Click here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail. Learn more Hide
Back
Archive
Spam
Delete
Move to
Labels
More
1 of 1,592
"Don't Draft Our Daughters" - What are the Facts and What Can You Do?
Inbox
| x |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, September 2, 2016
Fight against Drafting Women in US
Thursday, August 25, 2016
From Joe Orlow - A Fraudulent Beth Din makes mamzerim
The fraudulent Feinstein Bais Din has now given the impression to the Torah World that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky is worthy to be the Greatest Gadol in America. The truth is different. Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky a a Shoteh and a Rasha and Rabbi Dovid Feinstein is fitting to be put in Nidui for covering up for Rabbi Kamenetsky's sins.
The crux of the matter is how Halacha is decided. In this case, the Halacha was "Pore'ach Min Ha'Avir", it sprouted out of thin air. We find this decisionmaking process at the crossing of the Red Sea. The horse claimed: "I did nothing wrong. I relied on the driver who gave me directions." The driver claimed: "I did nothing wrong. The horse galloped on its own into battle. I was dragged along into chasing Bnai Yisrael."
What happens, according to the Medrash? The driver is put on the horse and together they are both tossed into the sea.
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky told me that if I want, I can rely on Rabbi Nota Greenblatt in regard to the Heter for Tamar Epstein to marry Adam without a Get from her husband Aharon Friedman. Rabbi Greenblatt says he performed the marriage of Tamar to Adam by relying on the Gadolim, an apparent reference to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. There you have it: "Sus V'Rachvo".
The effect of all this is to corrode the Kedusha of the Jewish Nation. And it leads to absurdities. Rabbi Hillel David told me that he sat on the Feinstein Bais Din and that the Bais Din ruled that Tamar is married to Aharon. Are Tamar's future progeny to be Mamzer in Manhattan but not in Memphis?
Worse than this is that some young Torah Scholars in America are becoming jaded. They think -- consciously or not -- that the Agudath Israel is a corrupt organization. The Moetzes Gadolai Hatorah is corrupt. Their attitude becomes: "Ah! But what can you do?"
What can you do? You can shriek from the rooftops! The Jewish People may be splitting into two Nations that can't marry into each other. We'll survive. But can we survive with a Rabbinate that is cynical and steeped in hopelessness?
The outrage against the Avlah of the Feinstein Bais Din is pent up, but I'm told from a reliable source that the outrage is there. I say that when outrage is repressed, the capacity to become outraged becomes blunted and stunted.
If we don't stand up and protest now, the situation will only deteriorate until we are left barren without anyone who will even listen to our cries.
The crux of the matter is how Halacha is decided. In this case, the Halacha was "Pore'ach Min Ha'Avir", it sprouted out of thin air. We find this decisionmaking process at the crossing of the Red Sea. The horse claimed: "I did nothing wrong. I relied on the driver who gave me directions." The driver claimed: "I did nothing wrong. The horse galloped on its own into battle. I was dragged along into chasing Bnai Yisrael."
What happens, according to the Medrash? The driver is put on the horse and together they are both tossed into the sea.
Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky told me that if I want, I can rely on Rabbi Nota Greenblatt in regard to the Heter for Tamar Epstein to marry Adam without a Get from her husband Aharon Friedman. Rabbi Greenblatt says he performed the marriage of Tamar to Adam by relying on the Gadolim, an apparent reference to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. There you have it: "Sus V'Rachvo".
The effect of all this is to corrode the Kedusha of the Jewish Nation. And it leads to absurdities. Rabbi Hillel David told me that he sat on the Feinstein Bais Din and that the Bais Din ruled that Tamar is married to Aharon. Are Tamar's future progeny to be Mamzer in Manhattan but not in Memphis?
Worse than this is that some young Torah Scholars in America are becoming jaded. They think -- consciously or not -- that the Agudath Israel is a corrupt organization. The Moetzes Gadolai Hatorah is corrupt. Their attitude becomes: "Ah! But what can you do?"
What can you do? You can shriek from the rooftops! The Jewish People may be splitting into two Nations that can't marry into each other. We'll survive. But can we survive with a Rabbinate that is cynical and steeped in hopelessness?
The outrage against the Avlah of the Feinstein Bais Din is pent up, but I'm told from a reliable source that the outrage is there. I say that when outrage is repressed, the capacity to become outraged becomes blunted and stunted.
If we don't stand up and protest now, the situation will only deteriorate until we are left barren without anyone who will even listen to our cries.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Discussion of Marital Intimacy
QUESTIONS ABOUT SPOUSAL SEXUALITY
Question: I have become Orthodox recently and before then had a free sexual life. What is the Torah law about sexuality? What may I do, what is forbidden?
Thank you,
G.
Answer:
Sexuality is an obligation of the Torah, not just rabbinical law. Rashi, and such is indicated in the gemora, requires a couple to sleep together all of the time without clothes, unless the woman is a Nida, (period) of course. So important is this in the eyes of the gemora, that it seriously discusses if someone may sleep with his wife when she is a nida by wearing clothes. That is, the intimacy of sleeping together is part of one's obligation, and perhaps clothes will remind them not to have touching sex. However, the gemora decides this is forbidden. When the woman is not a Nida surely it is obligatory to sleep with her without clothes every night. Nonetheless, today we don't find people doing this. There is, to my knowledge, no support for today's custom, and I have discussed this with senior experts, and they had no Talmud source, either. Thus, the appropriate thing, according to Rashi and the Talmud, is for a Jewish couple to sleep together every night without clothes. The Zohar also insists that people be together without clothes, although it does not mention they must do this every night. Thus, I cannot say that people who don't do the above are sinners, because this may not be the custom in many communities. However, one who does it is surely praiseworthy, as this is the opinion of the Talmud and Rashi, and there is, to my knowledge, no disagreement on this in the Talmud or earlier sages.
Sexual activity that is not intercourse is surely permitted during the day, and should be encouraged, as it strengthens the marriage. If one does these two things, sleeping together every night without clothes, and foreplay during the day without shame, without making a circus, probably, one will be satisfied. If not, however, one should never leave his lusts hanging loose, because to do so is quite dangerous. Very pious people have sinned because they didn't fear their lusts. So, when there is a true lust, and there is no vain emission of seed, anything goes. If there is a chance of emission of seed, this is probably also permitted in case of a severe lust, or in the case of someone, as you mention, who is a BT and can't just get up and walk away from his appetites. Technically speaking, when one engages in foreplay, etc., and by accident there is emission of seed, it is probably okay. Of course, masturbation is wrong, and any deliberate emission of seed is wrong.
There is a discussion in the Talmud and poskim about a woman who cannot become pregnant. What should she do? One opinion (I don't say we accept this opinion as halacha) is that she should practice coitus interruptus. A senior posek asked, "Why not just stop having intercourse?" He answered, "Not having intercourse is surely a sin. Therefore, we maintain the marriage according to that Talmudic opinion by spilling the seed, even if we could avoid the spilling of the seed by ceasing intercourse." I mention this, not to provide halacha, which must come from an actual rabbi who hears all of the particulars of the problem, but to mention this idea, for whatever it is worth, that marriage must be sustained. Probably, zera livatolo that comes about from foreplay, etc., inadvertently, is not sinful. If a person does something knowing that there is a good chance of zera livatolo, we should avoid doing so. However, if we are talking about people with real lusts who must satisfy them, I would not dare forbid it. I might rely upon two things, one, the opinion of Tosfose Rid that zera livatolo is mainly forbidden when one intends to prevent procreation, but not if done for one's sexual pleasures. Secondly, I would rely upon Tosfose in Baitso, 36b, that we pasken according to Reb Shimon, that דבר שאינו מתכוין מותר באופן שאפשר, אפילו על פי המועט, שלא יצא תקלה ממעשיו. Thus, when there is even a small possibility that no emission of seed will occur, if it is a very big shaas hadechak, I would permit it. For other people, however, I would not permit this.
This is a very big problem with people who suddenly find themselves Orthodox and facing NIDA proscriptions. I was once in a Beth Din watching senior rabbis sweat out the warnings of a BT that he could not last. He didn't.
If somebody would ask me how to proceed in NIDA proscriptions for newly religious people, I would be very careful about making them fail. Of course, this is extremely serious halacha, and I mention it here only to provide some background for our situation.
I also mention that the kind of things I write here are based upon decades of working with very sick religious people, some of them who got very sick in sexual matters because of their accepting certain mistaken beliefs, that sex is bad, etc. We do our best to make a poorly written GET kosher, or to permit a woman to remarry when her husband is lost. One of the reasons for this is that if we don't permit it, we are not sure how she will behave.
The Hungarian rabbonim were very strict about shaving beards. They considered it almost a cardinal sin, because a Jew must look like a Jew. However, when the government forbade bearded Jews from marrying, one very senior rebbe permitted shaving. He explained that he did not want bastards brought into the world by frustrated Orthodox or Hassidic bachelors. Whoever rules in a way to make people boil in their lust has done a very serious thing, especially if there are clear sources to be lenient.
Rabbeinu Tam suggests that as one becomes old and is prepared for the other world, he slows down from wordly pleasures, such as sex, at least more than he used to. There are certain s people who may not have much sexual needs in their natures. On the other hand, some people have frightening desires. Most young people surely must engage in sex, with their spouses, because if not, they may, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious says, do it with others. We find among Kabbalists, who were like angels, that they sought to refrain from wordly pleasures in eating and sex, and did only what was obligatory. This does not apply to the vast majority of people, even rabbis. Nonetheless, many people believe that sex is sinful, and this idea is based on ignorance. In one of my Hebrew books, I wrote a lengthy responsa on this. It was based upon a case where a woman with a few children demanded a divorce because her husband, who was not yet thirty, was still not a "person" because he enjoyed sex. This is hideous ignorance, and it destroys marriages, and turns people into finding sex other ways.
Rabbeinu Tam suggests that as one becomes old and is prepared for the other world, he slows down from wordly pleasures, such as sex, at least more than he used to. There are certain s people who may not have much sexual needs in their natures. On the other hand, some people have frightening desires. Most young people surely must engage in sex, with their spouses, because if not, they may, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious says, do it with others. We find among Kabbalists, who were like angels, that they sought to refrain from wordly pleasures in eating and sex, and did only what was obligatory. This does not apply to the vast majority of people, even rabbis. Nonetheless, many people believe that sex is sinful, and this idea is based on ignorance. In one of my Hebrew books, I wrote a lengthy responsa on this. It was based upon a case where a woman with a few children demanded a divorce because her husband, who was not yet thirty, was still not a "person" because he enjoyed sex. This is hideous ignorance, and it destroys marriages, and turns people into finding sex other ways.
Several senior codifiers, including Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, contradict themselves in this matter. In one place they say to do anything, and in another place adjure us to approach sublime levels. It is no contradiction. All of us must realize that we are not hedonists, nor do we want to be hedonists. We want to be spiritual, holy, and removed from anything that could drag us to sin, such as powerful sexual appetites. Therefore, we don't go around encouraging hedonism and certain similar behaviors. However, for one who has a real need for such, it is permitted, and not only permitted, but obligatory, lest he do something terrible. Incidentally, there are many Orthodox women with AIDS because their husbands were not satisfied in the house. There is one MIKVEH in New York City known as homo-central, populated by Orthodox mikveh goers. This has always existed and always will. Therefore, we must deal with our desires according to the Torah and halacha, and not according to some fantasy made up by people against the Talmud, Zohar, and codifiers. (Incidentally, never, ever, allow your child to hang around the MIKVEH.)
The proper thing is to find an equilibrium, and not to become a hedonist. Surely, we don't want to be hungry and go around all day like a bomb ready to be blown up. Each person must find the proper menu for sex, and that menu itself may change as the person develops and ages.
Please tell me if the above is clear and if you have more questions.
Please tell me if the above is clear and if you have more questions.
Return to Top
Shalom,
Dovid Eidensohn
Shalom,
Dovid Eidensohn
What Must a Spouse Do?
Dear Rabbi,
Does a spouse have an obligation to have sex? What is the degree of obligation? What if one person doesn't like what the other person wants?
A.
Dear A,
An Orthodox Jew has sex only with one's own marital partner. Considering the flame of biology, especially in younger people, but active in older people also, this presents a problem. Since your spouse can only have sex with you, and if you refuse, the person has a problem, what should we do?
Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, one of the great Kabbalists, Talmudists and saints of all time, who lived about 800 years ago in Europe, warns us never to ignore our biological needs, and to achieve them with our partner. Otherwise, he warns, we, even pious people, are in danger. This idea is seconded by the great Radvaz, the senior rabbi in the world in the time of Rabbi Joseph Karo of Tsefas, some 500 years ago.
Therefore, the Talmud tells us that a partner must try to accomodate one the other, so the biology does not become obsessed with something that cannot be achieved within the sanctity of marriage. Such biology can be lit like a candle at the wrong time,as the Talmud teaches.
There are, however, two aspects to this. One, let us say that one person, usually the woman, is raised to think that sex is materialistic or worse, and therefore she, out of idealism, wants to minimize sex. We can tell her, as people such as me do tell her, to have sex, as she is mistaken with her idealism. This is easy.
What happens, however, when the husband wants something the wife does not like, not at all? If the wife satisfies her husband, she may become anguished herself. This is a very serious problem. Thus, in general, we can advise people to forget about the tsiniyuse or modesty when it comes to saving a spouse from the evil inclination. However, if by so doing one loses self-respect, we have a great problem.
It is easy to say, hey, maintain your self-respect. It is also not so easy to tell the woman what to do when her husband gives her a disease he picked up with another woman. We have to know that the evil inclination is stronger than most people, and when someone has a problem, it doesn't go away. We therefore encourage people to satisfy their spouse, to make sure that nothing goes outside the home.
Years ago, when I first began working with sexual problems in the community, I found more than I was able to assimilate. I remember the nurse who told me something and tried to restrain her mirth when I had no idea what she was talking about. Those of us who are not there in the emergency rooms just don't know what is going on out there. Those who are active, as I was in my younger years, with child molesters, etc., know that what the Rambam says, that no Jewish community ever existed where there was no adultery, is true today as it always was. I spoke to the Brisker Rov's son, Reb Refoel zt"l, the senior expert on community matters in Jerusalem, and he laughed at me when I presented my limited understanding of just how bad things are. From time to time I think I have reached the end, and then, some therapist or expert laughs at me, and tells me the next stage. You would never believe it, never.
Take it from me. Don't mess around with that yetser Horo. A senior rabbi has said, "Take off the makeup when you go in the street, but don't be modest in the home."
A lengthy responsa on this is available in my Hebrew work, "Teshuvos Bayis Ne'Emon, Laws of Ribbis. It is about monetary law, or usury, but there is on lengthy responsa to a woman who wanted to be too modest, without, of course, mentioning any names.
Shalom,
Dovid Eidensohn
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Joe Orlow talks to Shmuel Kaminetsky about Tamar
I called Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky yesterday. I said I had a Halachic question. I told him that I am working to separate Tamar Epstein and Adam.
I asked him what is the Halacha. Am I doing the right thing or the wrong thing?
He said he didn't know. He said there are Rabbis on both sides.
I asked him that if I stopped trying to separate Tamar and Adam, which Rabbis could I rely on.
He told me I could rely on "the Rabbi in Memphis."
I tried also to bring up with him the Feinstein Bais Din.
I asked him who could Posken for me if I was doing the right thing or wrong thing in trying to separate Tamar and Adam. I asked him if his son, Reb Shalom, could decide this question.
He seemed to indicate "yes". So I left a message for Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky asking him to tell me if I'm doing the right thing or wrong thing.
It is self evident now why Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn calls Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky a Shoteh and a Rasha. It is self evident why Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn says Rabbi Dovid Feinstein is fitting to be put in Niduy.
It is amazing that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky had no difficulty wading into the divorce process of Tamar and Aharon projecting himself as the pre-eminent Torah authority in America. But now he tells me he doesn't know the Halacha. Is that not foolish behavior of the highest order?
I asked him what is the Halacha. Am I doing the right thing or the wrong thing?
He said he didn't know. He said there are Rabbis on both sides.
I asked him that if I stopped trying to separate Tamar and Adam, which Rabbis could I rely on.
He told me I could rely on "the Rabbi in Memphis."
I tried also to bring up with him the Feinstein Bais Din.
I asked him who could Posken for me if I was doing the right thing or wrong thing in trying to separate Tamar and Adam. I asked him if his son, Reb Shalom, could decide this question.
He seemed to indicate "yes". So I left a message for Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky asking him to tell me if I'm doing the right thing or wrong thing.
It is self evident now why Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn calls Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky a Shoteh and a Rasha. It is self evident why Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn says Rabbi Dovid Feinstein is fitting to be put in Niduy.
It is amazing that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky had no difficulty wading into the divorce process of Tamar and Aharon projecting himself as the pre-eminent Torah authority in America. But now he tells me he doesn't know the Halacha. Is that not foolish behavior of the highest order?
Monday, August 8, 2016
Questions from Joe Orlow and Yoni Benamou and answers by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
Torah Questions by Yoni Benamou and Joe Orlow
Answers by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
CONTENT
I
am a Jewish male almost eighteen years of age. Is it wrong for me to be
unmarried at this age, even if I turn eighteen? I can get married now, but
without proper funds I cannot support a family. Am I a sinner?
Answer
to Question One:
The Shulchan Aruch in the beginning of Shulchan Aruch Even
Hoezer tells of the mitzvah of marrying at the age of seventeen or eighteen. See
Even Hoezer 1:3 in Otsar HaPoskim.
Eighteen according to one opinion means when the eighteenth year begins,
and it begins at the conclusion of the seventeenth year. That is, on the
seventeenth year birthday begins the eighteenth year. But the full eighteen
years do not happen until a year passes from the seventeenth birthday and there
is the eighteenth year birthday, when the person achieves a full eighteen
years. But the sin of not marrying begins at the beginning of the eighteenth
year at the seventeenth birthday when the person had a full seventeen years. That
is the time to marry according to this opinion.
Another opinion says that eighteen in the Shulchan Aruch
means not the beginning of the eighteenth year after the full seventeen year
birthday, but it means the final and full eighteen years, that happens at the
beginning of the nineteenth year.
In earlier
generations, a man who refused marriage was taken to the Beth Din and pressured
to marry. See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer I:3 that this pressure began at the
age of twenty. However, the Shulchan Aruch says that this pressure only applies
to one who “does not want to marry.” This person is a sinner. But one who is
actively seeking a shidduch is not pressured.
Also one who is busy learning Torah and is afraid that if he
marries he will have to go to work and not learn, is also not pressured. As
long as he does not have sinful thoughts, he is allowed to continue his
learning. However, if this goes on for a very long time there could be
problems. See Even Hoezer I:3 and Otsar HaPoskim there number 22. See also Even
Hoezer I:4 and Otsar Haposkim on the subject if a learner who refuses marriage
is completely free of marriage or should be told to marry.
I recall years ago when I learned
in Yeshiva and there was a boy a great masmid, always learning. He was also tall
and good looking. But he didn’t marry and was getting along in years. I went
over to him and said, “Look, you are a deeply pious person and want to keep the
Torah. If you had married, you would probably have had children by now. Is this
lack of children not considered by you a Hefsed merubo a “great loss” that
permits people to be lenient in some manners? He soon married.
Why do the
"Gadolim" I speak with not express sympathy for the struggle that
unlearned people have when they witness what appears to be a huge breach of
Halacha? Even an Av Bais Din told me he is in pain at the apparent
transgression in the case of permitting Tamar Epstein to remarry.
Why do these "Gadolim" not express embarrassment for issuing a ruling that smacks of pandering, even if they justify the pandering by saying they must uphold the illusion that "Gadolim" are perfect, or justify it because they must keep the money flowing to their Yeshivas?
What does it mean when "Gadolim" rule in such a way that others will sin based on the ruling and thus ruling in a way that is a Chillul Hashem? Practically speaking, do those who act this way have a Chelek in Olam Haba or is a lifetime of Torah and Mitzvos squandered by one misstep?
Why did the "Gadolim" stumble here? Or have they been playing fast and loose with the rules for years and just got caught here?
The "Gadolim" are acting silly. They say that the couple is forbidden and in the same breath say the couple can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt to stay together. Are the "Gadolim" insane?
Why do these "Gadolim" not express embarrassment for issuing a ruling that smacks of pandering, even if they justify the pandering by saying they must uphold the illusion that "Gadolim" are perfect, or justify it because they must keep the money flowing to their Yeshivas?
What does it mean when "Gadolim" rule in such a way that others will sin based on the ruling and thus ruling in a way that is a Chillul Hashem? Practically speaking, do those who act this way have a Chelek in Olam Haba or is a lifetime of Torah and Mitzvos squandered by one misstep?
Why did the "Gadolim" stumble here? Or have they been playing fast and loose with the rules for years and just got caught here?
The "Gadolim" are acting silly. They say that the couple is forbidden and in the same breath say the couple can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt to stay together. Are the "Gadolim" insane?
END QUESTIONS
From Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
Joe, thank you for your five questions.
Let us take a look at them. We label them as questiontwo A, question two B,
then C then D then E.
Question Two – A group of
questions by Joe Orlow about “Gedolim”
Why do the
"Gadolim" I speak with not express sympathy for the struggle that
unlearned people have when they witness what appears to be a huge breach of
Halacha? Even an Av Bais Din told me he is in pain at the apparent
transgression in the case of permitting Tamar Epstein to remarry.
Answer Two A –
There was a huge eruption of Gedolim in Israel, America and Canada over the
Tamar Epstein scandal. Who was responsible for it? Shalom Kaminetsky, Shmuel
Kaminetsky, and Noto Greenblatt. I don’t know how many people think that they
are still Gedolim. On my blog, I call all of them Mamzer Makers. If Tamar ever
has a baby from Adam almost all rabbonim and Gedolim in the world will consider
the baby a definite mamzer diroayso. So who are the “gedolim” that you refer to
who don’t express sympathy for a huge breach of Halacha?
In truth, it is
not so simple that these three are the whole problem regarding Tamar. Shmuel
Kaminetsky went to David Feinstein who proclaimed that a Beth Din he would make
would adjudicate the situation of Shmuel Kaminetsky and his granting Tamar the
right to remarry without a GET. We are all waiting and waiting for that Beth
Din to adjudicate and nothing happened. Finally, I called up Hillel David and
asked him how the Beth Din could be silent when a woman is married to somebody
not her husband and if she has a baby it is a mamzer. He replied that the Beth
Din was only made as a service to help Shmuel Kaminetsky. It had nothing to do
with the rest of us. If I wanted to know what the Beth Din held, I would have
to ask Shmuel Kaminetsky.
I realized that
this Beth Din is simply an excuse to save Shmuel Kaminetsky as a “gadol” for
the Agudah. I blamed in my blog David Feinstein as an evil person and wrote
that he is worthy of being put in Cherem. Hillel David and the other Dayan are
about the same level. But people realize what happened and there is, especially
on my brother’s blog every day, a severe accounting for what Feinstein did.
Question Two B -
Why do these "Gadolim" not express embarrassment for issuing a
ruling that smacks of pandering, even if they justify the pandering by saying
they must uphold the illusion that "Gadolim" are perfect, or justify
it because they must keep the money flowing to their Yeshivas? End question 2b.
Answer Two B:
The two ninety year old rabbis S Kaminetsky and N Greenblatt may believe what
they want. They are not Gedolim and are known to invent halacha. When Tamar
first became interested in marrying without a GET I called N Greenblatt and
asked him how he could perform a marriage on a woman who is married to somebody
else and has no GET. He replied that Gedolim approved of it. That is a bald
lie. There are no Gedolim who approved it. The permission to marry without a
GET was a process of lies rooted in Shalom Kaminetsky and his father, who
fooled N Greenblatt to make the marriage ceremony. Greenblatt and the two
Kaminetskies are not people who know what it is to be embarrassed even when
they make mamzerim. Next question.
Another Answer
Two B. I believe this is included in answer One. The majority of gedolim were
furious with Greenblatt, and the two Kaminetskies. And when David Feinstein got
involved, there were many negative comnments about his “beth din.” End answer
Two B.
Question 2 C - What does it mean when "Gadolim" rule in such a way that others will sin based on the ruling and thus ruling in a way that is a Chillul Hashem? Practically speaking, do those who act this way have a Chelek in Olam Haba or is a lifetime of Torah and Mitzvos squandered by one misstep? End question 2 C.
Question 2 C - What does it mean when "Gadolim" rule in such a way that others will sin based on the ruling and thus ruling in a way that is a Chillul Hashem? Practically speaking, do those who act this way have a Chelek in Olam Haba or is a lifetime of Torah and Mitzvos squandered by one misstep? End question 2 C.
Answer question
2C: Again, the two Kaminetskies are not gedolim, they are only great in being
wicked and falsifying the Torah. Everybody knows this. The Brisker Rov in
Israel wrote a letter that Shmuel Kaminetsky is forbidden to teach Torah. He is
a real rosho.
Question 2 D - Why did the "Gadolim" stumble here? Or have they been playing fast and loose with the rules for years and just got caught here?
Question 2 D - Why did the "Gadolim" stumble here? Or have they been playing fast and loose with the rules for years and just got caught here?
Ansswer 2 D. No
Gedolim stumbled. Some very wicked and ignorant people stumbled, and they were
savaged by rabbis from around the world who pointed out that their permission
for Tamar to remarry without a GET was based upon plain lies and ridiculous
inventions.
Question 2 E - The "Gadolim" are acting silly. They say that the couple is forbidden and in the same breath say the couple can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt to stay together. Are the "Gadolim" insane?
Question 2 E - The "Gadolim" are acting silly. They say that the couple is forbidden and in the same breath say the couple can rely on Rabbi Greenblatt to stay together. Are the "Gadolim" insane?
Answer 2E –
These like Kaminetsky and Greenblatt are not acting silly and they are not
insane. They are full fledged wicked people who violate the Torah and make
mamzerim. David Feinstein helps S Kaminetsky and he will answer for this
terrible sin. He is not silly and he is not insane. But he backs a mamzer maker
and so he is wicked. And he probably had political reasons to fulfill his
wickedness, such as the need for the Agudah to maintain the fiction that Kaminetsky
is a Gadol. But he is a great sinner, not a Gadol. And David Feinstein belongs
in the same garbage can as Sammy.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Feinstein Beth Din makes a mess of adjudicating Shmuel Kaminetsky.
Top article from Joe Orlow bottom is from Dovid Eidensohn.
Rabbi Dovid Feinstein had a private Bais Din that gave a ruling to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. The Bais Din ruled that Tamar Epstein is married to Aharon Friedman. Despite this ruling, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky had not publicly stated that Tamar should separate from the man that she married in a ceremony performed by Rabbi Nota Greenblatt. I learned that a prominent Rav had asked Rabbi Dovid Feinstein to issue a letter stating Tamar should separate from her second husband. Rabbi Feinstein agreed to write the letter. I called a Rav who is close to Rabbi Feinstein to find out the status of the letter from Rabbi Feinstein. In the course of the conversation, this Rav told me that Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky had told Tamar to separate from her second husband. I called Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and asked him to confirm that he had told Tamar to separate from her second husband. He told me, "I never told anyone to separate." That is an exact quote. I called up a Rav who had sat on the Bais Din with Rabbi Feinstein that issued the ruling to Rabbi Kamenetsky. I told him that Rabbi Kamenetsky told me that he did not tell anyone to separate. The Rav indicated to me that he felt that if Rabbi Kamenetsky did tell Tamar to separate, that she would listen to Rabbi Kamenetsky. I furthermore told the Rav that Rabbi Feinstein had been asked to write a letter telling Tamar to separate. I asked that the Bais Din should tell Rabbi Kamenetsky to tell Tamar to separate. I went on. I asked that the Bais Din make a direct statement telling Tamar to separate from her second husband. This Rav, who sat on this Bais Din, in the nicest way made it clear that none of this would be happening. I said that that I had been told that the great scholars of the generation are responsible for the generation. Rabbi Eidensohn had taught me that just hours before I had this discussion with the Rav. I spelled it out, leaving nothing to the imagination. I said that every time the couple has relations that the Aveira is on the great scholars of the generation (who fail to act and tell the couple to separate on the outside possibility that the couple will listen and separate.) There seemed to be nothing more to add. The Rav thanked me. I returned the thanks. And hung up. END Joe Orlow's article.
David Eidensohn - Reply to Joseph Add these words to the excellent text:
The gemora in Shabbos 54b says that one who has influence to prevent somebody from sinning and does not stop the sinning is punished as if he had committed those sins. That is, there are people who can prevent their families from sinning but not the general public. There are people who have some influence in the general public. There are those who can influence the entire world. A person who can stop the sin of a few people but no more and does not do that is punished as a sinner with the sins of a few people. But one who can influence many people to stop sinning and does not, is punished with the sins of many people.
Thus, a senior group of rabbinic scholars headed by Dovid Feinstein that does nothing to stop Tamar from sinning with Adam, is punished for all of Tamar's sins, but also, all women who learn from this to commit the sin created by the Kaminetsky element have their sins placed upon those who could have stopped Kaminetsky and the other mamzer makers. It is obvious that the Feinstein Beth Din was only an excuse to restore Shmuel Kaminetsky as the great senior rabbi of Agudas Israel, and did nothing to stop Tamar's sins. People realize this and know that great rabbis are only interested in politics, not the sins of the multitude. Thus Feinstein and his Beth Din have a sin of Chilul HaShem, and the sins of people who act like Tamar throughout the world are on his shoulders, and the members of his Beth Din. End Dovid Eidensohn
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Confirmation that Shmuel Kaminetsky never told Tamar to separate from Adam
This has appeared in a recent post where things were longer and more detailed, without saying who learned of this. At this point I add that Joe Orlow from Silver Springs, MD, is the one who spoke to Shmuel Kaminetsky. We mentioned earlier that this is a disgrace that neither David Feinstein or Shmuel Kaminetsky have openly spoken to Tamar and Adam Fleischer to separate. And if they refused, there should be great pressure placed on them. But none of this was done. Our post today confirms this.
From Joe Orlow
I spoke to a person close to Reb Dovid Feinstein who told me that RSK had told Tamar Epstein and Adam Flesicher to separate. I didn't think that was true and I said that I would call RSK and ask him.
Shmuel Kaminetsky and David Feinstein - More Bad News
HOT NEWS!
We hope later to provide more detail. But at this point it seems that somebody close to Reb Dovid Feinstein told somebody close to me, that Reb Shmuel Kaminetsky told Adam Fleischer to separate from Tamar Epstein Friedman.
My friend heard this and called up Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky and was told "I never told anybody to separate."
Recall if you do our previous post that a major Torah authority asked Reb Dovid Feinstein to release a letter stating that Tamar and Adam should separate, and Reb Dovid agreed to do that. Now such a letter is not forthcoming, but we do have Shmuel Kaminetsky openly saying that "I never told anybody to separate."
If so, why did Reb Dovid accept RSK's "teshuva" regarding Tamar Epstein Friedman?
When I wrote in my blog that Reb Dovid Feinstein is "somebody who deserves to be put in cherem" we can see more evidence as above. And of course, our description of Shmuel Kaminetsky as a "mamzer maker" is accurate. Again, we hope to have more on this topic tonight or tomorrow.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
CMR Backs Republican Party Anti-Obama effort to destroy American military with social engineering and forcing women into combat
2016 Republican National Platform Rejects Social Experimentation and Political Correctness in the Military
July 27, 2016
Share/Bookmark
Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, his administration has delivered on campaign promises to impose radical social agendas on our military. The Center for Military Readiness is pleased to report that the 2016 Republican National Convention has resolved to objectively review and repair the damage.
CMR is non-partisan, but for months leading up to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, we worked in various ways to identify a potential Commander-in-Chief who shares our concerns. The 2016 presidential election will be critically important to the future of our military.
The process began in January we asked questions of Republican candidates with the 2016 Quadrennial CMR Presidential Candidate Survey. The dual purpose was to provide background and prepare the various candidates for public questions about CMR issues, and to inform voters of their responses to our survey questions.
Following a long series of primaries in which Donald J. Trump emerged as the nominee, we established contact with the Trump campaign to provide information prior to the writing of the 58-page 2016 Republican National Platform.
The resulting 14-page platform section titled “America Resurgent” includes nine planks of interest to CMR, plus many more statements on national defense that should encourage voters who are interested in national security. This set of solid statements regarding military/social issues provide a clear roadmap for reassessing and eventually reversing much of the damage done to our military since 2009.
Some people believe that a written platform has little meaning, but they are mistaken. The dynamic process of writing the document brings together in a small, intense environment scores of grassroots activists, experts on many topics, lawmakers, and campaign officials who may become part of a new administration that will have power to implement good ideas.
The first step is to recognize that problems exist and to restore sound priorities. The platform calls for an end to social experimentation and an honest assessment of problems that need to be corrected. Because unwise policies that the Obama administration imposed administratively can be undone in the same way, nine platform planks presented and analyzed below challenge the results of political correctness taken to extremes.
The platform approved in Cleveland provides a road map, but voters must choose wisely and demand that its principles be honored.
1. Military Readiness, not Political Correctness
“We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation and will not accept or continue attempts to undermine military priorities and mission readiness. We believe that our nation is most secure when the president and the administration prioritize readiness, recruitment, and retention rather than using the military to advance a social or political agenda. Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.” (p. 44, emphasis added throughout)
Background: The Obama Administration has repeatedly used executive power to impose feminist agendas and LGBT law and regulations implementing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender agenda for the military, regardless of the harmful consequences. This statement puts Republicans squarely on the side of military personnel who have been subjected to political correctness taken to extremes, and signals a change in direction that would assign priority to military readiness, not social agendas.
2. Objective Review and Correction of Military/Social Problems
“We call for an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current Administration’s ideology-based personnel policies, and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action.” (p. 44)
Background: On issues ranging from involuntary service for women in the combat arms to transgenders in the military, the need for honest evaluations and action to repair the damage done to our military since 2009 has become increasingly obvious. Instead of continuing Barack Obama’s social agenda without question, a Republican administration will objectively review the consequences of all social policies and restore sound priorities that put military readiness first.
3. Women in Direct Ground Combat
“We reiterate our support for both the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.” (p. 43)
Background: Unchanging physical requirements in “tip of the spear” direct ground combat units; e.g., Army and Marine infantry, artillery, armor, Special Operations Forces and Navy SEALs, are extraordinary. The missions of fighting teams that seek out and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action go beyond the experience of being “in harms’ way” in war zones, where women have served with honor and courage. In September 2015 the U.S. Marine Corps submitted a formal request for exceptions to the administration’s plans to eliminate women’s exemptions from the combat arms. Scientific research supported that request. In field tests, gender-mixed units underperformed 69 percent of the time. Physical differences that cannot be “mitigated” would have a serious negative effect on what the Marines called “survivability and lethality.”
On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter disregarded the Marines’ best professional advice. Secretary Carter announced plans to impose controversial policies known to impede combat effectiveness and speed while significantly increasing female injuries. In an official Army survey, 92.5 percent of women said they did not want to serve in direct ground combat units, but Secretary Carter confirmed that such assignments would not be voluntary.
Following an open and objective review of the Marine Corps’ 2015 research and developments since then, the next President should take appropriate action to restore combat effectiveness as the highest priority in all direct ground combat communities. In addition, Congress should take steps to codify sound policies regarding women in the military.
4. Military Standards
“In particular, we warn against modification or lessening of standards in order to satisfy a nonmilitary agenda imposed by the White House.” (p. 44)
Background: In 2011 Obama Administration Pentagon leaders adopted as official policy recommendations of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The 2011 MLDC report, which is still cited by Defense Department officials, promoted as paramount goals women in land combat and “gender diversity metrics,” another name for quotas. The concept, which is not the same as non-discrimination or recognition of individual merit, promotes pre-determined demographic goals that have the effect of lowering standards to levels that are “gender-neutral” but lower than before. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus repeatedly has called for one in four Navy personnel to be women, even as he keeps denying the existence of gender quotas. In the interests of true equality, the next administration should end all pressures to achieve gender diversity quotas in the military.
5. Support for the All-Volunteer Force, Not Compulsory National Service
“Our country’s all-volunteer force has been a success. We oppose the reinstatement of the draft, except in dire circumstances like world war, whether directly or through compulsory national service.” (p. 43)
Background: Volunteer service should be encouraged, but reinstatement of a military draft or mandatory national service, on a gender-neutral basis, would be unwarranted extensions of government power that would weaken the special culture of the all-volunteer force.
6. Opposition to Registering Women for Selective Service
“[We] oppose unnecessary policy changes, including . . . Selective Service registration of women for a possible future draft.” (p. 43)
Background: In 1981 the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional young women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations, tying it to military women’s exemption from direct ground (infantry) combat. The court cited a Senate report affirming that the only legitimate purpose of registration or a draft is to find and train “combat replacements,” not support troops. The court also affirmed the right of Congress to exempt women for other rational, fact-based reasons.
Calling up thousands of potential female draftees, most of whom will not meet combat standards, would slow mobilization during a time of catastrophic national emergency, the worst possible time. Congress should review capabilities of the Selective Service system, applying standards of military readiness, not “gender equality.”
7. Religious Liberty
“We support the rights of conscience of military chaplains of all faiths to practice their faith free from political interference. We reject attempts by the Obama Administration to censure and silence them, particularly Christians and Christian chaplains. We support an increase in the size of the Chaplain Corps. A Republican commander-in-chief will protect the religious freedom of all military members, especially chaplains, and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities. A Republican commander-in-chief will also encourage education regarding the religious liberties of military personnel under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the current National Defense Authorization Act.”
Background: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights of conscience and religious liberty for both chaplains and military personnel who are deployed far from home. Servicemen and women have a constitutional right to receive counsel from chaplains who are free to discuss matters of morality during all activities, not limited to worship services. Since 2011, there have been numerous attempts to censure and silence chaplains and people of faith, creating a "chilling effect" and fear of career penalties for exercising rights of religious liberty. In some of these cases, military personnel have had to seek legal defense.
In 2012 and 2013, Congress enacted legislation to protect rights of conscience and religious liberty for military chaplains and people of faith. The law bars adverse discrimination or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment. Chaplains continue to minister to persons of all faiths and backgrounds, as they always have, but they should not be required to endorse certain life choices that traditions of most major faiths consider to be wrong.
8. Special Interest Demonstrations
“We affirm the cultural values that encourage selfless service and superiority in battle, and oppose anything which might divide or weaken team cohesion, including intra-military special interest demonstrations.” (pp. 43-44)
Background: Every year since 2009, the Obama White House has celebrated June as LGBT Pride Month. This and similar events at the Pentagon and many military bases have been used to promote special interest demands of LGBT groups demanding access and benefits for transgenders in the military. In response, the administration unilaterally extended protected civil rights status and medical benefits to transgendered personnel. In the same way that our military does not allow labor unions, activist events promoting LGBT Law and other special interest causes are inherently divisive and harmful to unit cohesion.
9. Military Justice
“We oppose legislative attempts to modify the system of military justice that would undermine its fairness and due process rights for all concerned, both the accuser and the accused.” (p. 44)
Background: Constantly-increasing rates of sexual assault and retaliation against persons reporting harassment have given rise to many constructive reforms to improve military justice. Congress, however, has refused to pass misguided legislation to remove local commanders from decisions regarding prosecution of many crimes, including sexual assault. Legislation based on a presumption of guilt, not innocence, or the premise that accusations alone justify "victim" or "survivor" status, would be demoralizing and unjust.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commanders are accountable for everything that happens in their area of responsibility. This includes decisions to convene courts-martial or to impose career-ending non-judicial punishments. Military Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) advise commanders on legal matters, but they do not need (or want) responsibilities of command. The best way to protect due process is to support and improve legal representation for both the accuser and the accused.
10. Military Superiority
“Republicans continue to support American military superiority, which has been the cornerstone of a strategy that seeks to deter aggression or defeat those who threaten our vital national security interests.” (p. 42)
Background: The 14-page section of the 2016 Republican Platform, titled “America Resurgent,” includes many sound ideas to restore the strength of America’s military, and to restore respect for America worldwide. It begins by quoting Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 23 that the first of the “principle” constitutional obligations of the federal government is to provide for the “common defense” of the United States. It also notes that President George Washington wisely reminded us that “to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
Our All-Volunteer Force is the only institution we have to defend America in a world that faces multiple threats and is far from peace. The statement above has reaffirmed that long-standing, important principle.
What Does the Democratic Platform Say?
The 46-page 2016 Democratic Party Platform, approved by a Platform Committee on July 21, 2016, in Orlando, Florida, includes seven pages with three sections titled “Principled Leadership, “Support Our Troops and Keep Faith with Our Veterans” and “Confront Global Threats.” The document criticizes Republican nominee Donald Trump for having “no strategy for dealing with key threats facing our country, including climate change and ISIS.” (p. 40)
Some provisions are similar to Republican planks, but three sentences state positions on women in direct ground combat and LGBT law in the military that are opposite those of the Republicans. The document does not comment on additional issues highlighted above, except for this statement, which assigns highest priority to inverted priorities on military/social issues:
“Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identifies are honored for their service to our country.” (p. 41)
In contrast, the Republican Platform states in four different places, “We are the party of peace through strength.” (p. 41) For voters concerned about national defense, the choices are clear.
* * * * * * *
The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues. Nothing in this article should be construed as an endorsement of any candidate. More information on all issues discussed is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.
Search
HOME THE CENTER MAKE A CONTRIBUTION CONTACT US© 2001-2016 Center for Military Readiness. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)