update: I just modified the title of the post because some people were mistakenly taking it literally.
=========================
As noted many times, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter is a blatant perversion of halacha. In addition it is based on lies. I have also asked many times for someone to defend not only the creation of this phony heter but also the refusal to tell the couple to separate from an adulterous relationship.
=========================
As noted many times, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter is a blatant perversion of halacha. In addition it is based on lies. I have also asked many times for someone to defend not only the creation of this phony heter but also the refusal to tell the couple to separate from an adulterous relationship.
However much to my astonishment this Shabbos I was shown a clear justification for their action. Rav Tzadok is talking about a tzadik or gadol and clearly had the Kaminetsky's and Rav Greenblatt in mind when he wrote the following words. [As a side point - this Rav Tzadok was used to justify R Berland's purported sexual perversions by his son-in-law. Rav Tzadok seems to think that a real tzadik can violate any halacha and it is not considered a sin]..
Rav Tzakok HaCohen (Tzedkas HaTzadik #198 page 76): ... David violated the halacha without any justification - but just because he wanted to. And he relied simply on the fact that because he wanted to violate the halacha that this was truly G-d's Will and thus no sin was done in the violation. And this was even though there was absolutely no reason to justify it because Will is not dependent on reasons...
שהוא עשה שלא כהלכה בלא שום טעם רק מפני שרצה בכך וסמך על מה שהוא רוצה כך הוא אמיתות רצון השם יתברך ואין בו עבירה. ואף על פי שאין בו שום טעם כי אין טעם לרצון
I am not aware of any non-Chassidic writings that state such a thing - so it might be a problem for Litvaks such as the Kaminetsky's and R Greenblatt to rely on this heter. But maybe one of their defenders can send me a non-Chassidic source that gedolim can violate the Torah anytime they want - because it is G-d's Will.
This is re David Hamelech, but does it apply to every generation?
ReplyDeleteThe Breslov sages referred to this "heter" as neo-Sabbateanism.
In any case, this idea of Tzaddik being above the law was rejected by the Gra and Rav Chaim Vollozhiner. Do Chassidim hold by it today? For example, davening a very late mincha etc?
Not sure why you think that there is any significance to a chasid that the Gra and Rav Chaim Vollozhiner rejected this idea. Not qualifications that what he said only applies to Dovid Hamelech.
ReplyDeletethen we need to revisit the Gemara on whether David sinned with Batsheva or not, and was it through the same mechanism?
ReplyDeleteexcellent point
ReplyDeleteThe idea is written in rashi by Avrohm Avinu, when he wasn't able to shecht his son, because it wasn't Gd's will. His hand couldn't move.
ReplyDeleteThat fact that He allowed Dovid to take Basshva (and have offspring with her) and because Dovid is a pure צדיק, it must be that He wanted it to happen. And if He wanted it to happen, by its very definition, it cannot be a sin.
If it would have been a calculated decision over an extended period of time, this does not apply.
Eidensohn,why don't you knock it off already ? it;s starting to get boring,please find something new to belly ache about
ReplyDeleteI am mocheh against your blatantly being mevazeh chasidim and taking the words of Rav Tzadok out of context.
ReplyDeleteקשה לי להאריך באנגלית, ולכן אכתוב בלה"ק, ואני מקווה שדבריי יובנו כראוי.
ReplyDeleteאני חושב שכדאי שאתן קצת רקע כדי להבין דברי ר' צדוק לאשורם.
א. אמרו חז"ל: "האבות הן הן המרכבה".
בספרי חסידות (ראה לדוגמא ספר התניא פרק כג. ועוד) פירשו בכוונת הדברים:
ה"מכרכבה" הגשמית בטילה להאדם הרוכב עלי' בתכלית, ואין להמרכבה שום עצמאות, וכאשר הרוכב חפץ ללכת לכיוון מסויים, בדרך ממילא המרכבה הולכת לשם.
על דרך זה, האבות הקדושים (ועוד צדיקים גדולים שהגיעו למריגה דומה לזו של האבות), זיככו את עצמם, והתעלו למדריגה כזו גבוהה, שגופם הגשמי היתה נשמעת בדרך ממילא לרצונו של הקב"ה, ולא היה להם שום רצון אישי ועצמאי כלל.
ב. בפרשת העקידה נאמר "וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת". לכאורה, הלשון "וישלח אברהם את ידו" היא מיותרת, והכתוב הי' יכול לקצר ולכתוב "ויקח ארבהם את המאכלת" ותו לא.
בכמה ספרים (ראה לדוגמא פרדס יוסף בראשית יח, ז) כתבו ליישב:
לאמיתו של דבר, רצונו של הקב"ה לא הי' שאברהם ישחט את בנו (שהרי העקידה היתה ניסיון בלבד). כאמור, אברהם אבינו הי' כמו "מרכבה" לרצונו של הקב"ה. ולכן, כאשר הגיע הזמן שאברהם יקח את המאכלת, הוא ציפה לכך שידו יקח את המאכלת "בדרך ממילא" ובלי שום מאמץ מצידו, שהרי רצונו של הקב"ה הי' שיקח את המאכלת. בפועל, הוא ידו לא "זז" בדרך ממילא, בגלל שלאימתו של דבר רצונו של הקב"ה לא הי' שישחט את בנו, ולכן כתיב "וישלח אברהם את ידו" שהי' זקוק להשתדלות מיוחדת "לשלוח" ידו לקחת את המאכלת.
ג. כעת יובנו דברי ר' צדוק:
דוד המלך הי' צדיק אמיתי, בעל מדריגה נעלית ביותר. הוא זיכך את עצמו, והתעלה כל כך עד שהי' כמו "מרכבה" לרצונו של הקב"ה. כבר לא היו לו רצונות "אישיים", ובדרך ממילא כל חפצו ומגמתו הי' מכוון לרצונו של הקב"ה.
לכן, כאשר דוד המלך התעורר ב"רצון" לדבר מסויים, הרי למרות שאותו דבר הי' נגד ההלכה, מכל מקום, דוד הבין זה גופא שהוא התעורר ברצון לפעול כך, מראה על כך שזהו רצונו של הקב"ה.
ד. אני רוצה להדגיש, שהגישה של ר' צדוק (כאן ובמקומות אחרים בדבריו) - שיש מושג של "עבירה" שמותר לפי רצונו של הקב"ה - מיוחדת לחדר של חסידות איזבצא-ראדזין (ר' צדוק הי' תלמיד של הצדיק ר' מרדכי שלמה מאיזבא, בעל מי השילוח). אך רוב רובם של גדולי החסידות, לא קיבלו גישה זו.
ה. איך שיהי' - אני חושב שלאור דבריי לעיל, מובן בפשטות, שאין קשר בין דברי ר' צדוק למקרה של הרב ברלנד או המקרה של הרב קמינצקי.
I think that Rav Tzadok is being taken out of context.
ReplyDelete[As an aside, he never had any kids. He said that this was due to the pain and shame he had caused his ex wife by divorcing her. A little after he got married, a vicious rumor had been spread about his wife. Since it was a strong kol, he felt he as a talmud chochom cannot remain married to her. She refused to take a get - (possibly because it would then really seem that she was guilty). He therefore went traveling around to obtain a heter to remarry from 100 different legitimate rabbis. When he returned with the heter, he gave her a choice to accept the get, and she did so reluctantly. He remarried and unfortunately, never had kids. He said quite clearly that his mistake in causing shame to his ex wife had terrible consequences. He obviously felt that he was not above the law, and suffered for his mistakes.]
He explained Dovid's rationale. I don't think he is saying that it was right, he is just explaining the tzadik's rationale when he errs.
But Dovid was sharply rebuked by Nossan Hanovie. He did teshuva, and that is what Perek 51 in Tehilim says explicitly. I don't ghink that Rav Tzadok is disagreeing.
I think I get what you are saying here (I believe you are using Eddie's comment to say that we have to look at the Gemara to fully understand what Reb Tzadok is really saying). But I think you should be much more careful on the way you post it, because this is really dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the translation you used for Reb Tzadok is incorrect. "Shelo Kahalacha" does not mean he "violated Halocho". It means that it was not the right thing to do. [Because in the case of Dovid Hamelech the 'Halocho' the way we use that term was not violated.]
Wasn't Moshe Rabenu as great as David HaMelech?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't surprise me one bit. R' Tzadok was Talmud of the izbetzer, who wrote crazy things like this, with a deterministic view. See the Mei Hasheloach in parshas Pinchas where he writes that Zimri did not sin.
ReplyDeleteChasidim hold of the later zman of the Rabbeinu Tam's shkia, rather than the Mogen Avrohom's shkia that the litvaks use.
ReplyDelete1. R' Tzadok HaCohen, who was drawn to Chassidus via the Izbitzer, was part of a fringe school of Chassidic thought. He was not totally accepted by other Chassidim. Your implicitly maligning all Chassidim based on this is not appropriate.
ReplyDelete2. You quoted out of context - He himself clearly says this in that piece that the halacha is not like that. (He thus does not even bother to discuss the limitations of this non-halachik approach, most likely limited to anointed kings.)
וכן הבריאה דהוא מעשה הקב"ה נקרא חוקות שמים וארץ וכן יהודה מחוקקי נתגלו לו חוקות הקב"ה וכד"ש בתוספתא הובא בתוס' חגיגה (ב:) על דוד ושלמה המע"ה אין למידין מתקוע. שהוא עשה שלא כהלכה בלא שום טעם רק מפני שרצה בכך וסמך על מה שהוא רוצה כך הוא אמיתות רצון הש"י ואין בו עבירה. ואע"פ שאין בו שום טעם כי אין טעם לרצון וכמ"ש כל אשר שאלו עיני לא אצלתי וגו' אף להפר תורה הגם שלא ידע טעם שיש בו עת לעשות לה' רק חוקה וכהלכתא הלכה למשה מסיני בלא טעמא זה אינו מסקנא והלכתא להנהגת העולם
you missed the obvious point.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to find some justification - no matter how far fetched. Because there is NO justification according to normal sources.
Rav Tzadok clearly indicates it was and describes it as ais la'asos. Not only is this source dangerous - R Berland himself has said that his son in laws sefer should be burned -but even worse is the example that the Kaminetskys and R Greenblatt are doing by making a mockery of halcha. They are living examples of why this quote and the associated attitude is dangerous
ReplyDeleteHe never had any kids because when he was going around Europe getting a heter meah rabbonim he stopped in Izhbitz. There the rebbe told he would sign out of respect for R Tzadok but that he should know he would not have any children by another woman. There was no justification for his divorcing his wife. It was simply because he said he was so holy that it was inappropriate for him to be married that people would even say such lies about. As far as I know he never expressed regret for divorcing his wife
ReplyDeleteThe point that Rav Tzadok is saying that the actions of a tzadik are different than normal man because everything he does is by definition ratzon HaShem. And therefore even if he sins it is not because of his yetzer harah but it is because of ais la'asos. this is what is known as an aveira leshma.
thank you for your detailed reinforcement of my point. In fact R Berland himself has denounced his son-in-laws sefer and said it should be burned.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bhol.co.il/103730/חתן-הרב-ברלנד-מה-שאצלנו-הוא-עבירה-אצל-הצדיק-הוא-מצווה.html
As I said I was looking of some justification for the Kaminetsky's and this is the best I have found. There is absolutely no halachic justification for their production of the krum heter and there is no justification for not telling the couple to separate - but they obvious disagree and apparently because of this attitude expressed by Rav Tzadok
they are not taken out of context.
ReplyDeletethe problem is the idea as presented by Rav Tzadok does not fit in with Chazal
ReplyDeleteyeah it is boring to repeat the obvious - but that is what the halacha requires. Since your primary interest is seeking thrills - I would suggest you look elsewhere for excitement. There are many activities that are more exciting than keeping Torah and mitzvos.
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah - if you honestly believe that RSK and RNG are basing their actions on this piece of R' Tzadok, then you truly have become unhinged. (The fact that you cannot think of a different justification for their actions, does not mean that they can't.)
ReplyDeleteIf however you are merely seeking an opportunity to denigrate R' Tzadok זצוק"ל, then I suppose that you have as much context as is needed. It is instructive to see that you do not confine your unbridled criticism of Gedolim to the living.Or in other words - someone who rejects R' Tzadok as a Gadol should take you seriously.
Important to mention - R' Tzadok was a Kohein and the rumor was that his wife had been raped which would have forbidden him to remain with her.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, any connection between the quote from his words (yes, taken out of context) regarding Dovid Hamelech and today's Rabbonim is laughable.
Your point was obfuscated.
ReplyDelete.
You misunderstood R' Tzadok, misled others in understanding his words and ignored my point as well.
The thrust of your post is a claim that R' Tzadok's words as quoted and summarized by you are an unacceptable justification for the heter. "this Shabbos I was shown a clear justification for their action." You therefore wrote that one must examine only non-Chassidic sources.
His claim that David Hamelech did not commit a sin is explicitly couched (beyond your severely limited quote) in a disclaimer for it's application in other circumstances and thus clearly not a justification for the heter.
You have yet to provide even a fringe Chassidic source for the heter or for the claim "that gedolim can violate the Torah anytime they want - because it is G-d's Will." And even if you did, you would have no justification to invalidate all 'other' Chassidic sources by writing "But maybe one of their defenders can send me a non-Chassidic source that gedolim can violate the Torah anytime they want - because it is G-d's Will."
I disagree with your assertions - you seem have completely misunderstood what I wrote. This is not an attack on Rav Tzadok or chassidic sources. It is the use of them - as cited in R Berland's son-in-laws sefer to justify violating the Torah
ReplyDeleteYes as laughable as a gadol seeking a heter for a woman to marry without a get by severely twisting the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein and geting a psychiatrist to write a fictitious report based on the wife's claims - presenting this false report to poskim around the world and being told his arguments were absurd - until he got R Nota to give a heter - and then refusing to admit he erred after a world wide firestorm of protest by the leading poskim and rabbonim. And finally after stating that he finally accepts the psak of Rav Dovid Feinstein that the heter is invalid - not telling the couple to separate but telling them that they should not separate.. Actually it is not laughable but should make every Jew cry.
ReplyDeleteno I do not think that RSK and RNG would claim that they are justifying their actions on this Rav Tzadok. Considering that it is an elementary requirement that when a Talmid chachom does or says something as bizarre as this heter that there is a requirement that they justify it to the public. They haven't even attempted it. So whether they in fact can justify it - they have not provided any justification except that RSK said he was relying on RNG and RNG said he was relying onf RSK. And no I am not trying to denigrate Rav Tzadok whom I value highly and cite in my Daas Torah in a number of places.
ReplyDeleteNext time please pay attention to what I write instead jumping to conclusions that are not supported by what I write and have written on this topic.
I share your outrage on this issue, but why draw one of the pillars of Chassidic thought from generations ago into this matter, and go so far as to claim that he is "talking about a tzadik or gadol and clearly had the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt in mind when he wrote the following words..."
ReplyDeleteWhat is clear is that R' Tzadok had King David in mind, and he is not justifying his actions but rather explaining where he may have erred. To apply that to current events is nothing short of preposterous.
you are right that the current situation is nothing short of preposterous
ReplyDeleteBTW I was told by a Chasid that Rav Tzadok is more studied by Litvaks than by Chassidim
There is sufficient reason to say that David did sin in some manner or other with Bathsheva. perhaps the views of Chazal are tempering this.
ReplyDeleteThere is the midrash whcih tells of how he tested Hashem by asking to be tested - as were the Forefathers. Inevitably this test (where he shoots at an eagle and knocks down the tent where she is bathing) was what led to his desire for her. If there was no sin, then we have a problem in the Nevuah of Nathan, chas v'shalom.
by Kal v'chomer, you are saying that since Moshe made an error =sinned, then so can David. Of course this is true. It seems to me that Moshe's sin was driven by pressure and anger from the Kahal, since he later addresses Am Yisrael saying that they caused him to die in the wilderness.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, a Tzaddik can still sin and do teshuva - part of Tzidkut is recognising and doing teshuva.
How is the reader of this post supposed to know that?
ReplyDeletePlease relate more carefully to what you actually wrote.
But you are evading the issue - the current situation is what it is, but your drawing a line to R' Tzadok and forcing it down his throat is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteThis post with it's caption "Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Rav Tzadok defends their perversions of the Torah" is taking your blog which I have until now regarded highly and bringing it down to the level of 'National Enquirer'.
A retraction and removal of the post would be in order.
I am bothered by the fact that you are motivated to complain about what you think is my misrepresentation of Rav Tzadok - but you don't seem to be similarly bothered by the misrepresentation of the Kaminetskys and R Greenblatt?
ReplyDeleteWhere did you see this story about him and his ex-wife?
ReplyDeleteThat is ridiculous. He is addressing to you his problem with what you did. In fact, he is totally correct. It is you, in your headline and post, who connect the words of R' Tzadok with the Epstein affair. Rabbi Kamenetsly did not use R'' Tzadok as a justification, and R' Tzadok himself certainly did not. Therefore, your headline and post is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not! Lo minei velo miktzosei. Lo kal vechomer velo ben bno shel kal vachomer. If any, you can only draw to conclude that since Moshe Rabenu got punished, David haMelech al achas pi kama vekama, indeed both did get punished!
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is, that there was no one greater than Moshe Rabenu asher diber peh el peh, and even he wasn't above the law. He violated Hashem's tzivui and he got punished for it, therefore he wasn't able to enter Eretz Yisrael, David al pi achas kama vekama. There is no justification for a Tzadik no matter how great, Hashem is makpid kechut hasaara as it states Yaan ahser lo kidashtem osi... It was David's lust that brought him to sin with BatSheva. Ayin roeh, lev chomed....
It is written bimfurash...Shmuel II 11:27 ...Vayera hadovor asher ossoh David beinei haShem.
The same was said by Natahan haNavi.. about Kivsas hoRosh... followed by David...vayomer David el Nathan, chotosi laShem. Of course Tshuva helps, but the fact still remains that what the Torah forbids, there is no heter to violate it. There are other lo se'esses that the Torah forbids e.g. Lo yarbeh lo noshim, lo yarbeh lo sussim and Shlomo haMelech violated them, and he was not above the law. Although Moshe Rabenu blamed Bnei Yisrael for his hastiness, he still got punished and wasn't allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael. No Tzadok vetziduk hadin can be matir Lo Tinof, and nobody is above the law, not even the Kaminetsky's, neither for themselves nor for the Adam's and Eve's, especially when ein Adam choite vleoi lo. Torah achas yihye lochem. They must tell them to depart and repent leinei kol hakahal just like ke'echod mibnei odom. Veyofe shaa achas kodem.
I modified the title because of some people's inability to understand the post as intended. Your point is so obvious you should have realized what my point was and not take it literally.
ReplyDeleteThat is not so much the point. I don't know what the justifications of the Greenblatt/Kamenetsky hetter were, but I am sure that when the case was brought before R' Dovid Feinstein and he asked for the justification, they did not say "Well, according to some strands of chassidic thought whatever a tzaddik does is by definition okay, so that is why they did it." Their hetter is a (wrongly) applied extension of R' Moshe's pesak re. mekach ta'us, not an antinomian belief system.
ReplyDeleteThis post took you a few notches down in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore?
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to attack the messenger because he didn't polish his shoes and didn't use proper etiquette -etc - but what about the message? Does it change your understanding of the rabbis under discussion - or do they get a free pass no matter what they do?
Who cares what they told Rav Dovid Feinstein. It is there actions afterwards that is the real issue. They said that they accept his halachic conclusion, yet they did not move to dissolve the union. Why? What is their current justification? How do you know what it is based upon?
ReplyDeleteI heard it on Berel Wein's biography lecture of Rav Tzadok. I couldn't find the recording on his website, though.
ReplyDeleteHe also claimed that it was the Rogetchover who pushed him to follow the derech habaal shem.
Was it a curse by the Izbitzer, or a prediction?
ReplyDeleteMy source is R. Berel Wein, which does not make it authoritative.
If you really think it is based upon this passage from R' Tzaddok, then there is not much I can do to help you.
ReplyDeleteIt is not correct that Zimri did not sin. Rather - according to the Ishbitzer - it was ratzon hashem that Zimri committed his sin. Zimri still merits death and gehinom.
ReplyDeleteIt was a prediction
ReplyDelete“David violated the halacha without any justification - but just because he wanted to. And he relied simply on the fact that because he wanted to violate the halacha that this was truly G-d's Will and thus no sin was done in the violation. And this was even though there was absolutely no reason to justify it because Will is not dependent on reasons... ”
ReplyDeleteShabbath 56
But Samuel maintained: David did not pay heed to slander, [for] he saw self-evident things in him, [Which substantiated Ziba's charges. Thus it was not a mere acceptance of slander.] For it is written, “Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul, also came down to meet the king. He had not pared his toenails, or trimmed his mustache, or washed his clothes from the day that the king left until the day he returned safe. When he g-came [from] Jerusalem to meet the king, the king asked him, “Why didn’t you come with me, Mephibosheth?” He replied, “My lord the king, my own servanth [Ziba] deceived me. Your servant planned to saddle his ass and ride on it and go with Your Majesty—for your servant is lame. [Ziba] has slandered your servant to my lord the king. But my lord the king is like an angel of the Lord; do as you see fit. For all the members of my father’s family deserved only death from my lord the king; yet you set your servant among those who ate at your table. What right have I to appeal further to Your Majesty?” The king said to him, “You need not speak further. I decree that you and Ziba shall divide the property.” And Mephibosheth said to the king, “Let him take it all, as long as my lord the king has come home safe.’ ” (2 Samuel 19:25-31)
He said [thus] to him: I prayed [Lit., said], when wilt thou return In peace? Yet thou treatest me so. Not against thee have I resentment, but against Him who restored thee in peace! [Thus he confirmed Ziba's accusation. For David regarded Mephibosheth's unkempt appearance too as a sign that he grieved over his return.] Hence it is written, “and the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal [מריב בעל]; and Merib-baal [מריב בעל] begot Micah.” “and the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal [מריב בעל]; and Merib-baal [מריב בעל] begot Micah.” (1 Chronicles 8:34, 9:40). And the son of Jonathan was Meribbaal [מריב בעל]: was then his name Merib-baal [מריב בעל]? Surely it was Mephibosheth? But because he raised a quarrel [מריב בעל] with his Master [מריב בעל], a Heavenly Echo went forth and rebuked him, Thou man of strife, [and] the son of a man of strife! Man of strife, as we have stated. Son of a man of strife, for it is written, “Then Saul advanced as far as the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the wadi [וירב בנחל]” (1 Samuel 15:5). And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and strove in the valley [וירב בנחל]. R. Manni said: [That means,] concerning the matter of the valley. [Saul argued: If the Torah decreed that a heifer should have its neck broken in the valley on account of a single murdered man (Deut. XXI, 1-9), how much greater is the sin of slaying all these Amalekites! (v. Yoma 22b). Thus he strove against God's command.]
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When David said to Mephibosheth, “Thou and Ziba divide the land,” a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared to him, Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom. [This agrees with Rab's view (supra a) that David paid heed to slander and acted unjustly. Hence this punishment.] Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Had not David paid heed to slander, the kingdom of the House of David would not have been divided, Israel had not engaged in idolatry,[ The first step to idolatry was Jeroboam's setting up of the golden calves in order to maintain the independence of his kingdom (v. I Kings XII, 26 seq.).] and we would not have been exiled from our country.[ As a punishment for idolatry.]
I was unaware that anyone asked you for help, darling. When you don't have an answer, you resort to silly insinuations. Cool.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you answer the question. What is their justification post Rav Dovid Feinstein's beis din?
No! What they did is inexcusable. But how dare you put Rav Tzadok in that category.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that I misunderstood you - it seems that I was not the only one.
ReplyDeleteI did not put Rav Tzadok in the same category. What I said was simply that Rav Tzadok 's explanation that a Tzadik can violate halacha - might provide an explanation for the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea, but I would bet my life it has nothing to do with the teaching of R' Tzadok Hacohen of Lublin.
ReplyDeleteI gather you don't value your life very highly. This is the flip side of the infalliblity of Daas Torah saying that it is G-d's will to accept whatever a tzadik decides to do as ais la'asos. Either way it is positing an identification of the will of G-d and that of the Tzadik or gadol.
ReplyDeleteThe Heter is Mekach Taois, a very pashut and fundamental Heter. You try to pasul it by saying that it's based on lies. Well get over it, no one believes you.
ReplyDeleteAnd to say that is blatantly untrue and a bizoyon to Rav Tzadok.
ReplyDeleteI do value my life very highly. I am absolutely certain that this is not the rationale of Rabbis Greenblatt and Kamenetsky, and I am pretty sure that you know this as well.
ReplyDeleteSo then your point is either to defend the bogus 'heter' or to degrade Rav Tzadok. So which is it? Which of these two atrocities are you committing here.
ReplyDeleteyou just don't get it and I don't see wasting my time trying to explain it
ReplyDeleteyou obviously have no idea what is going on and haven't bothered reading the letters from major poskim and rabbonim that do in fact stat this is based on lies.
ReplyDeleteR' Tzadok was a Kohein and the rumor was that his wife had been raped
ReplyDeleteThat was not the rumor! Where are you getting this nonsense from?
Incorrect.
ReplyDeleteHe says specifically that Zimri was not a נואף, and since Zimri felt he did all he can to compel his יצר הרע, it must be the will of G-d and not a sin. Pinchas however, felt that he was still influenced by his inclination and therefore killed him. Since such a thing is up to שיקול הדעת, Moshe Rabbeinu did not get involved and Pinchas was not liable for killing him.
Please read it again.
"....it seems that I was not the only one."
ReplyDeleteTrue, you seem to me (at least ) that you are fairly a newcomer. From the newcomers (sometimes - when appropriate, called trollers, most have yet to extensively be familiar with the plethora of letters put out byany world class gedolim, yes, true gedolim, familiarize with the halacha in this particular Get case, the unfolding of events and the character veracity of the parties involved. By then, you can stop calling yourself a newcomer and simultaneously and perhaps also ironically, be surprised to find your political outlook regarding this matter on the opposite side of the fence.....together with what you may call 'us boys' , bit in fact come to realize as the true opinion of gedolim. ....true DA'AS TORAH...
A line from R. Berel Wein - actually borrowed from something else he said (since we're speaking of him): it may be very funny, but it's no joke"...
ReplyDeleteToo much hocke-rye.... Please scroll down and see what I will try answering Harry....
ReplyDeleteScrolling down. ....anticipating for you an Yehoshua to *get it*....but alas it's not happening....and unsure why it wasn't mentioned until now (unless I blinkes)..soooooooooooo.........here goes: The ra'ayah from Rav Tzadok is not to be taken literally.
ReplyDeleteIt was an *exasperated* attempt to find some wild justification for such for such a heter, since the matirim would not or could not provide the *wildest* excuse for such an issue, aside that it is highly inconceivable that that was the root of the heter, we more importantly (and confidently believe that Rav Tzadok with his Koach HaTorah and yashrus would not arrive at such a conclusion...
bull's eye
ReplyDeleteNice to see that someone has figured out the answer to the puzzle, but reread the post and tell me how anyone can fail to see an attempt to denigrate R' Tzadok, even if that was not the intention.
ReplyDeleteI quote:
"However much to my astonishment this Shabbos I was shown a clear justification for their action. Rav Tzadok is talking about a tzadik or gadol and clearly had the Kaminetsky's and Rav Greenblatt in mind when he wrote the following words. [... Rav Tzadok seems to think that a real tzadik can violate any halacha and it is not considered a sin].."
Either edit the content or continue upsetting people...
Hmmmm.....Clarifying out loud, lol..
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Lakewood has forgotten this p'sak ( p'sak by omission ) and is talking about RSK new p'sak http://www.kikar.co.il/203624.html
ReplyDeleteSimply put, "fun a kashya shtarbt men nischt" - translation for those who need: one does not succumb from one difficult question. I am certain at the end of the day that Rav Tzadok zt"l did NOT mean the current heter perpetrators. What is actual pshat on that Rav Tzadok is beyond me or anybody else on this blog, otherwise, someone would have already presented it here. (Look, you are not saying that it is flatly a ra'ayah to the heter. ....obviously, you realize that some things can't be taken literally. ....in this case, to be matir kol HaTorah kuloh from a shtikel Torah, not knowing in which particular instance how to apply it.....)
ReplyDeleteCan't decipher your rambling... that's not to say that if I had sufficient incentive - time & inclination - that I wouldn't try again, and perhaps I might even be successful. Anyway, you're right about one thing. I AM a newcomer! I only have 1052 comments (excluding this one) on disqus, which pales in comparison with your 1110 comments!
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that if RSK would have known from the beginning how this matter would conclude he would have never arrange the heter but he had many reasons to believe that a person in his position would get away with it. See Harry and Eli below and many others.
ReplyDeleteSadly what we have seen in this story is the result of constant mis-presnting the position of both Gedolim and Roshei Yeshiva. In the early days this was justified by saying that in order to inspire young people it is necessary to overstate the Gadlus of some people and then it became a legitimate practice without any justification to pretend that some people are perfect and even worse to imply that they are above the law.
Yes, you might have 1052 comments. ....on Disqus, but not on Da'as Torah. Perhaps if you would be here more, you would be more familiar with the gravity of the issues. .
ReplyDeleteIn other words, What I am trying to say is that if you would have looked through all the letters and turn of events that got a woman to openly be mezaneh ...and with the 'rabbinic mantra' to boot,, you wouldn't be making those ignorant statements. If you are ignorant, though, you are most welcome to ask what's going on, but to make irresponsibly ignorant statements and pass them off as fact on issues which are fundamental to kedushas Yisroel can't be tolerated. This is the ignorance that this blog is trying to fight, not to pass on ignorance. ...the opposite purpose of this blog. On the contrary, come here more often and you'll see that you will learn something important. ....
"turn of events that got a woman to openly be mezaneh ..."
ReplyDeleteWhere is your proof? Have you seen them together? Just because some ploni almoni beilum shem said so, that's not facts. Don't be in rush to judgement. You chap?
Don't be daft - you can look in disqus and see how many comments I've made on this blog, as if that is important. Rabbi E made comments which sounded, looked, smelt and tasted like (a) something derogatory about R' Tzadok זצ"ל, (b) he actually thought that this perversion of R' Tzadok's words was the basis for the Heter which RSK gave. Baruch Hashem none of these points were actually the blogger's intention. If they had been then he would have been 100% wrong. As it is his post was just badly written. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about something - you are a hammer looking for a nail. Sorry, but I'm not the בר פלוגתא you are looking for. Go and look somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not daft. On the contrary, daft people are the one who more often than not, take something literally. Wise people look more often (than daft people) for an underlying meaning.
ReplyDeleteRav Daniel has brought Rav Tzadok zt"l on this blog quite a number of times before. He would not bring something down that he hold to be apikurses.
In actuality, i have little time for a 'bar plugta'. I just was frustrated when people aim at an issue and repeatedly miss. I thought I got the point to which Reb Daniel agreed. ..
Good for you.
ReplyDeleteAt least you now realize it
ReplyDeleteand. ....if *you* also internalize that, then it will be good for you too!....
Is your entertainment free?
ReplyDeleteFor those in lack of havana pshuto, yes.... for those that are mevinim and mevin dovor mitoch dovor taking it seriously, al achas pi kamo...
ReplyDelete