June 26, 2013 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #962162
rebdoniel – “Rav Linzer’s daf yomi shiur is available online for the whole world to hear.”
What a shanda! I followed Linzer’s daf yomi for meseches nida and it was loaded with prost language, the jargon of his audience and students no doubt. And his daf yomi shiur included women. He has no eidelkeit and that separates the real talmudei chachamim and roshei yeshiva from the imposters.June 26, 2013 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #962163
Sam2:Please show me an example in halocho where one Bais Din can invalidate another’s psak. “ein davar kazeh”. No such thing exists. We don’t have a sanhedrin today and every Bais Din is autonomous. You may not want to accept that ruling but it is inconceivable- and I bet you , never mentioned in choshen mishpot, that a Bais can invalidate another Bais Din’s psak. We are not talking here about a Nossih or a Bais Din Godol that made a manifest error- as mentioned in Torah and Horiyos- but the case before Rabbi Sherman was whether the Bais Din of Rav Druckman did a correct conversion. Even if he had his doubts, it is the height of “chutzpah’ to invalidate the Bais Din and all its rulings.June 26, 2013 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #962164
ROB: I agree it’s very Chutzpadik. That doesn’t change the fact that if he’s right, he’s right. Just like we would invalidate everything done by the JTS Beis Din, he’s saying the same here. (Oh, and just for consistency’s sake, who did you side with in the Rav Goren controversy?)June 26, 2013 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #962165
Sam2: Actually, it does change the facts. If Rav Druckman’s Bais Din accepted the giyur, it meant that, IN THEIR EYES, it was a legitimate “kabbolos mitzvos”. It is not for Rav Sherman to dispute this. He -Rav Sherman- can have more stringent conditions in his Bais Din but he cannot invalidate the giyur “lemafrea” ! Don’t you think that ,troughout history, different Botei Din had different criteria? (I know that for a certainty – especially if you read the many teshuvos on this). And please remember that Rav Druckman was acting as the main arbiter in giyur in Eretz Ysroel. It was not in Rav Sherman’s authority to change that.
And-please remember what he did (overlooked by everyone here): he was actually “mattir’ (allowed) an “eishes ish” (married woman) to be free WITHOUT A GET based on his interpretation of matters that happened years ago. Now, pray tell me, what is worse, Rav Sherman’s acts -possibly bringing mamzerus into the klal- or Rav Druckman’s acts that really have little material consequence?
As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal. The chareidi world used it as a political ploy because they were- and stil are -intent on control of religious life in Israel. BTW- R”moshe zz’l too used outlandish reasons to avoid mamzerus in the klal.
Lastly, there is absolutely no connection with the JTS Bais Din, because there we don’t recognize the DAYANIM (as they don’t believe in torah she baal peh). The problem withb a JTS giyur is that their ‘kabbolas ol mitzvos’ is manifestly not what we can accept. Not so Rav Druckman’s Bais Din.June 26, 2013 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #962166
rebdoniel: I thank you for your compliments. I am neither brilliant nor humble…..I am a graduate of many good (chareidi) yeshivos and I find their positions today at variance with positions that were accepted jsut a few decades ago, on Israel, on kollel, on the matter of “koach dehetaira odif” and many others. Hence, today, I identify with the Chassidim- who actually are quite meikel- or the dati leumi. (Shlomo carlebach zz’l is my other hero!)June 26, 2013 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #962167
As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal.
I like how you change the phraseology when it is someone who you respect.
He was wrong, because he ALLOWED mamzerim into the klal, against the opinion of every gadol, after running for political office on the platform that he would do so.June 26, 2013 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #962168ToiParticipant
ROB- are you kidding me? nearly anyone who was magee’a lihoraah found gorens heter laughable. why do you think it was classified at all? anyone with a decent svarah and raayos is proud to show it off, not insure that noone gets to see it. as far as your taana on R moshe, did you see the letter he wrote after goren finally got his heter declassified? this is a joke.June 26, 2013 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #962169
rob: If you can’t see that these cases are identical (if you disallow R’ Sherman’s type of position then you can’t support R’ Goren’s) then you are clearly not being honest with yourself here.June 26, 2013 10:21 pm at 10:21 pm #962170
I heard a psak from Rav Schachter of all people that if the Conservative edim were shomer shabbat and believed in Torah min hashamayim, than the conversion is good. This was stated yeard ago, though, according to the rav I heard it from.June 26, 2013 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #962171
“Please show me an example in halocho where one Bais Din can invalidate another’s psak. “ein davar kazeh”. No such thing exists.
and also wrote:
And-please remember what he did (overlooked by everyone here): he was actually “mattir’ (allowed) an “eishes ish” (married woman) to be free WITHOUT A GET based on his interpretation of matters that happened years ago.
and also wrote:
“As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal.”
Man-o-man you are one confused rabbi of berlin!
What rabbi goren did is exactly what YOU said cannot be done– invalidate a psak of another bais din. In fact he did it twice:
he invalidated the gerus accepted by a bais din (and the psak of the bais din that did the gerus) and also invalidated a psak that his wife’s children were mamzerim. In doing so he made a ger shomer mitsvos into a non-jew,
a woman who married without a get into a kashera, and her children into ksherim. Just what YOU said he had no authority to do!
you are inconsistent and your thinking is confused.
Also it is outrageous to imply that Rav Moshe used really invalid reasons to permit a mamzer. You called them ‘outlandish’ but that is what you implied. In at least one tshuva he answered that there was no question to deal with, the subject (or subjects, I forget) were obviously mamzerim. He rejected the valiant tries of the Rav who asked the shaila, basically calling them (without using the word) ridiculous. You would have called them outlandish resons and thought they should have been used.June 27, 2013 12:22 am at 12:22 am #962172
Nitpicker: Do we know he was actually still Frum? The way I heard it, it was a Machlokes between the pro-Goren and anti-Goren crowds as to what actually happened to him. Some say he was Frum and living in B’nei B’rak. Others say he was Chozer L’suro in Poland. Does anyone have any proof either way?June 27, 2013 12:58 am at 12:58 am #962173
wow! The kool aid drinkers have come out en masse! Allow me to answer the comments one by one.
First=the case of Rav Goren was that the woman had children from teh SECOND husband without getting a get. The only way to make sure that these kids were not mamzerim was to invalidate the FIRST husband’s conversion,therefore making her a free woman. Rav Sherman’s psak was just the opposite: he allowed the woman to go free (and presumably get married and have children) and thereby INCREASED the possibility of mamzerim . If you posters cannot see the difference , I cannot help you, your minds are closed forever.
popa- I am not sure where my phraseology differs. I called Rav Sherman by his title and have not shown any animosity towards him. I even even said that he is fully allowed to exercise more stringent acceptance in his Bais DIN. I believe that he erred grieviously when dismissing ALL OF RAV DRUCKMAN’s conversions. Now, that is chutzpah.
Toi- In spite of what you say, no one has actually shown that Rav Goren’s sevoro was not valid.Ironically, all of these rabbonim who attacked Rav Goren viciously now stand up and speak on behalf of Rav Sherman- who did what Rav Goren did. It is correct to say that Rav Goren did it by invalidating a previous conversion ,but he did it to AVOID MAMZERIM. It was a political move by the chareidi establishment to oppose him because they wanted to disqualify Rav Goren- who was equal to them in stature and learning.
Sam2-see above. Rav Goren had a compelling reason to invalidate the earlier conversion- Rav Sherman did not and compounded it by letting the woman go free without a get. I am being very logical.Plus, do you really think that invalidating ALL the conversions was a logical step??
nitpicker- you should be more respectful of your posting name. There was no Bais Din that gave a psak that the children were mamzerim. They would have been that if not for Rav Goren’s intervention. And you must be hallucinating when you say that he “made a shomer mitzvos into a non-Jew’ The man sure wasn’t shomer mitzvos when he went back to his goyishe roots.
AS far as R’Moshe zz’l is concerned, i don;t know the teshuva you are referring to but there are numerous “ammseh rav’ where Rav Moshe did everything not to passel the children.June 27, 2013 12:59 am at 12:59 am #962174
rebdoniel: exactly. If all the facts of the conversion are present, and the Dayanim are shomer torah, the conversion is valid.June 27, 2013 1:12 am at 1:12 am #962175
Politics sadly gets in the way of halakha.June 27, 2013 1:28 am at 1:28 am #962176
To all posters: To refresh my memory about Rav Shlomo Goren and the “langer case” (that was the family’s name), I googled Rav Goren and Langer. You will see that the reasons that the Poskim of that day who opposed Rav Goren used are exactly the OPPOSITE of the reasons given now to support Rav Sherman. (Incidentally, it was Rav Attias who wrote the first psak ,invalidating the geirus) So, hypocrisy is rampant, except that Rav Goren did it to AVOID mamzerim and the present ruling will bring about mamzerim. There are many other differences but this is the substance of the arguemtn and Rav Goren really had the better of it.June 27, 2013 2:22 am at 2:22 am #962177
ROB: I don’t disagree with you about Rav Sherman. I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy here. I think that Rav Sherman went well outside his bounds here and there is a reason he hasn’t received much support from the Gedolei HaPoskim on this. I disagree with you about R’ Goren. The logic used is not inherently invalid. If the Beis Din is Passul, then it’s Passul. And if Rav Goren had gone around for backing from the major Poskim (who were on a much, much higher level than he) he wouldn’t have had any problems. If he had had R’ Shlomo Zalman’s, R’ Moshe’s, R’ Elyashiv’s, etc. backing, even one of them, this would have been a near-non issue. He would have been attacked, but he could have supported himself. He went unilaterally against all of the big guns. And unilateral attempts by random Talmidei Chachamim to make sweeping Halachic policy changes without the backing of the Gedolim, have, historically not ended well for the person attempting them. He was wrong in considering himself on that level. Just as Rav Sherman was wrong in trying to invalidate R’ Druckman.June 27, 2013 3:39 am at 3:39 am #962178
“the Poskim of that day who opposed Rav Goren used are exactly the OPPOSITE of the reasons given now to support Rav Sherman. “
Correct. Except that Rav Goren pasuled a single conversion after an investigation. No reasonable person could object to that. Rav Sherman pasuled thousands of conversions without hearing the individuals involved. There is no basis in halachah for doing that, and the talmud has horrible things to say about dayanim who decide cases without hearing from all parties involved. Rav Sherman should have the status of a Reform Rabbi and fortunately the Dati judge on the Israeli Supreme Court overturned his outrageous decision.June 27, 2013 3:40 am at 3:40 am #962179
it seems that we do know and that he was far frumer than his wife.
he moved voluntarily to ey after his wife left.
please note, it was not my intention to post a judgement of Rav Goren’s psak. what I wrote were simply facts that I thought were not at all in question, and I was surprised at your question. Who ever told rob he went back to his roots? yes, people claimed that, to prove he never meant to be mekabel mitsvos, but there is no evidence. It seems to have been made up at the time of the affair.
Rabannim made a point of inviting him for shabbos to show respect for him
to ROB who wrote “there was no bais din that paskend them for mamzerim”. I am sorry but that is revisionism. there certainly was.
and I remember them proclaiming that they were crying at the time of the case and they saw no way out.
and also to rob, of course you wouldn’t be aware of that tshuva, since it doesnt match your thesis.
of course rav moshe did everything to avoid mamzerus and to free agunos. that is what a rav is supposed to do. and rav moshe zatzal had a great koach l’hatir. but how dare you accuse him of just accepting or inventing silly heterim because the halacha is inconvenient!? he was an orthodox rabbi. are you?
and to poppa.
boy! you really started something here!June 27, 2013 3:43 am at 3:43 am #962180
“What a shanda! I followed Linzer’s daf yomi for meseches nida and it was loaded with prost language, the jargon of his audience and students no doubt. And his daf yomi shiur included women. He has no eidelkeit and that separates the real talmudei chachamim and roshei yeshiva from the imposters.”
I attended Rabbi Linzer’s daf yomi shiur IN PERSON for almost all of meseches nida. I was there and I take strong exception to your outrageous comments. Rabbi Linzer is a tremendous talmid chacham and he treats the subject matter without cutting corners or apologetics. Much of nida is very detailed and graphic and it requires accurate language to be used if you want to learn it. I personally teach medical students very non-tzniut stuff and you would not ever want to be treated by a doctor whose professor cut corners on language.
And yes, Rabbi Linzer’s daf yomi shiur is attended by women. My wife is now a regular attendee. What is the problem with that?June 27, 2013 3:46 am at 3:46 am #962181
“I heard a psak from Rav Schachter of all people that if the Conservative edim were shomer shabbat and believed in Torah min hashamayim, than the conversion is good. “
I heard something like that in the name of Rav Schachter from my own rav; IIRC the qualification was that the “Conservative” dayanim had to be fully observant, not just Shabat observant. Of course, if you are fully observant and profess belief in Torah Mi Sinai, you are actually Orthodox regardless of what you call yourself.June 27, 2013 3:55 am at 3:55 am #962182mddMember
ROB, This is outrageous! you can’t twist Halochos just because you want to kasher a mamzer! When it’s to your liking you consider someone a Ger, but in a different situation where you need some heter you don’t consider the same type of person a Ger!June 27, 2013 10:28 am at 10:28 am #962183moshe_DMember
Rabbiofberlin- does that have some kind of connotation to the haskala movement that started in Germany? Seriously, that’s what it sounds like. You base your opinion of a halachic ruling by Rav Sherman on a google search?! If you want to intelligently argue the subject, I suggest that you read the actual psak (maybe using google translate if the Hebrew is too difficult). Rav Sherman found in a case that was brought to HIS beis din (actually the highest beis din in the rabbinate in Israel) that Druckman forged (!) conversions. Druckman signed on conversion certificates attesting that he personally converted them when in fact it was proven that at the same time he wasn’t around (druckman later admitted to that). Rav Sherman’s ruling was based (partially) on the fact that there was forgery on the part of the beis din of druckman which disqualified him and his beis din. I would also note that Rav Elyashiv zt”l was consulted all along the way by Rav Sherman while he drafted his ruling. As for Goren, it’s another discussion as I’m running out of space…June 27, 2013 10:40 am at 10:40 am #962184moshe_DMember
Continued- as for Goren, he used his own political ambitions to distort his view on Halacha in order to nullify a marriage. Something is always suspect immediately when in order to issue his ruling he had to classify the entire psak. I don’t know if you’re aware, but psakim have always been made public (certainly never classified) in order to engage in public/peer scrutiny so that the TRUTH will be made clear. Historically, the case went through a few batei dinim but was always thrown out for halachic reasons, so all of a sudden goren is the only one (!) to rule what he did. The political anger and his ostracizing is righteous since he blatantly disregarded many batei dinim, poskim, rabbonim and talmedei chachomim and was matir the mamzeirim for his own political gain and benefit. That kind of outright brazenness and disregard to Halacha was what earned him his deserved “cheirem”. Rav Moshe zt”l was also anti Goren’s ruling and scoffed at it.
Stating that Rav Moshe zt”l went out of his way to keep children legitimate is inaccurate as it connotes that chas v’shalom he disregarded Halacha to do that. Rav Moshe zt”l used his incredible insight and knowledge in order to help klal Yisrael but one must not forget that there is a Halacha called mamzeirus and if halachically you can’t get around it then ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??.June 27, 2013 11:34 am at 11:34 am #962185
And yes, Rabbi Linzer’s daf yomi shiur is attended by women. My wife is now a regular attendee. What is the problem with that?
Absolutely nothing. I have no problem with women attending his shiur, because he is not teaching torah anyway.
I don’t think men should attend his shiur though, because he teaches apikorsus.June 27, 2013 2:05 pm at 2:05 pm #962187truthsharerMember
What’s wrong with my post? If you’re going to attack MO rabbanim for making mamzerim, the least you can do is do the same for Yeshivish rabbanim.
It’s not like it’s just me saying that. The “entirety” of rabbanim got involved but ultimately, money spoke louder.
There are tons of correspondance about this issue, one just has to ask their local rabbi for information to see the destruction.June 27, 2013 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm #962188
Either a later Bais Din can passul an earlier Bais Din that performed a conversion or it cannot. If, as a rule, a later Bais Din cannot passul the earlier Bais Din, then what Rabbi Goren did was invalid, regardless of his sympathetic motives.
If one agrees that a later Bais Din can passul an earlier Bais that performed a conversion, then whether Rabbi Sherman is right depends on the facts regarding the conduct of the earlier Bais Din, not on a halachic rule.
Reb Moshe, as were many other poskim throughout the ages, was often maikil to be declare that someone was not a mamzer. But being maikel does not mean being “outlandish” or foregoing halacha, chas v’shalom. Being maikel means relying on a shita or a svara, that is valid but that one would not rely on under ordinary circumstances.June 27, 2013 2:50 pm at 2:50 pm #962189
“Rabbi Linzer is a tremendous talmid chacham and he treats the subject matter without cutting corners or apologetics. Much of nida is very detailed and graphic and it requires accurate language to be used if you want to learn it.:”
I have been learning in a regular daf yomi shiur for many years. In addition, I also regularly learn and review the daf with various magedei shiur on on-line sites, including: the Orthodox Union site, the YU site, the Toronto Kollel site.
If you go to these sites, you will observe how real talmedei chachomim speak.
Accurate language does not mean prost language. And proper or technical language does not diminish accuracy. There is a tznius in speech; especially when you have women listening.
I have not seen any Artscroll publications or the like use the prost language of Linzer to enhance the learning, nor have I heard it from any of the ehrlich magedei shiurim.June 27, 2013 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #962190
I don’t know what language you are referring to, but if you learn those sugyos in Nidda with an Artscroll gemara you will see that it uses the proper, precise and technical terms that if used in ordinary conversation would be considered “prost.”
There are some parts of Nidda that simply can’t be understood without getting into the nitty-gritty of female anatomy.June 27, 2013 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #962191☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
Popa, women are allowed to hear apikorsus?June 27, 2013 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #962192
WOW! The emotions that this subject engenders! Before answering some of the points mentioned, I will say that,unequivocally, the opposition to Rav Goren zz’l was political. For all of you who accuse me (rightfully so) that I don’t know enough to argue with other great Poskim, I must tell you that Rav Goren learned in the greatest yeshivos (Chevron) ,was considered an “iluy” and, if he would have knuckled under to the chareidi establishment, would have been considered one of the great Poskim of his generation.
He chose another way- he became a zionist, went to the Army and became a vocal proponent of Medinat Israel. THAT – the chareidi establishment could not forgive and they hounded him througout his life.Way before the Langer case, Rav Goren was attacked for everything he did- from the kashrus in the Army, for his strong support of the religious Zionists and others. So please don’t come and tell me that opposition to him was sincere . It was political.
Sam2-Rav Goren had the same credentials as the other Poskim- he just did not fit into the little box that chareidim wanted. Others suffered the same way from the intolerance of the chareidi world.See Rav kook on Eretz Yisroel, see R’Moshe Feinstein on artifical insemination.See other “zionist” Poskim,including your beloved Rav.
As far as the Langer case and halocho. You can see from the hysteria of some posters that they have no clue about history and what Poskim have done to allow agunos to marry and children to be considered legitimate. They have gone to great lengths for this.
I have not read Rav Goren’s psak in full, this case being over fifty years old. Hence, I googled to familiarize myself with that case.
First of all, the person in question (Borokowsky) never was a shomer mitzvos-contrary to what “nitpicker’ says. Secondly, there were four reasons why Rav Goren said that the Langer children were not mamzerim- and only one was the overturning of a previous conversion.
Thirdly- as charliehall says- Rav Goren did it ONCE, and he did it with Kulos, something Poskim have done forever. Rav Sherman’s basi Din and Rav Attias invalidated ALL the conversions that Rav Druckman, without investigating any of them! Now, that is unprecedented. And Rav Attias wrote in the most intemperate way about Rav Druckman.
to mdd and Moshe-D: First, you should know that, through the generations, Poskim have done everything they can to allow children of suspected unions to marry. The main reason is simple:” Mamzer vadai omar rachmono vleo mamzer soffek” (If you don’t know what that means- zil gemor!).In many teshuvos, they go through contortions to find a hetter. R’Moshe did the same. I only said ‘outlandish’ to point out that Poskim grasped at every possibility and they were right in doing so. So, spare me the insults and go look up the many cases.
Beninungman= No one here ever went against halocho-certainly not Rav Goren. But he, like all other Poskim before him, looked for a way out and a kulo. He found it in one case and used it. R”Moshe used it in many cases, to his great credit!
As far as a bais din, look, you or others, dont have to be “meshadech’ with Langer’s children but you cannot “passel’ Rav Goren’s psak ,as he tried his best to help klal Ysroel.June 27, 2013 4:27 pm at 4:27 pm #962193
Correct. Except that Rav Goren pasuled a single conversion after an investigation.
correct. And let’s not leave out that he did so after many rabbanim investigated and declared the gerus kasher.
again I am stating a fact, not an opinion about the fact.
and to add a historical note to what moshe_d wrote,
not only was the psak detail itself ‘classified’ but the names of the other rabannim on the ad-hoc bais din were kept secret!
remember, just a historical fact, not posting an opinion about it.June 27, 2013 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #962194
and moshe_d wrote to ROB
“maybe using google translate if the Hebrew is too difficult”
And then using google mefaresh, if he still doesn’t get it.June 27, 2013 5:28 pm at 5:28 pm #962195shalom2010Participant
Why do Chareidim think that the Torah was given only to them? The torah was given to every Jew. No one groupo has monopoly over it.
So long as they agree to abide by its laws, any group is valid.June 27, 2013 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #962196jewishfeminist02Member
“…And proper or technical language does not diminish accuracy. There is a tznius in speech; especially when you have women listening.”
So…wait one second…
You are telling me that hilchos niddah, which concerns the halacha governing women’s bodies, needs to be discussed in delicate terms BECAUSE THERE ARE WOMEN PRESENT????
Are you kidding me?!!?!
I think women can handle hearing about their own bodies. If you are going to argue tznius, tell me that hilchos niddah should be discussed delicately in the presence of MEN. Hashem yirachem.June 27, 2013 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #962197
rob: You are wrong. The only place where R’ Goren is on the level of the other major Gedolim is in your mind. I (and many others) have learned his Seforim and his contemporaries’ Seforim. He’s not there. Other (more or less) Dati L’umi Poskim were accepted by their contemporaries as major Poskim (R’ Uziel, R’ Unterman, R’ Hertzog, the Yaskil Avdi, R’ Aviner, R’ Rimon,even R’ Amar is pretty L’umi). There’s a reason R’ Goren wasn’t on that level and it’s not politics.June 27, 2013 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #962198
“sugyos in Nidda with an Artscroll gemara you will see that it uses the proper, precise and technical terms that if used in ordinary conversation would be considered “prost.””
Artscroll language is never prost and neither is the speech of yirei shomayim who manage to find proper tzniusdik albeit technical and descriptive verbiage.June 27, 2013 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm #962199truthsharerMember
BTW, the biggest meikil on mamzerim in the US was R’ Moshe Feinstein. R’ Henkin (who was THE gadol hador in the US) rules that a Conservative (maybe even Reform) marriage requires a get. R’ Moshe holds that they don’t need a get.
According to R’ Henkin, those children from second marriages would be mamzerim, since the first marriage is still valid.June 27, 2013 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #962200
Before answering some of the points mentioned, I will say that,unequivocally, the opposition to Rav Goren zz’l was political.
You mean like when he ran for political office and to convince people to vote for him he promised to be mattir mamzerim that all other rabbonim said was assur?
That kind of political?
Why do Chareidim think that the Torah was given only to them? The torah was given to every Jew. No one groupo has monopoly over it.
Because we are primarily the ones who learn it and follow it. We’re actually being melamed zchus on you guys that you just never received it.June 27, 2013 6:19 pm at 6:19 pm #962201HaLeiViParticipant
Benign, what you write does not negate Cherrybim’s important point.June 27, 2013 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #962202
Sam2- I respectfully disagree. I am not going to enter into a discussion “whose godol is bigger?” but you are wrong in saying that other dati leumi Poskim were accepted. When was the last time Rav Unterman’s piskei halocho were mentioned? When was the last time Rav Herzog’s piskei halocho were honored? Even Rav Zvi pessach Frank zz’l piskei halocho are on the second shelf because he was close to the Rabbanut. BTW- I don’t know how old you are but I go back to the 1960’s when Rav Goren was the greatest dati leumi Possek in israel and this was his sin: he was an ardent Zionist.June 27, 2013 6:53 pm at 6:53 pm #962203
popa -Your nonsensical answers to me in an earlier posting deserve that I ignore your comments but I’ll answer your comments in a similar vein: does that make the opponent’s view less political?June 27, 2013 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #962204dafbiyunParticipant
Benign and Feminist: If you each would have taken the time to actually listen to Linzer’s daf yomi shiur you would quickly see that it is not his description of anatomy that is particularly objectionable.Rather, he repeatedly uses a three letter word (as a verb)which has never before been heard inside the walls of a bais medresh.Moreover, he uses the word deliberately and with great gusto,apparently proud of his liberated mind and audience.I don’t see how anyone can not view him as a menuval. Additionaly,he has no problem describing his view of a Tosfos as being “far feched” and then just proceeding on with his shiur.I started feeling ill after listening to about a half an hour of him.June 27, 2013 7:15 pm at 7:15 pm #962205
Science is not “prost.” If people think using anatomically-correct terms instead of krepel or schmeckie is inferior, then that is simply an insult to any intelligent, mature person who has ever studied Anatomy and Physiology, or taken a health or sex ed class. It also reflects how little many of our ilk reject science or any kind of higher learning. It is not “prost” for male doctors and health professionals to learn about gynecology, just as there is nothing inherently wrong or improper about rabbis delving into niddah and the complex issues surrounding it. Better to be mature about niddah than view it as the Karaites did.
R’ Henkin, zt”l, felt that if a couple got a civil marriage or even cohabitated and lived as a married couple would, they would need a get.June 27, 2013 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm #962206
It fascinates me how people who justify overturning conversions will cite the Langer Case. Poskim historically have bent over backwards to avoid agunot and mamzerim; what is done in these cases cannot be extrapolated to general psak.June 27, 2013 7:41 pm at 7:41 pm #962207
Popa, women are allowed to hear apikorsus?
yeah, I realized I was setting that up, but didn’t really care. Of course women should also not go to his “shiur”June 27, 2013 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #962208
First of all, the person in question (Borokowsky) never was a shomer mitzvos-contrary to what “nitpicker’ says.
Since you have posted this three times, it must be true,
as we learn from the bellman in THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK.
I therefore stand corrected.June 27, 2013 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #962209jewishfeminist02Member
I am sorry but I just listened to Rav Linzer’s daf yomi shiur and I have no idea what you’re talking about.June 27, 2013 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #962210
When poskim “bend over backwards” there still has to be a rational basis in halacha. A posek can’t just make a up something to be matir a mamzer. For Rabbi Goren to have done what he did, at the very least he must have held that a later Bais Din is capable of declaring that a previous Bais Din had not properly performed the conversion and therefore the person was never megayer.
Now it is possible that a later B”D is capable of “passuling” an earlier B”D, but that this power is only used in rare and extreme ciumstances, and Rabbi Goren held that the Langer case was such a circumstance. But at the very least that power must exist.June 27, 2013 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #962211
“just as there is nothing inherently wrong or improper about rabbis delving into niddah and the complex issues surrounding it. Better to be mature about niddah than view it as the Karaites did.”
Nice diversion tactic, but it won’t work; CR posters aren’t that naive.
Weiss might call Linzer a rosh yeshiva, and Linzer might think he’s a rosh yeshiva; but to a Rosh Yeshiva, Linzer’s no rosh yeshiva.June 27, 2013 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #962212
A posek can’t just make a up something to be matir a mamzer.
Just to enlarge on that a bit, there is no reason for him to want to either. His job is to do his best to find a valid heter because that is what the Torah wants him to do, not because he wants to get around the torah.
I am sure most of the readers and posters here understand this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.