Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Kiddushei Ta'us: Rav Moshe Feinstein is not the only source

The recurrent claims that Rav Moshe Feinstein was the only posek who invalidated a marriage based on the concept of kiddushei ta'us  - is not true. Here are some quotes from Rav Bleich's review article on kiddushei ta'us which appeared in Tradition Fall 1998


"Go and examine the Talmud, Rambam and Tur Shulhan Arukh. In no place will you find actual annulment of a marriage because of a defect." Thus writes R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, of blessed memory, in his Peirushei Ivra, no.L, sec. 44. Indeed, as recorded in Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 39:5, unless made the subject of an express stipulation, presence of a serious physical defect in the bride renders the validity of the marriage doubtful but does not render the marriage voidable as a matter of halakhic certainty. The specific physical defects that give rise to a state of uncertainty with regard to the existence of valid marriage are spelled out in detail. […]

The condition of eilonut is the only defect for which Tosafot adduce talmudic proof establishing that the defect serves as grounds for nullifying a marriage as a matter of certainty rather than merely rendering the marriage a marriage of questionable or doubtful validity. Whether there are additional defects of a like nature is a matter of considerable question and controversy. The enumerated defects that result in a marriage that is doubtfully or possibly voidable are the defects that disqualify a priest from participating in the sacrificial service as well as other defects related to feminine pulchritude and attractiveness. None of those defects seriously impairs functionality. Hence it is quite conceivable that, even if the defect had been disclosed, the groom would have accepted the woman as a marriage partner. In contradistinction, physical incapacity to bear children goes to the crux of the marital relationship and, accordingly, it is presumed that everyone recognizes that the generality of men would not knowingly enter into marriage with an eilonit." […]

Thus, for example, Rabbenu Shimshon and Or Zaru.'a differ with regard to whether blindness is to be equated with eilonut as constituting such a defect. Similarly, Bet ha-Levi, II, no. 4, sec. 2, expresses uncertainty with regard to whether epilepsy is a defect comparable to eilonut.

Among latter-day decisors, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, Teshuv Ahi'ezer, I, no. 27, sec. 3, rules that, in the presence of an undisclose "grave defect," no get is required. This is also the position of R. Most Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, I, nos. 79 and 80; Even ha-Ezer, III, nos. 41 46, 48 and 49; and Even ha-Ezer, IV, nos. 13, sec. 4, 83 and 113. Ahi'ezer infers from terminology employed by Rambam, Hilkhot Ishi 7:8, that this was Rambam's view as well. Rambam speaks of "doubtful marriage" in cases in which the defect is one which "disqualifies" woman, i.e., a defect that significantly detracts from feminine attractiveness. The inference to be drawn is that more serious defects affectin functionality result in unequivocal grounds for annulment of the marriage. Rivash and Maharit, cited by Shitah Mekubezet, Ketubot 721 maintain that a marriage in which the bride has not disclosed a salient defect is of questionable validity only if the defect is "minor," i.e essentially aesthetic in nature, but that the marriage is unquestionably voidable if there exists an undisclosed "major" defect, e.g., epilepsy or mental illness, unless the marriage has been consummated after the groom becomes aware of the defect. In the latter case there is a presumption that, in order to avoid the transgression associated with fornication, the sexual act is performed with the intent thereby to contract marriage. The position of Rivash and Maharit is accepted, inter alia, b Teshuvot Malbushei Yom Tov, no. 4, and Avnei Nezer, Even ha-Ezer, Il no. 176. Similarly, Bet ha-Levi, III, no. 4, states that he is "inclined n rule" that no get is necessary in the presence of "a grave defect" in the bride. On the other hand, R. Jacob Reischer, Tesbuvot Shevut Ta'akov, I, no. 101, rules that even in the presence of "grave defects" the validity of the marriage remains doubtful and a get is required. Rabbi Henkin, Peirushei Ivra, no. 1, sec. 47, comments that "since from the days of the Talmud [until the present] we have not heard and we have not known of annulment of a marriage, particularly after nisu)in [i.e., consummation], because of a defect, we therefore know that all [defects] are included in [the] doubt [ regarding the validity of a marriage]." […]

שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ח - אבן העזר סימן ג
טז) ולכאורה יש לצרף לסניף להקל בנידון דידן, כי הנה הבעל (הראשון) היה פושע והובא בפלילים בפני השלטונות בשווייץ, ונגזר עליו להכלא בבית הסוהר, וזאת עוד לפני נישואיו לאשה הזאת, ואכן כשנתפס והוסגר לידי השלטונות הוכנס לבית הסוהר, והאשה טוענת כל הזמן שאילו ידעה שהאיש עבריין ונידון בפלילים לא היתה נישאת אליו כלל, ולדבריה הוא מקח טעות בנישואיה, (ומטעם זה קיבלה הודעת ביטול נישואין אזרחיים מהשלטונות, משום מקח טעות), והן אמת שכמה אחרונים כתבו שבנמצאו בו מומים לא אמרינן דהוי מקח טעות, להתירה בלא גט, משום דאיתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה, וכמו שכתב הבית שמואל (סימן קנד סק"ט). ע"ש. מכל מקום עינא דשפיר חזי בשו"ת בית אב שביעאי (סימן כח ענף ג') שהביא דברי דודו הגאון רבי מאיר מארים זצ"ל, מחבר ספרי ניר על הירושלמי, שסובר דהא דקיימא לן דהיכא דקדשה סתם וכנסה סתם הוי קידושי ספק, שייך גם בנמצאו בו מומים, ואף שהגאון רבי יצחק אלחנן בשו"ת עין יצחק (חלק אבן העזר סימן לד אות ד') הביא דבריו, וחלק עליו, משום דדוקא בנמצאו בה מומין אמרינן דהוי קידושי ספק, אבל בנמצאו בו מומין אמרינן איתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה, אולם באמת אין זה כלל מוסכם לעולם, תדע שהרי המרדכי פרק המדיר (סימן רא) הביא בשם הראבי"ה, שאף על פי שנכפה לגבי אשה מום הוא, אין מזה ראיה להחשיבו מום לגבי איש, דאיתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה, ומשום הכי לא קתני נכפה בהדי מומי האיש, ואין בידינו לכפותו בלא ראיה ברורה. ואילו בתשובת הרא"ש (כלל מב) פשיטא ליה שגם באיש הוי מום, ואפילו בנכפה שקבוע לו זמן ידוע, וברוב הימים הוא בריא, וכמו שכתב הכנסת הגדולה (סימן קיז) בשם המהרח"ש בתשובה (סימן לג), וכתב שם שאין ספיקו של רבינו יואל מוציא מידי ודאו של הרא"ש, ולא משגחינן בסברא דאיתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה. ואטו כל המומים בחדא מחתא מחתינהו, ועוד אטו כל הנשים שוות בזה, והסברא נותנת שאילו ידעה האשה שהאיש מוטל עליו עונש לפי החוק מפני שהוא גנב ושודד, והוא איש אשר אין אמון בו, וכל אמרי פיו ישאם רוח ויקחם הבל, לא היתה נישאת לו, שגם אם עתה יאהבנה מי יודע מה יהיה לימים יוצרו, הלא יתכן שיתן עינו באחרת וישליכנה מלפניו, ולכן לא יצאנו מידי ספק קידושין, ובהצטרף ספק נוסף הוה ליה ספק ספיקא ולקולא וכו'. ע"כ. ומאחר עלות שעיקר הקידושין בנידון דידן יש לפקפק מאד בהם, כיון שנעשו על ידי ייחוד עד פסול מן התורה, בצירוף עד אחר, וקיימא לן נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול עדותם בטלה, יש מקום לצרף לסניף סברא הנ"ל דהוי כמקח טעות בנישואין. ועיין בשו"ת הרדב"ז חלק ד' (סימן נז), בדין אשה שהיתה בחזקת נשואה שנים רבות, ובאו עדים והעידו שהקידושין לא היו כדין, לפי שנתקדשה בעודה קטנה שלא לדעת אביה, והתירוה להנשא לאחר בלא גט, ולאחר שנים שחיתה עם בעלה השני, באו עדים אחרים והעידו שהקידושין הראשונים היו קידושין גמורים לדעת אביה, והשיב, שאין כאן חזקת אשת איש לבעלה הראשון, דתרי ותרי נינהו והוה ליה ספיקא דרבנן, דמדאורייתא היא בחזקת פנויה כיון דאשעת קידושין הם מעידים, וחזקה הבאה מכח עדות לא עדיפא מהעדות עצמה, וכיון שבטלה העדות בטלה חזקת נישואיה הראשונים. וכן כתב הריטב"א בשם התוספות. וכן העלה הרמב"ן בעובדא דינאי (קידושין סו א). וכן כתבו שם הר"ן ובעל המאורות. וכל שכן שהחזקה לא היתה אלא מחמת פרסום בטעות, לפיכך לא תצא מבעלה השני. ע"כ. וכן כתב בשו"ת מהר"ם אל אשקר (סימן טז). וכן העלה הגאון מהר"ש חקאן הלוי, הובא בכנסת הגדולה (סימן מז הגהות הטור ס"ק יא). ע"ש. ואפילו לדעת המהר"י בי רב (סימן נו) דסבירא ליה שהאשה הנ"ל היא בחזקת אשת איש, בנדון דידן שעצם הקידושין מפוקפקים כנ"ל, בודאי דמוקמינן לה בחזקת פנויה. והן אמת שבספיקא דדינא לדעת הרבה פוסקים לא שייך להעמיד הדבר על החזקה דמעיקרא, לפי דברי התוספות בבא בתרא (לב ב) אליבא דרשב"ם. וכמ"ש במשנה למלך (פרק ז' מהלכות שכירות הלכה ב'). וכן כתב הכנסת הגדולה יורה דעה (סימן יח הגהות הטור סק"ג, וסימן כח הגהות הטור סק"ג), דבספיקא דדינא לא אמרינן אוקמה אחזקה קמייתא, ורק בספק במציאות מוקמינן לה אחזקה. וכן כתב המשנה למלך (פרק ב' מהלכות טומאת צרעת הלכה א'). וכ"כ בשו"ת משאת בנימין (סי' נ). ובפמ"ג יו"ד (שפ"ד ר"ס יח). ובספר שב שמעתתא (שמעתא א פרק כב). ובשו"ת רעק"א (סי' לז). ע"ש. אולם מדברי הר"ן פרק קמא דקידושין (ה ב) גבי נתן הוא ואמרה היא, מבואר שגם בספיקא דדינא שפיר מוקמינן לה אחזקה קמייתא, וכמו שכתב הפרי חדש (סימן קי, כללי ספק ספיקא סק"א). וכן במשנה למלך (בפרק ו' מהלכות עדות הלכה ז'), ובשו"ת חקרי לב חלק א' מיורה דעה (סימן קיא). וכן העיר בשו"ת הגאון רבי עקיבא איגר חלק א' (סימן לז) מדברי הר"ן הנ"ל. ועיין עוד בספר נחל איתן (פרק ג' מהלכות אישות הלכה ב', דף נא ע"א), ובחשק שלמה (קידושין ה ב). ע"ש. ובשו"ת עונג יום טוב (סימן קמב) כתב, שהרמב"ם סובר דמהני חזקה קמייתא אף בספיקא דדינא. ע"ש. וכן כתב בשו"ת תורת חסד מלובלין (חלק אורח חיים סימן טו אות ד'). ע"ש. וכן המהרי"ט בתשובה (חלק אבן העזר סימן יח) סבירא ליה דמהניא חזקה אף בספיקא דדינא. ועיין עוד בספר התומים (סי' לד סוף ס"ק כז). ובשו"ת ברית אברהם (חלק אבן העזר סימן עא אות ב'), ובמחנה אפרים (נדרים סימן יב), ובקונטרס הספקות (כלל ד' סימן ה', וכלל ה' סימן ו'). ובשו"ת עונג יום טוב (ס"ס ע). ועיין עוד במה שכתבנו בשו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג' (חלק יורה דעה סימן יב אות ח'). ע"ש. ואם כן הכא נמי יש לנו לומר דאוקמה בחזקת פנויה, אף על פי שהוא ספיקא דדינא. והן אמת שהתוספות כתובות (כג א) כתבו, גבי עד אומר נתקדשה ועד אומר לא נתקדשה, הרי זו לא תנשא ואם נישאת לא תצא. וכתבו התוספות, דהא דלא שרינן לה להנשא לכתחלה, משום חזקת פנויה, משום דמיירי שזרק לה קידושיה ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו, דבכהאי גוונא אין לנו לומר אוקמה אחזקה להתירה לכתחלה. וכן פסק מרן השלחן ערוך (סימן מז סעיף ג'). ואם כן הכא נמי יש לומר שמכיון שקיבלה על כל פנים קידושין, איתרע לה חזקת פנויה. אולם הנה מבואר בתשובת מהר"ם בר ברוך שבתשובות מיימוני (הלכות אישות סימן א'), דאין הכי נמי דמדאורייתא מוקמינן לה בחזקת פנויה, אלא דמשום דאיכא עד אחד האומר קרוב לה, גזרו בה חכמים וכו'. ע"ש. וכן כתב הר"ן (כתובות כג א), שכיון שיש שני עדים בזריקת הקידושין, ועבידי אינשי דטעו בקרוב לו או בקרוב לה, משום הכי אמרינן דמדרבנן מיהא לא תנשא, דחיישינן שמא בשעת זריקת הקידושין שניהם ראו שהיו קרובים לה, וזה העד טועה עתה בזה. ע"ש. ולפי זה בנידון דידן שיש ריעותא גדולה בקידושין עצמם, לא שייך טעם זה, ומוקמינן לה אחזקת פנויה. ועיין בשו"ת עין יצחק (חלק אבן העזר ריש סימן נט). ע"ש. וכל שכן שבנידון דידן רבו הספקות להקל, שבודאי יש להעמיד האשה בחזקת פנויה, ולהתיר הבנים הנולדים לה מבעלה השני לבוא בקהל ה'. והנלע"ד כתבתי.



  2. R' Tzvi Pesach Frank זצ"ל in Shut Har Tzvi (אה"ע סי' קפא) relies on הפקעת קידושין - have a look there!

  3. Rav,Meir Marim, was Rav,Yudelovitch's father not his uncle, I think.

  4. I Already showed the nonsense of comparing הר צבי besides being a Schmadanut and post war

  5. Here is a comment I previously posted regarding this debate

    The 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 hamedina")
    4- chavos yair 221 ("Halacha velo lemaisa")

    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

  6. Yabia omer uses this as a snif lehakel, never as the main reason ie a fifth leg
    Feinstein is the only one who uses it flipently as if this was a question on a pulka!!!!

  7. I will go through every single posek (Pre World War of course) to discredit those who attempt to throw dust in the eyes.
    Without looking it is beyond doubt that not a single posek before Reb Moshe Zt"l (במחילת כבודו) had ever allowed an annulment in any shape comparable to the way the Ra-bunim use it today.
    I will go through one by one, although I believe it is a waste of time, and everyone should look into it themselves to see how it has no resemblance.
    I do not have all seforim at hand now so may take a day.
    My point is that I am certain that any posek cited in the post pre WWII did not involve a situation other than Pure קידושי טעות, for instance look at the Achiezer cited in the post:
    He talks about a case where a woman entered into a kidushin "Al Tenay" where the husband promised he is a ישראל and not a Cohen. When he disappeared she found out he was a Cohen, hence clear Kidishei Taut.
    She was a clear Agunah (unlike the so called bogus Agunahs of our generation where the husband is here but is fought like in a holy war).
    In addition to that, the Achiezer case also involved one of the עדי קידושין being totally Posel.
    What a time waste so far
    But, to be continued.

  8. Next we go to the בית הלוי cited.
    Again throwing dust in the eyes.
    He does not matir any annulment, he is discussing a chakirah לא למעשה.
    Please check it yourself, as it is time wasting to go after every single posek cited to show how far fetched it is just like the two examples.
    It is very easy to throw a hundred poskim together when it has no relevance למעשה. This includes the Yabia Omer (A Schamadanut Rav who has no credence, but throws dust in collecting non-relevant poskim, as will be shown).

  9. R' S. Shvadran's zeide

  10. Both wrong, .Meir marim was his mothers brother

  11. Are you speaking in English?

  12. Rabbi Eidensohn, I've forgotten about the last time I asked you about your policy regarding what sort of comments are allowed on this blog - I think it was a few years ago. There is a comment here which speaks in a way simply unacceptable about RMF זצ"ל. It should not be allowed to remain on this blog.

  13. Now I have found another commen by presumably a different person which speaks in a disgusting way about R' Ovadya זצ"ל. I would ask you to please censure such comments. Why give credence to the claim that this blog promotes degradation of Gedolei Yisrael?

  14. First off, The מהרש"ם does not matir any case like the ones we see now days, the bogus agunah cases.
    He strictly talks about a case of a "real Agunah" where the husband was gone and disappeared of the face of the earth, he discusses a Chalitzah.
    He then still does not matir, he says that the Chavas Yuir and Emunas Shmuel both talk not למעשה, and above all else he talks about a סריס and גבו"א where there was no children.
    What kind of nonsense is it to compare Pomegranates to Sabres?

  15. actually there were two - thanks for mentioning it.

    I don't always pay full attention to the comments that I ok

  16. He's denigrating R' Tzvi Pesach zatzal for being in the rabbanut. This guy is an idiot.

  17. U can remove my comments but I know the truth

  18. Comment beginning: Next we go to the בית הלוי cited.

  19. U would have said the same thing about Shmuel Kaminetsky

  20. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank was an all round gaon, who sat on the Eidah BD under Rav Salant! Like Rav Eliashiv, he was also in the Rabbanut which he helped set up. there is no justification at all for any attacks whatsoever!

  21. I did not denigrate him C"V I denigrate those who use his pesukim for cases that have no resemblance.
    And I stated that the Rabbanut post war used annulments when Brisker rav said that the rabbanut was established to be עוקר קדושת ישראל

  22. Other Rabbanim that allowed for voiding a marriage include Rav Elyashiv, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Ovadia Yoseph, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, and Rav Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg. The sources for some of these are given at

    The Talmud Bavli discusses cases of annulment as well. One case was a young orphan who was set to be married to a man once she reached adulthood but was taken by a second man who married her. The other was the case where the women was forced into a marriage without consent. Both cases according to the Talmud were annulled due to the misconduct of the husband. There is discussion about other types of cases, maybe I will write more later....

  23. I was going to type out a response but anyone who checks the mekoros and reads your comments will have a far better response than anything I could compose. Also I suggest you read through the hakdama to igros moshe it will do you a lot of good.

  24. He's not an idiot. He's a Satmarer, if you haven't figured that out by now.

  25. It's interesting that in a different comment you asserted that Rav Moshe was the only one in "the last hundred years" that was matir based on kidushei ta'us. Now you are asking to discount any post war II poskim. Well, mathematically speaking, 71% of the "last hundred years was "post war II". So you seem to have a problem with this type of hetter not being used between 1916-1945. Nisht geferlach.

  26. If our prior poskim before wwII did not want to be matir annulment based
    on the rishonim then that remains the Halacha until Moshiach's day.

    Yeah, says who? No one but you, which is to say no one.

    Clearly, R' Moshe did not hold of your made-up limits on who can pasken what when. Since you are not even כקליפת השום in comparison to R' Moshe, we can safely disregard everything you say.

  27. “Kiddushei Ta'us: Rav Moshe Feinstein is not the only source”

    Gittin 79b-80a:

    “Mishnah. IF the get was dated by a reign which ought not to count [Lit., unworthy; v. the Gemara infra. Mishnayoth texts read another; i.e., he dated the Get by a Government not corresponding to the country in which the Get was written.]… the woman [who marries again on the strength of it] must leave both husbands [I.e., she must leave the second husband and cannot remarry the first.] And requires a get from both and has no claim either for a kethubah or for increment [Her property of plucking (v. Gloss. s.v. Mulug); she loses the right to be redeemed from captivity, which the Sages assigned to her in lieu of such increment.] or for maintenance or for worn clothes [From what she brought in with her dowry.] From either of them. if she takes these from either of them she must return them. A child born to her from either of them is a mamzer. Neither of them [if a priest] is to defile himself for her. Neither of them has a right to her finds or to the product of her labor, and neither can annul her vows. If she is the daughter of a lay Israelite she is disqualified for marrying a priest [Being regarded as a loose woman.] If she is the daughter of a Levite, she becomes disqualified for eating tithe, and if the daughter of a priest for eating terumah. The heirs neither of the one husband nor the other inherit her kethubah [The kethubah referred to here is a stipulation made by her with her husband that, should she die in his lifetime, her sons should inherit her property over and above their share in their father's inheritance, v. Yeb. 91A.]. And if they die brothers of both one and the other of them [if necessary] take halizah but neither can marry her. If his name or her name or the name of his town or the name of her town was wrongly given, she must leave both husbands and all the above penalties apply to her. If any of the near relatives concerning whom it is laid down that their rivals [I.e., (potential) co-wives. Cf. 1. Sam. I, 6. The reference is to two women within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity who married two brothers, v. Yeb. 22.] are permitted to marry [without giving halizah]. Went and married and it was then found that this one [The wife of the brother still living] was incapable of bearing איילונית [Her marriage consequently was void, and hence the sister-in-law could have married the deceased husband's brother and had no right to contract another marriage without giving halizah.], the one who married must leave both husbands [I.e., she must leave her husband and cannot marry the brother-in-law] and all these penalties apply to her. if a man marries his sister-in-law and her rival [I.e., another wife of the dead brother. Where there are two wives, only one may contract the levirate marriage.] Then went and married another man and it was found that the first one was incapable of bearing, the other must leave both husbands and all these penalties apply to her [V. Yeb. 94b.]. “

  28. I'll let you have the last word, since you obviously think that you have made some sort of point!

  29. This was not accepted by any major branch of Orthodoxy, including MO, Hareidi, DL, Sephardi etc.

  30. The MO feminists and their so-called "rabbis" are masters of feminist halachic obfuscation and distortion. This means claiming halachic sources that in fact have NO application whatsoever to the circumstances of contemporary divorce conflicts, so that the MO laymen receive false gratification that authentic halacha is being applied.

    Please cite which normative Orthodox poskim would ever allow a Jewish wife to remove the child to another city, sue her husband in archaos, refuse to appear before a valid Bais Din that has jurisdiction over the case, and later obtain a bogus "kiddushei taus" ruling from a feminist rabbi and friend of her family, the rabbi having no jurisdiction over her divorce case, all the while her husband is willing to provide a GET when the valid Bais Din concludes a halachic divorce settlement process, including child custody issues?

  31. So you decide that for hundreds of years none of Klal Yisruel knew how to deal with problems and annulment was suddenly born after the war (in practice) when it was NOT used before.
    I am not minimizing Reb Moshe's Gadlus c"v, but none of our pre-war Gedolim used this, you cannot change fact as best as you want.
    Besides this, Reb Moshe did what he did, and no one should copy him anyway.
    Keep moving in this direction, Klal Yisroel is great shape.
    RSK and RNG are 100% right, Annulment is the perfect way for Klal Yisroel, if kidnappings are a thing of the past, let the annulment process shine on Klal Yisroel and follow in the footsteps of the Rabbanut which was designed to be Oker Kedushas Yisroel.

  32. I am not discounting, The only ones apart from Reb Moshe and Rav Abramsky are the Rabbanut, they don't even count.
    Besides this, Rav Abramsky talked about גבו"א.

  33. Pls show chapter and verse where the מהרש"ם is even remotely matir.

  34. Please relax. I was not talking about the current situation which I agree is a bogus heter. I simply commented on the topic of the post of whether the possibility exists in cases that fit the requirements and not like some try to say that rav moshe made this up out of thin air. You can save yourself a lot of stress by actually reading the post and comments in the future


  35. One of those is Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, a respected religious leader in the Orthodox enclave of Monsey, N.Y.

    He told JTA that he has annulled hundreds of marriages over the last 30 years.

  36. Me? I decide nothing. I am simply commenting on the ludicrousness of a "machlokes" between you and R' Moshe, and showing that R' Moshe did not agree with your made-up, ever-shifting parameters regarding whose psak is acceptable as precedent. So far you've passeled R' Moshe, R' Chatzkel Abramsky and R' Tzvi Pesach (none of whose shoes you are fit to polish), as well as all rabbonim of the rabbanut (which includes R' Elyashiv, I presume). You are not to be taken seriously.

  37. No, he's an idiot. Being a Satmarer is no excuse, if in fact he is one.

  38. The Or Zarua cited is in TEshuvos, which was first published in 1943. Thus, there is no proof from the fact that the earlier Acharonim for the last 500 years did not pasken according to it. Rav Frank mentions this point in his above teshuva.
    While there is a debate whether Rishonim that have been published recently can be relied on l'halacha, many poskim, including the Mishna Brurah, did.

  39. What is your source for this statement of the Brisker Rav?
    And does this statement imply that any psak from any rav, no matter how great his stature, who ever served in the Rabbanut can never be relied on le'halacha?

  40. He never sat on the Eidah BD. He sat on the BD of the Prushim (under Rav Salant), which later joined the Rabanut of Jerusalem, while some members joined the newly-formed Eidah hachareidis.

  41. Of course he did, at the same time as him having sexual relationships with them allegedly

  42. The_Original_Bored_LawyerMarch 3, 2016 at 7:07 PM

    I am trying to understand some of the posters here. Let's take a very extreme case (which happens to have been a real case). Man meets woman, they get engaged and married. That night, he tells her, for the first time, that he is HIV positive and expects to contract AIDS and die. If she has any marital relations with him, she too will contract that disease and eventually succumb. (Let's say this was at a time when having HIV was a death sentence. Today medicine has advanced so HIV positive people can live for quite a while.)

    Anyone seriously doubt that this was a mekach taus?

  43. Did you even read the teshuva? In the second to last paragraph he says he is matir but get other rabbonim to sign on also.

  44. This is so easy for you anyone who matirs doesn't count for any number of shape shifting reasons you keep coming up with memeila all the "real"poskim who weren't trying to "schmad" klal yisroel agree with you. Brilliant!

  45. The Eidah and its beis din existed and predate the existence of the Rabbanut.

  46. Probably mainly an issue when someone is acting in his capacity as a member of the rabbanut.

  47. No. If you would have been educated in Mosdos of Satmar, you would have the same extreme negative views about any rav who gave any approval or quasi-approval to Zionism.

  48. It's a pity the Satmar Rebbe זצ"ל never told his followers not to use the internet...

  49. I believe everyone agrees the marriage you described is a Mekach Taos, @The_Original_Bored_Lawyer .

  50. So why is he concerned about needing to get other rabbonim to sign on also before he will allow the heter to be effective? Did other rabbonim sign on in the end?

  51. Depends what you consider the Eidah. the name "Eidah was only started in response to the existence of the Rabanut.
    The Beis Din of the Perushim existed for decades before. After the rift between the Rabanut-Eidah, some members f the Perushim joined the Eidah, while Rav Frank joined the Rabanut. So the Eidah considers themselves the legitimate continuation of the Baid din of Rav sal;ant, but that is a subjective, not an historical, definition

  52. I have no idea whether or not he's Satmar, but I doubt he was educated in their schools, as witness his passable English.

    As to your argument, bah. Who cares where his idiocy stems from, his schooling or his mikveh buddies. It remains idiocy regardless.

  53. Perushim are good enough for me, they were followers of the Gra

  54. Such bickering here.

    Clearly some rabbis permitted annulling marriages and some didn't. Even the rema quoted an instance when marriages were annulled for completely bogus reasons (Darkhei Moshe, Even HaEzer 7, 13) for the good of some kidnapped women. Technically, some rabbis hold that a marriage is authorised and can therefore be unauthorised. End of story. (This doesn't mean they should be, but they could be.)
    You can argue here till you are blue in the face about which of you know the ultimate truth about what the halacha is. But there is no ultimate truth here.

    The important thing is to follow your rabbi for your personal case and respect those who follow their rabbi. That is how halacha works. Just accept that there are differences of opinions and they are both right.

    It is ironic that people who claim how they know the truth of the final halachic ruling are just showing their ignorance in that there is no ultimate ruling.

  55. I believe the moniker Eidah started being used in 1919, a few years before the Rabbanut was established.

  56. Almost all teshuvos to matir an eishes ish that you will find in the acharonim end off with this clause. Its quite standard. It is because of the chomer of the issur and to have a quasi beis din. It is still done today Rav ovadia yosef would do the same when matiring an agunah.

  57. Are you saying that indoctrinated idiocy is not idiocy?

  58. He means the Rabanut!

    In his later years he came back(Rav Frank ZTL) to Rav Chaim Sonenfeld , Although Rav Sonenfld was friendly to him He refused to allow him leadership in the Eidah Charedis stating "Cohen shesimesh bibais Chonov Al Yishamesh Bimikdosh"

  59. Hey Nathan! We have it as chamira skanta meisure. Fine, so he did away with eishes ish by annulling, but why risk AIDS uma tehei oleho? Unless of course shlichei lol mitzva einan nizokin.
    Are you eating out anywhere tonight? It's leil shishi. Have you heard any updates from under the grapevine lately? What happened to your friend Hoashdodi? Did he transform into any other Gilgul around here?

  60. But since he said he is only matir if other rabbonim agree to me matir, and other rabbonim did NOT agree to matir, effectively at the end of the day he was NOT matir.

  61. With all due respect, you are apparently confusing קדושי טעות with הפקעת קדושין

  62. I know R' MT personally, although I don't think the allegations hold any truth to it, it still is problematic that a Rav that has such allegations should be busy with Annulments.

  63. Regarding the question on Brisker Rav's Zt"l statement on the Rabbanut-Schmadanut, here is the source.

    מכתבי הגרי"ז, מכתב פ"ח
    "כל מגמתם להשתלט על התוה"ק, ובעיקר בעניני אישות"

    קריינא דאגרתא (מבעל קהלת יעקב, הגרי"י קניבסקי זצ"ל), ח"ב סי' רמ"ט
    ,שומרי תורה יודעים היטב שאין ממש בכל דבריהם"
    "הכל הבל ורעות רוח ונתייסדו כדי לתת הכשר על הציונות

    מרא דארעא דישראל, (הגרי"ח זוננפלד זצ"ל), ח"ב דף רי"ז,
    שהוא ובית דינו גזרו תענית ביום הווסדו של הרבנות
    (!זה רבו של ה'הר צבי)

    משכנות הרועים (בעל קרן לדוד) ח"ג דף אלף פ"ז
    "כל גיטין שלהם פסולים"

    !וזה כבר לא סאטמר


  64. And please answer my post with the sources I cited on my position against the Rabbanut, including from Rav Kenievski Zt"l

  65. Yes I know the Teshuva by heart, you are misleading and misreading, either purposely on not, either way he does not say what you are saying.
    This is a case about a completely different story, I will have time later or Motzi to write a full synopsis. You are using the very wrong teshuva. Please re-read

  66. Not a single Rav, there are over a dozen Poskim who disagreed with him and did not want to sign.
    Even that case has not an iota of resemblance as to what goes on today, but I don;t have the time every day to show how every incomparable Teshuva is unlike anything going on today.

  67. Except that Rav Ovadia is doing what no Posek has done pre-war, I have yet to see a single posek of all those cited in the post or in the comments that even has a close resemblance.
    Either people are ignorant or purposely ignoring the issue

  68. The Chelkas Yaakov has a psak that even nowadays a mamzer can marry a shifcha knani - and that it is possible for a gentile woman to become a shifcha knani nowadays. But no other achron agreed with the Chelkas Yaakov - and the Chelkas Yaakov would not use his own heter unless other rabbonim would agree to it. So even though the CY held it was a valid heter for a mamzer to get married, he in the end didn't allow it to be used. (It concerned postwar children of women whose husband was thought lost in war but later turned out alive after the wife remarried someone else and had children.)

    The above being the case, I don't think it would be accurate to describe the CY as being matir mamzeirim to marry a shifcha. Similarly, if a teshuva is matir an eishes ish only on condition others agree, and others don't agree, I don't think it accurate to describe him as being matir.

  69. If you are refering to Rav Greenblatt - there were other rabbis that did agree including Rav Shmuel Fuerst of Chicago

  70. Didn't the local rabbonim, essentially, run him out of being in the rabbanus?

    Also, his annulments occurred before the allegations so I don't think he is busy with them anymore.

  71. I wasn't referring to RNG. I was referring to Dov's case.

    But how do you know Rav Fuerst agreed? I thought you posted he said he did not and there is no proof that he did.

  72. How were Rav Ovadia's cases different than the earlier ones?

  73. I believe he was referring to the מהרש"ם.

  74. The מהרש"ם has no resemblance here even remotely.
    Not only was he not matir, and not only did no one agree, but the case there is so far remote from what's going on today that it baffles me why people are so ignorant to read through the whole teshuva, and just extract bits and pieces that has no relevancy.

  75. Rabunim have no right to make up new Halachos and to ignore what for hundred of years was the Halacha.
    Halacha does not get re-invented just "because I want so" and ממזרים is a problem for the רבים and not just your private issue between you and your Rav.
    And I am very sorry to tell you, תורת משה מסיני was given to every Jew and is not something that belongs to a Rav to manipulate how he pleases, and this has never been the case until this day and age unfortunately.
    This is daas hamaskilim.

  76. I spoke with someone I know who has docmentary evidence that he did

  77. Rav Moshe stated that women today are different and are not so desparate to be married and accept everything.

  78. Politically IncorrectMarch 4, 2016 at 4:43 AM

    I would tend to agree. Problem is that I (and everyone else on this blog - and also off this blog) need mekoros. The Open Orthodox, to the best oy knowledge (and from judging an article by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky) don't seem to need them, they seem to be content using just sevara, which essentially enables one to either permit the entire Torah or forbid the entire Torah. .......on this blog, there is a fellow by the name of Bechhofer. We are told that he knows all of Shas and Yerushalmi, but issues such as a woman's right to a get (even though it is a serious question of issur aishes ish and mamzerim) solely because of her demand, her use for archaos (even though it's very chomur in yesod of emunah and Hilchos Choshen Mishpat), are all explained away with sevara. True, he did link me to some argument he made, but it didn't hold water......

  79. Not sure what materialized in the end with his Kehilah, I didn't follow close enough, he ended up winning the lawsuit against those woman.

  80. I posted my initial sources at the beginning. Thanks for asking!
    And that applies equally to all naysayers, idiocy decriers satmar haters, rabbanut fans etc. and what not.
    As to your other question on past service in the Rabbanut, if the sources do not answer your question I can give you my two cents and some more sources if need be.
    And to the other name callers whoever they may be כבודם במקומם מונח, I respectfully ask
    "חכמים... הזהרו בדבריכם"
    There were some more holier Rabbonim once upon a time with and they foresaw our matzav, so don't think you know it all.

  81. I guess you're implying that the Satmar Rebbe zt"l did not have Ruach Hakodesh to foresee the internet...

  82. Well point is that the Rabbanut was the first to start all this nonsense and as such all of this new "Halachic rulings to be matir "Eishes Ish" in droves should be discarded as per our prior Gedolim including Rav Kanievsky Zt"l.

  83. No one is attacking him personally, just his position.
    We all know the Gadlus of Reb ZP Zt"l, and the tragedy of seeing his children die before his eyes from hunger rc"l, but it still does not justify the changing of halachos that existed for hundreds of years.

  84. Which new halacho? It is very clear that many rabbis held that the beis din had the authority to annul marriages. They just didn't do regularly, or maybe even at all, because it is a very serious thing. Just because something technically can be done doesn't mean it should, and just because something isn't done doesn't mean you can't.
    You are also wrong about mamzerim; it takes a rav to declare someone a mamzer and if his rav says he isn't then he isn't. This is exactly the problem; you have to accept that a man can get a psak from his rav that you don't agree with - and that the psak holds. If his rav says he is not a mamzer it is not for you to start delving into things and stating your opinion.

    For example, if tom's rav said he can use an eruv then he can use it even if your rav says you can't. And he is not breaking shabbos. And you have to accept that there are different rulings which are all correct.

  85. Where did you pick up up “a rav has to declare someone a mamzer to be one ” the next thing about the eruv also wrong even if did al pi bais din hagadol and wrong you bring a korbon

  86. No, I was bemoaning the fact that his followers use the internet!

  87. Teehee. Anyone who says not like a Gadol who was on the Rabbanut is a "Source". How convenient.

  88. Sorry but that's not what Halacha says.
    Halacha is not a secret thing for Rabbonim to hide in their closets.
    It is an open book, if a Rav cannot declare and show why and how he arrived to a conclusion, especially when it is about Gittin and Kiddushin, and taking away someone else's life, they cannot simply issue blank Pesukim, they must issue a birur, a Teshuva whatever you fancy to call it,
    This style of being able to do everything in secret is a NEW HALACHA yes.

  89. As long as a Rav or anyone involved in Issuing cannot show chapter and verse on what their Pesukim are based, it has no merit and brings Churban Oilam.
    The Torah is not a private historical pook c"v that belongs to the Rabbonim to do as they please in secret and mislead their tzibur.
    EIshes Ish has two problems on top of the above, you are taking away the husband's kinyan and he is a baal duvor, so all who claim the wife's Rav can do what he pleases are missing the point, and second there is the ממזרות issue which affects anyone and everyone and just the wife's Rav's Kehilah.

  90. The last 500 years acharonim knew of all the rishonim and still did NOT, again did NOT pasken L'heter on the annulment issue.Nothing changed after the war, we did not become smarter, when you bring sources, please cite.
    I am not talking about Mekach Taut, and not talking about where there was a real Agunah (as opposed to bogus like in AF's case) and not talking about all the cases in sources cited in this post, which have absolutely no relevance to the case we deal with or any other similar case in the last 25 years, the obvious need not be pointed out of course.
    We need not delve into the invention of the Rabbanut as has already been stated.

  91. You are fighting a pointless battle. You are trying to convince the readers that what R' Moshe did was unacceptable. You will not convince them of that.

  92. There is also the concept of Halachic Chiddush - which has been done over the generations.

  93. The lawsuit by the women against him was dismissed because the court said there is no law against a rabbi having an affair with the wives of his congregants.

  94. Who said other rabbonim were not matir? Where in the world did you get that idea from? Like most teshuvos we unfortunately don't know who the people being discussed were or the end of the story.

    And quite the opposite, the fact that the maharsham chose afterwards to publish this teshuva without any qualification or disclaimer for the whole world to read shows very strongly that he absolutely did hold from the psak personally.

  95. There actually are cases where poskim have told mamzerim to do this. It's really an open gemara at the end of kedushin. Even Rav Shternbuch has a teshuva and says its mutar but not to do it because there's no precedent. But ask some rabbonim in the know they'll tell you names of very big poskim from the last dor that paskened for mamzerim to do this.

  96. Thank you for the sources.
    But you must appreciate the difference between the Rabanut as an instistution and individual psakim of Rabanim who served in the Rabanut and were otherwise ehrliche rabbanim talmidei chachamim muflagim.
    What I gather from the Brisker Rav, the Steipler, and Rav Sonnenfeld, is that the Rabanut as an institution is a tool of the Zionist government of Israel. Therefore, their authority carries no weight in the eyes of Chareidim. In other words, if someone were to base a halacha on the basis of "The Rabanut paskened", it has no value to us. The quote from Mishkenos Haro'im must be understood in that light.
    (How about if a man married his brother's daughter, then gave her a get in the Rabanut, and then married a second wife, and then he died childless, would the Mishkenos Haro'im say that she doesn't need chalitza because she is a tzoras erva?).
    At the same time, rabanim who served on the Rabanut did not become pasul as poskim in the eyes of these very gedolim. Rav Eliezer Goldschmidt who was a dayan in the Beis Din Hagadol was very close to the Brisker Rav. Rav Elyashiv who was the same was a mechutan of the Steipler. This very same Steipler would send many shaylos in Halacha to Rav Elyashiv while he was serving in the Rabanut.
    Obviously, these Rabanim, who served there for reasons of parnasa or other calculations, did not consider the Rabanut as binding, either. But they did their best to pasken shaylos that came before them in this capacity lhotzi din emes l'amito.
    Therefore, the psakim of the Rabanut are useful to extrapolate from them those teshuvos written by those who we know to be ehrliche poskim. I don't think the above gedolim would disagree with that.

  97. While I am not on your exalted level and cannot claim to know shut maharsham baal peh I've seen the teshuva under discussion. If what you mean to say is that the case he is dealing with is chalitza and only yevama leshuk it makes no difference.

  98. Please clarify:
    Do you claim all the Acharonim knew of an Or Zarua that was not published until 1943?
    Are you proving the view of "all the Acharonim" from their silence on the topic?

    And please bring a source for the difference between something that was paskened before the war and after the war. BTW Rav Abramsky was the rav of Slutzk "before the war". RMF was a posek "before the war". Many of his teshuvos are from the 1920's and '30s. Rav Moshe's teshuva on kidushei ta'us (EH 1:79) was written in 1951; did he lose so much status in just 10 years? In Eretz Yisrael there was no WWII, so when is the cut-off point? Please give us your Shulchan Aruch on when a talmid is not allowed to pasken like his rebbi because his rebbe paskened it "after the war". You want rabanim to cite sources. Where are your sources for this?

  99. You still have not answered how come for 500 years+ no poskim did annulments and only once the Rabbanut came into existence this phenomenon started happening, as if in prior generations they couldn't do it somehow and we got smart after the war

  100. I never said that, I said what Reb Moshe did was between him and Hashem, he was a Yuchid, his talmidim cannot pasken like a yuchid even though he is their Rebbe, that is the כללי הוראה, if they want to conveniently ignore כללי הוראה, they may as well ignore everything and the whole SHulchan Aruch.

  101. Maybe you are bemoaning the fact that the internet is the biggest problem of all problems including bigger than Issur Eishes Ish!
    I guess it's a bigger problem because the internet is public and not a secret like the Heter in the closet

  102. Show me a single Teshuva resembling what Harav Ovadia was matir please and then I will show you the rest, none of the Teshuvas he brings (pre-war) allow the kind of annulments done today.

  103. How did they create a shifcha kenanis in those cases?

  104. Huh? The same way you do in any case. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.

  105. IOW, an eved kenani can halachicly be created in America or anywhere today even though Dina D'malchusa doesn't permit it? That was the big problem doing it today.

  106. Where did you come upon this secret information that "over a dozen poskim" refused to sign. Or that even one disagreed. Since you demand "sources" so much from everyone else please have the kindness to reciprocate. Of course you won't give a source because you can't. Rhetorical question. I know you made that up.

    Also, if you would spend 1/4 of the time you use telling us how you can easily show us how the case in teshuva x is not similar to the kedushei taus under discussion but you don't have time to and use that time to actually show us you would have lots of free time left over to write more comments bashing the rabbanut and other poskim trying to "schmad" us.

  107. I don't think dina demalchusa would be a problem at all. If you have any mekoros on the sugya that would say otherwise please share and I would be happy to discuss them. Also if someone would enter a contract commuting himself to work for someone like an eved kinaani would that even be a problem under secular law? And finally if all else fails you can just fly to a country that permits it and fly right back

  108. Dina D'malchusa was the problem in there teshuva from the Chelkas Yaakov that prevented using shifcha knanis.

  109. Interesting do you know what siman it is I'd like to look ut up

  110. 1) Which means that Satmar chasidim should discard everything their rebbe paskened regarding Zionism, tznius etc., since rov gedolei HaTorah held not like their rebbe.

    2) What happened to mkomo dRab Yosi Haglili, where they would eat chicken with milk? See rema Ch M 25:2

    3) Rav Moishe only became a yuchid after you decided to discount all the post-war poskim. The Klalei Horaah make no distinction in this, so you are the one who is ignoring klalei horaah.

  111. You still have not answered the burning question.
    How come for hundreds of years Klal Yisroel did not touch this kind of annulments until The Rabbanut?
    All post war is basically the rabbanut except of course for Reb Moshe Zt"l
    And in Europe a Rav Mitaam all his Psokim were off limits, this is no different.
    The Steipler became a Mechuten before he went to the Rabbanut, and anyway Rav Elyashiv left Rabbanut later and did not follow their Kulos.
    Find me a psak of Rav Elyashiv after he left Rabbanut that shows he is matir annulments.
    Rav Ovadia in Yechave Daas writes very different then in Yabia Omer after he went to Rabbanut.
    And so on.
    Satmar Rebbe to my knowledge (and I am no Satmar expert by any count) never went against any poskim, he made Chumres but not Kulos, so what are you trying to say?

  112. That's כללי הוראה go check it.

  113. I did not make Machlokes, all I said that Reb Moshe paskened for himself and I am not debating that. What I am debating is that you cannot follow a Yuchid nonetheless, that's כללי הוראה, even if that is your rebbe, and if you want to ignore כללי הוראה then don't say you are following Halacha.

  114. Please you cite me a single Teshuva chapter and verse how any of the pre-war poskim discuss a single case similar to the kind of annulments going on today or what is allowed by post war Rabbis, so far not a single Teshuva has surfaced.

  115. I was never referring to kidushei ta'us only to annulments (הפקעה).
    The Or Zarua was known always and despite this none of the poskim relied upon it to make הפקעה and that is my point.
    Rav Abramsky was pre-war and clost to the war, however if you re-read my earlier comments about Rav Abramsky's case you will see it has no resemblance to the annulments being matir after the war.
    I said you cannot pasken like a יחיד weather he is pre-war or after the war, and Reb Moshe remains a yuchid in his heter for הפקעה.

  116. No that's not what I meant.
    Besides it is a great difference, but the tshuva deals with a very different subject, please re-read, and if you still don't get my point I will try to explain myself.

  117. Even assuming that it was not seen by prior generations, we cannot pasken on rishonim discovered after חתימת of the Shulchan Aruch, see חזון איש.

    For hundreds of years we did not do annulments, and in the last 70 years we got a new Torah, forget the war, it is possible that hundreds years we were not doing it, and suddenly we are smarter. This is exactly what we call reform.

  118. I omitted the sources mistakenly.

    כפי אהרן (דפוס תרל"ד, 1874) סי' י"ג
    ה'שדי חמד כותב עליו גדולות

    דברי חיים פוסק כן אהע"ז ח"ב סי' קכ"ו

    חזון איש, עירובין סי' ס"ז אות י"ב
    'יו"ד סי' ל"ט, קונטרס השיעורים אות ו'
    מובא ב'דברי יואל סי' צ"ז, וסי' קל"ט
    ב'שבט הלוי ח"י סי' ק"ס
    וגם בקובץ תשובות (הרב אלישיב) ח"א סי' קע"א
    'וגם ב'יביע עומר ח"א, יו"ד ח"א סי' כ"ג אות ב, וגם בח"י חו"מ סי' א

    in referring to kidushei ta'us and annulment I meant to compare kidushei ta'us of a real SHoteh as opposed to what's going on today.

  119. So you are calling R' Moshe a Reform Jew. thanks for clearing that up.

  120. ר׳ יצחק אלחנן ספקטור עין וצחק אה״ע סימן כ״ד

    וע"כ מוכח דלא הוי שום ספק כלל בזה ובוודאי לא נתרצית ע"ז כלל מעולם ודינו כמו כל מומין דדינו דתלוי בהסכם בני המדינה כמבואר כה"ג בח"מ סי' רל"ב סעי' ו'. וכש"כ במום כזה דבנ"ד. וע"כ כופין לו במום כזה שיגרשה. וממילא הדין נותן דהיכא דלא ידעה בעת הקידושין והנישואין שיש לו מום זה דודאי הקידושין בטלין עי"ז המום וכמו כל מום במכירה

  121. There are מקורות for קידושי טעות in Rishonim and Acharonim - I have no interest in entering into a Halachic debate with someone who denigrates גדולי תורה who are not in your חדר. I was just pointing out how funny it is that you consider the Steipler זצ"ל a "source" with which to Pasel the Psak of people who were גדולים וצדיקים וקדושים בקיאים בכל חדרי תורה ומדקדקים על קלה כחמורה, which you would know if you actually studied their lives and writings without the unfortunate bias you possess.

  122. If all you're saying is that no previous posek would be matir TE, I'm with you all the way. You however are opposed to any and all heter of kidushei ta'us based on the fact that RAV Moshe was a yachid and "we didn't become smarter after the War". That is a premise you're having a hard time convincing me (and others) of.

    Let's divide the poskim into a number of camps. We have a) those that were matir lmaaseh based on kidushei Taus b) those that entertained the possibility to be matir but didn't, or that were only matir btziruf other tzdadim c) those that rejected this heter d) those that never dealt with the question.

    In Camp A (those that were matir lmaaseh based on kidushei Taus) we have Rav Moshe, Rav Abramsky, Rav Frank (I responded to your Rabanut comment in a separate post and the bottom line is that most of Chareidi Jewry besides Satmar etc. considers him a posek) AND ... I want to bring to your attention someone from way before the War who was matir lmaaseh based on taus,
    הג"ר שלום טויבש (מגאוני גליציה נפטר בשנת תרל"ה, הרבה קודם מלחמת עולם השניה) בשו"ת חיים של שלום אה"ע ח"ב סי' פא

    Camp B (those that entertained the possibility to be matir but didn't, or that were only matir btziruf other tzdadim) we have
    שו"ת חוות יאיר רכא "כנלפע"ד להלכה ולא למעשה

    שו"ת ח"ס אה"ע ח"א סי' פב "לכאורה... כיון שהטעתו בטלו הקידושין, האמנם לא מפני שאנו מדמין נעשה מעשה ולכשיבא לידינו נתחכם בענין זה..."

    מהרש"ם אה"ע ח"ג סי' טז

    עי' שו"ת דבר אליהו מהג"ר אלי' קלצקין דבר אליהו סי' מח

    בית הלוי ח"ג סי ג
    אחיעזר, ר' דוד קרלינר

    Camp C ( those that rejected this heter) includes the Noda Biyehudah, Shvus Yaakov, Rav Chaim Berlin, Rav Henkin, Minchas Yitzchak (you obviously know where they are since you already know all the osrim

    Camp D (those that never dealt with the question) includes most rishonim and acharonim

    To make a statement that Rav Moshe is A Yachid, and the halacha is like the rabbim against a yachid, you have to put on the one hand everyone in Camp A and B against everyone in Camp C. (Obviously Camp D can't be counted, and Camp B never paskened against Camp A).

    Now do you still think Rav Moshe is a yachid and we didn't become smarter after the war.

  123. You still have not answered my question.
    The Chareidi world, including the Steipler, did not write off a legitimate rav and his piskei din just because he served in the Rabbanut. Granted the Steipler indeed became a mechutan with Rav Elyashiv before he entered the Rabanut, however there are quite anumber of letters documenting the Steipler asking Rav Elyashiv to pasken a shayla for him while he was in the Rabbanut.
    The Rabanim mitaam were no different than the Rabanut. A rav did not bacome deligitimized just because he served as a rav mitaam. Rav Yaakov Mazeh was the rav mitaam of Moscow, and he was considered a legitimate rav. (The CHacham Bashi was a governmental rabbinate and a number of them are recognized as gedolei hador, including Rav Chaim Shaul Dweck and Rav Yaakov Shaul Elyashar) The bottom line always was: what would he be if he was in that position? If he would still be a bonafide rav then he remained that way.

    As far as the claim about "the last hundred years" see above


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.