Saturday, August 26, 2023

R' Nota Greenblatt denounces those who claim they have secret poskim with secret reasoning

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!

Ort Case files



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.


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


  1. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 1, 2022 at 11:16 PM

    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.

  2. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 2, 2022 at 1:03 AM

    "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."

    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.

  3. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 2, 2022 at 1:07 AM

    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.

  4. Rav 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.

  5. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 4, 2022 at 12:41 PM

    Nothing I've seen other than his article on the shoah, which was terrible and full of errors and nonsense.

  6. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 4, 2022 at 12:50 PM

    During 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]

    Hutner'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]

  7. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 4, 2022 at 1:28 PM

    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?

  8. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 4, 2022 at 1:31 PM

    the 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.

  9. Can you reference any of these alleged writings and speeches?

  10. Rabbi Yitchok Hutner Z”L:

    Sadly, 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.

  11. 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?)

  12. Probably the jo piece.
    The article itself was panned , it was a sad distortion of history, , only proving the lie of what is "daas Torah "

  13. Here's another quote from Rav Hunter zt'l:

    It 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

  14. Nonsense., even if rav hutner said it. Bibi netanyahu made the same claim

    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.

  15. here is the rebuttal of Rav Hutner's erroneous JO piece. it was written by Prof Lawrence Kaplan:


  17. why did you hijack the thread , which is about secret poskim?

  18. more 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.

  19. Rav Hunter zt'l is correct.

  20. Rav Hunter may be correct.
    Rav Hutner may also be correct - but the nonsense that the JO published based on Feitman's rendering is clearly sheker.

  21. Hunter is Brandon's son.

  22. On what basis do you assert that Rabbi Feitman didn't render Rav Hutner's views correctly?

    Rav 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.

  23. 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.
    The article is largely nonsense.

  24. ", while he was sitting on the JO's parent Agudas Yisroel's Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah,"

    I 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.

  25. Glad to see you are so rational and lacking in any type of bias!

  26. you 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.

  27. If 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.

    Rabbi Feitman was 100% correct. Otherwise everyone would have known.

  28. Not really.
    look at the chaos after the Walder affair. little agreement or consensus.

    yes, 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.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.