העורך Editor

Shabbos Is for TALKING With the Family!

Yes, one must limit speech on Shabbos (that’s what “Bekoshi” in ירו’ פרק ט”ו הלכה ל”ג, הובא בתוספות שבת קי”ג means), but speaking with the family as an introductory part of Chinuch is a Mitzvah (like “Piyus” of Onah, for which Erev Shabbos — per famous Rabbi Yaacov Emden — may not be enough), and Shabbos meals are exactly the right time. “Devarim Beteilim” is instead of Torah study, not instead of Mitzvos impossible by others or another occasion.

If everything from clapping outside of Simchas Torah to carrying through doubtful Eruvin is permitted “for the sake of Yiddishkeit”, then we may infer this too, but more easily. Reportedly, the childless Chazon Ish would be brief at the table but told the Steipler not to be (though Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky is also allegedly brief).

And if you read Iggeres Hagra carefully, you can’t prove he disagrees:

ובשבת ויום טוב אל תדברו כלל מדברים שאינם נצרכים מאוד, וגם בדברים הנצרכים למאוד תקצרו מאוד כי קדושת שבת גדולה מאוד, ובקושי התירו לומר שלום בשבת. ראה בדיבור אחד כמה החמירו.

…

והנה יש לי כמה ספרי מוסר עם לשון אשכנז, יקראו תמיד וכל שכן בשבת קודש קדשים לא יתעסקו אלא בספרי מוסר. והנה תדריכם תמיד
בספרי מוסר.

…

ותקרא את האגרת הזאת בכל שבוע, ובפרט בשבת קדם האכילה ובתוך הסעדה, שלא ידברו דברים בטלים חס ושלום וכל שכן חס ושלום בלשון הרע וכיוצא בהם.

The focus is only against forbidden speech.

חילוני מתגעגע ל’היתרים’ עליהם כבר התחרטנו

ציטוט מתוך כתבה של אבישי בן חיים, “מאבקי החרדים והחתולה של בלומה“:

לפי מה הרבנים מחליטים להקל או להחמיר, או להעלים עין בפסיקות הלכה בעלות השלכה כלכלית על הציבור? לאורך רוב ההיסטוריה היהודית ההלכה התחשבה במצוקה הכלכלית של ההמון היהודי הקורס ונמצאו הרבנים שהקלו על הציבור בשלל נושאים. גוי של שבת, הקלה בדיני ריבית, ביטול האיסור לסחור עם גויים שלושה ימים לפני ימי חגיהם, יציאה להפלגה בספינה סמוך לשבת, חליבה, אפילו גידול חזירים.

במקרים אחרים הופעלה השיטה של העלמת עין תחת ההנחיות הסלוגניות והחכמות להפליא של רבותינו “כשם שמצווה לומר דבר הנשמע, כך מצווה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע” ו”הנח להם לישראל – מוטב יהיו שוגגין ולא יהיו מזידין”. לעתים נדמה שפעם, כשהאחריות על כלכלת הציבור ופרנסתו הייתה מוטלת על כתפי ההנהגה הרבנית, המגמה הייתה לנסות להקל. ואילו היום, כשהאחריות הזו מוטלת על כתפי ההנהגה החילונית – המגמה היא להשתדל להחמיר.

את שאר הכתבה ניתן לראות כאן.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter (et al.): FRAUDULENT ‘International Beit Din’ Consists of Ignoramuses!

Torahweb.org published a letter by Yeshiva University Rosh Yeshiva Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union, and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz shlita, criticizing the work of the International Beit Din and advising all not to rely on their rulings, and calling for any associated rabbanim to resign.

Here is the original printed in Hebrew (and retyped for clarity):

Download (PDF, 736KB)

An English approximation can be found below, from Jewish Link NJ, here:

To my Honorable Colleagues, Students, and Rabbis in every city,

A few months ago, the International Beit Din for Agunot was established. Approximately two months ago, I reviewed a 23-page responsum in Hebrew written by a member of this beit din, on the subject of agency to write a divorce against a husband’s will, that is mistaken from beginning to end. Another four-page English responsum was shown to me, permitting an agunah to remarry due to invalid witnesses, based on the Ritva’s famous view. This is not the right path and not even the right city. The prohibition against adultery is not like the laws of mourning, for which we would say that the law follows the lenient opinion, and it is always possible to be lenient based on a tiny doubt. The Sages taught us that wherever there is a Chillul Hashem, we set aside respect for a rabbi. I feel an obligation to object because otherwise the public will assume that rabbinic silence implies agreement, and the students would see and establish this new approach permanently.

It is tremendous chutzpah that these three rabbis joined this beit din. Questions of this most serious nature—permitting a woman to remarry without a divorce—were brought to Rav Yitzchak Elchanan, after him to Rav Chaim Ozer and in our time to Rav Moshe Feinstein, all of whom were recognized as the greatest of their generations. It is forbidden for average rabbis to involve themselves in these matters because whoever does not understand the nature of marriages and divorces cannot be involved with them. In our generation, we present these questions to the few Torah scholars who have specialized in these laws and apprenticed under greats, and who therefore have a tradition about where to be lenient and where strict.

I encourage my colleagues and students not to rely on any ruling from this beit din because they have no standing. I heard that one of the judges resigned and I asked the other two to also remove themselves in the future from this bad activity and to inform the public not to rely on the lenient rulings they already issued since their entire approach is not according to the law.

(Rav) Tzvi (Hershel) Schachter, Tammuz 5775

I also agree to this objection with full force:

(Rav) Gedaliah Dov Schwartz, 21 Tammuz 5775

It is superfluous to add that there is no ruling and no judge but the nonsense of fools who have appointed themselves authorities:

(Rav) Nota Tzvi Greenblatt, Memphis, 22 Tammuz 5775

The words of the above giants are clear in law and in practice, and I also join in their objection:

(Rav) Avrohom Michael Union, 26 Tammuz 5775

I also join in objecting to this brazen breach:

(Rav) Menachem Mendel Senderovitz, 3 Av 5775

The laughable response from the “International Beit Din” can be found here.

How Environmental Damages Should and SHOULD NOT Be Prosecuted

Free Download from Mises.org: “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” by Murray N. Rothbard

Extract:

Modern variants of positive legal theory state that the law should be what the legislators say it is. But what principles are to guide the legislators? And if we say that the legislators should be the spokesmen for their constituents, then we simply push the problem one step back, and ask: What principles are supposed to guide the voters?

Again, find the full article here.