Thursday, January 23, 2020

Rabbi Kaminetsky-Rabbi Greenblatt Heter: Rav Dovid Feinstein says it is worthless

Matzav  just published the following letter from R Sholom Kamenetsky acknowledging and accepting that Rav Dovid Feinstein's beis din had declared the heter totally worthless. He also indicated that his father has already stated that he would accept the ruling of Rav Dovid Feinstein.

Unfortunately I have not seen the psak itself. It had been expected that Rav Dovid Feinstein would reject the heter - after all it was obvious that it was a sad joke. The question remains did Rav Dovid Feinstein criticize those who had said the heter was valid? In addition will Rav Nota Greenblatt accept the psak? 

Without the criticism of those who produced the heter and without the retraction of Rav Greenblatt - the heter now becomes simply a dispute between poskim and Tamar obviously will chose Rav Greenblatt. 

Of greater importance, without the criticism of those who produced the heter  and its retraction - the heter will remain a viable option for all those who want a quick and simple end to a marriage without having to worry about the Get process. All they need is to pay a therapist to declare their husband to have an incurable personality problem i.e., to certify they don't like them and that they can do better with another husband. The therapist doesn't have to even waste his time talking to the husband - he will simply accept what the wife tells him.


29 comments :

  1. Regarding anti vwxxers https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/1744005/hagaon-harav-shmuel-kamenetsky-condemns-anti-vaxxers-who-made-colossal-chillul-hashem-in-albany-last-week.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does / did the BD (need to) hear both sides in such a case?

    ReplyDelete
  3. no copy of psak by Rav Feinstein?
    And also they still give support to Rav Greenblatt
    and none of these BDs have met both sides, so under ordinary circumstances, the descisions are not valid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rav Shmuel simply said he would accept the ruling of Rav Feinstein as to the validity of the heter
    it was never an adversial situation and therefore no need to meet both sides

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rav Nota didn't meet both sides, I don't know if Rav Shmuel did either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They not only didn't meet both sides but Rav Nota didn't investigate but insisted on accepting whatever Rav Shmuel told him

    in addition both got involved while the case was active with a beis din that did in fact did talk to both

    ReplyDelete
  7. We have recently been discussing the requirement for a bd to meet both sides.
    So unless they bring reasons why not, their psak is questionable
    I Am not siding with any of these characters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. so what beis din are you talking about?
    Baltimore beis din met both sides
    neither Rav Shmuel or Rav Nota are a beis din?
    The Feinstein beis din was just dealing with the validity of the heter as understood by Rav Shmuel
    So why do you think this is relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Firstly, we need to distinguish between a beit din and a posek . My understanding, based on rambam hil Sanhedrin is that a bd of 1 is not desirable, unless he is accepted by everyone, and that gives a poseq a kind of bd standing.

    So my assumption was that there was a bd involving RSK /NG. They apparently did not hear both sides.
    That latter bd, you say, did not require both to hear sides.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Indeed .
    Does a posek fall under the category of bd in this respect?

    ReplyDelete
  11. so what is the basis /authority of a posek , as separate from a BD? i.e. what is the source ? (sorry , trying to figure out how they fit in outside of the BD)

    ReplyDelete
  12. a posek is an expert who offers an opinioned
    a beis din is a court that creates an obligation to be obeyed
    It is similar to going to a lawyer to get an opinion vsr going to a court

    ReplyDelete
  13. According to that definition. A psak from teshuvos is not binding.

    ReplyDelete
  14. so why do "you" [rabbis in general] make statments based on teshuvos as being binding?

    Perhaps the listener never asked the question or would ask it from someone else in a different way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. a tshuva is an opinion
    most question are what is appropriate to do
    again it is not the same as a ruling of beis din
    Some opinions are more authoratative than others
    A medical view expressed by a 10 year old is not taken as seriously as one from a doctor
    nor is freely given advice viewed the same as one costing $1000
    Likewise an answer given by R Riskin is not taken the same as a printed tshuva or something found stated in Shulchan Aeuch
    All this is elementary !

    ReplyDelete
  16. Elementary or not, it's different to what I've heard. Heard - but not read, in other words I have not seen this written in major sefarim - just means I haven't read the right sefarim or missed it when I did.


    Thank you, the clarification is very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  17. a further angle on this question -








    in Hil Sanhedrin ch 20, 8, Rambams says:








    "A judge who begins comparing a
    judgment that is brought before him to a judgment that was already
    rendered with which he was familiar is considered as wicked and haughty
    when rendering judgment if there is a scholar in his city who is wiser
    than him and he fails to consult him. Our Sages comment: "May evil upon
    evil befall him." For these and similar concepts stem from haughtiness
    which leads to the perversion of justice.




    Proverbs 7:26: "She
    cast down many corpses" refers to a student who has not reached the
    level where he can deliver rulings, but does so. Awesome are all she has
    slain" Ibid. refers to a scholar who has reached the level where he can deliver rulings, but does not do so.




    The latter denunciation applies provided his generation requires his
    services. If, however, he knows that there is another scholar capable of
    rendering decisions, and therefore he refrains from doing so, he is
    praiseworthy. Whenever a person refrains from becoming involved in a
    judgment, he removes the responsibility for antagonism, theft, and false
    oaths from himself. A person who is haughty in rendering judgment is
    foolish, wicked, and arrogant.ח


    כָּל
    דַּיָּן שֶׁבָּא לְפָנָיו דִּין וְהִתְחִיל לְדַמּוֹתוֹ בְּדִין פָּסוּק
    שֶׁכְּבָר יָדַע אוֹתוֹ וְיֵשׁ בַּמְּדִינָה גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה
    וְאֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ וְנִמְלָךְ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל הָרְשָׁעִים
    שֶׁלִּבָּם גַּס בְּהוֹרָאָה. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים רָעָה עַל רָעָה תָּבוֹא
    לוֹ שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִגַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ הֵן
    הַמְּבִיאוֹת לִידֵי עִוּוּת הַדִּין. (משלי ז כו) "כִּי רַבִּים חֲלָלִים הִפִּילָה" זֶה תַּלְמִיד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וּמוֹרֶה. (משלי ז כו)
    "וַעֲצֻמִים כָּל הֲרֻגֶיהָ" זֶה שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וְאֵינוֹ מוֹרֶה.
    וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַדּוֹר צָרִיךְ לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם יָדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְשָׁם
    רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה וּמָנַע עַצְמוֹ מִן הַהוֹרָאָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח.
    וְכָל הַמּוֹנֵעַ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַדִּין מוֹנֵעַ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵיבָה וְגֵזֶל
    וּשְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וְהַגַּס לִבּוֹ בְּהוֹרָאָה שׁוֹטֶה רָשָׁע וְגַס
    רוּחַ




    If comparing to previous cases is wrong, what is the process of precedent in teshuvas and halachic decision making? And what about tziruf? Or making an analogy to derive a judgement or rule in new case?

    ReplyDelete
  18. blind comparison is the problem - not all cases are repetitions of previous cases

    cases are typically made anonymous with only the important details revealed and precedent can be established by the rules made by an important posek - see introduction to igros Moshe

    ReplyDelete
  19. cases are different becasue people are different too.


    Is an orphan who has to support a widow in the same position as a rich kid, who has no financial worries? But usually, Hareidi rabbis would favour the rich kid because of the huge money he can bring to the party.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If you follow through your logic, it shows that there is no such thing as daas Torah - which is not even a psak, but a binding statement of opinion based on authority, often not even presented with sources.
    In the days before Oslo, one rav criticised a daas Torah statement regarding land for peace _ because it did not bring sources but only The personage of the gadol making the statement.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It doesn't mean no daas Torah only there is no one you would accept as binding

    ReplyDelete
  22. Then it is no longer Daas Torah, it is one of many Deot Torah.
    In theory, a bd and even Sanhedrin can err, be bribed or even make zadonot.
    The daas Torah concept which was made famous last century seems to bypass this by claiming infallibility.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you are just trying to say that something called daas Torah must be infallible - than I would agree it never existed

    ReplyDelete
  24. Of course I am biased.
    Doesnt mean I am wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. write a guest post about your biases

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.