Igros Moshe. (EH II #11) I received your very long letter, which was full of criticism against me,. concerning my ruling which was published in Igros Moshe about artificial insemination which you believe will cause harm to the purity and holiness of the lineage of the Jewish People. It is also obvious from your letter that you think I will object to your criticism. The reality is the opposite. I see from your letter only that there are elevated people who are not afraid or embarrassed to give criticism. However the truth is that there is nothing in what I wrote in that ruling, the slightest possibility of destroying the purity and holiness of the Jewish People. It consists entirely of true Torah from the words of our teachers the Rishonim. Consequently your objections simply indicate that you have a different understanding which is based on non Torah sources which dismiss the words of gedolim in their understanding of G-d’s commandments and the holy Torah. These external views turn prohibitions into permitted acts and that which is permitted becomes prohibited. They are thus antithetical to Torah and halacha. This is true even for being strict as is know the tzadokim actually wanted to be stricter and consequently there were even rabbinic decrees made to go against these greater restrictions of the tzadokim. I am not Thank G-d either from them or the masses. All my Jewish outlook is based entirely on my knowledge of Torah without the slightest mixtue of external knowledge. My rulings are true whether for strictness or leniency. I not only am not influenced by non Torah views but I also don’t make up analysis based on emotion or personal bias even to be more strict than the halacha calls for or because I imagine it is a purer and holier path. Now let’s look at the nature of this halacha. It is unquestionably clear that sexual sins require an act of sexual intercourse and have nothing to do with the sperm . Thus it is irrelevant for the sin whether the intercourse can result in children or not and thus applies to sterile people or whether it is natural or unnatural intercourse or even whether sperm is produced . Since the prohibition is entirely because of the act of intercourse it is totally unrelated to the insertion of sperm into her body when there is no act of intercourse no matter whether the sperm is a relative or someone else she with whom she is prohibited to have intercourse. Consequently she does not become prohibited to her husband nor does the resulting child become a mamzer by the insertion of sperm but only bt an act of prohibited intercourse.
KA I am waiting for you to claim that Rav Moshe could not have wtitten this to someone who disagreed with his psak and it must have been written by Rav Shach!
That he allows disagreement does not mean that a)
ReplyDeleteI have disagreement, b) that I would attack him personally if I did
C) even if I raised a point here or there that my point would be correct.
We haven't seen the original letter or who it was from.
There was one person named savetsky who wrote very severe criticism. On this subject. However, when he needed a personal reference because he got in trouble with the authorities he came to Rav Moshe
The Rebbetzen asked why he would agree after all the insults, but Rav Moshe still provided the letter.
Also, The point he makes here is a very interesting one. That a leniency in itself is not make it less kosher. So for example the mechitza, which some quarters saw as too "frei" was based on a misconception that being frum = being strict. He is saying that all his decisions are based on internal halachic considerations.
ReplyDelete"It is unquestionably clear that sexual sins require an act of sexual intercourse and have nothing to do with the sperm"
ReplyDeleteIs there a source?
Read the original Hebrew in the Igros
Delete"it is not a problem to disagree with the gadol (greatest scholar) when he is saying something in the course of teaching the material or even if he is making a practical halachic ruling but he is not part of a formal court. We see this in many places in the gemora where students question their teacher’s view."
DeleteIf what he says here about all his sources being internal Torah sources is true (I don't dispute anything)
ReplyDeleteHow and why did one of the Gedolim in his own moetzet effectively disown him and tell Rav Yaakov's son in law that his shver will have to give din v cheshbon?
Isn't that rather extreme?
That was for Haskapha & hanhaga.
DeleteAu contraire
that same RY proudly told the secret service who were inspecting the Lower East apt.:if you're searching for explosives,check his teshuvos
What kind of Hollywood story is that?
Delete"This is true even for being strict as is know the tzadokim actually wanted to be stricter and consequently there were even rabbinic decrees made to go against these greater restrictions of the tzadokim. I am not Thank G-d either from them or the masses."
ReplyDeleteWe previously had a discussion about the very interesting observation of Rav Shternbuch shlita, that in order for a leniency to be accepted, one needs a reputation as machmir.
This latter statement appears to be a sociology of halacha statement, rather than actual halacha - in the hareidi world, Rav Moshe certainly had a reputation for leniency, so presumably this is why he had trouble with some of rulings being accepted (eg Mechitza, non Yisroel milk, etc).
Rav Moshe seems to be suggesting here, that being seen as machmir alone is not a halachic requirement..?
https://en.yhb.org.il/revivim1003/
DeleteOne version of The Controversy over Rabbi Feinstein
KA,contra the typical agendae
ReplyDeleteGoing against the grain & the wind proves you aren't just another PC scorer .That is through being publicly machmir in spite of guaranteed detractors.At least in non-chassidic society.
They can be occasions in the other direction, but again those are few & far in between
Being publicly machmir can also be a political tactic.
Delete