Guest post
I am following, to a limited degree, the saga of the “heter” of “Mekach To’us”. I do have some comments, though I have no clue about any of the facts of the case beyond the info presented online.
I found the Mekach to’us issue interesting, since a diagnosis was used without evaluation of the patient. That alone is a colossal violation of professional ethics, and casts major doubt on the veracity of the professional and the conclusion. As a professional, I have often developed an “opinion” about the family member who was absent from the office, but cannot ever reach a conclusion. It is obvious that a major psak din that has consequences cannot be based on an opinion, but on verifiable and conclusive fact. As far as I gathered from the reports, that did not happen.
Far more intriguing to me is the cloud under which batei din operate, with an assumption that there is Heavenly involvement in the Din “Torah”. We are admonished about utilizing arka’os, but we offer the halacha based alternative of beis din, which suffers from several handicaps. B”D’s tend to be biased, expensive (especially when toanim get involved), ineffective – having zero enforceability, often random in paskening, and keeping their deliberations top secret. Mentioned in a previous email, many who do not function as poskim, despite being talmidei chachomim, get involved in areas completely outside of their domain. These things frighten me greatly. I now understand a tad better why we are told that Dayanei Yisroel are the cause of the tzoros that occur to Klal Yisroel (Shabbos 138). Crime and dishonesty always existed, and will unfortunately be part of our lives. But these awful midos being the mainstay of those who wear the cloak of righteousness is most alarming.
B”D’s tend to be biased,"
ReplyDeletearka’os tend to be biased
expensive (especially when toanim get
involved),
arka’os and lawyers are far far more expensive
often random in
paskening
arka’os regularly acquit the guilty and convict the innocent.
Arba midos vedeois baDin, ve'eilu hein:
ReplyDeleteThere's 1) schar beteilo, 2) expensive 3) ripoffs 4) shoichad veani emloich upoirets geder asher yenashacheno nachash if the price is right e.g. (infamous pic on Red Devil Paints rofl) M. Epstein & M.Wolmark Bar Assoc. et al, aka M&M's, aka Goon Squad & Goon Squad LLC. There are also some kosher BD for free, and without bias.
Dear frum psychologist.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say is unfortunately very true. I hope RDE will soon publish the supporting documentation, which I just uploaded.
frum therapist wrote:
ReplyDeleteCatskills1: The post was not about pushing or recommending arka’os. It was simply about the shameful matzav of today’s batei din. The wish is that batei din become environments in which אלקים נצב בעדת קל is at least possible, without the “other issues” that drive the שכינה
away. As far as expensive, one might believe that secular courts are
more costly. That is sometimes true, but certainly not always. There
are those (usually) women who manage to get the free legal services,
often through feigning claims of domestic violence. Others use the
graces of prosecutor’s offices. Half the cost is reduced or
eliminated. Secondly, many court cases get tried, a verdict issued, and
the costs reach an end. Batei din often drag out proceedings ad
nauseum, with each yeshivas beis din being scheduled into the future,
without consecutive days. This system is ripe for the abuses of
interminable delays, with schedule conflicts being more the norm than
the exception. The randomness of rulings in court is infrequently the
case. There have been known cases of corruption in secular courts.
Lawyers and politicians have never been free of the blemishes of
corruption, dishonesty, and bias. But the post was not with the intent
to redirect litigants to court. It was just about the sorry state of
batei din.
frum therapist wrote
ReplyDeleteEhud:
Many share in your belief that the “free” batei din are fair and
unbiased. They might be, but they might not be. I would be more
concerned with the character of the dayan than whether he is accepting a
standard fee. So far, either way, paid or au gratis, we’re in deep
trouble.
Rabbi eidensohn I found this interview with Rav Hershel schechter about the current state of bais din. You might want to put it up as a post as it is a very enlightening view from someone on the inside.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/
Dear Rabbi Doniel E.
ReplyDeleteRoidfei Shalmoinim goes back to Neviim times and in prior. Short of paying a fee, you are at least one step ahead, all other things
being equal.
When Heichal Shlomo was built in Jerusalem, it was with intent of setting up Sanhedrin. When they asked Ben Gurion, where will you find Sonei Betsa, he replied, for money you can even buy that as well.
We have to do to shalom what he did to speigel
ReplyDeleteSimple question: what if he was as bad as she says (mental problems, violence etc)... would the heter be a valid one? As a woman, I have mixed feelings about this case... for one side, it hurts to know that some women indeed married "crazy" guys and became agunot... but on the other side, if a heter like this goes on, who knows how many women will look for a heter too... maybe it will sound like too much of a drama but... could it split orthodox judaism in 2? saying that because the children of the 'hetered' women would not marry the kids of the 'non-hetered' ones... wow... it's getting confusing, right? Ok, will keep following the case.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Schachter does not admit to the corruption that goes on in BDA. That is a huge issue. Just consider how easily the BDA wrote a siruv against a non-existent man. It was something that a simple internet search would have revealed.
ReplyDeleteA simple question but a very important one.
ReplyDeleteThere are times when Rav Moshe Feinstein said that it is considered a mistaken marriage and when it is impossible to receive a Get he permitted the woman to remarry without a Get.
This case is not such a case. Even if the diagnoses of paranoia and obsessie compulse personality were accurate ( which they clearly are not) that is not sufficient according to Rav Moshe.
The heter applies only in very rare and extreme cases. An attempt to apply it to lesser situations was tried a number of years again by Rabbi Emmanual Rackman. This was universally rejected. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has an important discussion in Tradition magazine where he explicitly states that extension of Rav Moshe's heter can only be valid if it is widely accepted by the mainstream Orthodox rabbis - and it hasn't.
So we have a few rabbis who have been secretly giving out invalid heterim for years. This case is different because Tamar Epstein made herself the "number 1 Aguna" - meaning she acknowledged that she needed a Get. Then after 5 years she publicly announces she doesn't need one. Thus it can't be ignored and it clearly isn't.
At the present it is basically a question of whether this case qualifies for a heter - not whether Rav Moshe's heter is valid.
The psak of mekach taus in Haifa last year, which Dayan
ReplyDeleteSherman, Rav Shlomo Fisher and Rav Yitzchak Yosef all agreed to, involved a woman who had already had a child with her husband but left him after she found out he was taking medicine to control his schizophrenia. That is still very different to this case, though.
Very interesting indeed. Was there any opposition to that psak, and if so from where?
ReplyDeletein any case, this is less controversial, and probably fits in with Rav Moshe's parameters - the husband was already ill before the marriage, but concealed it. And was taking medicine for a recognized illness. So it would be hard to argue that this violates Rav Moshe's psak.
ReplyDeleteNone that I saw reported.
ReplyDeleteI think schizophrenia that was so severe (to the extent that he tried to kill himself, a siman that it was extremely severe) is still way beyond OCD and paranoia (even if we would believe that Friedman has those, which he most likely doesn't...)
ReplyDeleteit is a very interesting case - but now, even where there are grounds for mekach taut, one can see how easily this can be abused.
ReplyDeleteRabbi - I focus in on one sentence "extension of Rav Moshe's heter can only be valid if it is widely accepted by the mainstream Orthodox rabbis - and it hasn't."
ReplyDeleteI have two questions. 1) According to this blog the Kamenetskys, RNG, Rabbi Furest and other right wind Rabbis agreed to the heter initially. If that is the case, and we have not seen any of them formally retract their psak/heter (not one of them has stated that she needs to separate from her current relationship) haven't some very mainstream Orthodox Rabbis accepted it?
2) Which leads into my next question. I am putting aside the Israel rabbis as there are frequently disagreements between the American and Israeli "Gedolim" - we certainly have several mainstream Orthodox Rabbis here in America who have publicly questioned the heter or have condemned it. We have several Rabbis who approved of the heter. We also have many Rabbis, including the entire Moetzes not named Feldman, who have yet to say a word publicly on the issue. We have ORA, who is advised on halachic issues by Harshel Schachter - a leader in the YU/Mo world, who congratulated Tamar on being free about a year ago and other than that not a word of condemnation. We have all the Rabbis you and your brother contacted to make a machah but did not. What are the actual parameters for acceptance by mainstream Orthodox Rabbis?
Very good questions!
ReplyDelete1) The rabbis that have said the heter is valid have a major problem. it is clear - as Rav Aharon Feldman and others have pointed out - that the information they based the heter on is not true or are lies.
They are not extending the heter of Rav Moshe - they are saying that the conditions specified by Rav Moshe are fulfilled in Tamar's case when it is clearly untrue.
Rav Shmuel and his son say we are relying on the therapists who say that Aharon is mentally ill will incurable personality disorders that no normal woman would agree to be married to. But it has been established that Aharon is not mentally ill and in particular Tamar never ever mentioned such a thing in Beis Din or din secular court. In fact in her diary she says nice things about him but says she is bothered by social skills.
Rav Nota says he knows nothing about the facts except what the Kaminetskys have told him and he accepts them as true. He is not extending Rav Moshe's heter - he is mistakenly say that based on the facts he has been told it applies. But the facts are wrong.
Then Rav Shmuel says - this is a complicated matter but I rely on Rav Greenblatt that the heter is vvalid.
This comedy act does not indicate an extension of Rav Moshe's heter but clear incompetence of both Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Greenblatt. Rav Fuerst also accepted the Kaminetsky's facts as true.
in sum - this is rabbinic malpractice - not an acceptance of extending Rav Moshe's heter into conditions that Rav Moshe would never have accepted.
2) Silence is not proof of acceptance especially when you hear many of the rabbis who have not publicly protested express rage at the giving of the heter.
In sum, one can only say that an extension of Rav Moshe's heter has been accepted when dealing with facts that are agreed to be true, that are less serious than what Rav Moshe was talking about, and that there is wide spread written approval of the action.
Silence is not proof of acceptance
Thank you for taking your time to answer, rabbi. I understand better now.
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah – do you and/or your brother oppose the Haifa beis din’s psak? All the info is available online, starting from here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1138
I am not remotely suggesting that the cases are similar.
I do not oppose the correct application of Rav Moshe's heter.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I asked. Do you oppose the heter as the Haifa beis din applied it?
ReplyDeleteSilence is not acceptance.
ReplyDeleteThat is so right. Let's not forget, ALL these rabbis that finally came out and wrote letters were once silent.
"Silence is not proof of acceptance"
ReplyDeleteThis depends on who is listening.
1) I agree with the fact that this appears to be a comdey act - but no one is laughing at this very serious matter. RNG and the Kams may be backpedalling and pointing fingers - but publicly the only thing we have is an apparent marriage ceremony, of which the officiant has not voided or stated was nullity and the original backers have not done so either. Until that time, at least these mainstream Orthodox Rabbis must be deemed as accepting of the heter. The private hand wringing means nothing - unless they have told Tamar privately she needs to separate and that her children are mamzerim. Otherwise, all we have is a public acceptance and private acquiescence by not doing anything.
ReplyDelete2) It is the last part that I am curious about - did Reb Moshe make widespread acceptance a prerequisite? Even if he did - what does that mean? There will always be certain groups that feel that the heter is never valid, certain groups that will say a heter is possible but X case is not the extreme circumstances meant by Reb Moshe, other groups that want to use his heter like an annulment mill, some that will say I don't want to get involved and others that will say show me the $ or I won't sign. At the end - how much means wide spread acceptance, how much does a Rabbi's failure to publicly declare his position mean and how do we factor in the different factions?
Lastly, what did Reb Moshe say the status is of the children of a lady who used a heter to remarry, had children, but the heter was objected to by a fair amount of people?
LECHOL MAN DEBOIE LEMEIDA VECHOL DICHFIN VEDITSRICH YEISEI VEYEICHOL
ReplyDeleteHere is my latest thoughts about this fiasco. What R S..mK organized for Tamar is truly a Rackman maneuver Get under disguise. He went shopping for those rabbis that already have done Mekach Taus Gittin Rackman style, where you can sail through like a breeze, without even attempting to contact the husband. SInce he was well aware of the reaction of the masses, he lied through his teeth while he did not disclose the actual names of the matirim and his true reasonings or the technique he applies, for fear of arousing the wrath of the Anti- Rackman establishment. That is why he also refused permission of the dayonim involved to disclose the letters. Equipped with the Rackman manouver, since AF refused to give a Get, he declared him Meshuga of Toit and Toit Meshuga, an achzor for refusing to give a Get just for the asking, thereby being a big rasha, a newly discovered big unknown hidden MUM going back to the time of Kidushin, hence Mekach taus. Having everything done hush hush, he had the luxury of no participant being pressured or hassled not to go along and have it fait accompli. By planting misleading information, he misdirected the hunters and waste their time, such as I never said, and I never did - so the couple can go off to live happily after. At the end of the day, it is exactly enforcing the Rackman churban of Mekach taus. Absolutely nothing different. The psychiatrist or testimony was all a diversion with a pack of lies. R' AF zol zayn gezunt in shtark, is neither toit nor meshuge, he is alive and well B'H ad meah ve'esrim. RSK then went on as if this is an extension of R' Moishe's Psak of someone totally insane/ achzar in synch with all the requisite conditions, although for simply refusing to give a Get on demand.
It might be a waste of time to take apart the he said she said nonsense. Rather, the Dayonim go straight tsu der zach and demand RSK for being megaleh ponim baTorah shelo kahalacha enforcing a banned Dracula-man style maneuver. vezeh kol hatorah kulah. Let all those Gedoilim who already have banned rackman gittin in the past, come out and be Moiche with all the bells and whistles that go along with such.
1) Ben I strongly disagree with your understanding. This has gone way beyond a marriage ceremony which has not been voided by the mesader kiddushin. Please take the time to read the many letters. All of them say Tamar is still married to Aharon Friedman. The fact that all the rabbis who are alive to today have not public protested - doesn't change the fact that Tamar is committing adultery and her children will be mamzerim. There is clearly public condemnation by many important rabbis which unambiguously means she needs to separate from her 2nd husband. There is no halacha that the condemnation is meaningless without the mesader kiddshin telling them to separate. Given also that the psak was a comedy of errors - it has no validity even if it is not explicitly withdrawn. Thus it is absurd to speak as if their is a legitimate dispute in halacha because the perpetrators of this serious error have not acknowleddged it.
ReplyDeleteBen what are you referring to when you said "did Reb Moshe make widespread acceptance a prerequisite" I was not talking about the original heter which was clearly for rare and extreme cases when a get could not be contained. Rav Moshe did not make his psakim dependent on acceptance of a large part of clall Yisroel. Even those who disagreed with him - still respected the status that resulted from his psakim that he gave personally in a particular case. Thus someone like Rav Eliashiv disagreed with this heter - but nonetheless he respected the fact that if Reb Moshe said the woman could remarry without a Get. If someone like Rabbi Riskin or Rabbi Rackman made the same assertion - Rav Eliashiv and must other mainstream rabbis would not automatically accept the validity of the annulment.
The issue is today when people want to extend the application of anullment beyond that which Reb Moshe applied it to. Those who want to say it applies to cases where the wife says - his snoring irritates me and I would not have married him I knew he snore. They want to apply it to personality traits such as being introverted or extroverted etc.
We do not have anyone viewed as Rav Moshe so the validity of the psak is now dependent on acceptance of rabbis rather than the authority of the posek.
The above also applies to your last question. If Rav Moshe paskened that a woman could remarry without a Get or use artificial insemination or any other ruling about personal status - he didn't make it conditional on the widespread acceptance of other rabbis. But anyone else who want to innovate or even apply his more controversial heterim - clearly needs to be have the rulings accepted by a significant number of rabbis.
I am very sad that such an article was written by somebody who is a major therapist but who won't give his name. And then somebody named Ploni is active with this. They are tsadikim perhaps and mean leshaim shomayim, but is this what klal yisroel is? I guess it is.
ReplyDeleteBut anyone else who want to innovate or even apply his more
ReplyDeletecontroversial heterim - clearly needs to be have that ruling accepted by
a significant number of rabbis
I understand you to be saying that no rav ("anyone else") can apply a controversial heter of R' Moshe without the agreement of a significant number of other rabbonim. What's your halachic basis to say that?
"Rav Nota violated a basic halachic requirment of hearing both sides"
ReplyDeleteI believe this would only be relevant in a dinei mamonus din Torah whereas here we are dealing with issur veheter. Unless all you mean is that he should have done proper research -not that he violated the Halacha of hearing one Baal din shelo bifnei chaveiro.
The real issue here is a broader discussion over the amount of due diligence a posek is expected to make and how much he is allowed to trust the shoel. Now obviously on a more chamur shaila the research to be mevarer the mitzius should have a higher standard but the question is how much and where is a line. I think we all know that the thousands of agunah teshuvos written throughout the ages were almost all done without the posek himself being mevarer the facts - he almost always was just responding with his opinion to the facts presented to him. Rav yitzchak elchanan did not spend his time traveling the length an breadth of Europe do forensic investigations. The rabbonim that were used as the mitztarfim definitely did not have first hand knowledge. I don't think Rav ovadia went to ground zero before he wrote his teshuvah for the sefardi agunah there nor did Rav Moshe investigate the sexual habits of the husband in his teshuva.
It already has, you have the agudah on one side VS the CRC and other right wing roshei yeshiva on the other
ReplyDeleteAnd the schism will become more evident in the coming days
Due to the fact that it seems much of the oilam is under the impression that the idea of kedushei taus for a woman is a chiddush (daas yachid) of Rav Moshe Feinstein that was not used before him I figured litovas hakahal I'd be milaket everyone else who goes with it.
ReplyDeleteThe following poskim hold of the concept bietzem but still require a get medirabanan or another snif lehakel etc:
1- beis shmuel 194:2
2- beis halevi 3:3
3- Rav yitzchak elchanan in ein yitzchak e"h 24 (he also adds that the definition of a mum gadol depends on current societal attitude "heskem hamesida")
4- chavos yair 221 ("Halacha velo lo maisa")
The following poskim hold kedushei taus by a mum gadol without any other snif or get medirabanan etc:
1- rabbeinu Simcha brought in the ohr zarua in 1:761 (a rishon)
2- maharsham 3:16
3- the emunas shmuel siman 34
4- the even shoham siman 60
5- r yechekel abramski brought in the otzar haposkim
6- Rav Tzvi pesach frank in har Tzvi e"h 180
7- igros moshe e"h 1:79-80
Nathan please produce evidene that the Aguda supports the "heter" given by Rabbi Greenblatt? There is no evidence of a schism
ReplyDeleteDov - you are wrong. All the poskim and rabbonim that I have spoken to said that as a minimum Rav Greenblatt should have spoken with the husband before he issued his "heter". The heter is not simply deciding whether the wife is free to marry another man. The "heter" requires that the reputation of the husband be destroyed in order to justify annuling the marriage. Elementary yashrus demands hearing both sides.
ReplyDeleteAny ruling which if widely rejected the children are considered mamzerim and the wife an adulteress requires acceptance. Any geirus which will not be widely accepted is not to be used.
ReplyDeleteThis concept is a basic one so that the Jewish people does not end up in factions that can not intermarry with each other. Even Rabbi Riskin takes it as a given in his discussion of kiddushei ta'os - why is it unknown to you?
I understand where you are coming from but you are missing my point. I agree with you that he should have spoken to both sides and done a thorough investigation before paskening. However, as you seem to agree with here is a matter of yashrus etc, not beis din procedures. In this case we would not say dino ein din and he would not be over the lav.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on the rest of my comments - the level of personal investigation/relying on others that was historically used and how we should approach it today.
Reb Nathan, every comment you have made until now has either been malei vigadish lies or you have been completely wrong. Please spare us from reading your comments if you do not provide at least minimal proof to what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteThe mere fact that they aren't מוחה against the hetter after being repeatedly approached by myslef and others, and hearing from some of them יש מקום גדול להתיר, tells me that they are standing behind there buddy,
ReplyDeleteדע לך ר' דניאל, יש כאן שני מחנות ויש כאן שתי תורות, ואין מנוס מזה
Nathan we clearly disagree. Has anyone of the alleged supporters put it in writing? Have any of them spoken publicly about their support?
ReplyDeleteDov why is a single woman believed that her husband has died? Because we accept that because of the dire consequences that result she will herself be careful to check out the information.
ReplyDeleteIn general where a single person is involved and it doesn't involve a loss to another person the judges readily rely on the information presented. However in an adversial situation where if one person wins the other loses - which is the typical situation in money matters - it is necessary to hear both sides. The judges don't have to necessarily check the information independently but they do have to hear both sides. If there is a custody fight - judges can't say that it is sufficient to hear the husband's side and they don't need to talk with the wife or hear from the children or their representative.
Why do you have trouble accepting the obvious?
Dov, if you wanto be naive, feel free to do so
ReplyDeleteThere silence is deafening, besides a conversation I had with the novominsker rebbe who a distant relative
ReplyDeleteI truly don't believe any Rabbi would provide a heter of this magnitude to something like snoring....
ReplyDeleteBut, I think it's fair to assume that prior to her marriage, Tamar was told that there would be people who would reject the heter but don't worry as you have several prominent mainstream Orthodox Rabbis in your corner. If not, surely when this started to blow up. The fact that several other prominent Rabbis expressed their outrage is meaningless to her as long as a) the people who assured her don't retract; or 2) nearly every other mainstream major Orthodox Rabbi says something (privately or publicly). Moreover, unless the officiating Rabbi or her sponsor speak up - she has no reason to doubt their heter. The fact that you have proved to the public that there was a comedy of errors and that many Rabbis have slammed the heter, does not not take that heter away from her because she has what to rely on right now.
As the entire point of these series of posts is primarily to avoid her living in an adulterous relationship and prevent mamzerim - until one of the two things above happens, nothing practical will change. You will have one side screaming invalid heter, comedy of errors and mamzerim and she will point to her Rabbis who will not have retracted.
The psak here was not over custody where there would be a toen and nitaan in which case of course I would agree with you. Actually as I rethink this now I'm not so sure that a kiddushei taus has no nitaan
ReplyDeleteBut do you agree that Rav Moshe paskened his kiddushei taus case without meeting the husband.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, the Ein Yitzhak was something that HaRav Rackman relied on, especially in his now famous dispute with HaRav HaGaon R' Soloveitchik. Rackman argued that the world we live in [1970s] was not the same world as Chazal, and chazakot of Chazal about marriage might be different in the modern world. Of course RYBS was furious with him, but Rackman claims that in the end he admitted that Rackman was correct.
ReplyDeleteThe point being that halacha is fluid and responsive to societal changes.
the point is that it is unclear what you mean by being fluid and responsive to societal change. Also implying that Rav Soloveitchik didn't know as much as you do is absurd!
ReplyDeleteWho forces you to read his comments? Skip them if you wish.
ReplyDeleteNathan, keep commenting.
In my opinion, the fact alone that R' Moshe paskened it gives it validity. His psakim are part of the body of valid psak. Later poskim have every right to apply his psakim without getting a majority vote. The idea that legitimate poskim are not permitted to apply R' Moshe's psakim is in no way "a basic concept."
ReplyDeleteDon't know what you mean by fluid etc. the Halacha here stays the same it's the geder of a mum gadol that perhaps can change. Most halachos do not have such a subjective component to them.
ReplyDeleteAlso this says nothing as to the pre existence of the condition.
ReplyDeleteBen if you were in Tamar's place and you had a large number of prominent rabbis screaming adultress and Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky claiming he really wasn't involved but he relies on Rav Nota and Rav Nota saying he really doesn't know the facts accept for what he was told . And there were no other rabbis defending the heter but most remained silent - would you smile sweetly and say "I have emunas chachomim"!
ReplyDeleteI think must people would have a nervous breakdown if they were placed in that situation.
kiskeyum we obviously travel in different circles. As I said it depends on which psakim and also whether this is a direct application or whether it is an extension. It also depends on what you mean by legitimate poskim. You will note that while some have claimed that Rav Shmuel is a legitimate posek - he didn't dare give Tamar a heter - Why not?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if he does disclose his name, they might hire Epstein goons or wannabe's. R SK also arrived to the convention with body guards wearing a BP Vest or almost.
ReplyDeleteThis conversation was when you were undercover in Memphis? Philly? Hadar geulah? Brooklyn wedding? Reading secret teshuvos?
ReplyDeleteYour lecturing on yashrus now? I'd venture to say AF's reputation may not have been damaged nearly as much if not for blogs such as this one.
ReplyDeleteR' Shmuel is not a real poseik, regardless of what some or all might claim, and irrespective of what is going on now.
ReplyDeleteI am discussing the right of actual, serious poskm במלא מובן המלה to draw on R' Moshe's heterim where and when they choose. To state otherwise is not "a basic concept," and, I would submit, is incorrect.
As for the circles I travel in, they include some very chashuve poskim. I actually discussed this question with two of them about this question a few weeks ago. They answered in line with my thinking.
Even a submarine cannot hold it's breath forever, they will have to surface very soon. I don't see them ever agreeing to such piskei 'plaster'. This is not color war, this will bring WWIII. Al Adam veal Tamar nechrevo Yehuda veYisroel.
ReplyDeleteRabbi of Gaza, ALL the profound letters crying out against this catastrophe has come from rabbonim who were stone silent.
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on the Novominsker conversation?
Oh, and how was the cholent?
I'd venture to say AF's reputation may not have been damaged nearly as much if not for blogs such as this one.
ReplyDeletelol
If he is indeed "'crazy' in every sense of the word," then yashrus would have it as a prerequisite to protect all women. Oh, oops. Did you and RSK contradict yourselves? Ahh, I know, "it's private." But when the Yated selectively chooses to slander people, then that's OK, right? When RSK waged his public wars, that was OK, right?
Buddy, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
R' Dovid. Pleeeeze,
ReplyDeleteפלוני אלמוני made it into Megilis רות, but there's no room for him/her on a blog?
Several weddings and eating the Tcholent seuda at Hadar Geula? Huh? Sounds like the Friday afternoon weddings in the Ungarishe Hayzer.
ReplyDeleteProtect all women? How chivalrous of you!
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that everyone with deficiencies have them publicized so all women will be protected? Brilliant idea.
He never delivers the goods. He promised to blow everybody's mind, yet all he did was eating out tcholent in a restaurant under a grey hood under cover and blew it. Nathan, that is like blowing bubbles in the wind with hot air. Baal yofiach kzovim flatulance bela"az. That won't cut it.
ReplyDeleteSK came guarded? Really? Can you forward me where you've seen it, or is it 'mipi hashmuah'?
ReplyDeleteMr. Ploni,
ReplyDeleteI am surprised at you. With your understanding of nuts you fail to note that I am writing out of jealousy?
How chivalrous of you!
ReplyDeleteIf you truly believe that no woman would ever want to marry him,. then you have a responsibility to make sure that no woman gets fooled into a "non-marriage" with this kook. Of course, you don't really believe this, and neither does R. Sholom, as Rav Landesman pointed out.
When you read the newspapers, listen to the radio etc. do you personally go verify each and every article, news and politics. I read it here on this blog, and is more believable than the so called Heter of eishes ish. Do you know the BD's name that ruled Heter, mipi hashmuah or otherwise?
ReplyDelete