The Tamar Epstein Saga

[churnbabychurn]

If anyone is flying in for the protest, please pm me. May want something from duty free.
Thx!

I'm the guest speaker. Busy preparing..

[aygart]

בני הישיבות

I'm the guest speaker. Busy preparing..

So it is only a bunch of hockers. Meh.

[aygart]

It is not at all clear that the drasha of vekasav lah and rules related to it are divine or from "the Torah" and may have been layered on by the power granted to the chachamim to be doresh (still with power of chamirus of "de'oraisah", but considered Divrei sofrim, and subject to change by later Batei dinim, all per the Rambam's view on Sinai vs Rabbinic law, and the fact that any drasha on which there is machlokes cannot be from Sinai per se (see Gittin 26a as to the conflicting opinions on the extent of lishma requirements per two reads of R Elazar)).

Why in the world are you saying that the entire rule that a get must be given by the husband falls into category 3 of the Rambam and not category 1? Is it because there is a maclokes on one relatively minor aspect of how far to take lishma? That is like saying that because there is machlokes over some points of the kashrus of an esrog the entire rule that pri eitz hadar is an esrog is due to svara.

Where is this in kovetz heoros that you are quoting?

[churnbabychurn]

Where's the Blasphemy thread?

[lunatic]

Where's the Blasphemy thread?

Right here

[churnbabychurn]

Right here

[churnbabychurn]

[shiframeir]

Why in the world are you saying that the entire rule that a get must be given by the husband falls into category 3 of the Rambam and not category 1? Is it because there is a maclokes on one relatively minor aspect of how far to take lishma? That is like saying that because there is machlokes over some points of the kashrus of an esrog the entire rule that pri eitz hadar is an esrog is due to svara.

Where is this in kovetz heoros that you are quoting?

this is a real response. True, I cannot no for sure whether the basic lishma requirement is really a category 1 or 3, but based on the combo of the simple text, the clear injustice (at least in today's times) which makes many not see hashem's word as Noam (and actually deride God as mysogystic) and the machlokes as to a prat I question whether it is category 1. But I am no carrier of mesorah so I can't know for sure. My point is to assume that God was the one who put this rule in force is not simple or clear by any means.
Went through it like 10 years ago so unfortunately don't have it on top of my head, and as I think about it it may not be in that Sefer but in a reference in kovetz shiurim. Will have to check (anyone have a search engine covering r elchonon seforim?) a short cut may be the source was quoted by r Simcha Wasserman his son.

[henche]

this is a real response. True, I cannot no for sure whether the basic lishma requirement is really a category 1 or 3, but based on the combo of the simple text, the clear injustice (at least in today's times) which makes many not see hashem's word as Noam (and actually deride God as mysogystic) and the machlokes as to a prat I question whether it is category 1. But I am no carrier of mesorah so I can't know for sure. My point is to assume that God was the one who put this rule in force is not simple or clear by any means.
Went through it like 10 years ago so unfortunately don't have it on top of my head, and as I think about it it may not be in that Sefer but in a reference in kovetz shiurim. Will have to check (anyone have a search engine covering r elchonon seforim?) a short cut may be the source was quoted by r Simcha Wasserman his son.

What's the difference,  unless you're implying that halachos in these categories aren't binding? Which is 100% kefira.

[Boruch999]

What's the difference,  unless you're implying that halachos in these categories aren't binding? Which is 100% kefira.

I believe he is saying that the halachos in these categories are are binding on individuals, but within the power of the Rabbis in each generation to modify.  I think we can strongly disagree with that with out calling it 100% kefira.  I do strongly disagree with a number of points and will elaborate if time allows.

[henche]

I believe he is saying that the halachos in these categories are are binding on individuals, but within the power of the Rabbis in each generation to modify.  I think we can strongly disagree with that with out calling it 100% kefira.  I do strongly disagree with a number of points and will elaborate if time allows.

We could say a lot of things.  But we'd be wrong if we said some things.  For example this thing.

[shiframeir]

I believe he is saying that the halachos in these categories are are binding on individuals, but within the power of the Rabbis in each generation to modify.  I think we can strongly disagree with that with out calling it 100% kefira.  I do strongly disagree with a number of points and will elaborate if time allows.

Correct. the point is if we got to a consensus for whatever reason this would be changeable. You are of course entitled to your strong disagreement

We could say a lot of things.  But we'd be wrong if we said some things.  For example this thing.

sorry R Henche. incorrect.

[Ergel]

@shiframeir, you are missing a few points in the  Rambam
1. Just because drashos are overridable by later chachamim - it's not that the chacham can make up whatever he wants. Ein l'chacham ela mah she'einav ro'os - but he has to honestly see it and disagree with the drasha of the previous generations
2. Just because every generation paskens things the way that they see them, doesn't make the din any less of a din d'oraisa and make it any less from Sinai. It just means that there was no specific mesorah saying that it's a halacha l'moshe misinai/peirush mekubal from Sinai.
3. We can't change these drashos any more (see the chazon ish regarding trei alaphim torah).

I don't think the Rambam is non-standard thought which has been discovered by contrarians. I think the way people portray it might not be accurate, but I don't think anyone will tell you that the rambam in hakdama to peirush hamishnayos is non standard thought. And it is very basic knowledge to have.
See the Brisker Rav al Hatorah on megilas rus for an awesome pshat in the whole back and forth between Boaz and the goel based on the Rambam's mentioned.

[shiframeir]

@shiframeir, you are missing a few points in the  Rambam
1. Just because drashos are overridable by later chachamim - it's not that the chacham can make up whatever he wants. Ein l'chacham ela mah she'einav ro'os - but he has to honestly see it and disagree with the drasha of the previous generations
2. Just because every generation paskens things the way that they see them, doesn't make the din any less of a din d'oraisa and make it any less from Sinai. It just means that there was no specific mesorah saying that it's a halacha l'moshe misinai/peirush mekubal from Sinai.
3. We can't change these drashos any more (see the chazon ish regarding trei alaphim torah).

I don't think the Rambam is non-standard thought which has been discovered by contrarians. I think the way people portray it might not be accurate, but I don't think anyone will tell you that the rambam in hakdama to peirush hamishnayos is non standard thought. And it is very basic knowledge to have.
See the Brisker Rav al Hatorah on megilas rus for an awesome pshat in the whole back and forth between Boaz and the goel based on the Rambam's mentioned.

Oy, please dont bring up Boaz, I will never get pshat there (but for more fun, check out the amazing Tzitz Eliezer that goes through alot of the sugya too).
1. of course. but drasha is not purely based on a cold read, but clearly cannot help but take experiences and other human  factors into account. Just as we paskened mamzer vadai and other drashos with clear conceptual framework underlying, would not be unheard of to work it here (upon consensus, and going back to a more simple read).
2. I agree it doesnt make the din any less of a "Deoraisah" but the din is NOT NECESSARILY from Sinai (though tools provided then may have been used). the distinction may not matter in practice in most instances, but there is reason to distinguish due to ability to change and the inherent valuation we all have to law passed from Hashem to us vs by a rabbi at a certain time that is subject to change. TO be clear, if it is a hlm or a pierush of the torah from sinai (category 1 as noted by R Aygart), then it would seem that indeed we could never change the law (subject to Shev Ve'al Taaseh exceptions, which would not change law anyway). the question is whether indeed these specific rules were part of the mesorah from sinai. and that just is not clear (a problem in general with the Rambam's approach).
3. with all due respect to the great chazon ish, he is not the first nor the last to question whether the Rambam's allowance for changes by later beis dins to drashos to apply (see what i am sure was a great Kovetz hearos on why rov yisroel couldnt go back on accepting the bavli as binding, and going further back to the mechaber/kesef mishna etc). I would ask how the Chazon ish could go ahead and change the status quo of being able to go back, and if he did rule that u cant anymore (or cite someone who said so), can't we go back on that too?

[aygart]

The first thing I take issue with is this.

True, I cannot no for sure whether the basic lishma requirement is really a category 1 or 3, but based on the combo of the simple text, the clear injustice (at least in today's times) which makes many not see hashem's word as Noam (and actually deride God as mysogystic) and the machlokes as to a prat I question whether it is category 1. But I am no carrier of mesorah so I can't know for sure. My point is to assume that God was the one who put this rule in force is not simple or clear by any means.

You are taking very long leaps and calculating 1+1=9999999999999999999...  The Rambam clearly writes that the main difference is that machlokes is almost always in the fine points and not the basics, There is no machlokes as to what the 4 minim are even though there are in some aspects of their kashrus. To take a machlokes about an aspect of lishma and conjecture from there that the entire process of a get being given by the husband is not misinai is ridiculous. His need to give it is not the same din as it needing to be written lishma. I don't even think that this that it is given by the husband to the wife is a drasha but is the simple reading of the pasuk. Even CM understood that as the simple meaning of the pasuk based on the Chabad translation.

Is this part the "get". If this is not done they are not divorced?

...and he writes for her a bill of divorce and places it into her hand, and sends her away from his house,

Even if we will accept it as a possibility before there is any minute possibility of anyone "changing" it you would need to not only show that it is possible but prove with certainty that it is the case. Your perception of injustice is not convincing in the slightest and frankly is to me the most disturbing part of your post. To say that something cannot be from Sinai because of a perceived injustice and that therefore we have the right to change it would make the entire torah into silly putty. To take what is at most a possibility-in your own words "I am no carrier of mesorah so I can't know for sure" and then take it to say

if we got to a consensus for whatever reason this would be changeable.

is simply disingenuous.

[aygart]

Another important point which you seem to be ignoring are the qualifications required to modify which IRC are that they would need to be gadol bichochma uveminyan. Good luck with that one.

[Ergel]

Another important point which you seem to be ignoring are the qualifications required to modify which IRC are that they would need to be gadol bichochma uveminyan. Good luck with that one.

That is only true to be mivatel a gezeirah, not to change a psak.

[aygart]

That is only true to be mivatel a gezeirah, not to change a psak.

I think that group 3 of the Ramabam are more than a psak but I would need to look that up.

[shiframeir]

That is only true to be mivatel a gezeirah, not to change a psak.

I think that group 3 of the Ramabam are more than a psak but I would need to look that up.

as noted by R Ergel, Mefurash rambam in early mamrim, later beis din can overrule earlier beis din's drash, separate rambam says as to gezeiros/takkanos etc u need chochma/minyan. but other then gezeiros its the shofet asher beyamecha. Of course there is the chazon ish, plus there is the Kesef Mishna noting the stare decisis on all drashos decided in shas, but there are clearly exceptions to the concept of all of Bavli being accepted (can't be a rule without exceptions) and indeed in several instances the Rambam paskens like the yerushalmi, tosephta or sometimes without a known source over Bavli. and then there is of course the logical ability of rov gedolei yisroel overruling the bavli that they previously agreed to follow (logically nothing can stop that). whether its something i would bet on in the near future is a whole other question

[aygart]

  as noted by R Ergel, Mefurash rambam in early mamrim, later beis din can overrule earlier beis din's drash, separate rambam says as to gezeiros/takkanos etc u need chochma/minyan. but other then gezeiros its the shofet asher beyamecha. Of course there is the chazon ish, plus there is the Kesef Mishna noting the stare decisis on all drashos decided in shas, but there are clearly exceptions to the concept of all of Bavli being accepted (can't be a rule without exceptions) and indeed in several instances the Rambam paskens like the yerushalmi, tosephta or sometimes without a known source over Bavli. and then there is of course the logical ability of rov gedolei yisroel overruling the bavli that they previously agreed to follow (logically nothing can stop that). whether its something i would bet on in the near future is a whole other question

FIne. That was I wrote "I think"-I did not get a chance to look it up. Either way, as I wrote above, there is no reason at all to EVEN THINK that it would be a group 3.