the Torah to follow any specific book - MT, SA, Mapah, Arukh Hashulchan, MB, - as I said there are communities who still follow the MT, and not everyone follows the MB.
and therefore you can accept Rackman or Goren - even if the whole world rejects them?! Even if it was technically possible practically speaking, You will still be an outcast of society
Certainly. The whole hareidi world is not the whole world. And the hareidi world of today is not the same as tomorrow. 20 years ago, rav soloveitchik was on the list of outcasts. Today he is accepted as a giant of Torah.
There is tooth fairy thinking on your side too. The shulchan aruch was opposed by the maharal, who said it is better to learn directly from the gemara, even if they arrived at the wrong conclusion. So what do you say about the maharal?
A solution you can't live with is no solution. The question is whether halacha can solve all problems. I don't know the answer to that question. Did the Talmud say anything about this?
Torah thought daf hayomi Beitzah 5a: “Rabbah said: Since the enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, the egg is permitted [to be eaten on the second day]; for we have learnt [R.H. 30b]: After the destruction of the Temple [since the Temple no longer existed the reason for the previous enactment falls away.] R. Johanan enacted that testimony [concerning the appearance of new moon] should be admitted the [whole] day [So that the observance of the two days at the present time could only be on account of doubt, since only one of the two days is holy. For, even if witnesses came towards the end of the 30th, the whole of the 30th would be regarded as New Year and the 31st would be regarded as a weekday. But if no witnesses came on the 30th, the 31st would be New Year's day and the 30th, though observed as a holy day, was in reality an ordinary day; and therefore the egg laid on the 30th in such a case would be permitted on the 31st.].”
My theory. To be respectful to Torah law, from Moses, the Sanhedrin requiring 2 witnesses to testify they saw new moon. Our Sages, surely, knew that new moons are precisely 29 1/3 month apart: “A lunation, or synodic month, is the time period from one new moon to the next. In the J2000.0 epoch, the average length of a lunation is 29.53059 days (or 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 seconds). However, the length of any one synodic month can vary from 29.26 to 29.80 days due to the perturbing effects of the Sun's gravity on the Moon's eccentric orbit.”
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ביצה דף ה עמוד א אמר רבה: מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואילך ביצה מותרת. דתנן: משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהו מקבלין עדות החדש כל היום. רש"י אמר רבה גרסינן, מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי - שהחזיר הדבר ליושנו, לקבל עדותן כל היום ולקדש היום - נמצא שאין בית דין עושין שני ימים, והרחוקים העושים שני ימים - אינו אלא מספק, שאין יודעין אם נתקדש ביום שלשים אם בשלשים ואחד, והרי הן כשאר יום טוב של גליות, וביצה שנולדה בזה מותרת בזה ממה נפשך, דחד מינייהו חול.
After the destruction of the 2nd Temple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai, reinstated the practice of accepting witnesses the entire day of תשרי א'. Beautiful. “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month shall mark for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first of the month of the year for you ראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה.” (Exodus 12:1-2).
Hertz Chumash “unto you. Heb. לכם. The Rabbis emphasize this word, and deduce from it that the exact fixation of the Festivals is in the hand of Israel and his ancient religious guides.”
Wow. R. Johanan b. Zakkai wanted to emphasize that God gave to our Sages power to determine exact dates of Festivals. Thank you God in Heaven. I study daf hayomi at 45 R. Johanan b. Zakkai Street in Bnei Brak. Oh, I still heard nothing why TIAA suddenly paid me 100% of my pension on September 1, 2021, first time in 27 years. Conservative Mom, IsraelReader, KA---any ideas?
Nonsense! I accept the Rambam when his views are accepted by the major poskim. Are you trying to claim that everything said by Rambam must be accepted?!
“More than 100 Charedi women trapped in religious marriages” My theory. Man marries woman and immediately after, hate, man for the woman or woman for the man. דברים פרשת כי תצא פרק כב פסוק יג - כט (יג) כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ:
Kethuboth 2a “Mishnah. A maiden is married [lit., is taken as wife] on the fourth day [of the week] and a widow on the fifth day, for twice in the week the courts of justice [lit., houses of judgment (law, justice)] sit in the towns, on the second day [of the week] and on the fifth day, ...”
This court of justice, what can they do in a hearing in the morning of the very night before when the couple married?
My theory. “9If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it; 10the oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.” (Exodus 22:9-10)
Lots goes on with no one seeing and no cameras. The Torah says that if the trustee swears innocence, he is believed. The owner must accept the verdict. Today we have formal complaints to the police and in courts on abuse. Sure there can be in UK 100 Charedi women asking their husbands for a divorce with their husbands refusing.
Mendel Epstein et al and Rabbi Ralbag did a good business taking the wife’s sides. The Rackman/Morgenstern court focused on wives claiming agunah.
My theory. Many of these women are liars liars pants on fire. Courts have to get to the truth. Works both ways. Did Hunter Biden do bad business with his laptop, in China, using his father’s name? Did Biden allow the Taliban data on Afghans that hated the Taliban?
I heard it differently - That all these texts are halakha. Shulchan arukh accepts everything, but rules according to a system. It doesn't make things reform if ruled against. Even sa is not absolute. The Rema rules differently from the SA in many places. So because there are more Ashkenazim than Sephardi, does that mean they reject the shulchan aruch?
Nope! Halacha meaning you can follow it in its entirety?
Who told you that? Or do you mean it is a halachic view but it is not accepted in practice? Bottom line if you insist on following Rambam in everything you might have a case but to cherry pick and say I like this psak so I accept it but not everything is not a view accepted by anyone other than yourself!
it is a halachic view but it is not accepted in practice - is what I mean.
But I have also been told we canfollow an individual poseq, even he is a lone yachid.
Cherry picking - I will try to think that one over. Your brother used to tell a different story. He said people would seek out rav Moshe to free mamzerim, when nobody else was meikel. So is that good cherry picking? Why not stick to their own poskim, and accept mamzerut?
It is very simple Rav Moshe views were often accepted because he said them even if the reasoning was rejected. That is not true of the average posek. Rabbi Riskin and others claim they are just doing what Rav Moshe did -but it is not accepted because they said it. In other words a Posek would say I would not pasken that way but I will accept it if Rav Moshe says it. Rav Moshe discusses this in his long Tshuva in volume 8 which i cited in my post on the two approaches to RavV Moshe's psak - try reading it before making pronouncements
You can not follow a daas Yachid in areas such as divorce and marriage unless he has the stature of Rav Moshe. So if Rav Moshe had decided to pasken like the Rambam or Rabbeinu Tam did than you might have an argument. But saying Rabbi Rackman etc is irrelevant. So your fundamental mistake is viewing all poskim as being equal.
Rav Moshe views were accepted because he was great - but it is still cherry picking. Yes, rackman, riskin are not on his level. I'm sure if they went to Rav Moshe instead of Rav Goren, he could have released the mamzerim.
But the point about not liking halacha still applies - anytime you seek a heter, that's because you don't like the halacha.
What I don't understand is why the shulchan arukh became fixed halacha? There was a good enough halachic system before then. Why was the SA so revolutionary?
this is an older post but it says the same thing https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/07/authority-of-gedolim-ii-because-they.html If his authority was becasue he was accepted, as opposed to sevora, then you have problem in your campaign against RSK - since he is accepted, regardless of his sevora
R' Rackman told a story about Rav Soloveitchik , regarding some school which he wanted to be co-ed (i don't remember what age group they were)
He said that Rav Soloveitchik wanted a particular outcome, and then argued to warrant it. Now this approach is essentially the same as you describe in that post. What Rackman did was to observe the same phenomenon, and call it a "teleological halacha". he got into trouble when he practiced it himself!
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/07/authority-of-gedolim-or-why-rap-is.html this was the the first post on your definition of a gadol - before my time here.
I don't know if things are so straightforward, or perhaps my knowledge of Gedolim is not as advanced as yours (most likely the latter).
The Chatam Sofer was accepted, because of his sheer excellence and breadth and depth in Torah / halacha. Is there a possibility of someone being accepted without such greatness - eg a chassidic rebbe, or only son of a great Litivsher?
Certain Gedolim were half accepted, like RSR Hirsch, Rav Hilsheimer. Some wer eaccpeted but not all of their views were accepted - R' YY Weinberg, Rav Herzog.
Then there are accepted Gedolim who disagree - eg Rav Y E Henkin disagreed with Rav Kotler on kiddush before Musaf - that didn't affect their status. The argument you are bringing - seems to me to be one of "sociology of hareidi halacha" and not Emes of Torah. In the tim e of the Neviim, many or most of the Neviim were not "accepted" - they were rejected. Yirmiyahu was forced to move to Egypt by the Jewish leadership - despite his giving nevuah that the Temple could be rebuilt before going into exile, and will be a permanent one.
Acceptance is sociological phenomenon . The Golden calf was accepted - that doesn't give it any value, other than a political one.
This is not to dispute - chas v'shalom - the greatness and gadlus of Rav Moshe ztl - he was an outstanding Gadol hador. But acceptance on its own is not proof , and neither is it a vaccine that gives immunity to error.
"Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, the 96-year-old Rosh Yeshiva of the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, and one of the most widely known living Litvish gedolim outside of Israel."
This Content Was Published at https://collive.com/a-tale-of-two-rabbi-kamenetskys/
Torah thought on Rosh Hashana.Judgment Day. Sanhedrin 31b “ R. Ashi said to him: Did not R. Eleazar say, He is compelled to attend court in his [opponent's] town? That is only where the debtor demands it of the creditor; but if the creditor [demands, it, the debtor must submit, for] The borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).” תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף לא עמוד ב אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: והא אמר רבי אלעזר: כופין אותו ודן בעירו! - הני מילי היכא דקאמר ליה לוה למלוה, אבל מלוה - עבד לוה לאיש מלוה. A creditor has a law suit with a debtor. Which court do they go to, in creditor’s town or in debtor’s town? Seems, the courts favor their local citizens over outsiders The Gamara says the creditor can choose the court. Beautiful. Fair.
My theory. I apply “He who is generous to the poor makes a loan to the Lord; He will repay him his due.” (Proverbs 19:17). משלי פרק יט פסוק יז מַלְוֵה יְקֹוָק חוֹנֵן דָּל וּגְמֻלוֹ יְשַׁלֶּם לוֹ: מלבי"ם מלוה ה' חונן דל וגמולו ישלם לו, מי שנותן לדל בחנינה מתנת חנם, דומה כמלוה לה', שמלבד שישלם את החוב ישלם גם הגמול, שגדר הגמול הוא התפעלות אהבה שישלם גם האהבה שסבב בטובו, שהוא גדול מן החוב עצמו (ויל"פ ה' הלוה לחונן דל, ר"ל מה שיש ביד העשיר היא הלואה מה' כדי שיחונן דל, ובזה ישלם גמול לה' בעד ההלואה):
The Malbim explains that giving charity to the poor graciously, expecting no return is like lending to the Lord. The Lord will repay the loan. We become the creditor with God the debtor. Actually, the rich giving charity to the poor, the rich are paying back to God what God lends, as it were, wealth to the rich. . When we loan/give to the poor, God becomes the debtor to pay us back. We become the creditor to God. The creditor has the prerogative of choosing the court. We choose a good serious merciful court on this Judgment Day. We don’t want to choose courts like Mendel.Epstein et al/Rabbi Ralbag and Rackman/Morgenstern courts that favor angry wives and are not serious in evaluating the evidence etc. Was the NYS Court of Appeals not serious in evaluating the evidence in the 30 years proceedings Aranoff v Aranoff? .
I'm working with your theory of acceptance, fairness is not part of the theory. I found a letter in auction - of rav Moshe opposing the replacement of rav unterman and rav nissim. The question here is not about why rav Goren didn't have wide acceptance (he had partial acceptance). It's about a heter that rav Moshe might give but others cannot do and get away with. All this is working with your system of acceptance - which ultimately is fallacious - golden calf was accepted, the idols of yerevam, Jezebel etc were accepted.
Erev Rosh Hashana I went before 3 men in my shul and did cancelling of vows and Prozbul =The Prozbul was established in the waning years of the Second Temple of Jerusalem by Hillel the Elder. The writ, issued historically by rabbis, technically changed the status of individual private loans into the public administration, allowing the poor to receive interest-free loans before the Sabbatical year while protecting the investments of the lenders.
That inspired me to write to the NYS Court of Appeals today: “2.My Motion for Leave to Make a Motion dated August 17, 2021 Return Date September 6, 2021 is based on fraud of TIAA, late Judge Rigler, late Judge Garson, Judge Pesce, Judge Ambrosio, Attorney Myla Serlin, Judge Eric Prus.
4.Appendix A Judge Eric I. Prus September 10, 2013 Judgment of Divorce states This action was submitted to this court for consideration this 1st day of August 2013. The Defendant was served personally outside the State of New York. Plaintiff presented a Summons With Notice and Verified Complaint and Affidavit of Service proving service on the defendant. The Defendant has failed to appear and an Inquest was held setting out the facts of this matter. The Court accepted written proof of non-military status. The plaintiff's address is 498 East 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York and social security number is 092-40-5101. The Defendant's address is 8 Miriam Haneviah Street, Bnei Brak, Israel, New York and social security number is 267-78-9897. Now on motion of Titone & Serlin, the attorneys for plaintiff it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Referee's Report, if any, is hereby confirmed, and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the PLAINTIFF SUSAN ARANOFF has been granted a divorce and the marriage between SUSAN ARANOFF, plaintiff and GERALD ARANOFF, defendant is hereby dissolved by reason of: the parties having lived separate and apart pursuant to a degree or judgment of separation dated March 7, 1995, for a period of one or more years after the granting of such decree or judgment, pursuant to D.R.L. \S170(5).
5.On September 1, 2021 I logged to my NY Chase bank account and saw, to my surprise, that TIAA paid me my 100% pension $2,117 the first time in 27 years. I have no idea why TIAA did this. I haven't heard from TIAA, my opposition, or from the Court in a long time. Allow me to state, that I cancel any promises or statements that I may have made that if I get my 100% TIAA pension I'll stop writing UPS letters. I don't know if TIAA will continue to pay me my 100% pension. I intend to write UPS letters to get all monies due me. The Court asked me not to call the Court, but only to write letters. This is what I do.”
I told the Prozbul bet din court in my shul that my former wife owes me money which I intend to press her for payment. “At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. 2And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord’s release hath been proclaimed.” (Deuteronomy 15:1-2). דברים פרשת ראה פרק טו פסוק ב וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִטָּה שָׁמוֹט כָּל בַּעַל מַשֵּׁה יָדוֹ אֲשֶׁר יַשֶּׁה בְּרֵעֵהוּ לֹא יִגֹּשׂ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאֶת אָחִיו כִּי קָרָא שְׁמִטָּה לַיקֹוָק:
That's like saying you don't get a qualified car mechanic to build a nuclear reactor. But my argument is that, a Sanhedrin is the ideal model - is prone to error - shogeg. They have to bring sacrifice for any error they discover. So if is not dependent on the composition or stature of the Sanhedrin, but the nature of the decision they made. Your theory says the opposite - that the social acceptance of the scholar whitewashes any possibility of error , even if the body of scholars deem it to be an error.
That case was too complex, involved politics, allegations of bribes, question of authority in Israel to make decisions. And evidence, witnesses whose admissibility was 50/50. Also, Goren himself had gone from Talmid chacham to war hero, and who knows if he had delusions of grandeur?
Rav Moshe was annulling reform and conservative kiddushin, which was opposed by Rav henkin.
Eduyot 5;6 "Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” " His acceptance by the Sages was conditional on him retracting 4 opinions - which he refused to do! But,
8:
Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin.
Perhaps this is the model of acceptance you are proposing? The Sages will only give acceptance on condition that he changes 4 opinions. Akavya - who was the greatest scholar of the age - does not accept this model, and views his obligation to be only to Hashem, and to Truth.
Look at the significance of acceptance e.g. minhag, sinai, gezera. In order to have unity - you need acceptance. A rabbi or opinion viewed as a minority or going against tradition and precedent creates anarchy. A zakein mamre is killed in spite of his knowledge and tradition - why?
Zakein Mamrei is in the Torah - in this case, he was not killed and continued to advise his son . But yes, there is a pattern here - but there were also breaks in unity, even amongst the Sages - Hillel and Shammai, and their courts. Gamliel and Yehoshua. Resh lakish and Rebbe Yochanan, Rav Elazar and the Sages. each one had terrible consquences for Chachamim and Klal Yisrael.
But the Government of the State was the employer, and they did this - not R Goren. Furthermore, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who at the time was widely accepted, was backing Rav Zevin ztl - who was a great Tzaddik and Talmid Chacham. Had Rav Zevin been elected, would he also have been opposed?
Now tell us how many men are trapped
ReplyDelete“More than 100 Charedi women trapped” Wow: “An amendment to the statutory guidance under the Domestic Abuse Act now says that withholding a get can be a form of domestic abuse. If it is deemed controlling or coercive behaviour, the man could be charged and, if found guilty, imprisoned.” Allow me update to my 30 years personal case.
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court of the United States letter August 18, 2021: “Supreme Court of the United States Ofice of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543—0001 August 18, 2021 Gerald Aranoff 8 Miriam Haneviah Street Bnei Brak 51583 Israel, XX RE: Aranoff v. Aranoff NYCA No. (?) Dear Mr.\ Aranoff: The above-entitled petition for writ of certiorari was postmarked August 8, 2021 and received August 11, 2021. The papers are returned for the following reason(s): The lower court opinion(s) must be appended. It is impossible to determine the timeliness of the petition without the lower court opinions. Please be advised a letter from the clerk's office at the New York Court of Appeals cannot be construed as a lower court judgment or opinion this Court can review In Forma Pauperis petitions must be on 8 1/2 x 11 paper pursuant to Rule 33.2 Please correct and resubmit as soon as possible. Unless the petition is submitted to this Office in corrected form within 60 days of the date of this letter, the petition will not be filed. Rule 14.5. A copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel. When making the required corrections to a petition, no change to the substance of the petition may be made. Sincerely, Scott S. Harris, Clerk By: Susan Frimpong (202)479—3039 Enclosures”
Thank you God in heaven, SCOTUS is supportive to me. Yes I did a corrective petition with no change to the substance of the petition. I merely added:
Appendix D Judge Eric I. Prus September 10, 2013 Judgment of Divorce states
This action was submitted to this court for consideration this 1st day of August 2013. The Defendant was served personally outside the State of New York Plaintiff presented a Summons With Notice and Verified Complaint and Affidavit of Service proving service on the defendant. The Defendant has failed to appear and an Inquest was held setting out the facts of this matter. The Court accepted written proof of non-military status. The plaintiff's address is 498 East 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York and social security number is 092-40-5101. The Defendant's address is 8 Miriam Haneviah Street, Bnei Brak, Israel, New York and social security number is 267-78-9897. Now on motion of Titone & Serlin, the attorneys for plaintiff it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Referee's Report, if any, is hereby confirmed, and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the PLAINTIFF SUSAN ARANOFF has been granted a divorce and the marriage between SUSAN ARANOFF, plaintiff and GERALD ARANOFF, defendant is hereby dissolved by reason of: the parties having lived separate and apart pursuant to a degree or judgment of separation dated March 7, 1995, for a period of one or more years after the granting of such decree or judgment, pursuant to D.R.L. \S170(5).
These feminists in the UK pushing to attack their husbands as in Agunah International and similar should know they face a risk to themselves if they lie: liar liar pants on fire.
Hunter set up a bear trap in the forest. He then set up signs throughout the forest: "WARNING! BEAR TRAP".
ReplyDeleteBear woke up and ventured out of his cave. Hunter noticed Bear was up and around.
"Bear!" said Hunter.
"Yes...?" said Bear.
"I have placed a bear trap in the forest. I have placed warning signs throughout the forest that say 'WARNING: BEAR TRAP'."
"Yes," said Bear wryfully. "I noticed."
Bear went to get a drink by the forest water hole.
"Bear," said Squirrel.
"Yes," said Bear.
"Hunter has set up a bear trap in the forest. Signs EVERYWHERE!" chirped Squirrel.
"I KNOW," growled Bear.
Bear wandered around the forest. He finally found the Bear trap.
"Ho hum," said Bear as he contemplated the Bear trap. He gingerly placed his foot in the trap. This triggered a mechanism that closed the claws of the trap tightly around his ankle.
And the Moral of the Story is: If a woman allows a man to put a ring on her finger with witnesses for the sake of Kiddushin she may end up trapped. So women should stop marrying with Kiddushin and start marrying as Pilagshim.
The Rackman -Morgenstern court released that many. At teh time, Rackman was in his 90s, but Morgernstern was younger, and got beaten up by Hareidi thugs.
ReplyDeleteR' Rackman stated that most of the husbands came and voluntarily gave their gets once the annulment had been made .
But it's an eternal catch-22. Can't annual the marriage. Can't use a cattle prod. So what's left?
ReplyDeleteHalacha has become more and more frozen.
ReplyDeleteWow! for example 1oo years ago halacha was different - please provide examples?!
ReplyDeleteThe example is the cattle prod, I didn't say 100 years ago
ReplyDeleteSo you long for the days when a renegade rabbi tortured men to divorce their wife for a high enough payment?!
ReplyDeleteAnd you have evidence supporting his claim?
ReplyDeletewhy not? Rambam being a "renegade" of course?
ReplyDeleteWow so you want to claim Rackman was another Rambam?!
ReplyDeletehis claim? No.
ReplyDeleteHis BD is lon gone, and he so is he.
No, Rambam paskens that you can pressure a husband to give a get. R' Rackman did not use this approach.
ReplyDeleteAren't you aware that his approach has been rejected for centuries.
ReplyDeleteRejected or not widely accepted?
ReplyDeleteBecause it was rejected it was not accepted!
ReplyDeleteSo what? Can always be reaccepted. That's what the mishnah in eduyot says.
ReplyDeleteWhat can be reaccepted? And until then you are saying it should be treated as if it had been accepted.
ReplyDeleteChicken and milk might be accepted - do- you drink milk with chicken. Pork might one day be kosher so you have bacon for breakfast!?
Potential halacha is treated as halacha according to your understanding -
which idiot taught you that?
no, no, no
ReplyDeleteThe Mishnah in Eduyot asks why we mention minrotiy and majority views together, and ther eason is because what is today the minority may one day become majority halacha.
There is no minority opinion on bacon, it is assur d'oraita. On the other hand, the rambam is a major halachic source , even if he is a minorty, his view may one day become majority.
Torah thought on parsha אתם נצבים “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.” (Deuteronomy 30:1-3)
ReplyDeleteInteresting. A woman gets trapped, e.g. “When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house 2and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife, 3and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
The Jewish people never get trapped.
Megilah 29a
“It has been taught: R. Simon b. Yohai said: Come and see how beloved are Israel in the sight of God, in that to every place to which they were exiled the Shechinah went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, Did I reveal myself unto the house of thy father when they were in Egypt [I Sam. II, 27. This is taken to mean that God revealed himself to Aaron in Egypt even before Moses came]. They were exiled to Babylon, and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, for your sake I was sent to Babylon [Isa. XLIII, 14. E.V. (incorrectly) have sent]. And when they will be redeemed in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, as it says, Then the Lord thy God will return [with] thy captivity [Deut. XXX, 3]. It does not say here we-heshib [and he shall bring back] but we-shab [and he shall return]. This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return with them from the places of exile.”
Update on me. Yesterday I see that TIAA paid me $2117, my full pension, to my NY Chase Bank account. A big good surprise. I made the bracha shehechiyanu, my wife and 1 daughter answered amen. Thank you God in Heaven. KA, Mendel Epstein et al lied: liar liar pants on fire. Examples? Judge Freda Wolfson granted Rabbi Ralbag immunity for his testimony...Rackman/Morgenstern, were they any different?
really!? Which major posek is heading the campaign?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Bacon there are sources stating it will eventually be kosher and that is why it was call Chazir i.e. it wll change
ReplyDeleteA particular pig which has kosher simanim.
ReplyDeleteToday, with synthetic meat, we may already be there
ReplyDeleteR rackman 😊
ReplyDelete“UK, Labour Peer Jon Mendelsohn has said.” Hey this is KA’s territory and specialty. KA, do you support Rackman/Morgenstern rulings?
ReplyDeleteMishna - Mas. Eduyyot Chapter 1
Mishnah4. And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel to set them aside? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world [viz., Hillel and Shammai] did not persist in their opinion.
Mishnah5. and why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halachah [the accepted ruling] must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. for no court may set aside the decision of another court [A former court if it decided according to the opinion of a majority. But if that court decided according to the opinion of an individual, its decision may be set aside even when the condition named here is not fulfilled.] unless it is greater than it in wisdom [The wisdom of its president as compared with the wisdom of the president of the former court.] and in number [of the members of the court. V. Ab. (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 7]. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number [[According to another explanation: Where there is the opinion of an individual to appeal for support, a subsequent court can set aside the decision of a former court even if it is not greater than it in wisdom and number, and this justifies the recording of the opinion of a single person among the many, v. Tosaf. Yom Tob a.l. and Halevy, Doroth. I, 200 f.]].
Mishnah6. R. Judah said: if so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside [In cases where the individual opinion is untenable, and no court would ever agree to it.]? So that if a man shall say, thus have I learnt the tradition, it may be said to him, according to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it?
Bravo DT here: “What can be reaccepted? And until then you are saying it should be treated as if it had been accepted. Chicken and milk might be accepted - do- you drink milk with chicken. Pork might one day be kosher so you have bacon for breakfast!? Potential halacha is treated as halacha according to your understanding -which idiot taught you that?”
KA, Do you support what UK, Labour Peer Jon Mendelsohn has said?
Nobody not even modern Orthodox accepted him as a major posek and as you note he is no longer paskening about anything. So where is your proposed revolution coming from?
ReplyDeleteDon't need a revolution. As you have admitted, there simply is no solution, so it is an emergency situation.
ReplyDeleteOr can adopt a Yemenite minhag, following Rambam rather than the shulchan aruch.
It's fun being a rambamist, no mourning in the omer or 3 weeks.
So you claim that any problem without specific solution is hefker and you can do anything you want- that is the claim of many non orthodox and also homosexuals who say since there is no heter in halacha - they will do what is pleasant to them. The same obvious;y applies to pedophiles, adulterers, thieves and murderer as well as those who want to text on Shabbos.
ReplyDeleteIn sum, all desires to sin create an emergency in your eyes which then allows any and all actions against the accepted majority. Wow do you consider yourself Orthodox?
Nope - far from what I said -
ReplyDeletewhere does Rambam permit homosexuality or murder?
"all desires to sin create an emergency" - really? There was an emrgency in Israel with starvation, and some proposed heter mechirah - including RIE Spektor ztl - quite an innovation! And what did the Netziv say? that it is acceptable to violate Sheviis altogether in case of an emergency. rather than sell E'Y to nochrim!
So now you claim Rambam was reform or Conservative? If that is the case, i am happy to be labelled that way too!
In any case, it is enough to say a minority opinion may one day become majority, that is what the Mishnah says. I am not saying that any tom , dick or harry can make up up their own opinions today.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah.
ReplyDeleteYou were the one who claimed that if a solution can not be found you can turn to views that are not halacha today
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think his rejected views might be accepted eventually. Please tell me the name of any posek who advocates for the Rambam's rejected view regarding ma'os alei. If no one advocates it - how will it possibly become halacha ?
ReplyDeleteWas heter mechira halacha before it was innovated?
ReplyDeleteI see your argument, and yes, my claim would not be accepted - for a number of reasons.
R' Rackman said he asked Rav Soloveitchik if there is a solution to every halachic problem - and the Rav said yes. You obviously disagree with this claim?
I can analyze that question and view it from different perspectives.
ReplyDelete1) - think back, if we lived in the time of the Rambam, do you think there was an already existent Shulchan Aruch which had already looked at all his views, and agreed on some, but disagreed on others? If we wer tehre and we asked him a question, would he - the Rambam - pasken like his Mishneh Torah? Or would he say "I'm not a Rabbi you can rely on, wait 500 years, and Rav Karo will come and go through my books, the Rif, the Rosh etc and only then we can have real halacha" Such a question is unanswerable, but perhaps if you look at his Tzitzit, and those worn by the rest of the world - today only yemenites (and Rambamists) use his Tzitzit. So his halacha was real, and was accepted, regardless of what the rest of the world thought or did.
2) The other way I can answer your question - not unconnceted tot he first - is look at techelet. Today, many people wear teckhelet - even though - as far as i know, it is not widely accepted int eh hareidi world, Rav Elyashiv rejected it - and was there a Gaon greater than Rav Elyashiv who started the movement? Rav Herzog was interested in it, I don't know if he actuall wore it himself. So a concept mght take hold by its own accord, as did tekhelet, although it has not got major backing - perhaps Rav Herzog, Rav Belsky, and Rav David bar Hayyyim.
And you also believe in the tooth fairy. Your schemes are simply fantasizes. The bottom line is the existing halacha upsets you and you wish it were something else.
ReplyDeleteWe live by existing halacha - not what if schemes. You are commanded to go to the rabbis in your days. Not what was or what might be in the future.
the comment you have responded to is not yet approved .
ReplyDeleteThe rabbis in our day - that's a dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban, as far as i recall. Tekhelet, the example i gave, did not come about that way - unless Rav Herzog was the authority of the generation.
Also, it does not specify which rabbi to go to, assuming that is referring to post Lishkat Hagazit.
ReplyDeleteThere is a Mishnaic principle of Aseh lecha Rav - that rav can be anyone I choose - it can be Rav Nachman of breslav, RY of Ponovitch, YU, Satmar, Lubavitch, Mercaz haRav, Eidah, Har Etzion, Chief Rabbi of UK, , Yemenite, Sephardi, Rav bar Hayim etc. it can even be Rabbi Sperber or Yankelovitch.
Also, the Ritva says there is no obligation to follow the majority - if they do not sit together.
Even as a code of law - there is no obligation from the Torah to follow any specific book - MT, SA, Mapah, Arukh Hashulchan, MB, - as I said there are communities who still follow the MT, and not everyone follows the MB.
and therefore you can accept Rackman or Goren - even if the whole world rejects them?!
ReplyDeleteEven if it was technically possible practically speaking, You will still be an outcast of society
A solution you can accept and live with?
ReplyDeleteRav Soloveitchik's solutions are not yours!
Certainly.
ReplyDeleteThe whole hareidi world is not the whole world. And the hareidi world of today is not the same as tomorrow.
20 years ago, rav soloveitchik was on the list of outcasts.
Today he is accepted as a giant of Torah.
There is tooth fairy thinking on your side too. The shulchan aruch was opposed by the maharal, who said it is better to learn directly from the gemara, even if they arrived at the wrong conclusion.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you say about the maharal?
A solution you can't live with is no solution.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether halacha can solve all problems. I don't know the answer to that question. Did the Talmud say anything about this?
Chazon Ish said something similar
ReplyDeleteYou are proposing anarchy
And since you are a prophet you know what will eventually be accepted
ReplyDeleteIs even maharal and chazon ish anarchy?
ReplyDeleteAgudah originally voted against a Jewish state, now they sit in the Knesset. That's not prophecy.
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean Epstein?
ReplyDeleteTorah thought daf hayomi Beitzah 5a:
ReplyDelete“Rabbah said: Since the enactment of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, the egg is permitted [to be eaten on the second day]; for we have learnt [R.H. 30b]: After the destruction of the Temple [since the Temple no longer existed the reason for the previous enactment falls away.] R. Johanan enacted that testimony [concerning the appearance of new moon] should be admitted the [whole] day [So that the observance of the two days at the present time could only be on account of doubt, since only one of the two days is holy. For, even if witnesses came towards the end of the 30th, the whole of the 30th would be regarded as New Year and the 31st would be regarded as a weekday. But if no witnesses came on the 30th, the 31st would be New Year's day and the 30th, though observed as a holy day, was in reality an ordinary day; and therefore the egg laid on the 30th in such a case would be permitted on the 31st.].”
My theory. To be respectful to Torah law, from Moses, the Sanhedrin requiring 2 witnesses to testify they saw new moon. Our Sages, surely, knew that new moons are precisely 29 1/3 month apart:
“A lunation, or synodic month, is the time period from one new moon to the next. In the J2000.0 epoch, the average length of a lunation is 29.53059 days (or 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 seconds). However, the length of any one synodic month can vary from 29.26 to 29.80 days due to the perturbing effects of the Sun's gravity on the Moon's eccentric orbit.”
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ביצה דף ה עמוד א
אמר רבה: מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואילך ביצה מותרת. דתנן: משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהו מקבלין עדות החדש כל היום.
רש"י
אמר רבה גרסינן, מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי - שהחזיר הדבר ליושנו, לקבל עדותן כל היום ולקדש היום - נמצא שאין בית דין עושין שני ימים, והרחוקים העושים שני ימים - אינו אלא מספק, שאין יודעין אם נתקדש ביום שלשים אם בשלשים ואחד, והרי הן כשאר יום טוב של גליות, וביצה שנולדה בזה מותרת בזה ממה נפשך, דחד מינייהו חול.
After the destruction of the 2nd Temple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai, reinstated the practice of accepting witnesses the entire day of תשרי א'. Beautiful. “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month shall mark for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first of the month of the year for you ראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה.” (Exodus 12:1-2).
Hertz Chumash “unto you. Heb. לכם. The Rabbis emphasize this word, and deduce from it that the exact fixation of the Festivals is in the hand of Israel and his ancient religious guides.”
Wow. R. Johanan b. Zakkai wanted to emphasize that God gave to our Sages power to determine exact dates of Festivals. Thank you God in Heaven. I study daf hayomi at 45 R. Johanan b. Zakkai Street in Bnei Brak. Oh, I still heard nothing why TIAA suddenly paid me 100% of my pension on September 1, 2021, first time in 27 years. Conservative Mom, IsraelReader, KA---any ideas?
your statement is fallacious, since you don't acept the Rambam anyway, unless he agrees with your own chosen understanding of things.
ReplyDeleteNonsense! I accept the Rambam when his views are accepted by the major poskim. Are you trying to claim that everything said by Rambam must be accepted?!
ReplyDelete“More than 100 Charedi women trapped in religious marriages” My theory. Man marries woman and immediately after, hate, man for the woman or woman for the man. דברים פרשת כי תצא פרק כב פסוק יג - כט
ReplyDelete(יג) כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ:
Kethuboth 2a
“Mishnah. A maiden is married [lit., is taken as wife] on the fourth day [of the week] and a widow on the fifth day, for twice in the week the courts of justice [lit., houses of judgment (law, justice)] sit in the towns, on the second day [of the week] and on the fifth day, ...”
This court of justice, what can they do in a hearing in the morning of the very night before when the couple married?
My theory. “9If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it; 10the oath of the Lord shall be between them both, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.” (Exodus 22:9-10)
Lots goes on with no one seeing and no cameras. The Torah says that if the trustee swears innocence, he is believed. The owner must accept the verdict. Today we have formal complaints to the police and in courts on abuse. Sure there can be in UK 100 Charedi women asking their husbands for a divorce with their husbands refusing.
Mendel Epstein et al and Rabbi Ralbag did a good business taking the wife’s sides. The Rackman/Morgenstern court focused on wives claiming agunah.
My theory. Many of these women are liars liars pants on fire. Courts have to get to the truth. Works both ways. Did Hunter Biden do bad business with his laptop, in China, using his father’s name? Did Biden allow the Taliban data on Afghans that hated the Taliban?
I heard it differently -
ReplyDeleteThat all these texts are halakha.
Shulchan arukh accepts everything, but rules according to a system. It doesn't make things reform if ruled against.
Even sa is not absolute. The Rema rules differently from the SA in many places. So because there are more Ashkenazim than Sephardi, does that mean they reject the shulchan aruch?
Nope! Halacha meaning you can follow it in its entirety?
ReplyDeleteWho told you that? Or do you mean it is a halachic view but it is not accepted in practice? Bottom line if you insist on following Rambam in everything you might have a case but to cherry pick and say I like this psak so I accept it but not everything is not a view accepted by anyone other than yourself!
it is a halachic view but it is not accepted in practice - is what I mean.
ReplyDeleteBut I have also been told we canfollow an individual poseq, even he is a lone yachid.
Cherry picking - I will try to think that one over.
Your brother used to tell a different story. He said people would seek out rav Moshe to free mamzerim, when nobody else was meikel. So is that good cherry picking? Why not stick to their own poskim, and accept mamzerut?
It is very simple Rav Moshe views were often accepted because he said them even if the reasoning was rejected. That is not true of the average posek. Rabbi Riskin and others claim they are just doing what Rav Moshe did -but it is not accepted because they said it. In other words a Posek would say I would not pasken that way but I will accept it if Rav Moshe says it. Rav Moshe discusses this in his long Tshuva in volume 8 which i cited in my post on the two approaches to RavV Moshe's psak - try reading it before making pronouncements
ReplyDeleteYou can not follow a daas Yachid in areas such as divorce and marriage unless he has the stature of Rav Moshe. So if Rav Moshe had decided to pasken like the Rambam or Rabbeinu Tam did than you might have an argument. But saying Rabbi Rackman etc is irrelevant. So your fundamental mistake is viewing all poskim as being equal.
Rav Moshe views were accepted because he was great - but it is still cherry picking.
ReplyDeleteYes, rackman, riskin are not on his level. I'm sure if they went to Rav Moshe instead of Rav Goren, he could have released the mamzerim.
But the point about not liking halacha still applies - anytime you seek a heter, that's because you don't like the halacha.
What I don't understand is why the shulchan arukh became fixed halacha? There was a good enough halachic system before then. Why was the SA so revolutionary?
"Rav Moshe views were often accepted because he said them even if the reasoning was rejected"
ReplyDeleteso smaller people are rejected, not necessarily for their reasoning, but their stature?
this is an older post but it says the same thing
ReplyDeletehttps://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/07/authority-of-gedolim-ii-because-they.html
If his authority was becasue he was accepted, as opposed to sevora,
then you have problem in your campaign against RSK - since he is accepted, regardless of his sevora
R' Rackman told a story about Rav Soloveitchik , regarding some school which he wanted to be co-ed (i don't remember what age group they were)
He said that Rav Soloveitchik wanted a particular outcome, and then argued to warrant it. Now this approach is essentially the same as you describe in that post. What Rackman did was to observe the same phenomenon, and call it a "teleological halacha". he got into trouble when he practiced it himself!
Nope! He is not an accepted posek and he also said he was wrong
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/07/authority-of-gedolim-or-why-rap-is.html
ReplyDeletethis was the the first post on your definition of a gadol - before my time here.
I don't know if things are so straightforward, or perhaps my knowledge of Gedolim is not as advanced as yours (most likely the latter).
The Chatam Sofer was accepted, because of his sheer excellence and breadth and depth in Torah / halacha. Is there a possibility of someone being accepted without such greatness - eg a chassidic rebbe, or only son of a great Litivsher?
Certain Gedolim were half accepted, like RSR Hirsch, Rav Hilsheimer. Some wer eaccpeted but not all of their views were accepted - R' YY Weinberg, Rav Herzog.
Then there are accepted Gedolim who disagree - eg Rav Y E Henkin disagreed with Rav Kotler on kiddush before Musaf - that didn't affect their status.
The argument you are bringing - seems to me to be one of "sociology of hareidi halacha" and not Emes of Torah. In the tim e of the Neviim, many or most of the Neviim were not "accepted" - they were rejected. Yirmiyahu was forced to move to Egypt by the Jewish leadership - despite his giving nevuah that the Temple could be rebuilt before going into exile, and will be a permanent one.
Acceptance is sociological phenomenon . The Golden calf was accepted - that doesn't give it any value, other than a political one.
This is not to dispute - chas v'shalom - the greatness and gadlus of Rav Moshe ztl - he was an outstanding Gadol hador. But acceptance on its own is not proof , and neither is it a vaccine that gives immunity to error.
"Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, the 96-year-old Rosh Yeshiva of the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, and one of the most widely known living Litvish gedolim outside of Israel."
ReplyDeleteThis Content Was Published at https://collive.com/a-tale-of-two-rabbi-kamenetskys/
Torah thought on Rosh Hashana.Judgment Day.
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin 31b
“ R. Ashi said to him: Did not R. Eleazar say, He is compelled to attend court in his [opponent's] town? That is only where the debtor demands it of the creditor; but if the creditor [demands, it, the debtor must submit, for] The borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).”
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף לא עמוד ב
אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: והא אמר רבי אלעזר: כופין אותו ודן בעירו! - הני מילי היכא דקאמר ליה לוה למלוה, אבל מלוה - עבד לוה לאיש מלוה.
A creditor has a law suit with a debtor. Which court do they go to, in creditor’s town or in debtor’s town? Seems, the courts favor their local citizens over outsiders The Gamara says the creditor can choose the court. Beautiful. Fair.
My theory. I apply “He who is generous to the poor makes a loan to the Lord; He will repay him his due.” (Proverbs 19:17).
משלי פרק יט פסוק יז
מַלְוֵה יְקֹוָק חוֹנֵן דָּל וּגְמֻלוֹ יְשַׁלֶּם לוֹ:
מלבי"ם
מלוה ה' חונן דל וגמולו ישלם לו, מי שנותן לדל בחנינה מתנת חנם, דומה כמלוה לה', שמלבד שישלם את החוב ישלם גם הגמול, שגדר הגמול הוא התפעלות אהבה שישלם גם האהבה שסבב בטובו, שהוא גדול מן החוב עצמו (ויל"פ ה' הלוה לחונן דל, ר"ל מה שיש ביד העשיר היא הלואה מה' כדי שיחונן דל, ובזה ישלם גמול לה' בעד ההלואה):
The Malbim explains that giving charity to the poor graciously, expecting no return is like lending to the Lord. The Lord will repay the loan. We become the creditor with God the debtor. Actually, the rich giving charity to the poor, the rich are paying back to God what God lends, as it were, wealth to the rich.
.
When we loan/give to the poor, God becomes the debtor to pay us back. We become the creditor to God. The creditor has the prerogative of choosing the court. We choose a good serious merciful court on this Judgment Day. We don’t want to choose courts like Mendel.Epstein et al/Rabbi Ralbag and Rackman/Morgenstern courts that favor angry wives and are not serious in evaluating the evidence etc. Was the NYS Court of Appeals not serious in evaluating the evidence in the 30 years proceedings Aranoff v Aranoff? .
He is not a major posek. He also acknowledged psak was wrong and it was denounced by many major poskim
ReplyDeleteRav Schacter denounced Kraus's beis din because they were not big enough to deal with those issues
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe was not the source of leniencies you are spouting. And he did not find a heter for everything
ReplyDeleteYou keep pushing a fallacy that Rackman Goren etc are unfairly rejected.
ReplyDeleteI'm working with your theory of acceptance, fairness is not part of the theory.
ReplyDeleteI found a letter in auction - of rav Moshe opposing the replacement of rav unterman and rav nissim.
The question here is not about why rav Goren didn't have wide acceptance (he had partial acceptance). It's about a heter that rav Moshe might give but others cannot do and get away with.
All this is working with your system of acceptance - which ultimately is fallacious - golden calf was accepted, the idols of yerevam, Jezebel etc were accepted.
Erev Rosh Hashana I went before 3 men in my shul and did cancelling of vows and
ReplyDeleteProzbul =The Prozbul was established in the waning years of the Second Temple of Jerusalem by Hillel the Elder. The writ, issued historically by rabbis, technically changed the status of individual private loans into the public administration, allowing the poor to receive interest-free loans before the Sabbatical year while protecting the investments of the lenders.
That inspired me to write to the NYS Court of Appeals today:
“2.My Motion for Leave to Make a Motion dated August 17, 2021 Return Date September 6, 2021 is based on fraud of TIAA, late Judge Rigler, late Judge Garson, Judge Pesce, Judge Ambrosio, Attorney Myla Serlin, Judge Eric Prus.
4.Appendix A Judge Eric I. Prus September 10, 2013 Judgment of Divorce states This action was submitted to this court for consideration this 1st day of August 2013. The Defendant was served personally outside the State of New York. Plaintiff presented a Summons With Notice and Verified Complaint and Affidavit of Service proving service on the defendant. The Defendant has failed to appear and an Inquest was held setting out the facts of this matter. The Court accepted written proof of non-military status. The plaintiff's address is 498 East 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York and social security number is 092-40-5101. The Defendant's address is 8 Miriam Haneviah Street, Bnei Brak, Israel, New York and social security number is 267-78-9897. Now on motion of Titone & Serlin, the attorneys for plaintiff it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Referee's Report, if any, is hereby confirmed, and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the PLAINTIFF SUSAN ARANOFF has been granted a divorce and the marriage between SUSAN ARANOFF, plaintiff and GERALD ARANOFF, defendant is hereby dissolved by reason of: the parties having lived separate and apart pursuant to a degree or judgment of separation dated March 7, 1995, for a period of one or more years after the granting of such decree or judgment, pursuant to D.R.L. \S170(5).
5.On September 1, 2021 I logged to my NY Chase bank account and saw, to my surprise, that TIAA paid me my 100% pension $2,117 the first time in 27 years. I have no idea why TIAA did this. I haven't heard from TIAA, my opposition, or from the Court in a long time. Allow me to state, that I cancel any promises or statements that I may have made that if I get my 100% TIAA pension I'll stop writing UPS letters. I don't know if TIAA will continue to pay me my 100% pension. I intend to write UPS letters to get all monies due me. The Court asked me not to call the Court, but only to write letters. This is what I do.”
I told the Prozbul bet din court in my shul that my former wife owes me money which I intend to press her for payment. “At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. 2And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because the Lord’s release hath been proclaimed.” (Deuteronomy 15:1-2).
דברים פרשת ראה פרק טו פסוק ב
וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִטָּה שָׁמוֹט כָּל בַּעַל מַשֵּׁה יָדוֹ אֲשֶׁר יַשֶּׁה בְּרֵעֵהוּ לֹא יִגֹּשׂ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאֶת אָחִיו כִּי קָרָא שְׁמִטָּה לַיקֹוָק:
That's like saying you don't get a qualified car mechanic to build a nuclear reactor.
ReplyDeleteBut my argument is that, a Sanhedrin is the ideal model - is prone to error - shogeg. They have to bring sacrifice for any error they discover. So if is not dependent on the composition or stature of the Sanhedrin, but the nature of the decision they made. Your theory says the opposite - that the social acceptance of the scholar whitewashes any possibility of error , even if the body of scholars deem it to be an error.
Nope you don't seem to understand why acceptance is important. It is not a quality like iq or weight
ReplyDeleteThe issue of error is a red herring. Rav Moshe acknowledges that his psakim might be technically wrong.
ReplyDeleteThat case was too complex, involved politics, allegations of bribes, question of authority in Israel to make decisions. And evidence, witnesses whose admissibility was 50/50.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Goren himself had gone from Talmid chacham to war hero, and who knows if he had delusions of grandeur?
Rav Moshe was annulling reform and conservative kiddushin, which was opposed by Rav henkin.
Please elucidate on what acceptance is.
ReplyDeletePlease accept my sincere contrition for any wrong I have done you online, and wishing you gmar chatima tovah.
Eduyot 5;6
ReplyDelete"Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” "
His acceptance by the Sages was conditional on him retracting 4 opinions - which he refused to do! But,
8:
Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin.
therefore?
ReplyDeleteYou have done nothing wrong. I appreciate your sincere effort to understand the issues
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is the model of acceptance you are proposing?
ReplyDeleteThe Sages will only give acceptance on condition that he changes 4 opinions. Akavya - who was the greatest scholar of the age - does not accept this model, and views his obligation to be only to Hashem, and to Truth.
Look at the significance of acceptance e.g. minhag, sinai, gezera. In order to have unity - you need acceptance.
ReplyDeleteA rabbi or opinion viewed as a minority or going against tradition and precedent creates anarchy.
A zakein mamre is killed in spite of his knowledge and tradition - why?
It is too complex - to give a simple answer.
ReplyDeleteZakein Mamrei is in the Torah - in this case, he was not killed and continued to advise his son .
But yes, there is a pattern here - but there were also breaks in unity, even amongst the Sages - Hillel and Shammai, and their courts. Gamliel and Yehoshua. Resh lakish and Rebbe Yochanan, Rav Elazar and the Sages. each one had terrible consquences for Chachamim and Klal Yisrael.
on the subject - this letter purports to be from Rav Moshe, opposing the dismissal of Rav Unterman, or shortening his term.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.kedem-auctions.com/en/content/letter-revealing-opinion-union-rabbis-opposing-dismissal-rabbi-unterman-favor-appointment
But the Government of the State was the employer, and they did this - not R Goren. Furthermore, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who at the time was widely accepted, was backing Rav Zevin ztl - who was a great Tzaddik and Talmid Chacham. Had Rav Zevin been elected, would he also have been opposed?