Rav Herschel Schacter criticizes group - Beis Hillel

Rotter forum

בכתבה שתתפרסם השבת ב'עולם קטן' מותח הרב צבי שכטר, ראש ה'ישיבה יוניברסיטי' וממלא מקומו של הרי"ד סולובייצ'יק, ביקורת על רבני 'בית הלל' ועל דרכם ההלכתית המקלה: "כמו באמריקה, הרבנים הצעירים אוהבים לעשות שטיקים". רבני 'בית הלל': "צר לנו על שהטעו את הרב
".

בכתבה שתתפרסם השבת (ויקהל פקודי) בעלון 'עולם' קטן' מתאר הכתב ארנון סגל את הפגישה שערך עם הרב צבי שכטר, ראש ה'ישיבה–יוניברסיטי', וממלא מקומו של הרב יוסף דב סולובייצ'יק ז"ל.

בכתבה מתייחס הרב שכטר בן ה-71 לדרך בה תופסים בארץ את משנתו של הרב סולובייצ'יק, כשבתשע עשרה השנים שמאז פטירתו, מתנהל מאבק על מורשתו

.

סגל מתאר איך בשעה שנכנס לחדר, היה הרב שכטר שקוע בקריאת הכתבה ב'ישראל היום', בה התראיינו חלק ממקימי פורום 'בית הלל' ובה הם מתארים את חיבתם לסמרטפונים ולסדרה סיינפלד. (הכתבה נכתבה לפני הקמתו בפועל של הארגון).

Suicide of victim forced to marry rapist - to preserve honor

Fox News

RABAT, Morocco –  The case of a 16-year-old girl who killed herself after she was forced to marry her rapist has spurred outrage among Morocco's internet activists and calls for changes to the country's laws.

An online petition, a Facebook page and countless tweets expressed horror over the suicide of Amina Filali, who swallowed rat poison on Saturday to protest her marriage to the man who raped her a year earlier.

Article 475 of the Moroccan penal code allows for the "kidnapper" of a minor to marry his victim to escape prosecution, and it has been used to justify a traditional practice of making a rapist marry his victim to preserve the honor of the woman's family.

Meiri's variant text:Kesubos 17a

The Meiri in Nedarim (20a) states: "There is one exception to the blanket prohibition of looking at married women. It is permitted to look at the face of a bride for the first seven days of marriage in order to endear her to her husband." While in Kesubos (17a) he states, It is a mitzva to cause the chasan and kallah to rejoice in order that they beome more attached to each other...  The greatest of scholars used to carry the bride on their shoulders. However this activity is not permitted except to one who has no improper thoughts. For anyone else it is prohibted even to look at the bride’s face in order to make her beloved to her husband. It is only permitted for someone who knows himself very well.

=================

The problem is that our text of Kesubos 17a states:  Rav Yochanon said that it is permitted to stare at the face intently at the face of a bride for the first seven days after marriage in order to make her beloved to her husband. But that is not accepted as halacha.

=================

Below is part of a manuscript available on line from Hebrew University from the Vatican Library. It states clearly that it is in fact the halacha that it is permitted to look at a kallah's face for the first 7 days of marriage. Which agrees with the Meiri - as well as Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna Sanhedrin 7:4. [use Explorer or Chrome - Firefox seems to have problems view the Hebrew University site.]

The other interesting change is that we have the text ): Rav Acha placed the bride on his shoulder and danced with her. The Rabbis asked him, May we do this also? He replied, If they are perceived by you as a beam [that arouses no sexual thoughts – Rashi] then it is all right and if not you may not.

The text below says it was Rav Ada Bar Ahava who used to dance with the kalla on his shoulder. This is apparently the same Rav Ada bar Ahava who ripped the red cloak off of a woman because it wasn't modest dress! 

 

Yam Shel Shlomo: Prohibition of looking at women

Yam Shel Shlomo(Kesubos 2:3): R’ Yosse [Kesubos 17a] asserts, “It is permitted to stare intently at the face of the bride for the first 7 days in order that she become beloved to her husband” - but that is not the halacha. And even the first day of marriage it is prohibited so he should instead stare at her clothing or jewelry but not at her face at all. In contrast all of this is absolutely prohibited for other married women. It seems that this is only in reference to staring in a manner that it is prohibited to stare at a rainbow which is in a manner of examination and staring – but simply in a manner of glancing it is permitted. Glancing is also permitted in regard to all married women. Even though from the Rosh (2.3) it appears that even glancing at her face is prohibited but that doesn’t make sense because then no one would be able to know whether a particular woman was single or married that they could testify concerning her. It is specifically talmidei chachomim that Bava Basra 168a say normally do not pay attention to a woman’s appearance. This implies that glancing is permitted even for a talmid chachom, while the average person generally pays attention even to recognize a woman. And the gemora there concludes that when a talmid chachom pays attention to the appearance of a woman he is fully aware of what she looks like. Thus this indicates that looking at a woman is not prohibited but it is only the minhag not to. Therefore we can conclude that there is no actual prohibition at looking at women but there is for staring and carefully examining her image. Staring would also be prohibited even to examining her clothing as we see in Avoda Zara (20b). This is also the view of the Ramban, It is prohibited to stare at the beauty of a woman – even at her little finger with the intent to derive pleasure... This seems to be in agreement with what I explained. Nevertheless one who can be cautious and to add restrictions and safeguards and he is pious and it is known that he is not doing it for pride and to show off – he is called a holy man and he is blessed.

Campaign to get Epstein a 'get' heats up

Washington Jewish Week    

Update from previous post

Rabbi Chaim Herzel Kranz confirmed that Friedman had prayed there "for a few days," but he noted there is "a condemnation on him not ostracism. He has the right to come to synagogue. You do not block that."

He urged everyone to think about the couple's young child and work for a solution rather than cementing further polarization.

"It's very tenuous. There is no trust and a lot of anger" on both sides, he said.

"People have feelings. You've got to deal with people's feelings. You try 100 times. It doesn't work. You try 101.

You don't look for who is a winner, who is a loser," Kranz said, adding he is striving to "handle it."

Also hoping to come up with an amicable way for Epstein to obtain a get is Rabbi David Eidensohn of Monsey, N.Y. He, along with Rabbi Kranz, stressed that a coerced get is not valid

"If you force a divorce, the wife remains married. You have to be very careful," Kranz said. And Eidensohn agreed, explaining he called Friedman and advised him not to give a coerced get.

Restaurant limits use of waitresses for kashrus certification

Haaretz

A Haredi-owned Jerusalem restaurant will be restricting the working hours of waitresses in order to receive the strict mehadrin kashrut certificate. 

The veteran eatery, Heimische Essen, in Rehavia, will cease employing waitresses on Thursday nights, a favorite time for yeshiva boys to patronize the eatery. 

Waitresses at the restaurant, which serves Eastern European specialties to a variety of people, are modestly dressed, although some of them are not Orthodox.

Church Puts Legal Pressure on Abuse Victims’ Group

NYTimes

Turning the tables on an advocacy group that has long supported victims of pedophile priests, lawyers for the Roman Catholic Church and priests accused of sexual abuse in two Missouri cases have gone to court to compel the group to disclose more than two decades of e-mails that could include correspondence with victims, lawyers, whistle-blowers, witnesses, the police, prosecutors and journalists. 

The group, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in the litigation. But the group has been subpoenaed five times in recent months in Kansas City and St. Louis, and its national director, David Clohessy, was questioned by a battery of lawyers for more than six hours this year. A judge in Kansas City ruled that the network must comply because it “almost certainly” had information relevant to the case.