March 12, 2017 4:20 am at 4:20 am #1225607
ubiquitin: A freilichen Purim!
To answer your queries, I do not accept as “torah misinai’ what is said by some of the people you mention. It has never been conclusively proven why Rav Goren’s psak should not be accepted. As Avi K points out, this particular “hetter’ is used with great abandon by chareidi Poskim today- invalidating thousands of Geirim on the same basis. Rav Goren only meant it as a psak in that one instance whereas chareidi Poskim -today!- use it to “passel” thousands of good Geirim. That, by definition, reeks of politics.March 12, 2017 10:14 am at 10:14 am #1225608
Ubiquitin, this is obviously lashon guzma. If Rav Goren paskened on something in agreement with the gedolim mentioned obviously they would not say that those pesakim are invalid. This in fact, has a long tradition.
The Maharshal wrote about the Migdal Oz:
?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????, ????? ??? ????? ???? (????? ???”? ?????), ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???’ ???? ????? ???? (??”? ????? ?”? ??’ ?).
The Raavad’s comments about Rambam are also famous.
See on this Chavat Yair 152 (generally printed after Sefer Chafetz chaim).
Parenthetically, once I wrote an article opposing the Carlebach Kabbat Shabbat and one of the rabbanim in my community wrote a blistering reply in which he called me a chutzpan. I was very pleased that he considered my writing worthy of a rebuttal.
I note that no one has answered my question about the carnival of retroactive cancellations of conversions.
Purim sameach.March 12, 2017 10:47 am at 10:47 am #1225609
It was clearly not a lashon guzma, it was a clear psak that Goren’s psokim can not be relied on. Apparently even retroactively. These were not just signed by an individual, it was signed by gedolim and rabbonim across the board.
You are right that this is consistent with retroactive invalidation that you talk about now, that when someone uses bases for a psak, or as a reason to accept a ger, that is completely out of the realm of Halacha, it has to be protested in the strongest of terms and it has to be made clear that the (in these cases) the geirus never occurred.
A Geirus BD that never requires kabbolas mizvos, the only requirement being army service, is clearly beyond the pale and its geurus is invalid, never happened. Just like all these gedolim paskened by Goren, that his psokim were NEVER psokim.
That a psak, or a geirus, that is made solely for political reasons and has no basis in Halacha is not a psak or geirus and those who do so have proven that even their past psokim or geirus are unreliable and null and void.
Completely consistent.March 12, 2017 11:31 am at 11:31 am #1225610
“To answer your queries,”
I didnt ask any questions in this thread
Yes obviously they dont mean if R’ Goren said the Beracha on an apple is haetz everybody should make a shehakol..
DY (erlier I thoought it was Joseph) said “It’s not for nothing that the gedolim completely passeled Goren as a posek, including gedolim who otherwise generally stayed away from such controversies, such as R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R’ Moshe Feinstein.” You said this wasnt true.
I demonstrated conclusively, at least regarding R” Moshe that it is true and pretty strongly regarding R’ Shlomo zalman
Freilichen Purim to you as wellMarch 12, 2017 11:36 am at 11:36 am #1225611
1. Then the pesakim of those Charidi dayanim are ,in your opinion, completely null and void?
2. The rest is hotzaat shem ra. Who says that army service is considered enough? Who says that Rav Goren’s pesak was for political reasons (and how do you define that term)? What about the above mentioned Chareidi dayanim?
Ubiquitin, you have demonstrated nothing of the sort.March 12, 2017 11:51 am at 11:51 am #1225612
If R’ Moshe wanted to “completely passel R’ Goren as a posek” what would he have to write?March 12, 2017 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm #1225613
By being intentionally obtuse and ignoring facts, you show that you know that your comments are baseless.
I will therefore not respond further to your silliness.March 12, 2017 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm #1225614
Back to the OP, about Sean’s ludicrous statements. That are not even his original idiocies. They were originally spouted by egalitarian rabbits.
What bothers these lunatics so much about Purim is that the nes of Purim was a nes done “b’hester” and seemed to many like regular teva. That is why that cannot handle the nes of Purim. These morons deny that there is hasgocha and that even what appear to be every day occurance include ?????.
That flies in the face of their whole system of disbelief in HKB”H. ????.March 12, 2017 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm #1225615
nisht, just a slight correction. His name is Scott, according to his school classmate, rather than Sean.March 12, 2017 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1225616
According to the 990 forms filed by the anti religious group, Uri ltzedek, his name is Shan Yankelowitz.
Unsurprisingly, the form is full of lies.March 12, 2017 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm #1225617
To the op, Shmuely yanklowitz has said in an interview I heard that when he covered a second time it was more chareidi (his words), and he was living in Lakewood before moving more towards open Orthodoxy?.March 12, 2017 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #1225618
Nisht, I accept your concession of defeat. BTW, I find it very interesting that no one addressing the issue of their lack of a Jewish wedding ceremony (they were married in a church ceremony before his “conversion”). According to Rav Moshe that means that they were never halachically married so it does not matter if his gerut was valid or not.
As for your comments about “Uri ‘Tzedek” while one can agree or disagree with their positions (in general on economic issues I would put much more stock in the opinions of Rabbi Prof. Israel Kirzner’s and Rabbi Dr. Aharon Levine because of their expertise in both Torah and Economics). However, to call them “anti-religious” is hotzaat shem ra. Apparently you want to prove that Haman was right when he said that we are split up and scattered.March 12, 2017 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #1225619
They had a public Jewish wedding and they publicly lived together and were widely known in the community as husband and wife.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.