מדברי מחאה של הגאון ר' א. י. סולובייצ'יק שליט"א
ראש ישיבת בריסק
נפל דבר בישראל
באמריקה התירו אשת איש לשוק רח"ל בלא גט -
זהו נבלה ממש
וחוץ מעצם הענין שאין רצוני ליכנס בזה שהוא באמת חמור מאוד
הרי אף במקום שצריך ליכנס להתיר עגונות ישבו רבותינו האחרונים שבעה נקיים עד שהוציא פסק
וגם בזה לא היה להם די והתנו ההיתר בהצטרפות עוד גדולים
וכאן עושים כאילו הוא דבר של מה בכך
ורשעים במחשך מעשיהם התירו ולא התירו
כאן בארץ ישראל כשרצו להתיר שני ממזרים הפכו את העולם
חובה גמורה על הרבנים וראשי הישיבות באמריקא לזעוק צעקה גדולה על זה
והרי זהו אחריות עצומה על כל המשך הדורות באמריקה כי זה פתח לכל מיני רבנציקעש שיוכלו לעשות ככל העולה על רוחם
הכל בא מהקולדז וכו'
ואסור ללמוד אצל ראש הישיבה כזה וכמבואר ברמב"ם על הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה
There was no protest, was there, by Brisk when Dayan Shermand and R Attiya "annulled" conversions, allowing women to remarry without a get.
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore?
ReplyDeleteDraw your own conclusion..
ReplyDeleteWow! I am simply overwhelmed by your arguments
ReplyDeleteI know your arguments, and you know mine.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Soloveitchik mentions a storm in the case of the freeing of mamzerim in the 70s. He calls for an equal storm for this case.
There was also a storm in the case of the conversion annulments 10 years ago, but the storm was from the national religious side, and not the Hareidi side.
Even in the case of dayan Sherman, he was arguing against the opinion of Rav Daichovsky, and rav amar. He didn't actually succeed in the rabbanut Beit din, so he set up his own private BD.
To be more precise - in the 1970s case, the safeik Ger could not name the BD that covnerted him, or the rabbi that married him, or even complete "Shema Yisrael..."
ReplyDeleteYet there was a storm that this conversion was annulled.
In the case of the Druckman BD, the converts could name
the BD, they had records of their ketubah, for example, and one lady wanted a Get lefi halacha. She was told she doesn't need one becasue her covnersion isn't valid!
So it is very clear, even by kal v'chomer, that the case R' Goren had to annul was much much stronger, and halachically valid than the case of D' Sherman or Attiya.
How many times are you repeating this nonsense?
ReplyDeleteWhat is nonsense about it?
ReplyDeleteYou are not convincing anyone about Goren
ReplyDeleteyou are not convincing anyone about Sherman.
ReplyDeletebut another thing you are not doing, is answering the question I ask you.
Look at Rav Eliyahu, do you think he was convinced by Sherman?
Even his father, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu ztl, said that R Druckman's absence form some of the BD sessions does not invalidate the giur, and this was also stated by Rav Shapira ztl.
Also, regarding rabbi Goren, there is and was a dividing line between the tzioni world and the hareidi world. Basically, 99% of Dati leumi support him, maybe 80% of American mo. I'm not qualified to convince anyone, but I am scientifically trained, and there is a clear and obvious perversion of logic in the pro -Sherman camp. I don't know rav Sherman himself. Or if he has addressed this question. He did say he was in the rabbanut under rav Shlomo Goren. If and why he disqualifies rav Goren is not known to me.
ReplyDeletetotally irrelevant1
ReplyDeleteWow so you are scientifically trained -so am I. Totally irrelevant
ReplyDeleteWow, so you follow rav shach ' view that rambam learnt his logic from Talmud alone?
ReplyDeleteI've met plenty of rabbis who suppress their academic studies.
are you saying that external logic has no place in halacha?
ReplyDeleteNo but it is not the issue in geiros
ReplyDeleteGeirus is no different from any other area of halacha, you cannot say that kal v'chomer does not apply in this or that area.
ReplyDeleteI presented a kal v'chomer - that in the Langer case, there was no recolelction of which BD converted the man, or which rabbi married him.
In the Atiiya case, the BD was known, the rav was known. In that section of the conversion (which does not exclude other sections), the case for doubt is much stronger in Goren's psak than in Atiiya/Sherman. This is not even external logic, it is internal kal v'chomer, which is Talmudic logic.
Nope!
ReplyDelete