In correspondence with the spokesman of the וועד להצלת כלל ישראל , he sent me the following letter he wrote to Rav Aharon Feldman as a followup to the Open Letter to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah that I published today. When I asked him about identifying who he is he responded:
I do not fear publicizing my name. I do feel, though, that it may take away somewhat from the message we are attempting to convey. How many naysayers will emerge from the woodwork dissecting our network, our Rabbis, and our leadership with claims such as "who licensed you to represent our nation?" or "your Rabbis don't have Daat Torah, only my Rabbi does" etc. etc.
Perhaps sign it Abraham S. without my last name. Anyone really interested can call and/or email and find out whatever there is to know.Feel free to edit as you see fit.thanks,
914-340-4210AS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Klal Yisroel" guardianofthenation@gmail.com
Date: Dec 30, 2015 11:44 AM
Subject: Follow up to conversation Friday Dec 25
To: raf@nirc.edu
Rav Feldman Shlit"a,
By way of introduction, we are a group of people, numbering
as of the now in the hundreds, whom this tragedy has brought to the realization
that כלל ישראל in the US is headed
down a slippery slope and if drastic action is not taken immediately, will
reach a point of no return in the near future ח"ו.
Our ranks are swelling daily, with people from all walks of life
joining.
Chassidim, Misnagdim, Sefardim, Yeshivaleit, Roshei Yeshiva, Rabbanim,
lawyers, doctors, professionals in all fields, are all part of our
group.
I write this correspondence in response to the three objections
you raised to the "Moetzes letter" in a conversation we had this past
Friday erev Shabbos Vayechi. I will address them one by one;
1) You stated you were unsure whether you had looked Reb
Shmuel in the eye whilst questioning his involvement in the Tamar Epstein
Heter, to which I respond; is poetic license a phenomena frowned upon by
Halakha? To the best of my knowledge, and that of our organization's Vaad
haRabanim , the opposite is true, as anyone with knowledge of the rich history
of the פייטנים the Jewish Nation has
had throughout the years will attest to. Indeed, even שופרא דשטרא
would fall into this category. So please excuse the possible inexactitude of
that particular articulation. My apologies!
2) I will address your third point before I get to the
second one. Lest you suspect me of ignoring the words of Chazal in מסכת אבות פ"ה מ"ז and publicly
declaring myself a גולם, this issue was also
placed before the Vaad haRabanim. They all unanimously agreed that clarity of
the message in so vital a correspondence, one that entails the משניות immediately
following, i.e. the repercussions of המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה in משנה ח' about which it is written כי רבים חללים הפילה,
the reason why גלות בא לעולם, גלוי עריות, etc., far outweigh
the considerations of being perceived as a גולם.
May that be part of my personal מסירות
נפש
for the הצלה of כלל
ישראל.
ארור מכה רעהו בסתר, EVEN IF Rabbi
Kamenetzky is considered to be עושה
מעשה עמך
and בכלל רעהו and that's a big if,
is clearly not to be understood as someone who withholds his name whilst
publicly attacking someone about whom לשון הרע
is permitted, and if it is an instance where הלכות לשה"ר
would not allow the attack to be made, disclosing the identity of the attacker
makes not the slightest difference.
3) As far as point number 2, that Reb Shmuel didn't lie to
you, I am reminded of an episode I witnessed in Court when an attorney called
the opposing litigant “a big fat liar". His opposite number objected. The
judge sustained the objection on big and fat, however he overruled the
objection on the word liar stating "if your client isn't lying somebody
ought to teach me the new meaning of the word liar". I, as well as the
hundreds of members of the group I represent, feel the same. Without delving
into the exact definition of the word, if Rabbi Kamenetsky was not lying to you
when he allayed your fears and reassured your esteemed self as well as Rav
Schuchatowitz that he had no part in Tamar's heter, he wasn't exactly being
truthful either. Was not the purpose of your trip from Baltimore to
Philadelphia to ensure that the tragedy beginning to unfold in front of your
eyes was fiction rather than truth? That it was surely impossible for a man of
the stature of Rabbi Kamenetsky to allow this abomination to occur a couple of
blocks away from the very room where you were sitting, engaging him in
conversation. Were your greatest fears not dispelled by the Rosh Yeshiva's glib
assurances? Did his slick tongue and persuasive talk not convince you that he
was indeed innocent as hoped rather than guilty as suspected?
Surely you didn't leave that room still suspecting that Rabbi
Kamenetsky was allowing an אשת
איש
to be מזנה on his watch, with
his approval, for if suspicion still lurked in your mind how could you leave?
No, you were convinced by Reb Shmuel's integrity and forthrightness as much as
by his convincing words. Of course we were mistaken, how could we have even
been חושד a גדול of such stature!
Rav Feldman, look yourself in the mirror. Do you still have
those same thoughts and feelings? Or have they changed, at least somewhat? If
they are different today than on that night in תמוז,
how mistaken can our claim that Reb Shmuel lied be? If, however, your thoughts
and feelings are the same today as they were then, perhaps you are being
shielded, or maybe shielding yourself from the evidence that has come out in
public, smoking gun after smoking gun, tying Reb Shmuel to this sordid affair,
staining his hands and sullying his reputation for all eternity. Just some of
the evidence;
1)
A letter written by his son, Sholom, sent
to a number of Dayanim arguing for a Heter, ending with the following
כל זה נכתב על ידי שלו' קמנצקי, והראתי את
הדברים אל אאמו"ר הג"ר שמואל קמנצקי שליט"א, והסכים על הדברים,
[וגם הוא שמע כל עדותו של הרופא המומחה יר"ש הנ"ל] וביקש ממני שאציע את
הדברים לפני הגהר"ר נטע גרינבלאט שליט"א שהוא בקי בענינים אלו, הצעתי את
הדברים לפני הגאון הנ"ל שליט"א ועבר על כל הנידון וגם על דברי שהצעתי
לו, והסכים עם הדברים, וגם כתב תשובה להתיר האשה תמר תחי' לינשא, ושוב הצעתי את
הדברים לפני אאמו"ר שליט"א ואמר: כדאי הר"ר נטע שליט"א לסמוך
עליו להתיר אשה זו מכבלי עיגונה, והרשה לי לכתוב כן בשמו
2) Another version
of the same letter ending in
ולכן כדאי ונכון להתיר העלובה הזאת לצאת מצרתה ומחבלי
עיגונה, ומכיון שכעת אין הבעל מוכן לכתוב לה גט, אף שאין מן הצורך ע"פ דברינו
הנ"ל, מותרת היא להנשא מטעם קידושי טעות.
כ"ז נכתב
ע"י שלום קמנצקי והראתי את הדברים אל אאמו"ר הגאון ר' שמואל קמנצקי
שליט"א ואישר אותי לחתום על הדברים שאכן כנים הם
3) Testimony
from a prominent Dayan whom Reb Shmuel approached, in person, over 2 years ago,
and implored him to assist in being מתיר Tamar to remarry without a Get ר"ל
4) Testimony
from a chavrusa of another Dayan who was sitting in the room when Reb Shmuel
called begging the Dayan to add his signature to Rabbi Greenblatt’s היתר.
This
is just some of the evidence in our possession irrefutably tying Reb Shmuel to this
outrageous scandal, there is plenty more in our possession which, due to its
sensitive nature we are not disclosing at the moment. If however the need shall
arise, we will not hesitate to put it out in the public arena.
בכבוד
רב
Spokesman
וועד להצלת כלל ישראל
It has been stated a number of times that it is better to shame even a Gadol, than to allow perversion of halacha. However, this is not always the case. We see in the Mishnah in Eduyot, the case of Akavya ben Mehalelel. He disparaged Shemay and Avtalyon's motives for some twisting of the halacha, to suit themselves, since they were Geirim. This is a huge insult to Roshei sanhedrin of the previous generation. Akavya was warned, and bribed to retract, being given the office of Rosh Beit Din, if he were to retract. Akavya refused, since he had a genuine tradition, and indeed heard it from a majority.
ReplyDeleteSo it is feasible, therefore, for the Aguda, to ask yourselves to reract your letters and protests, even if they are true. Since they don't want bizayon of Gedolei Torah. Of course, my personal position is to take Akavya's line, although it is not always easy. But Agudah can well say they have a leg to stand on based on the Sanhedrin's reaction to Akavya.
Eddie I don't know what you are talking about - could you try again. What exactly did he say that is comparable to the present case?
ReplyDeleteEduyot "Mishnah Six
ReplyDelete1)
Akavia ben Mahalalel testifiedconcerning four things.
One) They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel.
Two) He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God;
a)
So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.”
2)
He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy],
3) And green (yellow) blood (of vaginal discharge);
One) But the Sages declared them clean.
4)
He used to permit the wool of a
first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put
in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards;
One) But the sages forbid it.
5)
He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters.
One) But the Sages say: they are made to drink.
Two) They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink.
Three) He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real water).
6) Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his
coffin.
7)
Rabbi Judah said: God forbid[that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin.
One) But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the
purifying of the hands.
Two) And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin.
8) This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned."
RE: Akabia "They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real water)."
He said that Shemaia and Avtalion were bending halacha becasue they themselves were geirim. In other words, he was criticising Gedolei hador, and for this was put in herem.
The quesiton here is whether the objective truth stated by Akavia (based on a mesora) is to be buried in honor of Gedolim. He was put in herem.
That is just the principle. the specifics of the case are not the same, and don't need to be. You might argue that majority of Israeli gedolim support you, so you are not Akavia in this case. That is a good argument, but the Americans can still take the line of the Sanhedrin.
again - why was he put in cherem? It wasn't because he simply criticized gedolim or disagreed with them because of mesorah. It was because he claimed the gedolim were dishonest in halacha regarding gerim since they themselves were gerim.
ReplyDeleteמ״ק דף יז ע״א:
ReplyDeleteאמר רב הונא באושא התקינו אב בית דין שסרח אין מנדין אותו אלא אומר לו {מלכים ב יד-י} הכבד ושב בביתך חזר וסרח מנדין אותו מפני חילול השם ופליגא דריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש תלמיד חכם שסרח אין מנדין אותו בפרהסיא שנאמר {הושע ד-ה} וכשלת היום וכשל גם נביא עמך לילה כסהו כלילה מר זוטרא חסידא כי מיחייב צורבא מרבנן שמתא ברישא משמית נפשיה והדר משמית לדידיה כי הוה עייל באושפיזיה שרי ליה לנפשיה והדר שרי ליה לדידיה אמר רב גידל אמר רב ת''ח מנדה לעצמו ומיפר לעצמו אמר רב פפא תיתי לי דלא שמיתי צורבא מרבנן מעולם
There is nothing comparable here! If anything you are arguing that RDE is in the position of Akavai whereas the Kaminetzkys and Greenblatta are like Shemaia and Avtalion who were bending halacha. And even then what Shemaia and Avtalionis not even close to the FRAUD committed by Mr. Shalom Kaminetzky to obtain a false heter from Rabbi Greenblatt.
ReplyDeleteWhat about claiming that the gedolim are dishonest in Agunos because they are friendly with the Aguna?
ReplyDeleteWhat are you hocking a cheinik. To'oh bidvar mishnah chozer, no difference between a koton or godol. What we have here is much worse. It was a hoirosoi veleidosoi besheker veshav. Concocting a Psak based on outright lies, bemeizid, bimlo muven hamila, and even then he couldn't shoot straight, they had to do a PLUGIN as if there is such an animal of SOVRO VEKIBLA AL TNAY. NO SUCH THING! Coaching a balaas din to lie, manipulating a ping pong game, to sign without delving into the validity or integrity of the information just accepting on blind basis, as is, no questions asked. He knows neither party nor what's going on between them, so why don't you do your due diligence, or recluse yourself. I showed it to him, showed it to the other, back and forth, no one taking responsibility, no Beis Din, no Psak, no nothing. When proven worthless, I am not responsible to retreat, if not true, then Psak is automatically invalid. This is like kids in cheider playing Doctor make believe. It is unbecoming of anyone messing around betiv gittin vekidushin, he said, she said, I never said. What the Torah haKdosha says is a dovor poshut. ASHER YECHTO NOSSI - see RASHI, al SHIGEGOSOV VEAL ZEDONOSOV, mind you, this is for the Rosh haSENHEDRIN. No cover ups, no face saving bli shum kchal ushrak, even for Horav Reb Godol. Keep it simple, just FESS UP. It is spilled milk and tovo imo utkaneach tsoas bito. Enough already, do we need to get to a stage of ZAKEN MAMRE C'V'. All the nails have been used up for the coffin, we are up to stimas hagollel. KULAY HAY, VEULAY???.
ReplyDeleteYosef Gavriel Bechhofer “it is a valid question -
ReplyDeletethat I cannot answer - as to why ORA declared TE "free" a couple of
years ago. Did they consult RHS, and he at the time thought the heter was
valid; or did they not consult him, which would have been a grave and
questionable error on their part. Having
said that, I want to make clear that I don't see ORA as anything more than a
tool by which to bring Harchokos d'RT to fruition. The principle of not
withholding a get is independent of any organization. It is tov v'yashar in
itself.”
“These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth
to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates. And do not
contrive evil against one another, and do not love perjury, because all those are
things that I hate—declares the Lord” (Zachariah 8:16-17).
ORA ruined the life of Tamar, sad to say.
Chaim sees precisely what my moshul is.
ReplyDeleteI am not disagreeing with your analysis on the heter. I am not even supoporting the heter or justifying it. It may or may not be more severe than giving mei sotah as an "example". The point is that the Mishnah is a very powerful and emesdik concept, and shows , amongst other facets of the Torah, that there are various conflicts between Truth, truth and truths. Between mesora, majority, gedolim, dorot, etc etc. If we had enough wisdom to derive eerything from that mishnah (which I do not claim to have), we would perhaps be abel to understand how and why disputes occur.
ReplyDeleteHe claimed this not on his own inference, but becasue he heard it as a received tradition. One problem I always had with this, is how can a mesora be a bad mesora? You can't have good mesora and bad mesora, if they are from sinai, or have the force of being from sinai. Does majority negate mesora?
ReplyDeleteEddie where does it say that his slur was a mesorah?
ReplyDeleteChapter 5 Mishnah 6 Eduyoth
ReplyDelete“Akabia ben Mahalaleel testified to four opinions {That are
not accepted] The Sages (said) to him, Akabia, retract these four views that
thou hast stated and we will make thee Head of the Court in Israel. He replied
to them, It is better for me to be dubbed a fool all my days than to be made a
wicked man before the Omnipresent even for one hour…Thereupon they
excommunicated him[For having besmirched the names of Shemaiah and Abtalion]
and he died while he was under the ban, and the court placed a stone [Literally
stoned] upon his coffin. R. judah said, Heaven forbid [that it should be said]
that Akabia was excommunicated!- for the Temple Court was never closed against
the face of any man in Israel [so eminent] in wisdom and in the fear of sin as was Akabia ben Mahalaleel.”
What a Mishnah!
Surely everyone agrees that Akabia ben Mahalaleel was eminent in wisdom
and fear of sin. Yet the Sages fought
against him in four matters and ruled against him in these four matters. Fine.
The Mishnah gives the details.
These 4 matters are complicated and well worthy of high-level scholarly
debate even today.
I ask: Is there a
scholarly debate on the Greenblott heter?
Are there rabbis seriously saying the heter is valid?
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer is an apologist for ORA's evil halachic violations when he claims that ORA is "a tool by which to bring Harchokos d'RT to fruition".
ReplyDeleteORA utilizes a whole slew of dirty tricks in blatant violation of halacha and in violation of basic principles of human decency. ORA attempts to keep these violations out of the sunlight but they cannot any longer.
Where does "Harchokos d'RT" allow the agunah activists to harass the husband's employer thus endangering his parnassa?
Where does "Harchokos d'RT" allow the agunah activists to harass the husband's landlord thus endangering his residence?
Where does "Harchokos d'RT" allow the agunah activists to advise the wife while she employs archaos to jail her husband and prevent him any access to his children?
Where does "Harchokos d'RT" allow the agunah activists to wage campaigns of vicious slander against the husband in worldwide non-Jewish media?
Eddie you are simply misreading the text.
ReplyDeleteRambam states clearly he was put in cherem because public expressed suspicioun that the gedolei hador were being dishonest - when there was absolutely no evidence for that
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת עדויות פרק ה
ואמר שאין משקין גיורת ומשוחררת מי סוטה, וכאשר הביאו לו ראיה במה שעשו שמעיה ואבטליון אמר שהם לא השקוה מי שוטה באמת, אלא הראו בעיניה כאלו הן מי שוטה, והם כמו מי שוטה, ופירוש דוגמא דבר הדומה. ולא עשו כן אלא מפני שהיא גיורת והם גרים, וכאלו לא ראו להרחיקה בגלל יחסם הנפשי לאומה. והיה קשה דבר זה שחשדם בו, ונדוהו.
http://mechon-mamre.org/b/h/h47.htm
ReplyDeleteמסכת עדייות פרק ה
ה,ז בשעת מיתתו אמר לבנו, בני, חזור בך בארבעה דברים שהייתי אומר.
אמר לו, אתה, למה לא חזרת בך. אמר לו, אני שמעתי מפי המרובין, והם שמעו
מפי המרובין; אני עמדתי בשמועתי, והן עמדו בשמועתן. אבל אתה שמעת מפי
היחיד, ומפי המרובין; מוטב להניח דברי היחיד, ולאחוז בדברי המרובין. אמר
לו, אבא, פקד עליי לחבריך. אמר לו, איני מפקד. אמר לו, שמא עוולה מצאת
בי. אמר לו, לאו; מעשיך יקרבוך, ומעשיך ירחקוך.
why was he placed in cherem? - not because of his mesorah
ReplyDelete@Eddie
ReplyDeleteIt is the Torah that claims so. Vihyisem nekiyim mH' umiYisroel and must recluse yourself. Ki hashochad/negius/ yeaver einei chachomim visalef goes for ALL without any exception, let alone when the facts are clear and obvious for all that there is negius. The MIshnah be'einoh omedes, you even have RNG admitting so, still and all he is standing idly by leaving responsibility to those introducing those false information that led to his Psak. In the meantime we have two people continue living in grave sin al chamurot shebechamurot as a direct consequence of keeping their silence, with a potential of bringing on mamzeirus. Bakol misrapin chutz mGimmel, Gilui Arayos... al achas kamo vekamo for just Saving Face! Ubemakom sheyesh chilul haShem ..., there is no Saving face. After the Gedoilei haDor have repeatedly directed them to retreat, those remaining in silence are considered complicit, all the while where Chllul haShem still prevails.
Epstein was ruined long before ORA was founded.
ReplyDeleteHe's an apologist? Good Morning, America. .... YGB" reminds me of the US presidential candidate for the Communist Party.....
ReplyDeleteThe threshold question is whether HdRT are appropriate in a case of ma'us alai. RYGB and certain MO poskim say yes. Everyone else says that in practice it is not done today for a number of reasons. So basically in chareidi society it is settled law that we do not use HdRT except in a situation where a bais din directs you to. So when you argue with RYGB you are dealing with someone on the far left with respect to this matter, and who is willing to risk the creation of mamzerim based on his feminist ideology.
ReplyDelete@MenachemB
ReplyDeleteThey don't hesitate to imitate atsas Bilam ben Beor, and scream like Eishes potifar you may add amongst the list. The essence of Osse Ma'ase zimri umvakesh schar kePinchas. Tsror es haMidyonim vehikisem osom... asher niklu lochem al dvar peor ve'al dvar kozbi bas - tzur -. Hagruim shebeumos einom ossim ken outside these few. These are your ORA alleged Agunah AMALEK Activists. I would highly recommend to have a repository of all the underworld techniques and shaygets shtick used upon acheinu Bnei Yisroel by these Nogsei ho'om just like the kapos used to do. A reservoir of one common pool, where you can either call or send to be posted beilum shem of the nirdofim, so the whole world should know what these activists are capable to inflict Ma'aseh Tatuim benichlei dosos asher klei chomos mecherosehem. All these techniques cause Get Meusse umarbim mamzerim beYisroel. I would humbly ask Mr. Joe Orlow if he can accommodate such, since he has the wherewithal and all the right people e.g. Rabonim and Counsel to master such, ULEMITSVAH GODOL YECHOSHEV. If the OSKIM BETSORCHEI TSIBUR BE'EMUNOH see it necessary, they can even post the names of the RODFIM mi vomi haHolchim. This should pretty much take care of all those loud feminists and big mouths as well. Yes, high time to tame these self made fake, so called Agunos and cohorts teaching them Balak, ka'asher zomam la'asos.
Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov:אני
ReplyDeleteכו'. נראה, כי הראשונים נמנו על אלו ד' דברים והיו מחצה על מחצה, הוא שמע
מן המחצה האחד והן שמעו מפי המחצה האחר כו'. א''נ עקביא היה אומר כי אותן
ששמע מפיהם היו הרוב, וחביריו אמרו כי האחרים שכנגדם הם היו הרוב. הר''א
Tosafot Yom Tov:אני שמעתי מפי המרובים.
והם שמעו מפי המרובים. פירש הראב"ד וז"ל נראה כי הראשונים [נמנו] על אלו
ד' דברים והיו מתצה למחצה. הוא שמע מן המתצה האחד. והם שמעו מן המחצה
האחר. והוא עומד בשמועתו. והם עמדו בשמועתן. אי נמי עקביא היה אומר. כי
אותן ששמע מפיהם היה הרוב. וחביריו אמרו כי האחרים שכנגדם הם היו הרוב.
עכ"ל
The Tosafor Yomtov (and Raavad) disagree with the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteWhen Yochanan Kohen Gadol became a Tzedoki at 80, did anyone scratch their head to figure out the 'type of Mesorah' he was following? At some point, one has to discern that we hot bottom or 'the deep end', if you will. .....
ReplyDeleteRYGB won't respond here because he is in a self imposed cherem to only respond in the post with his picture.
ReplyDeleteRYGB holds that even where a women walks out of Bais Din in favor of secular court HdRT should still be applied.
He is also still on the fence regarding the validity of the Heter and whether the world is really round or flat.
We will all be checking the post with his picture for his latest obfuscation.
ברכות כח: - כט.
ReplyDeleteת"ר שמעון הפקולי הסדיר י"ח ברכות לפני רבן גמליאל על הסדר ביבנה אמר להם ר"ג לחכמים כלום יש אדם שיודע לתקן ברכת הצדוקים עמד שמואל הקטן ותקנה לשנה אחרת שכחה והשקיף בה שתים ושלש שעות ולא העלוהו אמאי לא העלוהו והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב טעה בכל הברכות כלן אין מעלין אותו בברכת הצדוקים מעלין אותו חיישינן שמא מין הוא שאני שמואל הקטן דאיהו תקנה וניחוש דלמא הדר ביה אמר אביי גמירי טבא לא הוי בישא ולא והכתיב ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול ההוא רשע מעיקרו אבל צדיק מעיקרו לא ולא והא תנן אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך שהרי יוחנן כ"ג שמש בכהונה גדולה שמנים שנה ולבסוף נעשה צדוקי אמר אביי הוא ינאי הוא יוחנן רבא אמר ינאי לחוד ויוחנן לחוד ינאי רשע מעיקרו ויוחנן צדיק מעיקרו הניחא לאביי אלא לרבא קשיא אמר לך רבא צדיק מעיקרו נמי דלמא הדר ביה אי הכי אמאי לא אסקוהו שאני שמואל הקטן דאתחיל בה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא שלא התחיל בה אבל התחיל בה גומרה
Eddie you are wrong
ReplyDeleteרע"ב על מסכת עדיות פרק ה משנה ו
ונדוהו - לפי שזלזל בכבודן של שמעיה ואבטליון:
תוי"ט על מסכת עדיות פרק ה משנה ו
ונדוהו - פירש הר"ב לפי שזלזל בכבודן של שמעיה ואבטליון. דגם לפירוש השני שאמר שעשאו דוגמא ודמיון וכו' היה ג"כ ענינו לומר שלכך עשו דוגמא וסימן לפי שהיתה גיורת. והם גרים. וכאילו הם לא סברו להרחיקה להסתפחה בדת ישראל. כמ"ש הרמב"ם. והראב"ד מפרש כי חשד אותם לעשות שלא כדין. לפי שאין עושין כן שמא יוציאו לעז על מי המרים לומר שאין בודקין. ע"כ. ועיין במשנה ה' פ"ג דסוטה. ועמ"ש לקמן:
תפארת ישראל /יכין/ על מסכת עדיות פרק ה משנה ו
[סד] ונדוהו ומת - שחשדוהו מדאמר כך בכעס, משמע טפי שהתכוון לומר, דמדהיו הם גרים השקוה לגיורת, ומדהתכוון לבזותן, מנדין לכבוד הרב [י"ד של"ד סמ"ג]:
Alex thanks for this Gemara.my take is that meenus" gets even to the best of the best. ....R"L
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with maus olay. It is simply a vendetta and bullying just because he can. If she is allegedly FREE, why the BULLYING. This is nothing else than exercising Power, nothing leshem shomayim. If he won't retract and soon, something else is on the way.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a machlokes between Abbaye and Rava whether someone who started off good can ever go bad.
ReplyDelete"when there was absolutely no evidence for that"
ReplyDeleteThat is the distinction between this case and the Mishna, right?
תוספות יום טוב:חס ושלום שעקביא נתנדה שאין וכו'.
ReplyDeleteבחכמה וביראת חטא כעקביא בן מהללאל. וא"ת וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר. שאע"פ
שאין גדול ממנו בדורו. אם יחטא ואשם ופללו אלהים זה השופט אשר יהיה בימים
ההם שאין לך שופט אלא שבדורו. יפתח בדורו וכו'. ויש לומר דס"ל דהא דאמר
דוגמא השקוה לא נתכוין לזלזל בכבודן כלל. וכפירוש שכתב הערוך בשם רב האי
גאון דה"ק עקביא בן מהללאל לא השקוה מי סוטה אלא היו כמייראין אותה שמא
תודה שנטמאת והראו כאילו מי סוטה הן. כדרך שאמר שלמה (מלכים א' ג') גזרו
את הילד החי. ושלא לעשות כן. אלא שם דרך חקירה כדי שיתגלה לו הסוד. ע"כ.
וסובר ר' יהודה כיון שאף לדברי עקביא להתייראות כדי שתודה היו עושים כן
א"כ אין כאן זלזול כלל. אבל ת"ק סובר שהיה זה זלזול. שאע"פ שלהתיראות היו
עושים לא היה להם לעשות כן שמא יוציאו לעז על מי המרים וכמ"ש לעיל בשם
הראב"ד. ור' יהודה ה"ק כיון שאין העזרה ננעלת וכו' בחכמה וביראת חטא כמותו
א"א לנו לומר שהיה נכשל בזה ח"ו ושהיה בא ע"י כך לכלל נדוי. וכ"ש לגרסת
הר"ב דגרם בענוה. והיינו טעמא דכיון שהוא היה עניו מכל אדם אשר על פני
העזרה. אי אפשר שיצא דבר קצף מלפניו להבזות את שמעיה ואבטליון גדולי ישראל
ח"ו. ועוד נ"ל לומר דאפשר דלא פליגי ת"ק ור' יהודה בלשון דוגמא ואף לר'
יהודה היה זלזול בדבר. ואפ"ה אמר שח"ו שנתנדה דכיון שאין בחכמה וביראת חטא
כמוהו. א"א שב"ד הקטן ממנו ינדוהו. ומתני' דייקא הכי. דלפירוש קמא לא
הל"ל ח"ו שנתנדה אלא ה"ל למימר ח"ו שזלזל. ויש לי כדמות ראיה לזה. דבמשנה
ח' פ"ג דתענית. דשלח לו שמעון בן שטח אלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נדוי.
ושם משום כבוד המקום ב"ה היה. ופירש"י בגמרא דף כ"ג אלמלא חוני אתה ואדם
גדול. ע"כ. ואי ס"ד דדעתו דרש"י דר"ל כדמסיים במתני. אבל מה אעשה לך
שאתה מתחטא וכו' כבן המתחטא וכו' ועושה רצונו. כלומר וכיון שנעשה רצונך
רואין אנו שאתה כבן המתחטא וכו' לא ה"ל לרש"י לפרש ואדם גדול. אלא ואתה
כבן המתחטא. אלא ש"מ דס"ל לרש"י דתרתי קאמר אלמלא חוני אתה שאתה אדם גדול
גוזרני וכו'. ומפני שאדם גדול אתה א"א לגזור. והדר קאמר אבל מה אעשה לך
שאע"פ שאינך אדם גדול. ולאו חוני אתה לא הייתי יכול לגזור עליך שאתה מתחטא
וכו' ולשון אבל מה אעשה לך דייק ליה לרש"י לפרושי הכי דהוה מצי למימר
אלמלא חוני אתה שאתה מתחטא וכו' גוזרני וכו'. ואי משום אל תעמוד בדבר רע
לא רצה לסיים בנדוי הא הוה מצי למימר גוזרני וכו' קודם ועליך נאמר ישמח
אביך וגו'. ולדקדוק זה דמלשון רש"י [מוכח] אע"פ שיש גדול ממנו כל שהוא אדם
גדול אין מנדין: וכן נמצא בברייתא בפ"ד דפסחים דף נ"ג. אלמלא תודוס אתה
גוזרני עליך נידוי. ופירש"י אלמלא תודוס אתה אדם חשוב. ע"כ. ונימוקי עמו
שכן בירושלמי פרק אלו. מגלחין. אמרו על זה שהיה שולח פרנסת חכמים והאי
עובדא ר' יוסי אמר כן. וכן בגמ' דברכות פ"ג דמייתי
I was once part of a group that protested against a company. No effect. Then we protested outside their lawyers' office. Immediate success. The attorneys apparently did not like the exposure. I am going to try a similar technique here, along the lines of what you suggest.
ReplyDeleteChaim “What about
ReplyDeleteclaiming that the gedolim are dishonest in Agunos because they are friendly
with the Aguna?” Eddie “Chaim sees
precisely what my moshul is.”
Eddie, is that you my dear son, Aryea? Chaim, is that you my dear cousin? Take the
debate over green or yellow blood.
Really who ever heard of green or yellow blood as a sign of a woman’s
period? The rabbis are surely right that
the woman is pure. What’s germane to us is the case of a husband claiming his
wife committed adultery. Shemaiah and
Abtalyon administered the water, presumably, allowing the woman to go back to
her husband. The rabbis are surely right
again. Some say Shemaiah and Abtalyon
administered the water pretend only. Surely, Akabia ben Mahalaleel was wrong to
denounce that woman so severely who claimed not have sinned.
Eddie, you’re taking the wrong side. If you support actions of agunot to free
themselves, you should be against Akabia ben Mahalaleel and you should support
the sages. The sages look for ways for
the woman to go back to her husband, as Shemaiah and Abtalyon did.
* May haShem bless you and your good deeds leheishiv es hagozul midei oshkoi. Our Dear brethren can use all your help to gain back their peace in life. I do ask you kindly for a favor, please consult your Rabonim before, so as not to fall in their same path.Va HAHASHEM IMOCH!!! Have a wonderful and a Gevaldigen Shabbos! Cannot thank you enough.*
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that we share a common enough belief system to make conversation productive.
ReplyDeleteGood Shabbos
Politically Incorrect “Epstein was ruined long before ORA
ReplyDeletewas founde........unless you 'ruined' as in caught. ..”
No.
Yevamoth116a: “What is to be understood by DISCORD
BETWEEN HIM AND HER? Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: When [a wife]
says to her husband: Divorce me! Do not all women (Lit. all of them also) say
this? (When they are angry. They do not mean it seriously. Why, then, should a
woman, because of a momentary outburst, be suspected of inventing a tale about
her husband's death?)”
In the Talmud all women have a momentary outburst at
their husbands and say: Divorce me! Once the woman made a donation to Agunah,
Inc., in Mendel Epstein's cases, he used his Star Chamber to force the man to
give the Get without hearing the man's side. The indictment cites Mendel
Epstein saying:
“I guarantee you that if you're in the van, you'd give
a Get to your wife.”
“He laughed about how he would keep police off his
trail in Brooklyn, where he also lived.
"They couldn't try me in Brooklyn," he's heard
telling the agents. "The whole jury would be women. They'd say 'Hang him
(the husband). Kill him!'"”
I knew Rabbi Epstein well 1985-1991 as a good neighbor
and fellow in shul and for simchot in his house. The lady FBI agent sounds so
like Susan I divorced February 17, 1993 by Get mutually agreed on her
initiative. The lady FBI lied and cried and showed Rabbi Epstein and the others
falsified documents. Surely, Rabbi Epstein was taken in by that. He was not
doing what he did for money. The money was only for expenses and for further
proof that the woman was not lying. I speak from experience. My ex-wife is
still now in NYS courts crying and submitting false documents and lying. So
far, it's working for her.
Chaim
ReplyDelete“I'm not sure that we share a common
enough belief system to make conversation productive”
Gittin 32a
“Mishnah. If a man after dispatching a get to his wife
meets the bearer, or sends a messenger after him, and says to him, the get
which I have given to you is cancelled, then it is cancelled. If the husband
meets the wife before [the bearer] or sends a messenger to her and says, the
get I have sent to you is cancelled, then it is cancelled. Once, however, the
get has reached her hand, he cannot cancel it. In former times a man was
allowed to bring together a beth din wherever he was and cancel the get. Rabban
Gamaliel the Elder, however, laid down a rule that this should not be done, so
as to prevent abuses.[Lit., for the better ordering of society. Lest the bearer
should give it to her in ignorance that it was annulled and she marry on the
strength of it.]”
Gittin 33a
“TO PREVENT ABUSES, What is referred to? R. Johanan said: To
prevent illegitimacy. Resh Lakish said: To prevent wife-desertion. R. Johanan
said to prevent illegitimacy, for he held with R. Nahman who said [that the Get
could be cancelled] before [a Beth din of] two: [the proceedings] of two are
not generally known, so she, not having heard and not knowing [that the Get is
cancelled] might go and marry again, and bear illegitimate children [Heb.
Mamzerim]. Resh Lakish said to prevent
wife-desertion [Heb. agunot], for he again held with R. Shesheth who said [that
he has to cancel it] before [a Beth din of] three. The proceedings of three are
generally known, so she hearing and knowing [that the Get was cancelled] would
remain unmarried, and we have therefore to save her from being a deserted wife
[Hence the enactment of R. Gamaliel the Elder].
Both Rabbi Johanan and Resh Lakish support Rabbi Gamaliel’s
rule that a husband cannot cancel a get he sends by messenger unless he tells
the messenger the get is cancelled or tells the wife the get is cancelled,
before she gets the get. They are on
what the reason is. Rabbi Johanan
worries about mamzerim. Resh Lakish
worries about agunot. Interesting,
radical feminists worry about agunot and care little about risk of mamzerim. Sir, Chaim, whose side are you on?
Apparently our situation follows according to the opinion that even someone who started off well can chas v'sholom go bad and in any case, Alex, it says in Avos " Al ta'amin b'atzmechoh ad Yom moschoh"....
ReplyDeleteFrumSarah (I suspect is Susan) cites the editorial of the
ReplyDeleteJewish Press: “As the Lewin article makes plain, the profound plight of an
agunah was largely kept from the jury by the judge. And the judge’s draconian
sentencing, essentially for committing a manufactured crime, reflects no
appreciation of that plight or the notion that people would be motivated to try
to help.”
Please enlighten those of us who don’t agree with you, what
is the profound plight of the agunah that justify:
(internet 2012):
“Supporters of Tamar Epstein, whose ex-husband, Aharon
Friedman, refuses to give her a religious divorce, have been pressuring
Friedman's boss, U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, to fire Friedman. They have
protested in front of Camp's office, signed a petition at change.org, started a
website (freetamar.org) and in February, bombarded Camp's official
congressional Facebook page. But Susan Aranoff, director of Agunah
International, which supports Jewish women seeking divorces, said social media
has little effect because many husbands still are resistant after all the
bullets have been fired."
The radical feminists manufactured a crime, failing to
give a get on demand, which the judge ignored.
A few issues to ponder.
ReplyDeleteכל
זה נכתב על ידי שלו' קמנצקי, והראתי את הדברים אל אאמו"ר הג"ר שמואל קמנצקי שליט"א,
והסכים על הדברים, [וגם הוא שמע כל עדותו של הרופא המומחה יר"ש הנ"ל] וביקש ממני
שאציע את הדברים לפני הגהר"ר נטע גרינבלאט שליט"א שהוא בקי בענינים אלו, הצעתי את
הדברים לפני הגאון הנ"ל שליט"א ועבר על כל הנידון וגם על דברי שהצעתי לו, והסכים עם
הדברים, וגם כתב תשובה להתיר האשה תמר תחי' לינשא, ושוב הצעתי את הדברים לפני
אאמו"ר שליט"א ואמר: כדאי הר"ר נטע שליט"א לסמוך עליו להתיר אשה זו מכבלי עיגונה,
והרשה לי לכתוב כן בשמו
Megale tefach umchasse tfachayim, heicha damya?
כל
* - זה - * נכתב על ידי שלו' קמנצקי
We
don't know the contents of, when in reference to KOL ZEH, what it may entail.
Haim ken nosato dvorecho leshiurin? Geredt un geredt in gornisht gezogt. Verbose, yet
said nothing with nothing.
והראתי
את הדברים
והסכים
על הדברים
שאציע
את הדברים
הצעתי
את הדברים
וגם
על דברי שהצעתי לו
והסכים
עם הדברים
ושוב
הצעתי את הדברים
[וגם
הוא שמע כל עדותו של הרופא המומחה יר"ש הנ"ל]
Did
he hear it from the horses mouth, or EIDUSO as ISH MIPISH, or
MIKSOVOM?
Shel
harofeh, rather indicates * 'of ' the Rofeh * and not in person. Min harofeh
would have indicated, from the Horses mouth. If so, Why an oxy moron "shoma" in
conjunction with ' Shel harofeh' ? It is he either heard it, or read it.
ואמר:
כדאי הר"ר נטע שליט"א לסמוך עליו להתיר אשה זו מכבלי עיגונה, והרשה לי לכתוב כן
בשמו
Is
this playing games with words, so that he later wrote " meolam lo hitarti eishes
ish" ?
Are you saying Akavya was Tzeduki?
ReplyDeleteThe mishnah says he was the Tzaddik hador.
"to which I respond; is poetic license a phenomena frowned upon by Halakha?"
ReplyDeleteno, phenomena is plural, hence a phenomena is incorrect grammar.