Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Seichel vs halacha - Rav Abramsky vs Chazon Ish

updated In my discussions with Rav Sternbuch regarding dealing with child abuse the question came up whether a person needed to first overcome the halacha barriers before considering the information. In other words if he didn't have two frum male witnesses should he ignore the information or if it wasn't clear whether a rumor was lashon harah should he avoid listening to it.  In short the view presented by Rav Menashe Klein and the Aguda rabbanim. His response was that he had heard from Rav Abramsky that first a poskek needs to know the facts and then submit them to halachic analysis.  He also wrote a teshuva basing himself on Rav Chaim Ozer and the Gerer Rebbe that a menahel has to listen to all rumors - and not dismiss them first as lashon harah. See Rav Sternbuch 5:398
Also one of my sons just showed me the following which shows it is not just the view of Rav Abramsky

שו"ת מנחת יצחק חלק ט סימן קנ

 מ"מ נשארתי בצ"ע, והוא עפ"י אשר קבלתי מהגאון הגדול מראדימישלא זצ"ל, אשר אז בעת בחורותי הייתי מתאבק הרבה אצלו, והרבה שאלות עגונות באו לפניו, הי' אומר כללו, ואח"כ ראיתי שכן כתב גם בספר בשו"ת חבצלת השרון מדודו הגאון הגדול זצ"ל (א"ע סי' כ"ח), וז"ל: מראש כל אמינא להו מה ששמעתי מפי הרב הגאון מוה"ר דובעריש ראפיפארט ז"ל אבד"ק ראווא, שהי' מקובל מפי רבו הגאון בעמח"ס נודע בשערים אבד"ק לובלין ז"ל שבבואו לפניו איזה שאלה, מקודם הוא שוקל בשכלו על אמיתת הענין לפי שכל אנושי שהדבר אמת, אז הוא מעיין עפ"י חוקי תוה"ק מה משפטו, וכן הוא אצלי וכו' עכ"ל. וכ"ז עבר במחשבתי, שהי' קשה לי המציאות שידורו יחד כחמש שנים בלי ליגע בה כלל כפי דברי',
My son just came across the following which indicates that this view was solidly rejected by the Chazon Ish.

"Rav Yoel Kluft said that one of the rabbis in Israel had told him that when a question of Aguna arose that it was necessary to first see according to seichel (commonsense) whether the husband was alive or dead. Only afterwards to do a halachic analysis. The Chazon Ish responded angrily, "It is prohibited to say such a thing. It is necessary to see the halacha!"
מעשה איש חלק ד` עמ` קיב
שח הג"ר יואל קלופט זצ"ל לפני רבינו, שאחד הרבנים בארץ אמר לו שכאשר מגיעה שאלה בעגונה, וצריך דבר ראשון לראות על פי השכל אם הבעל חי או מת, ואח”כ לעשות את החשבונות בהלכה.  הגיב על כך החזו”א בריתחא ואמר : “אסור להגיד כך. צריך לראות בהלכה!” (מבנו הג”ר חיים שליט”א)
A friend of mine however insists that the following letter of the Chazon Ish contradicts what I said - however I disagree since the Chazon Ish clearly says there are two stages and the first one is to clarify the halacha and then afterwards to look at metzius.

אגרות חזון איש (א:לא): בירור משפט בבחינת הלכה למעשה נחלק לעיונים שנים. העיון הראשין להניף הסלת הנקי סעיפי המשפט התוריים. ואחריו עיון השני החדירה בהעובדא הנוכחת לפנינו במלעיותיה ומגרעותה ובדיוק משקל של כל פרק מפרקיה כדי להתאים את הנידון אל סעיף ההלכה המכוון עליו. ומרובים המכשולים של ההתאמה כוזבת מהמשכולים ביודה ההלכה. ז"א אף שאין הדיין אומר על מותר אסור ועל אסור מותר בכל זאת הוא נכשל בהמעשה שבא לידו ומחליט בכח מדומה שזו שבא לידו היא של הסעיף הידוע בעת שהעלים עין מקו דק רב הערך בפלילת המשפט הנבנה תמיד על קיום שכליים דקים. ובהעלמה זו הוציא משפט מעוקל מעוות לא יוכל לתקן. ובשל העיון האחרון נשללה ההוראה מן ההמון אף בדברים שהאוסר והמותר מפורסם תכלית הפרסום ונתנ לחכמים שבכל דור לחקות לאשורה של כל שאלה המופיעה מזמן לזמן שהחכמים יפתרוה מנקודת עיון מקיף והסתכלות בהירה.


  1. Clearly the Agudah have a very strong Halachic leg to stand on, for their position on this issue, seeing that the Chazon Ish agrees with the Agudah.

    1. The problem is even when they have the facts - with the hechsher of the Chazon Ish - they don't apply the halachic categories that clearly exist. There is no halachic justification for concealing an abuser at the expense of a child. There is no halachic justification for not dealing with a pervert because it will cost the yeshiva money. There is no halachic justification for persecuting victims and their family for going to the police when it is justified by the halacha.

  2. The difference here is quite simple:

    Rav Abramsky and Shternbuch are dayanim. They have communal positions and responsibilities. They have real life experience in the application of halacha.

    Not so the Chazon Ish. That is why Rav Ovadia Yosef has praised the Chazon Ish as one of the greatest of his generation and, at the same time, warned against basing halacha on him precisely because he had no official position or experience as a dayan.

    1. James this distinction goes way beyond the question of having real life experience. This is a question of how to approach reality. Do we first establish reality and then apply halachic considerations or are even the facts attended to or ignored based on halachic considerations.

    2. Rav Ovadiah is much more controversial than you seem to realize. Although Rav Ovadiah is a world-class boki in Torah literature, he is not nearly a Godol Hador in the league of the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Rav Ahron Kotler, Satmar Rebbe, Rav Chaim Ozer, Chofetz Chaim, and others of that sort who were much greater.

      Chacham Ovadiah has an amazing encyclopedic knowledge of Torah literature of course, but that having been said, there are other areas of Torah that is needed besides bekiyus. the Steipler said about Rav Ovadiah that his seforim are good for the mareh mekomos but not good for the conclusions since he lacks those other qualities. See Aruchos Rabeinu for the details.

    3. Daas Torah,
      The question of how to approach reality is dependent on having exposure to reality. Those with communal responsibilities will likely seek to first establish reality. Halacha does not exist in a vacuum.

      I dont know how you can measure Gedolim. Nonetheless, I have heard that sort of nonsense before. It is nothing less than nonsense. All of the major Sephardic Gedolim of the last generation recognized that Rav Ovadia was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. Rav Ezra Attieh picked him to finish the Kaf Hachaim and recognized his greatness at an early age.

      Perhaps there is a difference in how Sephardim and Ashkenazim viewed Torah greatness. I dont know. But to say that he doesnt have "those other qualities" is complete hogwash.

      I dont accept the Steipler as the final authority on anything and if the example of someone with "those other qualities" includes the Satmar Rebbe, I would much prefer my posek not have them.

    4. James,

      Of course one can rate Gedolim. In fact you have to rate them to even know who is a Godol. Heck, you just did it yourself with your comments about the Steipler and Satmar Rebbe.

      And it is certain that the Gedolim of the previous dor that were mentioned by Dovid are immeasurably greater than someone from this generation like Rav Ovadia.

    5. Abe,
      I wasnt measuring Gedolim. I think that once one reaches a particular stature, they are a Gadol and we cant really distinguish between them.

      Anyone who reads this blog knows that I greatly esteem Rav Ahron Kotler. But what makes him a Gadol? He was not a great posek. Nobody really learns Mishnas Rav Ahron. His Torah is not really learned in Yeshivas and at his death, his yeshiva was not very big. He is a Gadol because of the concensus of his peers.

      I contend that Rav Ovadia is also a Gadol because of the consensus of his peers. Its just that his peers are not Ashkenazim. The Sepharadi gedolim of the last generation all considered him the next gadol. You may not be familiar with those gedolim, thats OK. You can choose which group of Gedolim appeal to you. I choose not to accept the Satmar Rebbe as a Gadol. Dont cite people I dont accept as Gedolim to prove that someone I do think is a gadol lacks certain "qualities."

      I do not follow Rav Ovadia. He does not represent my religious tradition. But I think he is the greatest living gadol and is certainly capable of being spoken of in the same sentence as the Satmar Rebbe.

      FYI - Rav Ovadia himself speaks of the Chazon Ish as the gadol hador so he does not mean disrespect in saying that his psakim should not be followed.

    6. There seems to be a common misconception that we are unable to comparatively assess the level of various Gedolim. This sometimes leads to comments, like, well my group has their own Gedolim so we are equal.

      We can compare "levels" - in fact, we need to in order to judge who is an authority in the first place! If you can't comapre levels then how are you to know that someoe is a godol? The fact that he is "accepted" as a godol only means that many people have judged his "level" to be that of a godol. But if you cannot compare levels, then these people have no right to accept him as a godol in the first place.

      And the same common sense that tells you so-and-so stands out among his peers making him an authority, tells you that certain so-and-so's stand out even more.

      Or less.

      Part of knowing who to follow is to know who is greater. Godol mimenu b'chochma ubaminyan is an assessment that it legitimately made. And as Rav Shach writes - if you dont know who to follow, follow whoever is greater - and, he adds, you can of course tell who is greater.

      If you yourself dont know, then thats fine - not everyone can know the answer to all questions they encounter - but why in the world would you say nobody else can know?

      And it's an error in logic, too, because they themselves compared "levels" of other people! i.e.: "Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita is the leading Sefardi posek of our times." And how would they know this if you cannot compare him to other sefardi poskim?

      And how can one know whether "any of us are on the madreiga of assessing the 'levels' of other people" unless you assessed the levels of all those other people who said arent "on the "madgreigah" to do that?

      If i were to ask you who is greater - Rav Ovadiah or Rabi Avika -- would you say you cannot compare people? Rav Ovadiah or the Rambam? Avraham Avinu?

      So clearly, we can compare "levels", its just that to some, certain comparisons are "obvious" and others are not. Well, to other people, perhaps who are more knowledgable and skilled in assessing these kinds of values, other comparisons are also obvious.

    7. James: It was the Steipler who said that Rav Ovadia lacked those qualities. It is quote obvious that the Steipler, Chazon Ish, Satmar, Brisker Rov and the other Gedolim from the previous generation are greater than the rabbonim from the current generation, including Rav Ovadia. And just as you are declaring above who you do or don't think is a godol, you must respect that others don't consider Rav Ovadia a godol hador on that level.

    8. Dovid,
      We can, in the larger sense, over the course of centuries, compare who is greater. We know that Rabi Akiva was greater than the Rambam who was greater than the current Rabanim. But within a timespan it is much harder to compare. In what generation do you put Rav Shlomo Zalman? He was born ten years after the Steipler but ten years before Rav Ovadia.
      In my opinion, they are all in the same league.

      The problem is you are coming from a tradition in which the Gedolim you mentioned are accepted. They follow a tradition that was not common throughout the Jewish World.

      I have a friend whose father was born in Baghdad to a Rav. His grandfather (the Rav) finished Shas in his teens. He was a tremendous Gaon. When he moved to Israel, he had never heard of the Steipler or the Brisker Rav. To him, the Gedolim were Rav Fetaya, Dangour, Sofer, Ben Ish Chai, etc.

      The Sephardic world was very different from the Ashkenazi world. Just because you are unfamiliar with it doesnt mean that its Gedolim werent on par with the Ashkenazim.

      Frankly, I think Rav Ovadia demonstrates a mastery of all of Torah in a way many of the rabbanim you mentioned did not. He is a once in a lifetime Rav. His Torah will stand the test of time in a way the Steipler's will not and in a way that Rav Ahron's will not.

      It is not obvious to me that the previous generation is greater. Why is that obvious? Rav Kook was of the generation before the Satmar Rebbe. Was it obvious to the Satmar Rebbe that Rav Kook was greater than him? Was it obvious to the Brisker Rav? I dont think so. Being born ten or twenty years earlier does not make one greater.

    9. James: You completely missed the point. The point is not that those Gedolim were greater because they were from an earlier generation. Yes, someone from a later generation could be equal or even greater than those from an earlier one. But those Gedolim were greater because they were greater in their own right. They are simply greater Gedolim. And, yes, this greatness can be comparability judged.

    10. The Steipler, Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Rav Ahron Kotler, Satmar Rebbe, Rav Chaim Ozer and Chofetz Chaim's Torah and greatness have already "standed the test of time" in a permanent way that will last and benefit Klal Yisroel until Moshiach and beyond.

    11. Abe,
      My point is that it is not true that they were greater in their own right. Who says?

      Rav ahron Kotler's Torah has not stood the test of time. Nobody learns it. My friends in Lakewood never learn Mishnas Rav ahron. Outside of Satmar, nobody learns the Satmar Rebbe. For that matter, neither is the Steipler.

      What I am saying is that there were portions of the Jewish world in 1939 (when Rav Chaim Ozer died) who had never heard of him and would not consider him the Gadol Hador. In Hungary, the Minchas Elazar was the Gadol Hador, not the Chafetz Chaim. And do you even know the name of the Rav that the Minchas Elazar considered to be the Gadol Hador?!

      Now, I guess you can argue that Rav ahron built an institution that has grown in size and has made inroads in bringing people closer to Torah. But if that is the standard you are using to measure Gedolim, then Rav Ovadia is certainly at the top of the list. In fact, your list will have to change altogether. Instead of the Steipler you will have to put the Lubavitcher Rebbe, RYBS, and others who I am sure you dont want to recognize.

    12. James,

      You must be kidding. The Torah world in America stands on the shoulders of Rav Ahron Kotler, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Moshe Feinstein. Without these three great men, America would be a spiritual wasteland. (Sure they would be some corners of Torah Judaism, but it would be nothing in the grand scheme of things where things are in Torah America today.)

      Yes, Rav Ahron Kotler and the Satmar Rebbe were not, specifically, known as poskim. And Rav Moshe's Yeshiva Mestiva Tiferes Yerushalayim (MTJ) is a very very small Yeshiva -- today and when Rav Moshe was alive. Yet it is these three Torah heroes who the entire Jewish world, especially in America, owe so much to. Almost the entire Litvish Yeshiva system today stands on Rav Ahron. Almost the entire Chasidish Yeshiva system today stands on the Satmar Rebbe. And almost all psak halacha today would be in the neverlands without Rav Moshe.

      No one comes even close to these "big three".

    13. Incorrect on every count. I dont want to quibble over the details (all of which I think are false) so I will focus on the errors of your methodology.

      The underlying problem is your metric for Gadlus. Either it is Torah greatness or it is Torah accomplishments. Rav Ahron can not be great because of what Lakewood became after he died. That makes him a visionary, not a Gadol. Either way, if that is your metric, I would say that the Lubavitcher Rebbe built a Torah empire all alone. RYBS built an empire all alone.

      Rav Ahron was not alone in creating chareidi Judaism. There was Chaim Berlin and torah V'daas and other yeshivas. Had Rav Ahron never existed, Torah in Bnei Brak and Yerushalayim would not be much different.

      Even using your standard, is there anyone who did more to spread Torah than Rav Ovadia? I know of an anti-Shas posek who hides his Yabia Omer! He hides it but he must have it as a posek. The first volume of Yabia Omer was published before the Mishnas Rav Ahron and has stood the test of time much better. In terms of building Torah institutions, nobody holds a candle to Rav Ovadia. There are more students in Shas yeshivas than in Lakewood. Way more. In the past 30 years he has managed a revolution in torah that is unrivaled. Almost the entire Sephardic worlds stands on Rav Ovadia. And he has done it in his lifetime!

    14. Your approach is baseless. You again make the mistake of equating the popularity of a published book with gadlus. The fact of the matter is that over the centuries, both ancient and modern, many gedolim have no significant published work whatsoever.

      Rav Ahron, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Moshe are the three incomparably great leaders of post-WWII Judaism. The entire Jewish world stands on their shoulders and tremendous accomplishments.

      P.S. What I am telling you was also said many times by Rav Hutner ztl and Rav Schorr ztl, the Roshei Yeshios of Chaim Berlin and Torah V'Daas.

      P.P.S. Your splitting hairs of "visionaries" and "Gadol" is ridiculous. They are visionaries too, of course.

    15. I am trying to figure out what makes them great and why that standard does not apply to Rav Ovadia. Your response is to deny any objective measure of greatness. I reject that.

      My point is that Rav Ovadia comes from a different world. He didnt attend European yeshivas or study under European rabbis. The group of rabbanim you mention knew nothing of the Sephardic world and the Sephardic world knew nothing of them. So you cant choose a set of European Gedolim and claim that they are the ultimate authority on who is considered a gadol.

      PS - if you know the history pre-WWII Satmar you wouldnt say that the Rebbe was a great visionary.

    16. According to studies and research conducted by Daniel J. Elazar, Political Scientist and demographer at Bar Ilan University and founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in 1931 Ashkenazim accounted for 92% of the Jewish population and today account for 80%, while Sephardim/Mizrachi today constitute approximately twenty percent of world Jewry.

      A godol held of by the 80% if going to be more reknown and held of as a godol, naturally, than one held of by the only 20%.

  3. The laws of agunah and lashon hara are totally different and cannot be compared. The halacha is that Lashon hara can be believed if there is circumstantial evidence. This does not apply to the agunah. circumstance

    1. Rav Sternbuch stated the approach came from Rav Abramsky - so he didn't limit it to Agunas. Even within lashon harah there is a similar distinction. The halachic approach of the Chofetz Chaim where even if it there is a to'eles you can't speak it if you are saying it out of anger or hatred - as opposed to the commonsense view of the Maharal where there is no issur if you are willing to say it in front of the person. So there clearly are major differences in these approaches that applies for a wide range of halachic concerns - as Rav Sternbuch told me, "A posek needs to establish what the facts are before applying the halacha"

  4. Still, you can't compare aguna that requires a factual knowledge of what happened to lashon hara where circumstantial evidence is enough.

    1. I don't understand your point. I simply presented two approaches to psak reality first and then halacha or halacha first and then reality. The fact that different areas have different concerns or standards of proof - doesn't change my original point.

      The fact that Rav Sternbuch presented Rav Abramsky has applying to the psak in general and not just aguna as reported in the excerpt from the book - means that there are two general approaches and this is not limited to just issues of aguna

  5. I would have thought that the laws of lashon harah would for the most part be orthogonal to child molestation cases. Such a rav has a great deal of toeles in following all avenues that lead to the facts of the case. Also, the question of whether two frum male witnesses is neeeded is a separate matter, and not related to lashon harah.

    Also, I don't think the Hazon Ish quote really applies here. There's no reason to think that the Hazon Ish was referring to hilchos lashon hara in this quote (since it could largely be moot in the face of toeles). There are various procedural halachos, unrelated to lashon harah, regarding what sort of information is to be considered in deciding the death of a husband with regards to Agunot. That is more likely what the Hazon Ish was referring to.

    Thus, it's entirely possible (based only the story you brought about the Hazon Ish) that the Hazon Ish would have viewed the situation similarly to R' Sternbuch.

  6. We need some clarification of what "sechel" is, what metzius is, and what common sense is.

    I don't think they are all the same.

    Sechel is using one's own assessment, logic and understanding of a situation.

    Commonsense could be anything, what the man on the street would think or do, commmonly held beliefs (by whom? Rabbonim, seculars, etc.)

    Metzius is empirical evidence of facts. How that evidence is interpreted is by using sechel, and bina.

    There is also sevara. Sevara is important both in logic and in halacha. I would translate Sevara as argumentation or reasoning.

  7. "In short the view presented by Rav Menashe Klein and the Aguda rabbanim. His response ..." It seems to me that you had a discussion with your Rav that was not halacha lmayseh. Just shmoozing what do say about this godol's p'sak or the other Godol's psak.
    This Godol and that Godol were paskining actual shaalas - They had a much greater "s'yatah d'shmaya" in arriving at their p'sokim then do people tryring to second guess psokim which are NOW not nogaiah to a actual shaalah just to see what if.....

    And thats the root to all the taanos against "DAASTORAH.BLOGSPOT.COM'
    Its all academic not l'mayseh. L'mayseh, each and every case has to be asked and the results will differ in each case.

    1. nope! that is not what happened and that is not the issue we are talking about here.

  8. the chazon ish you quoted at the end of the article has nothing to do with the first חזו”א . , the first one is talking about a case that has a halachik procedure what constitutes a proof, or in what cases do you have to be חושש for mistakes. and r abramsky is saying to ignore the legal procedure and start with common sense, and as a second step work out the הלכה. and the חזו”א held that you approach the הלכה with out previous decisions.
    the second חזו”א is about how to apply the הלכה to עולם המעשה. for example it is forbidden to water plants on שבת, but there is a dispute if one can relive himself on grass, based on the question if urine is beneficial to plants or not.
    the question about proof, is a מחלוקת between the גמרא כתובות פה that אומדנא is only enough to stop action; not to take positive steps without עדים. to the רמב”ם ריש פרק כ”ד דסנהדרין
    that to only need for עדים is when the דיין doesn’t have a אומדנא, there is a huge discussion how to reconcile the רמב”ם with the גמרא. but none of them explain the רמב”ם ‘א”כ למה הצריכה התורה עדים” which is clearly stating that there is no היכי תימצא that you need עדים when there is a אומדנא. in the ספר העיקרים לר` שלמה איגר ח”א עמ` ל”ט summarizes as above that the רמב”ם did not hold of any חילוקים and that it’s against the גמרא.

    1. interesting comment - however it seems that the Minchas Yitzchok does make such a distinction and applies the lesson from Aguna across the board. If you notice the second quote of the Chazon Ish he in fact does place halachic considerations first - which is consisisten with the view that he is arguing that you always look at information through halachic lenses and the others are saying that you first look at information through the lense of human commonsense and then apply the halacha.

      The Rambam you cite is also critical - he clearly is minimizing hte halachic lense of proper witnesses - but he only does that for gedolim - not for the average rav.

  9. Maybe I'm missing the point, but is everyone aware of the Chafetz Chaim's psak that (despite the issur de'oraysa of just listening to lashon hara even without the intent of accepting it) you ARE allowed to listen to 'lashon hara' 1) if it has future ramifications, 2) if the speaker is not speaking from hatred 3) the speaker is not infront of a bunch of people who don't need to hear it and 4) the listener does not accept.
    Also, as fun as it might be, assuming what the Chazon Ish held based off of a story with hearsay information is not very useful and can be dangerous... no?
    Lastly, maybe I missed it, but what "stronhg halachic leg" does the Agudah in fact rely on if it's true that they don't even listen to someones claims of abuse?

    1. If person has been raped and is furious at the attacker and is focused on revenge - should they be listened to?

  10. That's obviously a very central question here.
    After a cursory glance at the sefer Chametz Chaim it would seem like there is a chiyuv in this case to actually speak up on the part of the speaker (hilchos rechilus, klal 9, beer mayim chaim 3) b/c of 'lo sa'amod al dam rei'echa'. Over there he explains the prat of not speaking if you have hatred in your heart to mean that at the time of speaking force yourself to have to'eles in mind and not sinah.
    That being said if the guys intention is to get benefit from the pegam that he is causing even if there is toeles it's an issur de'oraysa (hilchos loshon hara klal 10 BMC 10 and klal 3 BMC 1).
    In any event a posek must obviously be asked about every case.

    Also, I couldn't tell if your question was a response to my points or a new point?

    1. You should note that you correctly present what he says by hilchos rechilos - but he doesn't say any such thing in hilchos lashon harah. Please read Rav Sternbuch's teshuva on the subject that I cited.

      I was responding to your response to my points

  11. If it is the person who has been raped who is talking (and not a third party who saw the abuse) then we have to deal with hilchos loshon hara klal 10 mekor hachaim 11 which says that it's impossible to be wronged and talk about the incident without having hatred and revenge in mind.
    Rabbi Moshe Kaufman wrote a biur on the sefer chafetz chaim with many articles in the back of the book that deal with lema'aseh cases of loshon hara (newspapers, radio, non-jews, shiduchim etc.). One of the articles deals with this issue and he seems to have a way to allow the speaker to relate the story under certain circumstances.

  12. Of course, a perfunctory glance at Oshry's תשובות will show that he considered common sense a great deal in the Aguna questions he was submitted. He was one of our greatest leaders, yet his תשובות are and may never be quoted in the cases of Agunos, because שכל is not really in vogue.

  13. On the matter of what the Aguda holds (WHY it matters is a whole other story altogether), let us remember that so much of their political clout was formed on their war against תנאי בגט ובנישואין, so whether Agunos are freed or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in their perverse minds.

  14. Can someone link me to an explanation of the Aguda's position. I do not want commentary just their straight psak showing their working in the poskim (assuming such an article exists online)?

    1. As far as I know there is no such article - their public view which can be summed up - the issue is so complex only rabbis can deal with the issue appropriate - therefore we are not going to explain what our psak is because we don't want the layman to decide these issues for himself. The following are some samples of their official public stance






  15. Agunah is a very different category from sexual abuse .

    Seichel is important in areas of immediate danger or safek danger.

    Even those who are opposed as being too revolutionary bring halachic precendents for their arguments. There is a metzius factor in agunot, eg a submarine goes missing - there is an invesitgation as to what happened to it. But even when that happened , the Chief Rabbi of the IDF had to do an extensive halachic analysis.

    What about corona virus? when it first hit town, rabbonim were still thinking that they were protected. When metzius showed them wrong, they had to revise their thinking.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.