Showing posts with label The mitsvah to publicize the wickedness of the Kaminetsky father and son in telling a woman to remarry without a GET and have a mamzer.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The mitsvah to publicize the wickedness of the Kaminetsky father and son in telling a woman to remarry without a GET and have a mamzer.. Show all posts

Sunday, July 17, 2016

from my brother Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog daattorah.blogspot.com - The Kaminetsky perversion of the halacha, must a Gadol give permission to complain?

from my brother Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog daattorah.blogspot.com:

Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Summary: Does a gadol have to give permission to protest against Rav Shmuel Kaminetky's heter 
Question: Regarding my posts about the terrible perversion of Torah and halacha that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has engineered with his production of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter - how could I publicize this matter without a psak from gedolim (i.e. Daas Torah) that it was permitted and also being told explicitly what kind of publicity should be done?
Answer:
1) Rav Sternbuch in his letters regarding this matter has made it clear that we are required to  publicize and protest this perversion where a woman was allowed to remarry without first receiving a Get. He does not mention anything about remaining quiet unless you personally receive a psak to protest.
November 2015 letter          November 2015 parsha sheetJanuary 2016 letter
2) However even without Rav Sternbuch's explicit statement as well as the many public letters of major rabbis attacking this heter - there is no halachic source which requires a person to ask a person viewed as a gadol or even ask a rabbi. Obviously if the determination that something wrong has been done comes from a single individual it is a good idea to confirm with a competent rabbi that his evaluation is correct. But in the case of this "heter" there are many strong letters of condemnation from major rabbis and there are no dissenting voice that the heter is valid - that is simply not an issue. The consensus is that Tamar is an eishis ish who is living with a man who is not her husband.