- This topic has 171 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Michael Broyde has passiked himself from any nemanus. “
I was not defending Rabbi Broyde, I was responding to a question regarding headcovering for women. The sources Rabbi Broyde lists do exist and a lot of them don’t hold like the Bavli.
You insist that we pasken like the Bavli? Fine, i’ll get a woman to read the Megillat Esther at your Ashkenazic shul next Purim.
“Avi Weiss and his ilk’s attempts “
Had the official rabbinate followed halachah, there would have been no problems. It is amazing to me that so many here defend its many abuses.
So Charlie defends Avi Weiss’ making ?????? because anti halachic individuals and institutions do not like everything the rabbinate does.
And of course the appropriate way to go about this is to use their bastion of truth, the NY Slimes.
Charlie, I have no interest in even looking at anything associated with Broyde.
You silly little comments not withstanding.
Whether or not you approve of R’ Broyde should not be relevant to the issue of women covering hair. If you think there is no source then it shouldn’t be too hard to read his sources and disprove them. If he has valid sources then nothing that he has done will change the truth. So debating about R’ Broyde is a straw man if there ever was one. (I personally have not [yet] read R’ Broyde’s treatment of the subject [nor the various rebuttals] so I do not [yet] have any opinion on the matter.)
nisht: Can you get off your high chair and explain how Rabbi Avi Weiss is making mamzerim? In my mind, it applies more to the Dayanim in Israel that invalidated the geirus – retrospectively!!- of a MARRIED WOMAN -without asking for a get-making her future children mamzerim! NOW- that is making mamzerim!
ROB,
It needs no explanation. Stop with your silliness.
As far as your story, everyone knows that there was no kabbolas mitzvos, so how can there have been a geirus.
The fact that she has no interest in a get alone is proof that there was no kabbolas mitzvos.
back to the original discussion.its a known fact that in Lithuania all rabonim took the path of the OH more so his sefer was on the table of his contemporaries such as the rabbi of pinsk(bais ahron)the reason being that he (OH)was a rabbi/posek)and a posek/rabbi has special siyatta dishmaya this concept is brought from the noda biyehuda. when the tchebiner rov came to israel he stopped paskening because he was no longer a practicing rabbi &therefore lost that siyatta dishmayathe mishna berura was neither a practicing rabbi or rosh hayeshivaps theoh did fall out of favor in certain chassidic circles for his kulos(as did the mahrsham)
nisht: If there is any silliness , it was on the part of these Dayanim in Israel. It is actually not true that there was no kabolas ol mitzvos- a convenient lie. The fact that she was not following all mitzvos many years later has no connection to the original geirus. Please learn your halochos!
But to the main point: by freeing her without any get, they were making sure that any subsequent child was a mamzer. Better to accept the geirus-even if questionable because the results can be corrected than making more mamzerim, which cannot be corrected.
Kiddushin 69a:
?’ ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????
PAA: Meh. Bizman HaZeh there is no such Eitzah to be “Metaher” Mamzerim.
Having been on a leave of absence of several months,but discern that but little has changed
First things first
There are a few reasons how come the OH might have been relegated
A.It’s style was written for a rabbi administering a milieu
The MB,by constrast,was intended to be a “transportable homeland”
B.The Codex form, in general,was always frowned upon by the Ashkenaz leadrship
R o B,
Still spewing?!
Many of geirus Druckman supposedly administered,happened while he was abroad!
There is an interview on record,on which a a brand new “convert”
said right after the ceremony she had zero intent of observing judaism
Anyone can pull an abberant psak out of a hat to prove alomost whatever they so desire.
Ironically it’s the same “crowd” which claims from the other side of their mouths, that halachah doesn’t take place in vacuum.
What were the circumstances?
This world does have a goal!
Will it bring it closer?
Every factor must be weighed
Or do you(plural) pay fealty to a modified version of ‘when there is a halachic will there is a halachic way’ ?!
p.s.Therefore it is utterly ridiculous,and rather revealing, to claim or feign that any earlier great posek would be out of the present mainstream
Sam2,
Not quite. I remember a case (some friends of mine went to the wedding) where Chacham Ovadia allowed it. The boy, a mamzer, married a previously non-Jewish girl who had been looking to convert. She agreed to become a shifcha to marry him with Chacham Ovadiah’s permission. With the obvious plan of freeing the children when they grew up.
Charliehall and PAA,
Rabbi Broyde does not dispute that his sources are not the dominant thread in the halacha. His article was a limud z’chus but there is no debate that most major Rishonim and Acharonim hold that there is an unchanging requirement for a married woman to cover, at least, some of her hair and according to many it is d’oraisa.
benignuman:
Neither Charlie nor myself disagreed with what you said. Charlie mentioned that there are some opinions and these opinions are quoted by R’ Broyde. Nishtdayngesheft promptly started ranting about R’ Broyde. I then pointed out that anything about R’ Broyde is irrelevant to the discussion – look up his sources and see whether the sources exist. The fact that they exist doesn’t necessarily mean that they can be relied upon, but that was not I was discussing. I can’t really speak for Charlie though – it could be that he was trying to legitimize not covering hair. Only he will be able to clarify what his intent was. And even if Charlie was trying to justify not covering hair, my objection to nishtdayngesheft still stands – if you want to dispute the position of not requiring hair covering then the way to do it is to either say that there is no source or that those sources cannot be relied upon for halacha l’maaseh. Attacking R’ Broyde (or Charlie for that matter) is not the way to do it and only distracts from the actual conversation.
Rabbiofberlin,
I went through the teshuvah of the Bais Din that was “mevatel” Rabbi Druckman’s conversions (I think it was posted in another thread, DY?) and they didn’t say that it was because there was no kabolas mitzvos, or because they knew that the individuals weren’t sincere (that would be devarim sh’b’lev). Their reasoning was that there was no kosher Bais Din at the geirus.
benignuman: thanks for the source. I did not read the teshuvah. Whatever was reported was that the Dayan (there was a Dayan in Ashdod, I think, who staretd it all) dismissed the geirus becasue there was no “kabolas ol mitzvos”. Nowhere did i hear it was because there no “kosher’ Bais Din. What makes a bais Din kosher? Three people are sufficient to make a bais din, so i have no idea what that Dayan intended.
In response to “About Time”: You are spewing accusatrions that you cannot document, let alone prove.
This phenomenal myth that the OH was more accepted in Europe is just a myth. Allow me to prove it that this is just not true.
A. The Chofetz Chaim was the recognized Gadol (see many stories that only when he was there it was decided). Also all of his letters in the KOl Kitvey always have him first the Rav Chaim Ozer then either the Lubavitcher Rebbe of the Gerrer Rebbe. Also see that Rav meir Shapiro and Rav Chaim Soliveitchik were machnia to him.
2. The OH quotes the MB 25 times, clearly you see that the MB was so popular that he made it to him. 3. If you look at the KOl Kisvey of the Chofetz Chaim you will find that almost every letter is asking for a set of his sefarim (which is quoted by many Rabonim of his time Achiezer and Shoel Mashiv and more) while if you look at the OH Kol Kisvey you will find a total of 2 maybe 3 letters asking for his sefarim (besides the fact that Orach Chaim was not printed until much later 1910).
If you compare the letters of the Chofetz Chaim to the OH you will see that the CC has correspondence with Rabonim all over the world while every letter of the OH are all addressed to Russia (besides one or two).
To conclude it is all a myth, the CC was the accepted leader of klal Yisrael and his Sefarim were also accepted as such (i’m not saying the OH were not u understand my point). Also Rav Henkin was a Talmid of the OH and Rav Moshe lived in russia so it is no surprise that they held this way while the rest of the world did not.
The dayan was Rav A Sherman, who ironically was hitherto considered charda’l (and had previously spent a sabbatical at YU) but the moment he showed his sincerity and straight shooting ehrlichkeit his past was erased and he was ostracized as chareidi!
Replying to Shulchanhashalem, I think that proof that the OH was the mainstream posek is that many of his pesokim is what was done by mainstream yidden in Europe, as opposed to things in MB which are being taken on in the last few decades.
For example – I know from a resident of Krakow that they would use a “hackmesser” on Shabbos, something the OH allows and the MB forbids. I believe that there are many examples of this.
Whilst the CC may have been considered the godol hador (and definitely in his latter years when he was the last of his generation of gedolim due to his advanced age), the OH was among the poskei hador (including the Maharsham and Ben Ish Chai for sefardim).
The Chazon Ish was very much for the Mishna Berura, writing that it is like Sanhedrin Milishkas Hagoziz, and his influence on the increasingly influential Yeshiva community has influenced the increased usage of the MB.
Does anyone know why there is no published OH on some parts of Shulchan Oruch? In his introduction he writes that he is publishing on all 4 chalokim, yet some parts (eg Yayin Nesech and Hilchos Avodo Zoro) are unfortunately not available. Did he never write them or are they lost?
“Does anyone know why there is no published OH on some parts of Shulchan Oruch? In his introduction he writes that he is publishing on all 4 chalokim, yet some parts (eg Yayin Nesech and Hilchos Avodo Zoro) are unfortunately not available. Did he never write them or are they lost?”
They recently printed Hilchos Nedarim from manuscripts. So it’s possible that there are more manuscripts that may yet see the light of day.
ramat: I can’t verify it, but I was told he skipped Hilchos A”Z due to pressure/censorship from the Russian government.
From the introduction to “Minhagei Lita”:
“During the fifty years after publication of the Mishnah Berurah until the destruction of Lithuanian Jewery, communities did not adopt those decisions and reccomendations of the Mishnah Berurah that ran counter to the traditionally accepted minhagim. Not even in Radin, where the Chafetz Chaim had his Yeshivah, did the community change the traditional customs in favor of those urged by the Chafetz Chaim. Hence, many people today mistakenly assume that whatever the Mishnah Berurah recommended must have been the accepted custom in Lithuania.”
Similarly, R’ Herschel Schachter has said several times that on every page of the Mishnah Berurah there is an example of where the psak of the Mishnah Berura based on his methodology, was a change from the previous psak hamekubal.
To “about Time”: To put the record straight, it was Dayan Atyas of Ashdod that invalidated the conversion. Dayan Sherman and the Rabbinical Supreme Court subseqently upheld that psak and added that he disqualified ALL of Rav Druckman’s Bais Din’s conversions.
Both of these decisions went against all that we know of geirus in the past centuries.
Details are numerous but just to point out a few: Why would Dayan Atyas think that there was no kabolas ol mitzvos? Very specifically, the Rambam does NOT require keeping all the mitzvos,only to accept the CONCEPT of mitzvos. (That is what ol mitzvos mean)
Secondly, how can Rav Sherman invalidate ALL conversions of another qualified Bais Din? That has never been the case in our history and is totally against all norms.
Lastly, just on the merits of the case, as I said earlier, better to err on the side of geirus whose consequences can be rectified than allowing a woman without a get, whose consequeneces cannot be corrected.
ROB, did you read the article which I refer to above? If you accept that set of facts, none of your arguments hold up.
I’m also surprised that you don’t appreciate what damage having hundreds (or more) false geirim around can do to klal Yisroel.
B.The Codex form, in general,was always frowned upon by the Ashkenaz leadrship
To expound (although possibly too much has already been said:
Who wrote all the Codes (such as the Rambam and Shulchan Oruch)? They were accepted, adopted and constitutionalized by poskei Ashkenaz but with some condensention
The Vilna Gaon was beseeched upon to write a new Code,gave it some thought but then declined.
typo
condenscension
T? Ramatshkolnik. T’m not sure how you responded to what I said. 2nd hand information and someone that you spoke to is more or less all hear say (im not saying that they are not saying the truth). But I brought you clear proofs about who was accepted and how popular each sefer was. Just thinking an intristing pointer is that if you look in the whole sefer of mekor boruch (very boring and not authentic) he writes many times that he is going to talk about his father and he barely does.
Daas Yochid:I have reviewed that whole thread and I am not sure why I should change my mind.If you mean Rosenblum’s article, it does not make any case for mass invalidation of Rav Druckman’s geirim.
Of course conversions done en masse to fill political quotas are invalid, as is the “bais din” which would perform them.
Daas Yochid:why? Why would it invalidate the Bais Din? And nowhere does it say that,in virtually all cases,there was no proper procedure?? Indeed there were no “mass conversions”
DY: Why? Let’s say (and there are many who claim that those allegations are not true in the slightest) that a Beis Din is under political pressure to have a certain number of Geirim. As long as all of the Geirim they find are sincere and are Mekabel Ol Mitzvos, who cares?
To Shulchanhashalem
I generally dislike these tit for tat conversations – but lets go.
1. Could you clarify which of my sources are second hand?
2. I don’t think that any of your proofs stand up to scrutiny.
a. The CC was the recognised Godol – The recognised godol is not necessary the recognised posek, there are different roles in Klal Yisroel, eg the Ari is not recognised as a Posek. I am not going to risk mentioning names of current Gedolim and I suggest that you don’t either.
b. The OH quotes the MB – I am sure that the OH recognised the MB as a tremendous sefer, and he therefore quotes it. He is happy to disagree on hundreds of instances, and don’t see that your proof has any bearing on the argument.
c. Many people ask the MB for his seforim – maybe because he sold them personally and not published in shops? I have no idea of the accepted publishing norms of the time. Maybe they were only referring to his Sefer Chofetz Chaim? I really don’t think this is at all persuasive.
d. The CC corresponded world wide – again, as he lived far longer than his contemporaries, he became the Godol Hador. But are these piskei Halocho? I understood that R CO Grodzinsky became the defacto posek in 20s/30s.
3. Contemporary practise is clear that many minhogim were like the OH, as pointed out in the quote from R Schachter. Another example would be when people daven Maariv, it being clear that the current trend to daven Maariv Bizmano comes from people converging towards the MB as opposed to the OH.
I would point you to this interesting biography which clearly shows that the CC felt himself secondary to RCO Grodzinsky, and which does not mention his alleged posek hador status.
sorry, no links
In friendship
Ramat
About Time: I’m just curious, what do you mean when you say “codex”? Because you are not using that word properly.
Sam2: I think About Time means Restatement.
Or “code.”
Lchvod Ramatshkolnik: I’m not here to say what the Minhag is or what people like to follow (in my opinion there is almost no such thing to day anyways and is probably impossible to find out see Sdey Chemed vol 4 #37, its also interisting that the OH writes a letter defending the Sdey Chemed). What I’m trying to point out is that the MB was alot more popular in Europe and I think the fact of how many he sold (which he has receipt’s in the KOl kisvey CC and its in the thousands and remember that Sefarim cost alot more then), combined with all of the Gedolim whom he correspondence with and how they honored him (see also he opened the Kneses Hagdelah and he was also the Machria in the case of Velozion’s closing where the OH happened to also live) it would seem logical that people used his sefarim more. The most compelling in my opinion is the fact that the OH was not printed until much later around 1910 while the MB was already out for almost 20 years, also the fact that I cant find any Gedolim of those times quoting an OH while the MB is commonly quoted (i.e Achiezer, Shol Meshiv…).
I appologize about the 2nd hand comment I just meant that I find that when one person says that this is how it was or this person told me this it holds less ground as opposed to finding documented evidence (its interesting to note how the students of the RamaBach and many other great Rabonim almost never (acctualy never) say that they heard Beshem their Rebbe, they always quote the Ksav, also the MB and OH say the words Beshem I think a total of 6 times feel free to Bar Ilan it). Either way this whole conversation is all theoretical and we all recognize that the CC or the MB has taken the main place in the world (over all). It would be an intiristing conversation of why (I think for example he had many more sefarim, Rishonim and Achronim and he was more mesudar and would not Pasken against the majority also it is interesting how he never quotes the KItzur (I think he quotes him a total of 4 or 5 times even though he argues on him many times) but mostly u will see that in Simin 36 he never quotes and that sound’s like he does not hold of him (p.s neither does the OH ever bring him, even though he was very popular and available as you can know from the Hakdama to the Kitzur).
Also as per ur comment that the CC felt himself secondary to Rav Chaim Ozer that is not really a shocker. I think he felt himself secondary to everyone as he writes himself in Shmiras Halashon and many other places (meaning that if u learned alot now you are alot more responsible) and the CC main Mida as said over by his Talmidim (see Meir Einey Yisrael vol 1) was Anavah. The best way to find out who was greater would b to see how Rav Chaim ozer viewed him and when they were together who was the Machriafirst… But I think if you asked them both they would say the other is (as you see in the story about the theater which is quoted both in Meir Einey Yisrael with two versions and also in the Artscroll bio).
PS There is a famous zug that’s said over from Rav Shach that the CC quotes Rav Meir Simcha once because of the Masseh in Velozin. See the Meir Einey Yisrael why that Maseh is immposible to b true (one reason is that in the volume where he quotes Rav meir Simcha it was printed before the maseh happened). Im just writing this to show that just because someone said something without documented sources its validity is…
Thank you for that Mara Makom.
It is fascinating that all the times that the OH quotes the MB is only in the first and third volume. And according to the sefer you quote (the grandson of Rav Henkin) it should follow that the Halacha only follows the OH in those volumes. What is also strange is that the places that he quotes the CC are random even though he argues on many more places and in about half of the places he acctuly compliments the MB. Also a mute point is that Rav Henkin and Rav Moshe both come from Russia and knew the OH and had no dealing with the CC. On the other hand the Ponavizer Rav who knew both of them held the CC in much higher esteem (see the Bio on the Ponvizer Rav 3 vol). I think the emes is that they are both great sefaim and you cant go wrong going with either one. The CC is a lot more thorough and harder to read (al be he did this on purpose, for a different time).
Also when this grandson of Rav Henkin (in your Mare Makom of Bney Banim writes that the OH is more deep, I have no idea how he knows that or gets that. Some of the Beir Halachas are profound (see in 316 and 261 and others). When he also says we go like the later who had the previous one, see the sefer Machlokes Behalacha that we don’t always say this especially within the same generation (ShachTaz KetzosNesivos GRaGraz….). It also seems that the main Halachic authorities do not agree with his Grandfahter ZT”L (CHazon Ish, Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Moshe held whatever he wanted as you see and as Reb Dovid told me).
shulchanhashalem:
The way I see it, there are several reasons to prefer the Aruch Hashulchan:
1) He was a practicing Rabbi, unlike the Chofetz Chaim.
2) He had access to the Mishnah Berurah (I don’t think it’s relevant how often he actually quotes him.)
3) His work covers all of halacha (except for a few bits which are missing) whereas the Mishnah Berurah is only on Orach Chaim.
4) The Mishnah Berurah often just quotes opposing views of the acharonim without deciding between them.
5) The Mishnah Berurah generally just explains the Shulchan Aruch/Rema (and quotes the opinions of later acharonim). Whereas the Aruch Hashulchan to a certain extent takes you through the sugya and explains his reasoning and brings rayas to his positions. This point kind of relates to: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/paskening-from-the-shulchan-aruch-without-knowing-the-gemara-and-rishonim
(One of these days I’ll get around to updating my list of sources there.)
6) As I quoted earlier in this thread, the Mishnah Berura’s methodology was generally to count up the acharonim (perhaps granting extra weight to certain of them) which often resulted in conclusions that were against the prevailing practice of the times.
R’ Schachter is not a real fan of either. His main critique of the MB is #6 that PAA just said. And his main critique of the AH is that his Mehalach through the Sugyos is very often Mechudash and against Rishonim.
R’ Schachter is also famous for saying that when there is a Machlokes between the MB and the AH, you should Pasken by whoever is right. And if you’re not yet Higia L’hora’ah (which according to R’ Schachter means you know all of Shas and are holding in the Rishonim and Achronim in this particular Sugya) then who gave you the right to choose between the two anyway.
Sam2:
R’ Schachter was actually who I quoted about it above. His actual lashon, which I have heard him say several times, was “the Mishnah Berurah changed the halacha on every page”.
And his main critique of the AH is that his Mehalach through the Sugyos is very often Mechudash and against Rishonim.
Well the Aruch Hashulchan was probably following R’ Shachter’s position of “[p]asken[ing] by whoever is right”. And presumably he was Higia L’hora’ah.
R’ Schachter actually tells a good story which illustrates the need to know all of Shas when paskening any issue: Back in his youth, he was learning a sugya with his chavrusa (I think it was something in Yevamos) and they decided that after they learn the sugya really well they would take out an Igros Moshe and read a ???? relating to their sugya, and without reading R’ Moshe’s answer, they would “pasken” the ????. So they did it, and they came out with a different psak than R’ Moshe. Why? Because R’ Moshe brought in a Gemara (I think in Bechoros) which they had never heard of. That’s the basic gist of the story – I might have gotten some details off since it’s been a while since I heard it.
PAA: That’s his favorite story. And yes, the Gemara is in Bechoros. And his Chavrusa for that story was R’ Mordechai Willig. So these were two budding Geonei Olam and the point is that unless you know Shas, there might always be another Gemara that would totally change the answer.
Dr. Marc Shapiro has written:
[A]
I spent a great deal of time learning with and talking to Reb Moshe, both on the East Side and in the mountains. He unambiguously told me exactly what you quote from Rav Henkin. He explained that the Aruch Hashulchan was a Rav, while the Mishna Berura was a Rosh Yeshiva, and the psak of a Rav is better authority. Therefore, when he was unwilling to make his own determination, he would follow the AH over the MB. I mentioned this story to Rabbi Dovid Zucker, Rosh Kollel of Kollel Zichron Shneur in Chicago, and he told me that he heard precisely the same thing from his Rebbi, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzki.I asked Reb Dovid as I said before and he told me his father did as he pleased and anyone that goes through Igros Moshe well, will see that he will sometimes quote the OH or the MB not one over the other (if you want to Bar Ilan it make sure its only in orach chaim). As to what you mentioned that the CC has a “new” way of counting up Achronim. Might you forget that the Gra”z (or the ALter Rebbe) does this all the time in the Kuntres Acharon, the PRi Megadim is notorious for it as to the Magen Giborim… The reason the CC brings so much is because he had access to them unlike the OH and this was his point as he writes in his Hakdama that you should not have to do all of the research and he is taking the burden off of you.
When you say it is irrelevant when he quotes him #2 I don’t understand. If the OH only had 2 volumes it should make a big difference, the MB took 28 years to publish and the OH finished during the time, (this by the way is disregarding the fact that we don’t go like ????? in the same ???). As for a practicing Rabbi, the Gra did not practice and neither did the Shach when he published, Benn azzay, the Ramban when he wrote the Milchamos, the Tur did not practice, Reb Akiva Eger? as to many other great Mechabrim.
The main issue with “counting” acharonim is as R’ Schachter says, that there was a “psak hamekubal” and the Mishnah Berurah changed it. Let’s say for example that the Chayei Adam had access to twenty acharonim and the Mishnah Berura had access to 40 acharonim and therefore overturned many of the Chayei Adam’s conclusions. Well let’s say that I have access to 60 acharonim, so now I overturn the Mishnah Berurah’s conclusions. And soon someone will have access to 80 acharonim and he’ll overturn my conclusions.
People who lived in Europe at the turn of the century, have testified that the Mishnah Berurah was not followed – even in Radin. Similarly, the Gra was generally not followed, even in Vilna, except by his talmidim. In fact it’s very likely that the Mishnah Berurah contributed to the Gra’s popularity.
I didn’t say that no great mechabrim were not practicing Rabbis. It’s just that one of the reasons why many poskim favored the Aruch Hashulchan is that in a choice between two works which serve the same purpose, it’s better to use the one which was written by an actual practicing Rabbi.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.