Someone just showed me this letter from Rabbi Nota Greenblatt denouncing as an absurd joke those who claim that in a public matter they have received a heter from a secret posek with secret psak. This is rather amazing since he is claiming that Tamar Epstein was given a heter to remarry without a GET
based on secret poskim and a secret heter!
Translation:
Regarding the claims in civil court, filed by Mrs. SORO ROCHEL, THE WIFE OF R. BRODERICK shlit”a, MEMBER OF THE KOLLEL IN DALLAS, in my area, against her father R. Avrohom Ort shlit”a who wishes to adjudicate in Bais Din according to the laws of the Torah. They are excusing themselves that they received permission to go to court from someone that is secret, and the reason for the permission is also secret.
But it is absolutely clear that such a critical question whether to adjudicate in the courts, which entails a CHILLUL HASHEM, as Rashi brings in the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim, is not a private shylah, pertaining only to the one making the claim, like a shylah in hilchos Shabbos or something similar. Especially in this country where it necessitates the one being sued to hire lawyers, which, as is well known, is almost an endless expense. and this in itself is A CAUSE OF GREAT MONETARY DAMAGE and surely a reliable Bais Din would not permit to adjudicate before the civil courts EXCEPT AFTER HEARING THE CLAIMS FROM BOTH SIDES, and then after great consideration WRITE THEIR OPINION.
And truthfully there is no need to elucidate on this because EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE SAYING, THAT THEY HAVE A HETER, IS AN ABSURD JOKE, for if so, no one is left safe, for any claimant who feels that it is better for him to sue in court will say the same, and there need be no more Dinei Torah among the Jewish people chas v’sholom.
What‘s more, it is UNBELIEVABLE THAT BNEI TORAH, WHO STUDY TORAH FULL TIME, SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS.
To this I have affixed my signature on the date above, here, Memphis, Tenn.
(Rabbi) Nota Tzvi, son of a.a.m.v. Horav Yitzchok Greenblatt
We get you loud and clear!
ReplyDeleteYou don't like Rabbi Greenblatt, and you do not recommend him as a Posek. Okay. What else needs to be done that you haven't don already?
You have made all the necessary Macha'as and revelations.
You have already told us "the secret" that Rabbi Greenblatt is the Posek and his advisers were the two Rabbis Kaminetsky, that allowed them to issue a ruling of Kiddushei Ta'us on their understanding of Rav Moshe Feinstein in this regard, and you and others vehemently object to that. Okay, that is also your right, and their right as well.
Welcome to Chilukei Dei'os 101, this goes on all the time. Men get a Heter Mei'ah Rabbanim, which is also outrageous since Ashkenazi Jews have abided by the ruling of the Rebbi Gershon Meor HaGolah to marry only one wife and we are VERY reluctant to rely on a Heter Me'ah Rabbanim yet sometimes certain Poskim do, and likewise as ruled by Rav Moshe Feinstein their can be an application of Mekach Ta'us to marriages whereby a prior marriage can be annulled by a Posek by ruling Kiddushei Ta'us that has happened in this case.
What more can be done? Rabbi Gestetner has condemned it, but his Bais Din has limited jurisdiction to Monsey because outside of Monsey he has no audience and people who even know he exists. We also know that the two Rabbi Eidensohns are up in arms and shouting "mamzerim, mamzerim" at everyone, even implying that the rabbis who issued the ruling are such. Okay, fair enough, a good display of Kano'usand speaking up for Kavod HaTorah as they see. They will get a big S'char in Shamayim hopefully.
But it does not look like the Kaminetskys or Rabbi Greenblatt have any regrets or that they recant any time soon. So what is there to be done, to blog until the cows come home to roost, or is it the chickens?
So it looks like it's a classical case of a Mexican standoff. I mean, how long have RAf and RAS made a mockery of Rav Moshe Feinstein's ruling to come to a Din Torah, it's going to be almost 40 years one of these years, and still and all they are lauded and lead. So why pick on the poor old little Rabbis Greenblatt and Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky if that is how they have learned the Sugyas and Dinim and that is how they have been Machriah al pi their Daas Torah?
Are we going to tar and feather them and Shrei Chai VeKayam forever? Even in the Gemara there is sometimes a confounding case and the Gemora throws up its arms as says TEIKU!!!
There are more important things to worry about in Klal Yisroel now, it's very safety and existence is being threatened and this blog is hacking in kop about a spoiled brat couple that could not get along, decided to fight each other like dogs and cats, got rabbis mixed up in their domestic brawl and you know what, it's quite enough, people are not interested anymore in this hogwash while Jews are being massacred on the streets of Israel and Jews everywhere fear for their safety!
Then again, is this what is what like before the Holocaust, rabbis were fighting with each other over relative trivialities while Hitler and the Nazis snuck up on them and killed them off as they were trying to haggle with each other?
Makes one think, doesn't it?
RaP - you are wrong. I do have high regards for Rabbi Greenblatt. He did make a monumental error in this case relying on the Daas Torah of the Kaminetskys
ReplyDeleteas to what is next - you will just have to have patience to find out
RAP wrote: "Men sometimes get a Heter Mei'ah Rabbanim, which is also
ReplyDeleteoutrageous since Ashkenazi Jews have abided by the ruling of the Rebbi
Gershon Meor HaGolah to marry only one wife and we are VERY reluctant to
rely on a Heter Me'ah Rabbanim yet sometimes certain Poskim do".
There should be no outrage with a Heter Mei'ah Rabbanim, since the very same rabbi who proscribed polygamy, is same one who added a clause providing for an exception where 100 rabbis felt that there was reason to declare that his ruling did not apply in this case.
This letter also shows the terrible sin of going to secular court instead of beis din, like Tamar did when she went to the non-Jewish courts.
ReplyDeleteEr, Mr. Rap, it is Rebbi Gershon Meor HaGolah who have us the Heter Mei'ah Rabbanim. It is not "outrageous" to use the very Heter Mei'ah Rabbanim that Rebbi Gershon Meor HaGolah gave us to use.
ReplyDeleteRaP_Commentary
ReplyDeleteWe get you loud and clear!
You don't like RAF and RAS, and you do not recommend them. Okay. What else needs to be done that you haven't done already?
You have made all the necessary Macha'as and revelations.So it looks like it's a classical case of a Mexican standoff.
Are we going to tar and feather them and Shrei Chai VeKayam forever?
Take it or leave it.
There are more important things to worry about in Klal Yisroel now, its very safety and existence is being threatened and you are hacking in kop about an internal Yeshiva dispute from 40 years ago and you know what, it's quite enough, people are not interested anymore in this hogwash while Jews are being massacred on the streets of Israel and Jews everywhere fear for their safety!
Few years ago I had a conversation with rabbi nota Greenblatt about a Hetter nessueem which was issued by his nefew Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt and Rabbi (google) ephraim bryks to my wife without receiving a Get, despite the fact the former chief rabbi of Israel objecting that Heter, amazingly his uncle few years later gave a Heter and marrying a Eshes Ish.
ReplyDeleteDid your wife remarry on the basis of this so-called "hetter"? Maybe you should contact Rabbi Eidensohn with the details of your story. Did your wife ever have children (mamzerim) from this adulterous relationship?
ReplyDeleteFair enough, will do.
ReplyDeleteAnother troll and sock-puppet chimes in!
ReplyDeleteWelcome!
What kind of creature are you that you are actively seeking out potential mamzerim and trying to reopen a closed story? If there are children are you going to burst into their school and tell everyone? Maybe they are already married. Are you going to force apart a happily married couple?
ReplyDeleteWith that comment you have shown your true colours. You are the lowest off the low. A trouble maker sitting behind his computer judging and trying to ruin lives. There is no halacha to go seek out mamzerim. That is a SIN you have taken on yourself.
The former cheif rabbi of israel objected to the heter? The same former chief rabbi who is being charged with bribery and corruption? I like how you take for granted that the heter is wrong without knowing anything about the case.
Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteI am boggled by your unending obsession with this. Even if you feel this is a horrible mistake, which falsely permits eishes ish and CH"V mamzerus, you surely recognize that reputable talmidei chachomim are involved. They are not fools.
You may be right, you may be wrong. All you have is conjecture.
But what gives you the right to trample on Tamar Epstein and her new husband? What gives you the right to post their photos all over the place and place judgment as if you are the duly elected chief inquisitioner? Who appointed you the dayan u'mochiyach?
Finally, in all of your posts, where do you EVER put in any comment about Mr. Friedman being cruel for not giving a get? Of all the judgments you make, you seem to leave the most obvious one out.
I don't care what the reason --- he can litigate all he wants in family court. Only a cretin refuses a get.
And you , Rabbi Eidensohn, are so obsessed with your conjectures that you have lost site of basic humanity.
May I suggest some time with a sefer mussar. Save your blog for real villains, like molesters.
"Maybe they are already married. Are you going to force apart a happily married couple"
ReplyDeleteThey aren't "married". They are misguided adulterers. We have an obligation to speak out when evil is being done, and to call out those who misguide them with עצת אחיתופל.
In fact, Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim, such as Rav Hutner, Rav Eli Meyer Bloch of Telz, the Debreciner Rav, the Chelkas Yaakov and others, sided with the Satmar Rebbe over Rav Moshe regarding the obligatory size of a mechitzah in a shul, and/or the permissibility of artificial insemination, which were the two big disagreements that those Gedoim had in halachah. It was indeed Rav Hutner who approached the Satmar Rav asking him to write a refutation to Rav Moshe's psak about the Mechitzos.
ReplyDeleteI admit that I don't know anything about the case, which is why I suggested that he write to RDE who will judge if he feels that there is a need for the public to know about it.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I guess that you're also upset that RDE has publicized the current scandal of an eishes ish marrying without a Get. After all, Tamar and Adam are already "married". Are you going to force apart a happily "married" couple?
Another troll and sock-puppet chimes in!\
ReplyDeleteAnd the master of projection has done what he does best, again.
@Obvious - you obviously have no understanding of the real world. And no I have more than conjecture.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do is that which is required by the Torah. You don't like it - go complain to G-d.
Regarding Mr. Friedman - this has been discussed repeated. He is well within his halachic and moral rights to defend his connection with his daughter. He has repeated offered to have this resolved in Beis Din or with arbitration and she has refused.
So no I haven't lost my humanity - except in the view of feminists who lack or don't want to acknowledge halacha
My I suggest you spend more time studying Torah instead of wasting everyone's time making comments on a blog about something you know nothing about.
It's always (often) about a child in the end as well that complicates things. First a clueless couple gets married. Then they have no real idea about how to be married and stay married. Each is guilty because neither is mature enough for real marriage. They are spoiled and products of modernity and the marriage quickly breaks down. Usually the young wife runs back to Mommy and Daddy. The guy crawls off sulking. Both are hurt and both feel and act like "victims" as if no one is guilty of causing this mayhem, maybe it is all everyone else's fault. But there is now a baby or two. Then the tug of war starts and rabbis are consulted and dragged into the fight. Then the rabbis have to make choices which side to be on. Money may move around fueling the flames. They choose one side or the other. They are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't. Both the husband and wife act like they are "victims" of the other side, but they are really their own worst enemies. No one gives in. Everyone is a "tzadik" or "tzadekes". They can't come to terms. They fight like cats and dogs. At this point the rabbis are way out of their depth dragged into quicksand they never wanted to be in. It is too late, one rabbi takes one side and another the other side. All hell breaks loose. More rabbis are dragged in. It goes viral on the Internet as bloggers get involved. In this day and age of no privacy, secrets come spilling out and no one blushes any more. The volcano of emotions boils over. Batei Din get involved wild "heterim" are resorted to and suddenly there is sheer hate. The world goes mad. The rabbis are now "guilty" and center of attention while the troubled fighting couple now sits back and become secondary players. Condemnations, accusations, curses and screams of breaking Halacha. Calls for humanity and accusations of cruelty. This is what a modern "marriage" looks when it breaks down. Welcome to the new reality. It's like nuclear warfare, there are no "winners" only "survivors" May HaShem save us all from this lunacy!
ReplyDeleteSilly!
ReplyDeleteMyth-making and revisionism are marvelous things. Feel free to indulge yourself. Please re-read my post carefully. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHas anyone considered that a lot of what is going on here is the difference in mentality between an American Charedi perspective and the tougher Israeli Charedi outlook? The two ways of looking at things are not the same and are often at the root of misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting set of arguments. I have to be careful how I phrase my comments, however, the respected Rabbis Eidensohn have differing approaches to RMF, in particular his heteirim. I will state how i understand their positions, but I welcome any correction from them.
ReplyDeleteRav Daniel, the author of Yad Moshe, accepts all of RMF's psak, as far as I am aware. Thus he would accept a replication of mekach taut if it fits in with the paramters of RMF's psak.
Rav Dovid, from what I have read in his comments here, claims that that taut was actually Rav Moshe's, ie his leniencies on Gittin were errors, and he argues for example that Rav Henkin was more strict on these, and R Henkin was even greater than RMF. So in fact, even if a heter was produced in line with RMF's paramters, Rav Dovid E would likely oppose it, since RMF was mistaken on this in the first place.
He has no obligation, legal, halachic, moral or ethical to give his wife a Get. A wife is not entitled to a Get simply because she wants a Get. A beis din only can rule if it is obligatory. And no beis din has ever ruled he must divorce his wife.
ReplyDeleteThis is about Halacha; which knows no boundaries.
ReplyDeleteYour comment is fully riddled with gross inaccuracies. Too many to count. The funniest is regarding Rabbi Kook. Rav Kook taught Rav Hutner in his earlier years studying in Eretz Yisrael. As time went on, Rav Hutner distanced himself from Rav Kook and his ideas (including Zionism which Rav Hutner was a fierce opponent of). An example of this is when Rav Hutner halted the practice of hanging up a picture of Rav Kook in his Succah. He replaced it with a picture of the Chazon Ish in order to show he did not support the Zionism that followers of Rav Kook promoted.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there are no seforim by Rav Kook in Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin. While Rav Kook was certainly an influence on Rav Hutner as a student, he did not continue these ideals when he became Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin.
Oh, and after the incident between Rav Dovid Cohen and RJBS, Rav Hutner told his talmidim to not go to RJBS' shiur.
@ Pointing out the obvious
ReplyDeleteLet me point out to you the obvious. It is HER being the cretin for breaking up the husbands marriage, when for for all the BAD and unacceptable reason. First she is taking away the natural Parent from the helpless child, the Father, isn't that in and of itself Child Abuse? Secondly, it is a "Bevaday Nosno eineho beachar". She even claimed so in writing loud and clear,
" I can do better!"
Why accommodate such? Can you imagine any married woman waking up one morning to claim, "Darling" it's over, I can do better, only to generate a whole dor of lebedige yesomim?
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteWhat I said about Reb Moshe is that he was overruled by Rav Henkin the Noday Beyuda and the fact that no posek ever permitted what Reb Moshe did, and those who discussed it forbade it, such as Kovneh Rov the tgadol HaDor and Beis HaLevi Rov of Brisk and father of Reb Chaim Soloveithick. Therefore, this teaching of Reb Moshe probably belongs to the section of his teshuvose that he later did not want to be done halocho limaaseh, as his Gabei told me not to use a certain teshuva about a GET, and Rav Avigder Miller explained that Reb Moshe later on in life because more stringent.
Rav Henkin and Rav Moshe both lived originally in very irreligious times and as times improved they both pulled back on their teshuvose. Rav Henkin for this reason published no teshuvose. Rav Moshe published his teshuvose, but he pulled back on the more extreme ones. Rav Henkin did leave two books filled with important halochose and thoughts on the times but not teshuva sefer. His teshuvose were assembled by a grandson who took them to Israel and they were all lost on the plane. This was what he wanted.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI didn't use quite that language that Reb Moshe made a mistake. What I said was that all of the gedolim throughout the generations disagreed with his accepting that a marriage can be negated when the wife really would have never married the person. In the event that the husband or wife suffered from a serious physical blemish that interfered very strongly with the needs of a man or woman, it is possible to enter the realm of negated marriages, but not as Reb Moshe uses the process.
It is a strong rule in Choshen Mishpot 25 that we follow the majority and the senior authorities. Therefore, the opinion of Reb Moshe that a marriage can be negated cannot be follow because it is against the major authorities such as Noda Biyehuda, Kovneh Rov, Beis HaLevi and Rav Henkin and because they were the majority.
Reb Moshe was accepted over Rav Henkin. The approach to discard Reb Moshe's psak based on dubious conjecture - has no validity in halacha. As Rav Heineman told me - as long as there is no explicit rejection of a published teshuva one needs to assume that it was not retracted.
ReplyDeletePsak ultimately depends upon the acceptance of poskim - enough poskim have accepted the validity of Reb Moshe's psak - if and only if the conditions he sets are met. As Rabbi Riskin notes in his Tradition article - in order to extend Reb Moshe's ruling beyond what he stated - it requires the acceptance of poskim - something which simply hasn't happened.
I don't know where you decide that Rav Moshe is greater than Rav Henkin. A woman once came to Reb Moshe and said that she was told that she may remarry as her husband is probably dead. But he came back. She said that Rav Henkin permitted the marriage. Reb Moshe thought a moment and then screamed at her, "Liar!" She broken down crying and admitted it was not Rav Henkin but another rabbi who had permitted her. Reb Moshe then explained why he yelled at her. "I have never erred regarding permitting women to remarry whose husbands are presumed dead. Surely Rav Henkin never erred."
ReplyDeleteRegarding majority against minority, the gemora clearly states that we can rule as the minority against the majority if the logic is with the minority. But this means that a posek who can pasken himself and say his opinion along with poskim finds the minority more convincing. To say that every Tom Dick and Harry can take the minority rule whenever he feels like it is something else. Also, the fact that for generations nobody permitted negating marriages and because this is clearly rooted in a Mishneh and a gemora and the Shulchan Aruch, to rule otherwise is very interesting.
ReplyDeletethe story you quote was not said about Rav Henkin in the Artscroll version. But even if you heard it about Rav Henkin I asked Mordechai Tendler and Rav Bluth about it Neither had heard of the story and don't believe it happened.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is a cute story - even if did not happen - it doesn't change the reality that Rav Henkin was displaced by Rav Moshe in the eyes of the Roshei Yeshiva and senior Rabbis in America. Rav Moshe was originally the one to go to for creative solutions - but he became mainstream around 1960.
Rav Diskin (Rav Yaakov's son in law) once told me that Rav Hutner was angry with Rav Yaakov for making Rav Moshe the gadol hador. He told him that he would have to give din v'cheshbon for doing so.
Bottom lime. While Rav Moshe and the other rabbis strongly respected Rav Henkin - it was Rav Moshe who was the highest posek in America - not Rav Henkin. We don't decide rabbinic authority based on unconfirmed fairy tales.
you are simply ignoring my sources that clearly disagree with your understanding.
ReplyDeleteWe are not talking about Tom Dick and Hary. The issue is whether a rav can rely on Rav Moshe to posken kiddushei ta'os. That is clearly what has happened since Rav Moshe issued his psak. Whether he will be accepted for doing so is something else - but there is no prohibition to do so.
So what if something is interesting? The fact is that kiddushei ta'os is a reality. You can't posul a psak din because you say it is "interesting"!
one gadol at a time is easier to ask hard questions on than to assume multiple rabbis went off the rails simultaneously, ie Rabbi Kamenetzky SR and Jr along with Rav Nota.
ReplyDeleteanyone heard from weiss vs stein lately?
ReplyDeleteAll of us supporting the Torah view have to realize that it's game over, thus far not one reputable person has even spoken publicly about this tragic event
ReplyDeleteTorah is over in the USA
Before talking about when you can follow the minority first provide the source that in post talmudic times there is any such obligation to follow the majority at all. The entire litvish mehalach of psak is against you.
ReplyDeleteSecond, taking your position to its logical conclusion, will you say that every agunah that r moshe matired when he went against the "rabim" is really an eishes ish whose kids are mamzerim since now that r moshe is dead and we "know" the halacha is not like him since he went against the rabim. Or do you have some pilpul to explain why two woman in the exact same situation when one happened to get remarried by r moshe and one got married minutes later by someone else one would be an eishes ish and one not.
Acc to you no rav can ever pasken because if he goes like the rov thats pashut and if he argues hes wrong and his psak will be undone once the first person comes along and counts the shittos. So whats the point you should just write a sefer and inform us all as to the rov in every situation and then all poskim will be able to give clear answers to all based on your ossified halacha.
Your understanding as to how halacha works is in complete opposition to the ashkenazi mesorah.
yes there are positive developments - will report when it is appropriate
ReplyDelete"you surely recognize that reputable talmidei chachomim are involved. They are not fools."
ReplyDeleteCan you please name them one by one
To be Dan Lekaf Zechus, how do you know that they even know about the story? Do these "reputable people" have any yediyos in Even Ha'ezer, and what constitutes "kedushei taus"? Also, while not a total excuse, they have their own reputations at stake, which depends on their social standing in the Torah world, which is not enhanced by them taking on an unpopular cause.
ReplyDeleteThe situation bis very sad , but let it be known for all eternity that in year 2015 , 2 גדולי הרבנים one of them being a member of מועצת גדולי התורה ruled a earth shattering unprecedented פסק הלכה that was and will be the destruction of קדושת חיי המשפחה , and the saddest part is מדשתקי רבנן שמע מינה דניחא לי
ReplyDeleteIt's high time to gather up in masses in Citifield, and ask for answers. Nobody is above the laws of the Torah and SA.
ReplyDeleteIf they have anything to say, then let it be said now, 'pen yomru hitro haretsua', if not they should resign.
Where is the case of Mendel Prodfather up to? It is already overdue.
Who said Rav Moshe retracted any of his tshuvot. I knew Rav Aaron Felder Zt"L for many years and never heard one word from his that Rav Moshe retracted any of his decisions. It is more likely that persons who did not like Rav Moshe's decisions made up a story that Rav Moshe retracted. If Rav Moshe retracted he would have done it in print.
ReplyDeleteRva Moshe cannot be "overruled" by Rav Henkin. Fisrt of all "overruled," means that a higher court has disagreed and negated a ruling of slower court, a concept that is foreign to peak in our times. Rav Henkin may have, or may have not, disagreed with Rav Moshe on tho splint, but perhaps you can cite a source.
ReplyDeleteAssuming what you say is accurate, then we have a disagreement between two Gedolei Hador, and who is foolish enough to stick his head between two lions?
If Rav Hutner had a problem with Rav Moshe, which may have some validity, it had nothing to do with Rav Moshe's preeminence in psak halachah.
ReplyDeleteConcerning Rav Hutner's alleged anti-Zionism, there are two songs sung on Simchas Torah in Chaim Berlin in the day Hakofoths which commemorate the victory of Medinath Israel in the Yom Kippur war, which is why these two songs deviate from the night Hakofoths.
ReplyDeleteThe change was instituted and continued by Rav Hutner. Hardly the action of an anti-Zionist.
RaP: thank you for your lengthy and enlightening comment.
ReplyDeleteSo do you deny what yehupitz wrote here:
http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-yeshivas-rabbeinu-chaim-berlin.html
"The reason R Schechter and R Hutner refused the hazmono is that they were not goires R'Moshe.
Something unknown to the world at large (because the Satmar Rov became the public face of the dispute) is that when R'Moshe issued the Artificial Insemination Teshuva, R'Hutner wrote him off as a godol and was not goires him.
At Ner Israel, there was a private mesora that once when R'Ruderman and R'Hutner were sitting next to one another before a meeting, R'Moshe walked into the room and R'Ruderman was starting to rise when R'Hutner pushed hard on his seatmate's leg to stop him from rising."
Hmm, so how come Sefardim (Jews from Iberia, North Africa and the Middle East) Pasken like the RAMBAM and Rav Yosef Karo/MECHABER, while Ashkenazim (Jews from France, Germany, and Eastern Europe) Pasken like RASHI, TOSPHOS and the RAMO?
ReplyDeleteOr how come Chasidim (from Poland and Hungary and Russia) generally Pasken like the Shulchan Oruch HaRav/BAAL HATANYA, while Litvaks and "Misnagdim" (from Lithuania with Torah centers and Yeshivas in Volozhin, Slabodka, Telz, Mir, Kelm) Pasken like the GRA, Kitzur Shulchan Oruch and the Mishna Berura and the IGROS MOSHE?
Guess, you would have to actually DEFINE "Halacha" first and then see where you go from there...
Apparently you never read Rav Hutner's article in the Jewish Observer about Zionism and Nazism.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, in Making of a Godol, this is told as well, albeit with R' Moshe's identity slightly obscured. As relayed there, R' Hutner felt that since R' Moshe did not learn by the Alter of Slabodka, he did not have the proper "shimush" in issues of hanhagas haklal.
ReplyDeletevery good discussion - all I can say is that we miss both Rav Henkin ztl and Rav Moshe ztl.
ReplyDeleteBut the discussion illustrates the complexity of the problem currently under scrutiny.
One has to look at the entirety of a person's output. for example, we can read Shir HaShirim, and Mishlei, and also Koheleth. Shlomo Hamelech wrote them at different stages in his life, and they address different aspects of Torah.
ReplyDeleteRav Hutner also wanted to make a yeshiva + University program at CB, but this was blocked by Rav Aharon. This may have been more TIME than MO, but it was still too radical for Rav Kotler. Also, it would have been a good match and "brother" institute for Bar Ilan University, since Chaim Ber-Lin's brother was Meir Bar-Ilan.
So however you look at it, Rav Hutner had some modern and Zionistic streaks,although he became more strict later in life.
The article in the Observer was riddled with error, even the claim that the word "Shoah" does not appear anywhere in the traditional sources, even though it appears in the Tanakh, and the verse at the end of Aleinu uses it.
Chasidim sometimes ignore the shulchan oruch. Just look in the sefer minhogei yisroel torah, which is all about justifying chasidish practice when it contradicts s'o. The justification usually goes as far back as some Rebbe did XYZ, wrote it in his seforim hakedoshim, and end of the matter. Whatever s'o says about it.
ReplyDeleteJust saw this shabbos the justification for feeding wild birds on shabbos shiroh. A rebbe wrote it's lezorach mitzva and thereore permitted. Even though no such heter is found in the sources before that rebbe. Just an example out of countless others.
You, of course, make sure that your wife doesn't go outside of the home too much (Rambam say about once or twice a month) in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch EH 73:1.
ReplyDeleteIf I lived in a place where woman did not go out yes I would not allow my wife to be any different absolutely yes. Some dinei zniyus depend on time and place and some are absolute. If I lived in a place in EY where woman did not drive I would not like my wife to be different.
ReplyDeleteI would accept chasidim not keeping bits of s'o if they can provide supported reasons from rishonim or acharonim. But in most cases they don't, other than Rebbe XYZ 250 years ago was meikel.
As for your case, have a look on otzer haposkim.
So you're making up your own Shulchan Aruch? The S"A written by the Mechaber doesn't limit this halacha to "only" those who "lived in a place where woman did not go out". That's like saying the issur against touching a woman in S"A EH 20 "only" applies for those who "lived in a place where men don't touch women."
ReplyDeleteDavid you must be aware that some of these halachas are in fact dependent on time and place. Knowing which ones and what is appropriate is why you have a rebbe and a posek.
ReplyDeleteThere is a concept of habituation.
No I did not. But I attended his lectures for 13 years, including during and shortly after the Yom Kippur war and to some which never were printed.
ReplyDeletestill waiting
ReplyDeletesome very interesting comments from this post below, I will paste and then ask;
ReplyDeletePencil Neck Geek Guest
6 years ago
RaP: thank you for your lengthy and enlightening comment.
So do you deny what yehupitz wrote here:
http://theantitzemach.blogs...
"The reason R Schechter and R Hutner refused the hazmono is that they were not goires R'Moshe.
Something unknown to the world at large (because the Satmar Rov became the public face of the dispute) is that when R'Moshe issued the Artificial Insemination Teshuva, R'Hutner wrote him off as a godol and was not goires him.
At Ner Israel, there was a private mesora that once when R'Ruderman and R'Hutner were sitting next to one another before a meeting, R'Moshe walked into the room and R'Ruderman was starting to rise when R'Hutner pushed hard on his seatmate's leg to stop him from rising."
---__
So did rav hutner write off rav Moshe?
Unbelievable. Is there any truth to such a claim?
6 years ago you wrote this. But a few days ago, you cited rav Kanievsky, and disputed the plain CI meaning :
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah David Eidensohn
6 years ago
What consistutes a majority? Most poskim hold that majority rule only applies when the poskim meet together in the same room - exchange views and then vote. If that condition is not met there is no obligation to follow the majority
Chazon Ish (Beginning of Kelayim): It is well known that the requirement to follow the majority applies only to a beis din which is in session, but regarding scholars holding different views who lived at different times or in different places, the question of majority or minority is not relevant. In a particular area where most of the Torah derives from a particular rabbi and his disciples, and the disciples' disciples, it is correct to follow their rabbi even in a matter in which the majority (of authorities) holds a different opinion. In recent generations most of our Torah has come to us through the specific seforim in our own teachers like Rif, Rosh, Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Magid Mishna, Mordechai, and the commentaries of Rashi and Tosfos, and whenever there is a difference of opinion (and as mentioned above, majority ruling does not enter) it is in the hands of every individual Torah scholar to decide whether to take a strict view or to select particular authorities to follow; likewise, in the case where no decision has been taken and the question is still open (sofek). In addition to the fact that majority rule does not apply in the above situations, we do not even know what the majority view is, since many scholars did not put their views in writing, and many written views did not reach us. (Therefore Jewish law does not change when new manuscripts are printed which convert a minority into a majority. Despite this, the courage and insight needed to decide on a logical basis are sometimes lacking, and decisions are taken on the basis of numerical majority; but it would be better to rely on those authorities whose views have reached us in all branches of Torah. Even though we do not presume to decide between different Rishonim by conclusive logical arguments, nevertheless, the study of their arguments is a major factor in reaching a decision, and many times our master z"l (Rabbi Yosef Karo) decides in favor of one authority because his argument is convincing and removes difficulties. Our Rabbis have taught us not to abandon the use of our own intellect, and we must place great weight on intellectual comparison which is the connecting link between Creator and created.
Rav Hutner opposed Rav Shach's claim that Israeli government should hand back land to the PLo terrorists for a peace deal. He said this is a denial of the entire Torah. Don't know if that makes him a Zionist, but he is not anti-zionist with such a position.
ReplyDelete"Rav Diskin (Rav Yaakov's son in law) once told me that Rav Hutner was
ReplyDeleteangry with Rav Yaakov for making Rav Moshe the gadol hador. He told him
that he would have to give din v'cheshbon for doing so."
So what does this actually tell us? No good options, I'm afraid.
If Rav Moshe was truly the Gadol Hador, then it does not reflect well on what Rav hutner reportedly said.
If Rav Hutner was actually correct, then both Rav Yaakov and Rav Moshe have some din v'chesbon to give.
The episode is simply reflective of the fact that Daas Torah does not really exist, and even major gedolim have problems both in their views and actions.
Also, the claim by Rav Hutner , if it has any validity, demolishes the "belief" that there is some kind of Divine Guidance over who is the Gadol HaDor in each generation - a belief that is central to both Litvish hareidim, and in parallel to Lubavitch chassidim regarding their Rebbe.
ReplyDeleteRav Hutner was unambiguously and very clearly one of the biggest anti-Zionists alive. Check out his numerous and voluminous writings and speeches regarding the State of Israel and Zionism.
ReplyDeleteNothing I've seen other than his article on the shoah, which was terrible and full of errors and nonsense.
ReplyDeleteDuring his stay in Palestine, Hutner became a disciple of Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of Palestine, to whom he was distantly related.[1] Both men had a philosophical and mystical mind-set that made them kindred spirits. Like Kook, the young Hutner eventually developed a warm attitude toward non-religious Jews who were seeking to become more religious.[citation needed] After Kook became associated with the Mizrachi movement, Hutner began to distance himself from him.[citation needed] Even so, Hunter maintained cordial relations with Kook's son and heir Zvi Yehuda Kook and other prominent students of Kook's such as Moshe-Zvi Neria.[citation needed] Hutner eventually became a member of the non-Zionist Haredi Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages) of Agudath Israel of America following his immigration to the United States.[10]
ReplyDeleteHutner's work Pachad Yitzchok contains no overt reference to Kook. A few of Hutner's early students recall Hutner's lengthy comments regarding Kook. Eliezer Waldman said that Hutner told them that "Rav Kook was 20 times as great as those who opposed him".[11] Similarly, Moshe Zvi Neria heard Hutner say that "if I would not have met Rav Kook, I would be lacking 50% of myself".[12]
He was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists, and this was a terrible experience, which obviously changed him, and he then sought out bad company in the satmar rebbe. Was it Stockholm syndrome? Was he happy with NK and their friendship with the terrorists?
ReplyDeletethe article, not very successful, and it was trying to produce a counter argument to the criticisms of Hareidi failures . But he ends up sounding like Lavrov, making hitler yemach shmo sound like a passive actor, being given his inspiration by the mufti, yemach shmam. It is a piece detached from reality.
ReplyDeleteCan you reference any of these alleged writings and speeches?
ReplyDeleteRabbi Yitchok Hutner Z”L:
ReplyDeleteSadly, even in our own circles, the mold for shaping public opinion lies in the hands of the State of Israel. An appropriate example of this dangerous process of selectively “rewriting” history may be found in the extraordinary purging from the public record of all evidence of the culpability of the forerunners of the State in the tragedy of European Jewry, and the sub-situation in is place of factors inconsequential to the calamity which ultimately occurred.
To cover its own contribution to the final catastrophic events, those of the State in a position to influence public opinion circulated the notorious canard that Gedolet Yisroel were responsible for the destruction of many communities because they did not urge immigration. This charge is, of course, a gross distortion of the truth, and need not be granted more dignity than it deserves by issuing a formal refutation. However, at the same time as the State made certain to include this charge as historical fact in every account of the war years, it successfully sought to omit any mention of its own contribution to the impending tragedy. While the State omitted in its own version of history is the second of the above-mentioned new directions in recent Jewish history. It is that phenomenon which we must now examine.
You only provided an example, without referencing the source/context for this alleged statement. Was it in a speech that he made? When? Where? Did he publish it anywhere (in a book, article?)
ReplyDeleteProbably the jo piece.
ReplyDeleteThe article itself was panned , it was a sad distortion of history, , only proving the lie of what is "daas Torah "
Here's another quote from Rav Hunter zt'l:
ReplyDeleteIt should be manifest that until the great public pressures for the establishment of a Jewish State, the Mufti had no interest in the Jews of Warsaw, Budapest or Vilna. Once the Jews of Europe became a threat to the Mufti because of their imminent influx into the Holy Land, the Mufti in turn became for them the incarnation of the Angel of Death. Years ago, it was still easy to find old residents of Yerushalayim who remembered the cordial relations they had maintained with the Mufti in the years before the impending creation of a Jewish State. Once the looming reality of the State of Israel was before him, the Mufti spared no effort at influencing Hitler to murder as many Jews as possible in the shortest amount of time. This shameful episode, where the founders and early leaders of the State were clearly a factor in the destruction of many Jews, has been completely suppressed and expunged from the record.”
The Jewish Observer, October 1977
Nonsense., even if rav hutner said it. Bibi netanyahu made the same claim
ReplyDeletehttps://time.com/4084301/hitler-grand-mufi-1941/
so until he met the mufti, Hitler was an oheiv yisroel?
it's more a case of rav hutner being hijacked by the plo, then being influenced by satmar.
here is the rebuttal of Rav Hutner's erroneous JO piece. it was written by Prof Lawrence Kaplan:
ReplyDeletehttps://traditiononline.org/rabbi-isaac-hutners-daat-torah-perspective-on-the-holocaust-a-critical-analysis/
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/04/rav-hutner-holocaust-j-observer-1977.html
ReplyDeletewhy did you hijack the thread , which is about secret poskim?
ReplyDeletemore evidence that supports the conclusion that he had some kind of senility coming on at around this time, and was no longer thinking 100% clearly.
ReplyDeleteRav Hunter zt'l is correct.
ReplyDeleteRav Hunter may be correct.
ReplyDeleteRav Hutner may also be correct - but the nonsense that the JO published based on Feitman's rendering is clearly sheker.
Hunter is Brandon's son.
ReplyDeleteftfy
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you assert that Rabbi Feitman didn't render Rav Hutner's views correctly?
ReplyDeleteRav Hutner was well aware of the widely published JO article, while he was sitting on the JO's parent Agudas Yisroel's Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, where it was published in his name. He would have objected had there been any misrepresentation. He didn't because it was quite accurate.
if rav hutner had mastery of English. he would write the article himself. Feitman is likely writing his own opinion and distorting what rav hutner said.
ReplyDeleteThe article is largely nonsense.
", while he was sitting on the JO's parent Agudas Yisroel's Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah,"
ReplyDeleteI doubt very much if the Moetzes would go through the JO every month - if they had so much free time they would write their own articles for it.
Glad to see you are so rational and lacking in any type of bias!
ReplyDeleteyou only think that the article is true because of the supposed author. If it was published in some anonymous name, it would not have seen the light of day.
ReplyDeleteIf anything inaccurate appeared in an Agudah publication, regarding and in the name of any member of the Agudah Moetzes, you can be damn sure they'd have been a major public correction ASAP. It most certainly wouldn't escape the attention of the Moetzes member where an incorrect statement or article was made in his name in an Agudah publication.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Feitman was 100% correct. Otherwise everyone would have known.
Not really.
ReplyDeletelook at the chaos after the Walder affair. little agreement or consensus.
" A CAUSE OF GREAT MONETARY DAMAGE "
ReplyDeleteyes, this is a central part of hareidi ideology - which overburdens the population and causes financial damage to people who are sucked in by the nonsense /sheker ideology of the extremist Hareidis.