The Tamar Epstein Saga

[Ergel]

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.

Indeed. The Din that a ba'al writes a get is more than a peirush mekubal, it's an ofener passuk.

[churnbabychurn]

Not really following. Is this discussion about having the woman give the get to the man?

Is it Purim already??

[Ergel]

Not really following.

Maybe you should be, maybe you will be enlightened. (FYI, please ask your Rav, I doubt he will tell you that Rambam hakdamah to peirush hamishnayos is non-standard thought. I would really appreciate if you would ask your Rav and report back).

Is this discussion about having the woman give the get to the man?

Is it Purim already??

Ignore that part of the discussion.

[churnbabychurn]

Maybe you should be, maybe you will be enlightened. (FYI, please ask your Rav, I doubt he will tell you that Rambam hakdamah to peirush hamishnayos is non-standard thought. I would really appreciate if you would ask your Rav and report back).Ignore that part of the discussion.

I don't believe I posted anything about the rambam either way. I'm sure my rabbonim are absolutely fine with the Rambam in peirush. (Though we don't normally learn the moreh nevuchim -not necessarily because "its non standard", just too complex.)


I'm not following a discussion that is even partially heretical/Looney.

[Ergel]

I don't believe I posted anything about the rambam either way. I'm sure my rabbonim are absolutely fine with the Rambam in peirush. (Though we don't normally learn the moreh nevuchim -not necessarily because "its non standard", just too complex.)

Sorry, it wasn't you. My bad

[shiframeir]

Indeed. The Din that a ba'al writes a get is more than a peirush mekubal, it's an ofener passuk.

dont know what "ofener" means, but the simple read is not at all clear, as i have noted earlier. All the torah says (and indeed a simple read could be,and perhaps the mesorah read of the simple text ) is that if u hate your wife, u have a mitzvah to write out a bill of divorce stating the separation details (u get back this, i give u this etc.), and send her away. Indeed, the offhand reference to this mitzvah in the middle of psukim clearly focused on the issur (and toevah) of getting back together with a women who swapped for another man (note all the descriptive "ve"s in the pasuk, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0524.htm, if vekasav lah is a necessary component for a good get (as opposed to a component for this toevah of remarriage), is it also necessary for a get that the women actually marries another man?) points to there not being an absolute Torah-pshat-level requirement that a woman cannot go marry someone else if the guy throws her out/they agree their marriage is over.

[aygart]

dont know what "ofener" means, but the simple read is not at all clear, as i have noted earlier. All the torah says (and indeed a simple read could be,and perhaps the mesorah read of the simple text ) is that if u hate your wife, u have a mitzvah to write out a bill of divorce stating the separation details (u get back this, i give u this etc.), and send her away. Indeed, the offhand reference to this mitzvah in the middle of psukim clearly focused on the issur (and toevah) of getting back together with a women who swapped for another man (note all the descriptive "ve"s in the pasuk, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0524.htm, if vekasav lah is a necessary component for a good get (as opposed to a component for this toevah of remarriage), is it also necessary for a get that the women actually marries another man?) points to there not being an absolute Torah-pshat-level requirement that a woman cannot go marry someone else if the guy throws her out/they agree their marriage is over.

You are seeing what you want to see. As I wrote earlier:

The first thing I take issue with is this.
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.

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 sayis simply disingenuous.

[lunatic]

I'm not following a discussion that is even partially heretical/Looney.

Then this thread is the first thing you want to stay away from

[churnbabychurn]

Then this thread is the first thing you want to stay away from

I know. I have to ignore my own thread.

[shiframeir]

You are seeing what you want to see. As I wrote earlier:

of course i am, and just as you see it your way. but if the Torah/God wanted the rules of marriage and divorce to not be in the hands of the rabbanan (including Afkinu), it would have been an easy pasuk or two, instead of strange inuendo out of context. I think there was great wisdom in leaving it to the greats of each generation to adjust as necessary. Unfortunately, i assume most of the greats dont agree with me, but that's how i see it.

[aygart]

of course i am, and just as you see it your way. but if the Torah/God wanted the rules of marriage and divorce to not be in the hands of the rabbanan (including Afkinu), it would have been an easy pasuk or two, instead of strange inuendo out of context. I think there was great wisdom in leaving it to the greats of each generation to adjust as necessary. Unfortunately, i assume most of the greats dont agree with me, but that's how i see it.

Even you never wrote more than it being a slight possibility

[shiframeir]

Even you never wrote more than it being a slight possibility

i never said slight.

[churnbabychurn]

Back on topic.

The kuntris magazine has an article called kiddushei taus in halacha. I'm not going to post the whole thing, its basically a summary of the mekoros for the shayla in shas and poskim. The last paragraph is important.

]

[churnbabychurn]

Lock thread?

[Aaaron]

Lock thread?

Heard that was coming from some members of the Baltimore B'D 

I also heard that the ones that matter have been discussing this among themselves diligently for a while now.

[Boruch999]

Lock Delete thread?

FTFY

[lunatic]

Lock thread?

Have you verified that this is legit

[SayWhat]

It's a sad excuse for a joke

[churnbabychurn]

Have you verified that this is legit

No.

Reportedly other letters are coming out to be mocheh the bizayon directed at R Shmuel.

[lunatic]

No.

Reportedly other letters are coming out to be mocheh the bizayon directed at R Shmuel.

I wonder if it's fake