על היתרו המפורסם נדון באשכול נפרד https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24608
ובלי להיכנס לדון על היתרו זה (ובפרט שהאשכול ההיא נעולה), אכתוב מה שסיפר בנו הרב דוד נ"י בהספדו על אודות ההיתר הזה. כהקדמה הזכיר שאביו התיר ב' עגונות בחייו. אך אלפי עגונות התיר ע"י שנסע כל שבוע במשך שבעים שנה(!!) בכל רחבי העולם כדי לסדר גיטין וחליצות. המשיך המספיד ואמר שבנוגע להיתרו זה, הגיב אביו בכאב על כל הרדיפות שסבל, שצר לו מאד שכעת כאשר בעל הוראה יראה בעיניו להתיר עגונה, ימנע מזה מחשש פן יפגענו כל חרון אף שבעולם. כעת נעשה יותר קשה לבנות ישראל העגונות. זה כל מה שסבל מזה, כל הענין האישי לא נגע אליו כלל. ע"כ מאת בנו המספיד.
ואוסיף ששמעתי פעם מנכדו ששמע ממנו שהיו שלשה דברים שהעלימו ממנו/רימו אותו בעת שנתן התירו, שאם היה יודע מהם לא היה נותנה, אך בדיעבד סבר שאינם נוגעים לתוקף ההיתר (כמדומה שאחד מהדברים היה שרימו אותו לומר ש[יבלחט"א] הגר"ש קמנצקי שליט"א כבר הסכים להתיר, ובזה יובן למה לא התנה שההיתר תהיה בתנאי שיסכים עמו א' מגדולי הדור ואכמ"ל), וכיון שהתיר, סידר להם חו"ק, שזו האחריות נטל על שכמו בעת שהתיר.
Sorry I’m not sympathetic to Rabbi Greenblat, a”h. He married Tamar to Adam based on a bogus PhD psychology letter. He thinks he rescued Tamar and gave her happiness. Did Rabbi Greenblatt a”h really believe that bogus PhD psychology letter? This is like a man owns a property and refuses to sell it or part with it. Can somebody else buy that field? No. Can somebody just move in to that field? No. Tamar is Aaron’s field. Aaron refuses to give a get to Tamar.
ReplyDeleteMy case v Susan is similar. The Rigler/Rothbart March 7, 1995 order of separation is bogus. Allow me my motion today to the Appellate Division 2nd Dept.
"2.It is inappropriate and wrong for Judge Prus to issue in 2013 20 years after the Get a NYS contested civil divorce 2013 Aranoff v Aranoff based on a heap of lies of Ms.\ Serlin and Susan. It is not possible to issue a contested civil divorce, over the man's objections, after the man gives his wife a Get. It is not possible for Judge Rigler to order a freeze on a man's TIAA pension early 1994 over the man's objections, after the man gives his wife a Get.
3.It is well established throughout the world and throughout history that once a man divorces his wife he cannot divorce her again unless he remarries her. In the Talmud Yevamoth Chapter 5 Mishnah 1: “Rabban Gamaliel says, A bill of divorce is not valid after another bill of divorce;”
10,My motion is timely because it concerns fraud, well known, commonly take many years and extremely difficult to get evidence that will hold up in court. Susan acknowledged she received the get in 1993. NYS courts had jurisdiction to do equitable distribution of assets and determination of child support. The bogus Rigler/Rothbart March 7, 1995 order of separation was to ensure stealing my pension and my house. I went to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) and to the NYS Court of Appeals who repeatedly claimed they lacked jurisdiction to review my complaint. The Appellate Division 2nd Judicial Department unfairly denied me poor person relief. I ask that the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division 2nd Judicial Department calendar the present motion."
Torah thought this week’s parsha אמור “There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelites and whose father was Egyptian, And a fight broke out in the camp between that half-Israelite (lit. the son of an Israelite woman) and a certain Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy, and he was brought to Moses---now his mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan---” (Leviticus 24:10-11).
ReplyDeleteויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כד פסוק י - יא
)י) וַיֵּצֵא בֶּן אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית וְהוּא בֶּן אִישׁ מִצְרִי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּנָּצוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי:
)יא) וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת הַשֵּׁם וַיְקַלֵּל וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת דִּבְרִי לְמַטֵּה דָן:
רש"י ויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כד פסוק י
ויצא בן אשה ישראלית - מהיכן יצא, רבי לוי אומר מעולמו יצא. רבי ברכיה אומר מפרשה שלמעלה יצא. לגלג ואמר ביום השבת יערכנו, דרך המלך לאכול פת חמה בכל יום, או שמא פת צוננת של תשעה ימים, בתמיה. ומתניתא אמרה מבית דינו של משה יצא מחוייב. בא ליטע אהלו בתוך מחנה דן, אמרו לו מה טיבך לכאן, אמר להם מבני דן אני. אמרו לו (במדבר ב) איש על דגלו באותות לבית אבותם כתיב. נכנס לבית דינו של משה ויצא מחוייב, עמד וגדף:
בן איש מצרי - הוא המצרי שהרגו משה:
בתוך בני ישראל - מלמד שנתגייר:
וינצו במחנה - על עסקי המחנה:
ואיש הישראלי - זה שכנגדו, שמיחה בו מטע אהלו:
My theory. The cause of the quarrel is of critical importance. The Blasphemer argued against ביום השבת יערכנו. The Blasphemer wants to dwell with the tribe of Dan. A particular Danite said: No. The Blasphemer goes to court. The court rules against the Blasphemer.
The Blasphemer is a convert to Judaism even though his mother is Jewish. The Blasphemer is a woke liberal: no religion no prayer no God in schools---everybody is equal and has rights.
Woke liberals teach only Darwin and not Creation. No teaching Shabbath and Creation and laws of Moses etc. The Blasphemer is a firm atheist and wants only atheism taught in schools.
The Blasphemer is against any nationalism any tribalism: everybody is equal. The Blasphemer is a firm socialist and Marxist.
The Blasphemer is against private property rights. The Blasphemer wants poor people to move into rich people's property and stay there.
The Blasphemer wants a man to marry another man’s wife without a get, much like the bogus Kamentsky heter. The Blasphemer wants everything opposite Torah of Moses. The Blasphemer is firm against the Judaic-Christian heritage that wants prayer in schools Creation taught in schools etc.
More on my theory of The Blasphemer in this week’s parsha אמור
ReplyDelete“And to the Israelite people speak thus: Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt; if he also pronounces the name Lord, he shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him: stranger or citizen, if he has thus pronounced the Name, he shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:15-16).
ויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כד פסוק טו - יז
(טו) וְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ:
(טז) וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם יְקֹוָק מוֹת יוּמָת רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ בוֹ כָּל הָעֵדָה כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח בְּנָקְבוֹ שֵׁם יוּמָת:
רש"י ויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כד פסוק טו
ונשא חטאו - בכרת, כשאין התראה:
רש"י ויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כד פסוק טז
ונקב שם - אינו חייב עד שיפרש את השם, ולא המקלל בכינוי:
ונקב - לשון קללה, כמו (במדבר כג ח) מה אקב:
Hertz Chumash page 527 “the stranger. Although he is not subject to the precepts of the Torah and is to be allowed a large degree of tolerance, he yet may not be permitted to desecrate the holiness if the camp. If he does not wish to worship the God of Israel, he is not compelled to do so; but should he publicly revile the Holy Name, the offense is as serious with him as with the Israelite.”
Rashi says the punishment is כרת if no warning before. The punishment is stoning only if he makes explicit mention of the Name. Extremely unlikely if ever. Follow KA, IsraelReader, MoeGinsburg, Daniel Kerzner, Joe Orlow, Garnel?
My theory is that The Blasphemer is a woke progressive left socialist Marxist who wants to bash Torah of Moses.
Perhaps in his 90s , his mind was not what it used to be, and this one slipped by him.
ReplyDeleteDavid/Dovid Bashevkin
ReplyDelete@DBashIdeas
·
Apr 29, 2022
Rav Nota Greenblatt zt”l passed away.
He was a giant of our generation, an advocate for the Jewish people, and a representative of the small town Jewish sensibilities we so desperately need to preserve.
May his memory be a blessing and his legacy should continue to inspire.
Wow I got an email reply from the Appellate Div. 2nd Dept! Allow me my email response:
ReplyDeleteThe earliest mention at any time of the bogus Rigler/Rothart March 7, 1995 order of separation was in the 2013 inquest. See attached Appellatemotion.pdf.
If the bogus Rigler/Rothart March 7, 1995 order of separation were real and not bogus, the Appellate judges would’ve mentioned it in the ruling April 29, 1996. Further on April 29, 1996 I was married to my dear wife Yemima and our daughters, Hadassah (3/7/1994) and Tamar (11/22/1995), were born . Hadassah now has two boys, Ariel (7/26/2020) and Tsur (10/31/2021) and lives in Lod, Israel.
You’re correct in attached Aranoff v Aranoff2.pdf “There are no pending appeals for your case at this time.” My basis for requesting the Court to accept for review my complaint is entirely based on fraud. I write in Appellatemotion.pdf attached:
My motion is timely because it concerns fraud, well known, commonly take many years and extremely difficult to get evidence that will hold up in court. Susan acknowledged she received the get in 1993. NYS courts had jurisdiction to do equitable distribution of assets and determination of child support. The bogus Rigler/Rothbart March 7, 1995 order of separation was to ensure stealing my pension and my house. I went to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) and to the NYS Court of Appeals who repeatedly claimed they lacked jurisdiction to review my complaint. The Appellate Division 2nd Judicial Department unfairly denied me poor person relief. I ask that the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division 2nd Judicial Department calendar the present motion.
We thank God we’re all in good health and safe in Israel. We do need my TIAA pension. TIAA pays Susan 55% of my TIAA pension since early 1994 with no end in sight in violation of ERISA. We hear nothing from TIAA, from Susan, her lawyer, and from the NYS Court of Appeals.
Please advise.