Sunday, October 4, 2015

Why did Rabbi Nota Greenblatt condemn IBD for relying on a Ritva when he used a "heter" based on unreliable and halachically invalid views of a psychologist?

IsraelReader raises an important question. Rabbi Greenblatt just was mesader kedushin for a married woman based on a "heter" of the  DSM pychological diagnostic manual. Why should he be condemning the International Beis Din for Agunos for relying on a Ritva. Is a psychologist more authoritative than the Ritva?
Strange, that R' the same Notta Greenblatt who allegedly presided at the marriage of Tamar Epstein, signed a letter of protest against the incompetence of the IBD. How do understand this?
In other news:


  1. Probably has another Kuf Nun taamim on tovel vesherets beyadah along with the heter m' r' of kvar horeh hazoken, but can cannot disclose just like the IBD didn't, since the famous discovery of Sod H' liyereov. With just a goblet of wine, nichnas yayin yotso sod, and sod for gants Brod. Veal ko do ani boichino.

  2. "The pot calling the kettle black".

  3. Blu Greenberg's "When there's a Rabbinic will, there's a Rabbinic way" seems to be sounding at least partially true.

  4. כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות ו..., אנדרלמוסיה באה לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים

  5. I guess nota Greenblatt sees a difference, he says he's relying on reb moshes teshuva
    This is the end!!!!!, the war for קדושת עם ישראל has been lost
    We need separate ourselves from the rabonim and communities that aren't מוחה, as the חתם סופר did in his day to preserve שארית ישראל

  6. R' Nota did not "condemn IBD for relying in a Ritva" Rather he wrote:
    למותר נציין שאין כאן לא דין ולא דיין אלא דברי שטות של קלים שמינו עצמם
    לפוסקים בינלאומיים כבי"ד שבלשכת הגזית. לפגוע בקדושת ישראל שע"י חופה
    וקידושין וחבל על הנייר ועל הדיו ולהאריך בזה" That is, rather than
    criticizing the context of the psak, he criticized those who are not
    qualified to involve themselves with halachic matters of this scope. He
    would prefer that קלים do not interfere with actual rabbanim.

  7. "who are those guys?

  8. He says their psak is not a psak and that they are not qualified to be dayanim. The psak was based on a Ritva and thus he is clearly crticizing content as well as the dayanim.

  9. A rabbi who makes an unusual permissive ruling, halachically carries on himself a burden of clarifying his ruling.

    This is not a stringency. This is actually only a leniency, provided the Shach. I will explain.

    As per the Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) a rabbi is not allowed to permit
    something that people perceive as being prohibited. Period.
    שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רמב, סעיף י
    יש מי שכתב שאסור לחכם להתיר דבר התמוה שנראה לרבים שהתיר את האסור.

    However the Shach, in his commentary, formulates a leniency, in a case where
    the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.
    ש"ך יורה דעה סימן רמב, ס"ק יז
    שאסור לחכם כו' - נראה דהיינו דוקא אם מתיר בסתם, וכן נראה מהראיות שהביא בהגמ"יי שם מרפ"ק דסנהדרין (דף ח')
    גבי רב דבקי במומי וס"פ כל היד דף כ' סוף ע"א גבי ר' חנינא דפלי קורטא
    דגרגישתא וריש בכורות גבי כל חיותא דרב מרי בר רחל, אבל אם אומר לשואל טעם בדבר ומראה לו פנים או שמביא ראיות מתוך הספר מותר

    A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "eishes ish"
    to remarry without having received a Get, is considered an unusual
    ruling. As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are
    either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per
    the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for
    their leniency (as per the Shach).

    The public awaits to the hear the defense of this unusual ruling. The burden to explain such a ruling, lies on those who made it. Until they do so, the ruling is allowed to be criticized.

  10. As a talmid of RNG can you clarify with him what's going on?

    Your rebbe R meiselman is very upset about this.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.