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
some 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.