See update, following;
R' Michael Broyde is questioning the Halachic requirement that married women must cover their hair and one may not recite a brocha when it's uncovered. We feel it to be inappropiate to post R' Michael Broyde's speech link. We can't allow anyone to keep chipping away at the "mesorah". See Letter to Editor, following;
To the Editor,
The nature of the obligation for married women to cover their hair has been the subject of much discussion of late in the halachic periodical literature. One of the first articles regarding this topic was by Rabbi Mayer Schiller in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (Fall, 1995), titled "The Obligation of Married Women to Cover Their Hair". In the article, although Rabbi Schiller firmly rejects any valid halachic opinion permitting total hair uncovering, he nevertheless advances a theory based on the Tur and Shulchan Aruch that might possibly give validity to such an approach.
1. Rabbi Schiller demonstrates from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch that the prohibition of completely uncovering ones hair is Daat Yehudit. ( Jewish practice). The article infers this from the fact that in their listing of what constitutes DaatMoshe(the rule of Moses), neither Tur nor Shulchan Aruch make mention of a woman's hair being fully uncovered. Indeed, they mention it in the lesser, possibly subjective category of Daat Yehudit. I believe that this is based on a fundamental misreading of the above sources.
The Mishnah in Ketubot (72a) states "And these [women can be] divorced without [receiving the amount stipulated in their] ketubah : "One who transgresses DaatMoshe(the rule of Moses) or Daat Yehudit( Jewish practice). And what is Daat Moshe? She feeds him untithed produce or she cohabits with him as a niddah (in a ritually impure state), she does not separate challah, or she vows and does not fulfill her vow. And what is referred to by the words "Jewish practice"? She goes outside with her hair uncovered, .. .or if she speaks with every man, etc."
Seemingly, the Mishnah understands that the issue of married women's hair covering as not categorized as DaatMoshe, but rather as Daat Yehudit. The Gemara (ibid) questions the Mishnah's categorization of women's hair covering as merely a "Jewish practice", asking:
"Is it not biblically ordained? As it is written,'he shall uncover the head of the women' (Bamidbar 5:18). A tanna in the Academy of R.Yishmael taught that "this is a warning to Jewish daughters that they should not go out with their heads uncovered'".
The Gemara explains that biblically it is sufficient for women to partially cover their hair with a kalatah (a basket worn on the head, according to Rashi), whereas to go with her hair completely uncovered would indeed be in violation of Daat Moshe, a violation on a biblical level.
The Tur ( Even Haezer, 115) follows the Mishnah in Ketubot(72a) in listing examples of what is considered transgressing Daat Yehudit; "One who goes outside even if her hair is not totally exposed, rather there is a basket on her head, since she does not have a redid". The Tur carefully added the word "Elah"(rather) emphasizing that only partially exposed hair falls under the category of Daat Yehudit .
This is further clarified in the Shulchan Aruch (ibid)"And what is [ violation of]) Daat Yehudit? One who goes outside with her hair uncovered without a redid like all women, in spite of the fact that her hair is covered with a cloth.
The reason that the Tur and Shulchan Aruch do not mention this in the laws of Daat Moshe is obviously that the Mishnah itself does not list uncovered hair as one of the examples of Daat Moshe. Therefore, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, following the text of the Mishnah, list roshahparuah (uncovered hair) in the category where the Mishnah listed it - that is, in Daat Yehudit. However, as explained by the Gemara itself, roshahparua means with a kalatah - that is, covered partially - and this indeed is precisely how Tur and Shulchan Aruch rule.
This is where Rabbi Schiller erred: According to his understanding (that uncovered hair is only Daat Yehudit) a contradiction arises how this is consistent with the Talmud which clearly states that roshah parua (completely uncovered hair) is deorayta (a violation on a biblical level). Rabbi Schiller points out that indeed the Beit Shemuel (Even Haezer 115:9) addresses this difficulty and seems to argues on the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. In truth, however, a careful reading of the Beit Shemuel reveals his intention merely to clarify the words of the Shulchan Aruch, and not to question them: "The rule is: totally uncovered hair is a violation of Daat Moshe; if her hair is partially covered with a basket or something else, but not covered according to the custom of the daughters of Israel, this is in violation of Daat Yehudit". And thus, it is quite simple why normative and accepted halachic practice has rejected that very justification.
2. Rabbi Schiller makes mention in his article of Rabbi Yosef Messas's theory that suggests that women's hair covering is no longer a requirement in a society where married women no longer cover their hair [SeeMayim Haim vol. 2:110,Otzar Hamichtavim (3:884)]. I was rather surprised to see that in a letter to the editor of the this Journal ( Pesach, 1996), Rabbi Michael Broyde makes note that this leniency of uncovered hair was indeed the practice of the Algerian and Moroccan Orthodox communities from well before the 1900's, and bases his statement on the above writings of Rabbi Yosef Messas. I must protest this as a serious inaccuracy. Being of Moroccan descent and heavily invested in the research of Magreb laws and customs, I can say with full certainty (based on firsthand accounts) that throughout the generations, women were particularly meticulous in this matter - to the extent that it is well known that even while washing their hair in the bathhouses, they would have a towel covering their hair. Rabbi Shlomo Dayan (publisher of the Mayim Haim and close student of Rabbi Messas) further informed this writer that it is quite possible that Rabbi Messas formulated this limud zechut (justification or explanation for leniency) only with regard to Telmeson, Algeria (where he was the rav) where the forces of Modern French civilization penetrated and threatened the very religious infrastructure of the community. As such it can hardly be seen as a negation of the long-standing Morrocan minhag (custom), as it was well known that all women in Morroco would don at least one hair covering, if not two. It is quite probably, therefore, that in an attempt to keep the last string of orthodoxy intact, Rabbi Messas defended the deviant behavior that plagued his city.
Rabbi Schiller makes mention of Rabbi Yosef Chaim in his work Chukei Nashim., who although rejecting the notion that women may uncover their hair, nevertheless offers a justification for European women who were lenient on this matter. Rabbi Schiller seems to translate the carefully worded "hitnatzlut" as a "justification", but a possibly more accurate translation would be "an excuse". RabbiYosef Chaim cannot be giving any validity to such a custom as he himself writes a couple of lines before, "according to our law it is forbidden."
3. Rabbi Schiller mentions that it would take us beyond the confines of his essay to explain why one should not rely on a handful of isolated sources and, therefore, what is well known that women in Lithuania were lenient on this matter is probably best seen as an aberration which when the time became more receptive, was quickly abandoned. Rabbi Schiller is to be commended on his assessment that distinguishes between aberrant practice and a minimally acceptable halachic custom. The parameters as to what defines a halachically valid custom are a long and detailed subject , not suitable to the present venue. Nevertheless, it is universally acknowledged that a widespread flouting of halachic norms, unsupported by authoritative opinions cannot be redefined as a minhag yisrael. See further Kaf Hahayim(135:40), Hazon Ish(O"H 39,8) that a minhag not supported by rabbinic authorities is not called a minhag. In fact, several contemporaneous Lithuanian scholars strongly condemned this aberration. See Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim75:7), stating that women in his generation are accustomed to uncovering their hair, "ba'avonotainu harabim [due to] our great sins. See Shevilei David (75) who condems this practice as well.
Indeed, the poskim do not suggest a concession due to societal change that would permit women to uncover their hair totally . However, in regards to reciting the Shema in front of married women several poskim rule that this is permitted, but this is not because they consider uncovering the hair as permissible. Rather, they are ruling about recitation of the Shema, which may not be recited in the presence of an erva, a part of the body which is customarily covered. In light of the reality that most women in today's world do not cover the hair, it can no longer be considered as erva, and for that reason, on may pray in the presence of a woman with uncovered hair. See Aruch Hashulchan(ibid), Ben Ish Chai (Bo,12).
One may suggest that the mitzvah for women to cover their hair is not merely a gezeirat hakatuv (written decree); rather, the Torah is revealing to us a standard as to how Jewish women, benot Yisrael, should conduct themselves. The verse "Uparah" teaches us that the proper derech (practice) for benot yisrael is to cover their hair. Indeed, Rashi (Ketubot 72a), writes in his second explanation to the source for hair covering from the verse "Uparah et Rosh Haisha", that from here we learn that it is not the derech (practice) of the daughters of Israel to go outside with uncovered hair. Rashi seems to suggest, that the Torah is informing us of what the derech of benot Yisrael both was and should be. See Responsa Vayeshev Yosef ( Berlau) Y"D 1,2, that this practice further developed in a minhag Torah (Torah custom), not subject to hatara (releasing of vows).
In light of the above explanation, we may also understand why there exists in the framework of this halachah a clear distinction between married women, who have the obligation to cover their hair and unmarried women, who don't. The Torah was indeed not issuing a gezirat hakatuv. If this were the case, there would truly be no difference between married and unmarried women . Instead, the Torah revealed to us that it is the derech for a married woman to go outside with her hair covered, whereas for unmarried women, it is not the derech. Subsequently, the Torah's definition of derech for married women is not subject to change, since this derech is not based upon the norms of society, but rather the Torah has defined the proper behavior for Jewish women. This is indeed why there is a distinction in the Gemara between a woman uncovering her hair in a public domain in contrast to within her own chatzer (courtyard)or bayit (home), as in a woman's home, the Torah does not view it as the derech to have her hair covered.
Therefore, the leniencies mentioned in the Aruch Hashulchan, Ben Ish Chai (Bo,12), and others regarding kriat shema does not affect the obligation of a women to cover her hair, as the former is dependent upon hirhur, (see Responsa Yehoshua Even Haezer 89, and Divrei Chamudot Berachot 3:37) whereas the latter is derech benot Yisrael.. Likewise, one cannot deduce from the Maharam Alashkar (35) (who permits hair which is protruding from a woman's head covering where this is the norm), that in places where women totally uncover their hair, would likewise be permitted. The distinction being, that the obligation of women's hair covering was already classified as derech benot Yisrael. This is not the case by hair merely protruding a women's hair covering, which was possibly never included in the original obligation.
To reiterate the points mentioned above:
1.Rabbi Schiller's claim that Tur and Shulchan Aruch understand that women's hair covering is rabbinic and therefore subject to change is unfounded. Women's hair covering isdefined by the Gemara in Ketoubot(72a) as Deoraita(See Meiri), in the category of Daat Moshe . No Rishonim or Acharonim seem to suggest otherwise. The Torah is divulging that derech for a married woman is to go outside with her hair covered, and setting a higher standard of behavior for Benot Yisrael.
. 2. The authorities that argued that local custom did impact upon halachah only did so in regard to the amount of hair that had to be covered. None of them disagreed with the basic requirement of hair covering in general. In regards to a negligible minority that indeed lent credence to such a view, they have been rejected by the consensus of the halachic world. Although there were a few generations in which women found the prospect of covering their hair too burdensome, today many women are willing to be moser nefesh for what is still a difficult precept . It is important that we know that halachic thinking is on their side.
Respectfully,
Rabbi Mordechai Lebhar
119 comments:
Michael Broyde is the rabbi of the local Young Israel. He is partnered with Avi Weiss to run a kollel in town for people that hold similar views. Of course his own wife does not cover her hair. It's frightening to think that this is who is in charge of the OU's RCA Beis Din of America especially when he does gerus himself that is not to RCA standards or any normal accepted practice in halacha. Don't be fooled by Gil Student who is the exclusive publisher of Broyde's works while he pretends to be a black hatter in New York.
Can you please provide a link as to what this was in response to?
The Wolf
.
It is a shanda that we have a frum oylom of six thousand learning torah b"h in lakewood and yet there are no protests against the MO in the USA.
The only way to describe MO in the US is Mattir Assurim making what is ossur suddenly muutar through unhalachic alchemy.
I am deeply disturbed why the gedolei haposkim in America are not protesting the behavior of the BDA who are basically apikorsim.
here are just a few examples of the corrupt egregious behavior of the BDA:
1) They issue siruvim against men whose wives are plaintiffs in arko'oys for dovirce purposes and who refuse to go to bais din. They have come up with a sevoroh of "bifurcation". Momonos and Gittin are seperate and even though the shulchan oruch says that if you are in arko'oys with no valid heter, you should be in cheirem these thugs claim the reverse and put the husbands in cheirem.
2) They issue siruvim even if you offer them another Bais din if the bais din is not pro feminist.
3) they disagree with every other posek who holds a get forced through the 2nd get law is a get me'usah.
4) instead of using halochoh to decide monetary aspects of divorce, they use secular law. why? they claim this is dina de'malchusah dina kneged 99% of the rishonim. they find an obscure opinion in a rishon to claim that this is what dina de'malchusah dina means even though this opinion has NEVER EVER been mekubel amongst ganz klal yisroel.
5) it is believed that they have never ever issued custody to a man in a divorce even if wife is crazy etc. they refuse to divulge this info. even on an anonomous basis so answer is obvious.
6) they are repeatedly moytzi la'az on men whose wives should be in cheirem.
This is the real reason gedolei yisroel have held YU in such utter contempt - because they are Americans 1st subscribing to feminism, materialism etc before the halochoh. They should be exposed and thrown out of klal yisroel once and for all. The time has come to have H Schechter, " RabbI" of ORA exposed and thrown out of rav Elyashiv permanently. there is no reason why the godol hador needs to look in the face of an utter rosho.
Professor Rabbiner Michael Broyde who teaches law at Emory University is chief dayan of the OU beis din.
His "teshuva" being "mattir" ervah was first published in the OU's "Tradition" journal. The audio link is on YU's website for shiurim when he discussed the "teshuva" in a shiur there. You would think that OU and YU have some kind of oversight that something they publish meets a minimum standard of halacha.
Rabonim used to write long tshuvos when they had a machloikes. Now they just resort to name calling and then cop-out by saying this is not the makom to be mifalpel?
Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rav S' Miller, but if R' Broyde could write a 35 page tshuva on this, why couldn't Rav Miller write a tshuva showing where R' Broyde is wrong?
Was he paskening or having a halachic discourse? If the latter, then perhaps people ought to not jump down people's throat with horrid language.
http://jeremysternfromora.blogspot.com/2009/07/ask-jeremy-stern-to-do-teshuva.html
ORA is headed by a young kid in 20s with a kippa srugie, Rabbi Jeremy Stern.
His father in law is a convicted pedophile who is listed on the government's sex offender registry. The az ponim should worry about that first before he shows up outside the homes of non-feminist talmidei chochomim to be be moyche and to be mevazeh them for not conforming to his meshgassin.
Did any of you even read R' Broyde's article?
I doubt it. And I also doubt R' Miller did.
When one changes the subject and/or resorts to *ad hominem* attacks, one knows that they have lost the argument on its merits. If Rav Broyde's arguments were really problematic, it should have been easy for a gedol such as Rav Miller to counter them. I have to assume that there is no counter and that Rav Broyde is correct.
I suppose it wouldn't mean anything to anyone that Rabbis Yosef Messas and Moshe Malka would agree with Broyde. No, because Rabbis Messas and Malka were Moroccan, and we know Sephardim aren't part of the mesorah. Wait, wasn't the Gemara written in Babylonia and the Mishneh Torah in Egypt?
In the case of another Professor Rabbi who has done some dirty work for the Agudah, I like the way UOJ confers a title better than Eyepopper. UOJ called him Pro-fresser Rabbiner. After UOJ contacted the dean of the university where he lectured to report that he was involved in covering up for child molesters, the Pro-fresser Rabbiner suddenly announced he was semi "retiring" and resigned from the faculty.
The people who speak out against Michael Broyde are cowards. They can't even provide their names. If they are so sure of their comments they should not be hiding themselves.They are jealous of the OU and YU because they have not produced luminaries and provided worldwide hashgacha services. Let them retreat into their learning houses and cloister themselves without disturbing the rest of the world.
My name is Uri Hirsch and I live in Israel where Jews belong. Where do those characters live?
Rabbi Amsallem is also Moroccan. Who cares what country he is from if all the gedolim, including the Sefardic ones, wrote an open letter that he is a heretic for converting goyim who are not mekabel mitzvos? There is one case I know of where Rabbi Broyde was converting a woman who other rabbis refused to convert. Just for appearances sake he forced her and her Jewish boyfriend to get separate apts so he could pretend they were living apart. It was a little expensive for them to maintain two rents when they were still sleeping together every night regardless. It's because of the people like Broyde, Avi Weiss, Marc Angel and Haskel Lookstein that even the Rabbanut was going to reject RCA gerus.
I read Rabbi Broydes document cover to cover, the response and his counter response.
No where does he state that uncovered hair is muttar. He is very specific that he is trying to be Lomed Zechus on those who don't.
I am not trying to defend Rabbi Broyde, he is one of the elitists of the liberal left but it does behoove us to be accurate in our commentary.
"Charlie Hall" explain why all the modernishe web sites refuse to publicize the halachic shenanigins of the BDA apikorsim. They remove them. Do you think people are going to publish their names when criminals like Jeremy Stern go to their employers and try and get them fired simply because they disagree with them.
There are some very shtark questions against the BDA mentioned on this web site. Address them you modernishe. Answer them.
Do you really think that Rav Miller has to respond to every bit of kefirah coming out of the OU.
As for jeolousy you must be kidding. Who in his right mind would even compare YU to an undergraduate yeshiva like fallsberg, Philly or paterson let alone to BMG where there are thousands of yungeleit learning in the biggest yeshiva in the last 1500 years. we are jeolous of the toeivah club at YU, to having cardinals come in our Bais Medrash and to all the boys who are always hanging out with Stern meidels. What a joke charlie hall. get a life.
only a chareidi website lets you critisize it. try criticize frum follies or honestly krum. you are delusional buddy.
http://getora.org/haskamot.html
Half of the rabbis standing behind ORA are from the Queens Vaad. They show their true colors when rubbing shoulders here with such Feministishe gedolim as Norman Lamm and Haskell Lookstein.
Why didn't dem mit der groysa payos sign? Must be it wasn't a hechrach to get his paycheck in this case.
James Dean, are you kidding? Broyde's wife does not cover her hair. He has been justifying it for years to the Atlanta community. Now that it went viral all over the world thanks to the OU publication and YU shiur, there is no chance that you are going to help him worm out of it.
Broyde has tried to claim that rebetzin Shach did not cover her hair. He should take a minyan of the biggest talmidei chachomim and go and ask her and rav shach for mechilah at the kevorim.
the man should be melamed zechus on the many, many men whom the BDA have been moytzi la'az on whose wives were in arko'oys.
what a bunch of sickos these modernishe bulvakes are.
MO: THE BIGGEST EXTORTIONISTS IN THE WORLD ARE THE WOMEN WHO GO TO ARKO'OYS OR THE BDA AND CLAIM MONEY TO WHICH THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED AL PI HALOCHOH. WHAT AN OYLOM HA'HOFUCH WE LIVE IN.
To my knowledge, Cardinals came in to the YCT Beis Midrash and not the YU Beis Midrash.
"the boys who are always hanging out with Stern meidels"
Some of the right wing modern orthodox were complaining over 20 years ago that the dating system at the time that hooked up YU boys with Stern girls did not discriminate as to who was not Jewish - and there is a sizable minority of non-Jews attending both schools. At that time there was tremendous timtum as well in the YU cafeteria from a treif microwave used for both milk and meat. Every time one of the more frum students would put up a sign that it was treif it would be torn down. None of this was part of the famous recording of "Rav Gifter slaughters Lamm for Passover"
I recall reading a letter from R' Miller some years ago in which he stated that the details of quantum mechanics and atomic structure could be derived from divrei Chazal in the Gemara.
The facrt is there were dozens of Lithuanian rabbis and rosh yeshivas pre-WW2 whose wives did not cover their hair. Rav Schach and other old time gedolim not only admitted it, but it was often their wives who were bare headed.
And before you get your knickers in knot, there are actual piskei halakha that allow it.
Why not ask your current gedolim about that?
I'd love to hear how they spin away the truth.
Dont forget to mention the other menuval of the RCA BDA-Barry Freundel. He is head of the RCA geyrus hashem yirachem--and trys to shtup all the female geyrim. He works closely with Broyde to hold the power themselves so Fruendel another Pro-fresser can fondle the maidelach. He is a known mezaneh- he has been kicked out of shtellers because of his adultery. Barry Freudel of the RCA gives power to Broyde as a cover for his own zenus.
My wife is the "hat lady" here in Atlanta, and I can tell you that Mrs. Broyde has been over our house several times to shop -- for herself.
For those who say she doesn't cover her hair, at most you should say she doesn't always cover her hair.
Atomic structure and nuclear theory of splitting the atom was first discussed by the Vilna Gaon in his sefer on science. R' Shlomo is a genius in his own right as was recognized since he was a child.
Charlie Hall is a modernishe gadfly who hangs out on every yeshivishe blog to play contrarian.
On ORA's website they only recommend a handful of beis dins besides BDA. Only a select few make the cut like Queens Vaad and KVH Boston that are pro-feminist and where the rabbis like joining organizations with Reform and Conservative rabbis.
How was yeshivishe maniac Chaim Schwartz, who doe$ what he'$ told at Left Wing organization$ when it $uit$ him, able to work simultaneously for both "Synagogue Council" KVH and Agudah while in Boston? A little conflict of interest there?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/%E2%80%98_cohesive_voice%E2%80%99
April 3, 1998
by Eric J. Greenberg
Staff Writer
A spokesman for Agudath Israel of America confirmed this. “We have a longstanding policy of not participating in or giving sanction to multidenominational Jewish religious bodies,” said Rabbi Avi Shafran. He said it is “downright dangerous” to pretend there is an “essential communality” between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jewry. “It doesn’t exist.”
can someone please explain how the BDA yemach shemom are mafkia kiddushin lemafreia in the case of Ariel HaCohen whose wife is a moredes and has refused to go to the Bais Din of the nitva?
The BDA do this all the time. Yemach shemom ve'zichrom.
I'm still confused about why everyone is going crazy over a limud zechus! It's not the same thing as paskening! What Mrs. Broyde does is totally irrelevant. Is anybody seriously disputing that many of the ladies of yesteryear did not cover their hair? Is it so terrible to have a limud zechus on this? Is it better to think of them as ignorant or sinners, c''v?
Many years ago when my husband and I first became frum (we were living in Atlanta at the time) I asked R. Broyde flat out if I had to cover my hair and was told to do so. Moreover, with the perspective of having asked many many shailas of him during that period of time, I did not find him to be somebody who always sought the meikhel route. To the contrary, he seemed to be ruthless about applying his considerable intellect to the halacha and following it to the conclusion.
Although my husband and I have been quite yeshivish for some time, I have nothing but respect for this man and his character. I've seen very few people to match him in sheer intelligence.
I repeat the call of others - if there's an issue with his scholarship, then by all means, have that dialogue. But these personal attacks ...well, no wonder moshiach hasn't yet come.
Never heard of Rabbi Miller. Just read his response to Rabbi Broyde's article.
Rabbi Broyde is a brilliant talmud Chachom. "Rabbi" Miller is clearly Oveir on being Mezalzeil Talmid Chachom.
The sad part is that Broyde would have objectively and unemotionally responded to any important "rational" and learned response.
http://www.yith.org/plugins/content/mavikthumbnails/thumbnails/175x175-images-stories-rabbistarr.jpg
Michael Broyde actually stepped down from day to day affairs of the Young Israel to call himself Founding Rabbi. His daily duties were taken over by this modenna guy who was Avi Weiss's assistant rabbi in Riverdale for 8 years.
He is not in charge of the BDA nor is he the Rabbi of the YI at this time.
I believe that using the invective is not productive. Let Rav Miller shlog him up. Chorin was rebutted by talmide chachomim.
R. Broyde is not a reformer. Scholarship has to be met with the same.
He is not the first nor the last to write like that.
Is it worse to go with uncovered hair, which was practiced in many many european communities (right or wrong) and the woman's mother and grand mother did (and maybe even her great grand mother); or to go to a secular kangeroo court with a $3,000.00 wig and create one of the biggest chilul hashems in modern history. That couple came from Flatbush's so called yeshivisheh community, with NO GROISEH PEIOUS and mistameh lives somewhere around E 13Th Street.
I too am worried about matir issurim. Who decided that it was OK to create a situation where frum yidden can only support themselves through theft and welfare? Who mattired stealing? Who mattired chillul hashem? Who mattired pedophilia in our yeshivas? Who mattired milking and defrauding the taxpayers of the medinah shel chessed? Who mattired arrogant, rude and condescending behavior? When have Jews ever behaved this way?
Let's reinstate these issurim before we worry about Rabbi Broyde.
Michael Broyde is a big problem that must be dealt with in spite of the problems swept under the carpet by poseur "manhigim" in yeshivishe circles.
Broyde is an associate of Avi Weiss who is systematically trying to destroy orthodoxy with his various stunts undertaken on his own and bogus psokim he has issued by brilliant but nonetheless krum individuals like Professor Rabbiner Michael Broyde and Dokter Rabbiner Daniel Sperber who wrote a "teshuva" to allow women rabbis.
12:01:00 PM
If your starting, go all the way.
You forgot to mention that the couple has 'smicha, on Yoreh Dayah & Even hoezer too.
Barry Freundel is the rabbi of both Joe Lieberman and Nat Lewin, two professional liars.
Is the apikoiress Failed Shmarya implying that Rav Schach ztl's wife didn't cover her hair? He is the liar who spins. R' Aron Kotler would not let someone be magid shiur in Kletzk like that.
Failed Shmarya should get out of his mother's basement and stop shnorring from his readers for trips to the Rubashkin trial that he never actually traveled to and get a job. The hypocrite attacks kollel yungerleit as parasites when he is the biggest parasite of all.
Firstly Yudel Shain I commend you for allowing the modernishe SOBs to post on your website and make such utter fools of themselves. Try posting on Lopin the rosho's blog or any other modernishe blog anything against the MO apikorsus and they kicks you off quicker than it takes to say JB.
As for the garbage posted:
1) There was a problem in Litta that rabonim's wives had gone off the derech and did not cover their hair. This is acknowledged by everyone. So anyone who brings a proof from this is not only a historic ignoramous but a kofer. These rabbis acknowledged that their wives were wrong and did NOT claim otherwise. The Haskolah was very strong in Lita and we have the tzionim and especially the mizrochistim to thank for this.
2) The fool who claims he has never heard of Rabbi Miller is just that. Just because you have not heard of someone is your problem not his.
3) The equal fool who claims because there are "chareidim" who cheat in business therefore one should not focus on the kefirah of Broyde should answer " mai inyan shemitta eitzel har sinai".
4) If you look at broyde's resume online, he has only basic semichah from yu and no shimush or exams for dayyonus. so he is UNQUALIFIED even academically to be a dayan.
5)He is moytzi la'az all the time on many men when signing fake seruvim against them. He breaks halochoh with impunity. he is a feminist and not a frum yid. people are having a go at him because he is a vile fraud masquarading as a frum yid literally sittting in judgement on them. That is the bottom line.
From a psychological perspective, the reason why he wrote such a long diatribe of trash is simple: He is a sheygetz, his wife doesn't respect him and will not cover her hair despite his being a "dayan" so he realizes he has a serious problem because his wife has exposed him and her hair to the whole world. So he is trying to cover it up and rationalize it. Pretty simple.
What goes around comes around. You scumbag with your fake seruvim, now eat some of your own poiuson.
Okay, so some Hungarians from Boro Park who aren't very bright went on the People's Court television show about a ruined sheytel and made fools out of frumma Yidden. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I guarantee you the goyim don't know the difference between Mendy and Michael Broyde.
Feivel, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey also have bought hats at a hat store because women consider them fashionable. What's the "heter" to not cover her hair most of the time?
why should broyde's wife need a heter to uncover her hair?
do you have the audacity and temerity to challenge the 4 wisest men on this earth gedaliah swartz (the zokein mamre of chicago), monsignor willig (the cardinal from the bronx), broyde (the apikores from atlanta) and herchelst the schlechtest of them all who according to the steipler must be ro'eh zoynos?
they are brighter and more learned than anyone else who proceeded them on the planet and how dare anyone challenge them? they literally know it all?
after all, even Hashem needs to bend his will chas ve'saholom to their shekorim and kefirah? they can change anything they like and who be it us simple folks who are not one of them to challenge them!
The equal fool who claims because there are "chareidim" who cheat in business therefore one should not focus on the kefirah of Broyde should answer " mai inyan shemitta eitzel har sinai"."
"Equal Fool" here. (I probably should have mentioned illiteracy in my previous post as well.)
I didn't merely say there are Chareidim who cheat in business. As most of us well know, the problem is not a few isolated instances. It is a widespread corruption, and without corrupt practices (including excessive welfare taking comparable to underclass lowlives) the community as we know it could not exist.
With such a massive flaw and constant chillul hashem, worrying about Rabbi Broyde is like worrying about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks.
Hope that clarifies it.
Whoa! When and in what context did the Steipler ztl mention R' Hershel Schechter and zoynos in the same breath?
Does anyone understand Rabbi H. Schechter's rationale to be mattir to eat royal jelly from bees the same as honey?
My wife covers her hair, my mother covers her hair and my alter bubbie even shaved her head. But lets be honest. There was at least one Litvishe tzidkanis, married to a most distinguished member of the Moetzes in America who for years did not cover her hair. In addition, many frum yekkes were not makpid about head coverings. And all the bubbies who collected money for, cooked for and maintained our yeshivas 60-70 years ago did not cover their hair. I am not a posek but I am not quite prepared to be motzi laaz on any of them.
All you LH-nikim attacking Rabbi Broyde, shlita....
I thought the Internet is assur for you.
Who would expect Queens Vaad av beis din Peretz Steinberg to be on the list of feminist YU rabbis backing ORA? We thought he at least PRETENDS to be yeshivish. When he goes together with his son in law Asher Schachter, who gives hashgocho to a Jewish owned business making bagels on Pesach and Yom Kippur, to visit Rav Elyashev so they can fill their shul websites with the photo-ops, the gadol hador shlita is unaware that Steinberg was an accomplice to Rabbi Belsky's fake bittul kiddushin that he came out against bechol tokef.
http://getora.org/haskamot.html
How much longer can Peretz Steinberg continue to fool the gadol hador when his name is publicly behind ORA? Or will Steinberg pull a Queens Vaad and remove his name from the website like VHQ has done in other instances?
This is a quote from R. Broyde's article on hair covering:
“Women and families who have a clear custom not to cover their hair should know that there is a firm foundation for such a practice in the Rishonim and Shulhan Arukh.”
Another prominent ORA supporter is Queens Vaad elder Fabian Schonfeld, father of current Don of the VHQ mafia, Yoel Schonfeld. These characters along with Barry Freundel formed an embarrassing alliance with the Arab terrorist front group ISNA. They refused at first to back down when they were exposed by Jewish World Review but had no choice when they were later lambasted by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/marriage_terrorists3.php3
Terrorist expert Steve Emerson explains, if you look at ISNA's involvement with terrorists, hosting actual terrorist leaders, ideological support for Islamic terrorist groups, you will find it serves as an umbrella group.
Rabbi Kenneth Auman, president of the Rabbinical Council of America, of which Freundel is vice president, tells JewishWorldReview "Freundel's association with ISNA is being looked into." Freundel, he said, is now "aware," of ISNA's membership, but was previously in the dark. "He's reassessing his position."
Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, said his organization has not discussed the matter with Freundel or Schonfeld. He refused to comment on their membership in the AFM, except to note that the Orthodox Union previously withdrew its representative in 2001 after the AMC connection was first reported by JewishWorldReview & that Rabbis Freundel & Schoenfeld were not representing the OU as members of the AFM advisory board.
However, Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, father of the AFM member, and a member of the Orthodox Union's board of directors, defended his son's decision to remain with the group.
"I wouldn't resign. I would get rid of ISNA."
He refused to say what the younger Schonfeld should do if ISNA remains on the advisory board.
For the MO ignoramuses out there, the Steipler said that someone who is always favoring women in divorce disputes is ro'eh zoynos and that is exactly what Herschel Schlechter yemach shemo is doing. If you want the exact location where the Steipler said it, look at the seruv put out against herschel the kapo boy.
As for the MO scumbag who claims that "chareidim" cheat more in business, this thread is about the corrupt Death Bin of America. How can the populace of the BDA be honest when its leadership is so corrupt? The fact that the BDA has the support of the entire MO community and its leadership including the RCA and the OU is a scandal of epic proportions.
As rav Schwab said anyone who looks frum and cheats in business is not a frum yid. So cut it out. Which Godol said one can cheat in business? Only Dovid Cohen the feminist and part of the RCA's rabbinic panel said one can cheat on one's income taxes, who else.
Yet he was the big hero of the Modernishe filth. And he still has his modernishe supporters. Show me a Rosh Yeshiva who supports that thug?
Finally all you modernishe mizrochistim go post on the rosho lopin's blog. That is where your filth belongs.
http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=15693
see a list there of the most corrupt fake dayonim in america.
the mo trash/ dregs are at the bottom of the list. Of course Sheretz Steinberg is corrupt and a feminist.
http://www.ronitbaras.com/emotional-intelligence/personal-development-c/pippi-longstocking/
Yetzt farshteit men vos Chaim Schwartz is azoy nunt mit der feministishe Queens Vaad. Er hot groise roite peyos vos zet ois vee Pippi Longstocking, a heisse femineest!
The following are some quotes from the head blogger against all kashrut org. including, but not limited to, the VHQ.
The Subject is Harav Hagoan Reb Elyashev Shlit'a and the object is a self gratifying ego on the part of the blogger:
"the gadol hador shlita is UNAWARE..."
'continue to FOOL the gadol hador ..."
Maybe HIS gedolim can be fooled (at his discretion) but out holy Gedolim have special "Seyatah D'shmayah" and NEVER get fooled or mislead.
The Schonfelds ARE the Queens Vaad. They invented it 50 years ago and have been calling all shots since then no matter which puppets like Chaim Schwartz and Rabbi Dr. Richard Weiss they give fancy titles to.
ISNA is a real "badge of honor" for them
ISNA was one of a number of Muslim groups investigated by US law enforcement for terrorist connections. Its tax records were requested in December 2003 by the Senate Finance Committee. Committee chairman Senator Charles Grassley said, "We did not find anything that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing." (Indianapolis Star, November 15, 2005)
In the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case, the US Department of Justice named ISNA, along with Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the North American Islamic Trust, as an unindicted co-conspirator and one of a number of "entities who are members of the US Muslim Brotherhood." (NY Times August 16, 2007)
From the court documents, "ISNA is an integral part of the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts to wage jihad against America." (Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, p. 82, Bruce Bawer, Random House, Inc., 2009)
ISNA has been suspended from endorsing Muslim chaplains assigned to federal prisons, pending an FBI investigation
Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has asserted that the Islamic Society of North America is "has ties to local Islamic extremists" (Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington, p. 200, Paul E. Sperry , Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005)
The reason why the poster at 10:05 (Chaim Schwartz) is having such great difficulties is because misguided yeshivishe maniacs like him think that gedolim in this dor are kaviyochel completely infallible like the Pope lehavdil and can never make a mistake when people lie to them. Their siyata diShmaya is unfortunately not that absolute.
Now he will jump and say oh, so then Rav Elyashev must have erred when he poskened against the Queens Vaad and Elchonon Zohn. The difference there is that Rav Elyashev had all kinds of documented evidence to posken from like photographs and expert testimony from historians and genealogists. He also caught Zohn on his own lies when he came running to Israel to convince Rav Elyashev to reverse his psak which got Zohn thrown out on his head.
Listen to that apikores!
Everyone can fool the gedolim except chayas like MH and the self proclaimed Flatbush godol with over 1000 kinuyim.(Oh i forgot the groise einikel mit not such groise peious ober mit ah frizoor).
UOJ and the gantzeh chavreiyah are the last word today. If you don't believe me, ask them. Their 'fooled Gedolim' list iz lang vee deh goolis.
And their venom "hehred zich fun the veitenz"
now that you all mention it, atlanta people i trust don't have much respect for either rabbi michael broyde or the queens vaad becuase when the rov in atlanta refuses to be magayer someone they wind up going to rabbi michael broyde or making their way to ny where the queens vaad is known to be real easy
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/04divorce.html?hp
Is that a case that the (ex) wife refused to abide by the beis din of Baltimore & no seruv was issued?
So why is Ora demonstrating without an order of a beis din?
Because their beis din is civil court?
Does R" Shmuel Kaminetzky realize who he is siding with here?
"It is not the place here to be l'falpel in this matter."
So lets not get on R' Miller's case just yet. He seems to indicate that he'll be l'falpel some time sooner or later.
Very unbecoming comments from frum people.
Please keep the language clean.
why you dont print how he learns a ritvo about R Yochanan. Like R Harry Maryles blog.
That would tell everyone what he really is!
There is more hatred on this page than on any page of Der Sturmer. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Are you the kind of people a "Torah" education produces? Unbelievable. No wonder everybody hates the Jews.
"emes lamito" is falling over because he is really molei sheker vos hot nisht raglayim.
"Listen to that apikores!"
Super narrow-minded yeshivishe maniac Chaim Schwartz is always quick to blurt out that his opponents have a din apikores. This when he follows any orders from his modern orthodox masters at KVH / VHQ for a paycheck to be poretz geder in every miktzoah of Torah, kashrus, toyevah and joining boards with real apikorsim from Reconstructionist, Reform & Conservative.
"chayas like MH"
Schwartz is bashmutzing R' Moishe Handler here like the Queens Vaad has been doing for years. That's what you get when you catch VHQ red handed doing big avlos like ripping up graves of yesomim to resell for profit to secular Russians.
"and the self proclaimed Flatbush godol with over 1000 kinuyim"
Schwartz is getting exceedingly confused. Some days he is in paranoid mode that there are over 1000 people blogging against him and spends his gantze tog investigating who they are. Some days like today he blames every blog post on a single culprit.
"UOJ and the gantzeh chavreiyah ... Their 'fooled Gedolim' list iz lang vee deh goolis."
This is the standard line from the Agudah where Schwartz used to work. They are already out of business because no one is goress them anymore but they haven't figured it out themselves yet. R' Chaim Brisker was 100% right that in this dor the secretaries are in charge. But even when you have a real gadol with no sinister agendas, the seforim say he can make a mistake.
And their venom "hehred zich fun the veitenz"
That's funny coming from the Queens Vaad who will do anything to silence people who know about their dirty laundry.
Amazed, the only hatred is that perpetrated by the MO against innocent men whose lives have been destroyed by spoilt brats who then go and get the BDA and their filthy ilk to justify their mesirah, and arko'oys. You should be ashamed of yourselves you modernishe scum breaking halochoh with impunity. When you have to deal with the victims of the corruption of the BDA and their stormtroopers ORA yemach shemom ve'zichrom then you will change your tune. go back to posting your hatred on frum follies and torah musings.
furthermore answer the serious charges against the BDA and why they break halochoh
"Der Sturmer"
That is a Broyde supporter trying to shut down the discussion.
When they resort to Nazi mosholim, the old rule tells you it's because they have lost the argument.
What's the link where R' Maryles discusses that?
who is the flatbush godol?
I think we should stick to one topic and that is whether the essay is correct or not. Rabbi Broyde admits that gedole hoacharonim including Reb Moshe consider it daas moshe. He admits that he will only bring the opinions that support that it is daas yehudis and thus has no fixed definition.
My only gripe is that he should not have written it. I believe that he wrote something up in the RJJ Journal that it is a requirement to keep the head covered. His only point was that not everyone agrees how much. (BTW Reb Moshe allows a lot to be exposed.)
Since it is assur then it is time not to be lemaed zechus but to write up how important it is. Rav motzoh bikh vegodar boh.
Enclosed is a letter to the RJJ Journal regarding an article written by Rabbi Schiller, who made many of the same points made by Rabbi Broyde. This letter systematically addresses and refutes each of the proofs. Many have been asking for a scholarly refutation, I believe that true mevakshim will find this enlightening.
The letter is written by Rabbi Mordechai Lebhar, a world renowned expert on minhagim and a former rebbe of mine from los angeles.
.......
We will post the entire letter teshuvah in a day or 2.
Ben Torah:
You deliberately misquoted R' Broyde. Here's is a fuller quotation:
"Women and families who have a
clear custom not to cover their hair should know that there is a firm foundation for such a practice in the Rishonim and Shulhan Arukh, even if
such a view is rejected by the great Ahronim of our day."
Rabbi Broyde has not pakened that married women may uncover their hair. He has found justification for their existing practice after the fact. The purpose of such justification is to be מלמד זכות, nothing more. Nothing that R' Broyde writes would allow us to discard centuries of practice in favor of a now rejected view of many Rishonim.
What's remarkable is that amongst the strident comments here, devoid of לשון נקיה, there isn't any truthful representation of what Rabbi Broyde actually claimed. R' Broyde's opponents here start off with a misrepresentation of what he wrote, add a couple of ad hominems, throw in some overloaded hysterical terms and proceed to discuss different subjects and people!
I believe Chazal still talk to us, and still are relevant. This dishonesty, haste to condemn and general ignorance make me think:
אי הות התם הות נקיטנא בשיפולי גלימא ורהטת אבתראי
I disagree about sticking only to the sheitel point and it would appear that Yudel agrees. What this is just a symtom of the reform attitude and psak of Broyde. he is a danger to society especially men but even to women who receive fake gittin as a result of his distortions of yiddishkeit.
may he, gedliah schwartz, willig, yona reiss, herchel schlechter and the rest of the MO mafiosa get their just desserts be'korov mamesh.
"who is the flatbush godol?"
It could be anyone who over the years has complained or even just found out something wrong the Queens Vaad is doing which makes them a target for attacks by VHQ and especially Schwartz.
He says that someone is "afraid of his own shadow" when Schwartz is the super paranoid one investigating betedirus who said what or knows what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Clouseau#Overview
Clouseau is a bumbling and incompetent police inspector of the French Sûreté, whose investigations are marked with chaos and destruction that he himself largely causes. His clumsy attempts at solving the case frequently lead to misfortune for himself and others; he cannot even interview witnesses to a crime without falling down stairs, getting his hand caught in a vase, knocking a witness senseless, destroying a priceless piano or accidentally shooting another officer in the backside. Clouseau is also not particularly intelligent, and will frequently follow a completely idiotic theory of the crime
to 10::52 this is the link
To R Harry Maryles blog
http://is.gd/kaPgP
Where the R Broyde explains how he 'understands' a ritvo that R Yochanan watched the women in the mikva.
If that is how he 'learns' R Miller is quite right that he deserves no answer.
I was there when he said this, Rav Naftoli Friedler obm, an alter Frankfurter talmid of Rav Shneider who was rosh yeshiva in Breuers, then Toronto and later rov of Breuers Monsey, his thoughts on Rav J.B. Soloveitchik who also gave out signs that he holds there is nothing wrong with women not covering their hair and wearing pants. He said that Rav JBS is a gaon adir in learning and zicher found some kind of smach but he made a huge mistake in letting it be known because of the churban in ruchniyus that is nisgalgel by not keeping it to himself. Such a person he said cannot be considered a tzaddik.
Typical of broyde to leave the mesorah which he is so disdainful of. He finds a meikil in a Rishon that was never really part of the mesorah and uses it all the time. This is someone whom Avrohom Ovinu already discussed.
"Rak ein yiras h' ba'mokom haze ve'haraguni al d'var ishti".
This is the pshat in Brode's 35 page diatribe against the mesorah as previously written by me:
From a psychological perspective, the reason why he wrote such a long diatribe of trash is simple: He is a sheygetz, his wife doesn't respect him and will not cover her hair despite his being a "dayan" so he realizes he has a serious problem because his wife has exposed him and her hair and ERVAH to the whole world. So he is trying to cover it up and rationalize it. Pretty simple.
What goes around comes around. You scumbag with your fake seruvim, now eat some of your own poiuson
Ephraim, When R. Broyde wrote:
"Women and families who have a clear custom not to cover their hair should know that there is a firm foundation for such a practice in the Rishonim and Shulhan Arukh, even if such a view is rejected by the great Ahronim of our day."
He is going far beyond "limud zchus", and he is JUSTIFYING the continued refusal by these married women to not cover their hair.
He is going far beyond "limud zchus", and he is JUSTIFYING
Forgive the ignorance, but isn't that *exactly* what a limud z'chus is??
If not, how do you translate "limmud z'chus?"
The Wolf
The only question is whether Rav Elyashiv, Rav Karelitz and rav Wosner should put this shok Broyde in cheirem or not.
On 2nd thoughts he is such a nobody, an ant, why should they even waste their time with this worthless thug.
Hilchos Krias Shema
1685. If a male wants to say a Davar She'bekedusha and there is a married Jewish female visible with some of her hair visible; he may close his eyes, or turn his head to look away, and that is sufficient. Piskei Tshuvos 75:16
1686. A married Jewish women should cover her hair when making any beracha, or for davening, even when alone in her home. Halichos Shlomo 2:28, Piskei Tshuvos 75:3, 91:2
The maykilim to turn away from an un-tzniusdik woman to make a beracha only started in the times of the later Achronim when a large percentage of women were no longer following halacha. This heter would not work when most people used to behave properly. Slobs like Michael Broyde help keep Klal Yisrael in the rut.
BrooklynWolf, a limud zchus would be, for example, to say yes it is WRONG to not cover the hair, but these woman were brought up wrong and never knew better so they are not sinners. But R. Broyde has gone far beyond that and effectively told these women that if they have a "tradition" to sin by not covering their hair, its okay for them to CONTINUE NOT COVERING THEIR HAIR.
(BTW, this point is aside from the fact that R. Broyde twisted the sources to reach his erroneous conclusions about the early sources he claims to justify this behavior.)
"BrooklynWolf, a limud zchus would be, for example, to say yes it is WRONG to not cover the hair, but these woman were brought up wrong and never knew better so they are not sinners."
And why must לימוד זכות be דוקא that? Why not say that they are not ignorant per se, but rather hold onto a rejected tradition?
"But R. Broyde has gone far beyond that"
How is that going beyond that? What does לימוד זכות precisely mean?
"its okay for them to CONTINUE NOT COVERING THEIR HAIR. "
Another lie. He did not pasken that it's OK for them to continue to do so.
I suppose a less contentious example would be turning on lights on Yom Tov. In the early 20th century there were frum Jews who turned lights on on Yom Tov. This is fact! And they had who to rely on. No less an authority than the Aruch HaShulchan "leaned" toward leniency in this regard. (Disclaimer: the wording of his "psak", if we may call it that seemed rather hesitant. Please check it up yourself.) Now, even after the poskim all agreed to forbid turning lights on Yom Tov, many of these same Jews continued to do what had been their (and their parent's) practice. See Ovadia Yosef תשובה for what one's attitude should be to such people.
Broyde calls his article about women's hair covering just a "limmud zchus", but if you look carefully at what he writes (like the quote posted on this thread), you see that he's telling women who do not cover their hair that they don't need to change their behavior, as if there was such a thing as a family masoroh not to cover the hair.
But the specific issue of married women's hair covering isn't the important thing here.
The important thing is that Michael Broyde and many Modern Orthodox like him do a palginon dibburoh on all of Yiddishkeit. They accept the halochoh but not the hashkofoh. When Broyde and those like him look at the gemoro, the rishonim, and the poskim, all they think they have to accept is the dinim. They don't think they have to accept the hashkofoh behind the dinim. They know that the gemoro, the rishonim, and the poskim believed that men and women were supposed to have different roles but they think they don't have to accept this. Instead, Broyde and those like him just take the values of secular America and make them their hashkofoh. This is the reason for all the feminism and all the poor judgement shown by their battei din.
Broyde is particularly worrisome, because he tries to posken in a way that is frummer than his hashkafos are.
Broyde's hashkafos are from the extreme left-wing of Modern Orthodoxy, from the people connected to Avi Weiss who think that YU is too black-hat. Broyde is associated with JOFA, the feminist organization founded by the wife of Irving Yitz Greenberg, the man who thinks that no one is chayov to do mitzvos after the Holocaust. The JOFA people have a problem with any halochoh that makes a distinction between men and women. Broyde has no problem with the hashkafos of the JOFA people.
But Broyde is not exactly like these people and that's where the danger is. Unlike them he is very against hafko'as kiddushin. He also doesn't push for the women's prayer groups. This is how he sets himself apart from his rebbe Emanuel Rackman. (You can find Broyde long hespid for Rackman online.) Broyde tries to conceal his hashkafos when he writes or speaks about halochoh. When his rebbe Rackman wrote or spoke it was clear that the man was not Orthodox. But when Broyde writes or speaks, he has the ability to sound like a legitimate dayan. Broyde is very knowledgeable and hard-working, and he has the ability to mimic the way a real dayan writes or speaks. This is why he is more accepted than Rackman was, and this is why he is so dangerous.
Now another point.
The way some people on this thread have been speaking is outrageous. I know you're all upset at the Modern Orthodox and your kano'us is great but you're going overboard. Broyde and those like him are totally wrong but they don’t know any better. They never had real rebbeim or learned in real yeshivos. They’re well-meaning, decent human beings with families and NOT evil people that you should be going around talking about them the way you are. You shouldn't be making fun of their names or guessing that this or that one's wife doesn't respect her husband. You don’t understand how angry, nasty, and childish you sound. It s’pahst nisht to post about a man’s wife on the internet, no matter how angry you are at him. Hundreds of Modern Orthodox intellectuals from around the world have been reading this blog and you all should have been trying to explain the authentic Torah point of view to them.
Ephraim, I said specifically that was an 'example'.
Hold onto a rejected tradition? That's nice. What other "rejected traditions" do they hold? That there will be NO MOSHIACH? R. Hillel in the gemorah says there will be no moshiach.
"How is that going beyond that?"
R. Broyde wrote: "should know that there is a firm foundation for such a practice"
That's how. He is saying it is okay to not cover the hair, with those words.
Mattis, most of what you said is on the ball and eloquently put but you make several glaring errors. A man who sits as a dayan on the most illegitimate Beth Din in the history of America cannot be excused as not knowing better. Do you know how many men out there are suffering their lives destroyed by the BDA and their children destroyed by the BDA and the fact that they protect these women who are in arko'oys which results in churbonoys that you cannot imagine?
So trying classify this man as ignotant but not evil is revisionist history. Secondly the influence of the MO world has now spread to the chareidi world and led to many chareidim turning to the BDA and hence the chareidi Botei Din for business purposes following the sickening distortion of halochoh and perpetrating similar crimes to the BDA. Sorry this man is not an innocent nice guy but a man who together with Willig, Schwartz, Schechter of ORA and Yona Reiss deserve to burn in the lowest levels of gehionom. Only someone who knows the sufferings of hundreds of men can really appreciate the churban caused by these people you describe as nice as erlich. Sorry you are totally wrong in this regard.
Furthermore you are totally wrong that these MO rabbis really accept halochoh, they do not. They pick and choose what suits their feminsit agenda. Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with p'sak knows you cannot rely on an obscure opinion of a Rishon that all the other Rishonim opppose and was never mekubel amongst klal yisroel as a valid opinion for p'sak purposes. This is classical BDA distorted methodology. You are wrong again, they really do not accept hichos gittin, hilchos mesirah, hilchos arko'oys ve'chulu.
If there was a Bais Hamidosh, they would protest korbonoys and me'chais amolek as old fashioned and totally out of date. Sorry they are finally being exposed for who they are and what they stand for. The only shaila is why rav Miller keeps quiet about their Bais Din. That is the real disgrace of this whole sordid saga.
i know clergyman broyde pretty well. if he would live in a large jewish comunity he would not be considered a talmid chochom at all.
I don't know who orchestrated this witch hunt but...
1- They took Rabbe Broyde's theoretical paper to be melameid zekhus on those women in Litta who didn't cover their hair and those who wouldn't listen to him either way today and present it as though it's his position.
2- Why do they bash some MO rabbi that has little impact in their lives? "Remove the beam from your own eye..." (Eiruchin 16b) How about dealing with people within your own community who hide child molesters, or steal money to run their yeshivos, or in other ways create chillulei Hashem?
We all have problems. Why this game of making oneself feel better with "but he is worse"?
Again, anyone who claims he is "insignificant" and should be ignored is wrong.
In reality he may be of insignificant stature, but as one of the three stooges on the BDA, he is creating mayhem, havoc and destruction all over.
It is a disgrace that the chareidim let the BDA be. They need to annihilate it. It is the Amolek of this generation. The moetzes has enough to answer for but ivvus hadin, to keep quiet while Jewish men are being destroyed by depraved women who refuse to move on with their lives, unbelievable.
If I can expand for a moment on anti MOs comments today, he is correct that bnei yeshivos have lo aleinu been going to BDA lately for monetary disputes. This is largely because of the corruption of the haymish batei din and because they mistakenly think dayanim that are trained lawyers can better execute halacha, not realizing how krum these modern orthodox are.
Funny he mentioned mechiyas Amalek because the self-described rabbis among the Avi Weiss crowd have already been doing verbal acrobatics in public to agonize over the "inhumanity" of achariso adei oveid. They are following in the footsteps of the rasha merushe Arnold Toynbee yemach shemoy, the pro-Nazi British historian who was an acquaintance of Hitler yemach shemoy and who like a good Amaleki was mecharef umegadef that Yiddishkeit is a useless fossil.
The pedophile actor Woody Allen yemach shemoy (born Allan Konigsberg) was also a talmid of Toynbee. In a recorded incident he had on the Lower East Side, he bumped into the Pilzno Rov, R' Yosef Singer ztl, who was in his 90s at the time, and blurted out Toynbee's fossil vort.
People,
I realise that since Hareidi Judaism is a deviant offshoot of Judaism you feel a bit defensive about it and I am aware that there is a problem of low ethical standards within the Hareidi world but I do not think that is an excuse for some of the disgraceful comments posted here.
Thu Jan 06, 04:52:00 PM 2011 means the blog is starting to attract the Erev Rav followers of Shmarya ymsvz
I've heard the RCA BDA beis din always goes with dina demalchusa in mammonos cases. A lot of the yeshivialeit going to them have this as a vested interest because they know they will lose in any other beis din in certain cases.
Perhaps the jealousy is over the modernischers' ability to spell words like "jealousy."
WFB the jeolosy is over the gay clubs at YU and the breaking of halochoh and the geheionom that the BDA must inevitibly face, you shmuk.I don't even think that the ignoramous would get into many chaburahs in BMG let alone give thjem. In the MO world he is a big star, called a disastar.
"but if you look carefully at what he writes"
In other words, "if you distort his words". He never paskened it's OK. Period. I don't see a difference in his general approach (vs. the actual halachic argument) to what Ovadiah Yosef wrote about those who continue to turn on lights on Yom Tov.
"He is saying it is okay to not cover the hair, with those words."
That's a lie. You can't prove it. You can't prove it not because of lack of evidence, but because R' Broyde has repeatedly stated that this is not what he meant. He stated clearly that married women should cover their hair. Anything else is a distortion.
You remind me of reformers who reinterpret the words of the Torah and Chazal to promote their own agenda.
"Perhaps the jealousy is over the modernischers' ability to spell words like "jealousy."
Spelling is overrated. Indeed, spelling didn't become standardized until the 19th century. And much of English spelling is arbitrary. I wouldn't attribute much to someone who can't spell "jealousy". On the other hand, someone who can't read, or can't understand what he reads, or distorts what he reads... that's another matter.
"He stated clearly that married women should cover their hair"
Atlanta people have told me that Broyde has been very clear in public that women need not cover their hair. It would seem that the first subscriber to his philosophy is his own wife.
EFRAIM go post your garbage on Frum Follies web site.
The fact of the matter is there is only one question at hand: are the BDA apikorsim or are they too big a bunch of am horatzim to not be chayev misah for their kefirah?
go back to your gay clubs at yu which never led to the resignation of a single so called rosh yeshiva, the mingling of men and women not for shidduch purposes at yu, the teaching of kefirah at yu, the lack of kashrus there as previously pointed on this blog and fix those abominations up you thug.
go and enforce the cheirem on hershel the mamzer boy for issuing false seiruvim and being moytzi la'az on someone who left a get in a bais din where the dayonim fast on the days they are mesader gittin and do not take money for it and have real yiras shomayim, unlike the bda in their plush manhattan offices where everything is a business worshipping the once mighty $$$
Lastly your organization is so obsessed with Rabbis JB and Kook simply because MO has never produced a single godol be'torah. where are your chazon ish's, steiplers, brisker rov's. In colleges that is where they are. You make me puke.
have a good shabbos. dina de' machusa dina is there is freedom of actions in the us so it is muttar to drive and use electricity on shabbos according to a rishon who became an apostate and is now used by the bda to be melamed zechus on those who break shabbos.
Michael Broyde's writings migrated to the OU banner together with Gil Student when Gil was plucked by the OU from being a nobody publisher to head of the new OU press. Rabbi Genack may have had something to do with it as he headed the forerunner of the OU press when he started releasing the works of Rav Soloveitchik.
Which Rishon became a meshumod besides R' Avner the talmid of the Ramban?
YU refuses to revoke the semicha of Steve Greenberg, the open homosexual who lectures on college campuses that mishkav zachur is permitted. He and his "partner" are permitted to be members of a modern orthodox synagogue in Cincinnati.
When musmachim of YU called the school to complain that this shtik abomination is making a mockery of them, YU copped out that they are terrified of big bad lawyers and lawsuits. Oh my!
http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-got-nothing.html
"UOJ" said...
I have been asked/urged to state my opinion:
Rav Shlomo Miller is absolutely right on this halachic issue, the only thing he's guilty of is over the top language -- which I can relate to as a vehicle for making certain that his voice is heard
ORA is an agenda driven organization, unfazed by the truth in any particular case.
UOJ, the only thing that Rav Miller is guilty of under the bottom langauge.,He should call a Bais Din of himself, Rav Eliyohu Levin and Rav Feinstein and put in cheirem the whole of the YU, BDA, OU, ORA and RCA leadership and get the Litivshe and Chassiddishe leadership to join on.
It is despicable that we do not have anyone left to fight michomos Hashem as well as basic justice. Many people's basic human rights denied and assets have been EXTORTED from them as a result of this modernishe garbage BDA death bin corruption mafia.
Furthermore a full-time bais din needs to be set up to deal simply with 2 related issues:
1) issuing immediate seruvim on anyone in arko'oys and kicking all their relatives out of any mossad as pupils, teachers administrators etc.
2) for those who refuse to go to bais din, issuing seruvim and heter arko'oys in very exceptional circumstances.
enough is enough of the fake yiddishkeit we have today.
I am told from an Atlantan that Rabbi Feldman of the Beth Jacob Shul accepts Rabbi Broyde's conversions. The Feldmans are not left wingers.
itchie mayer,
Please slow down. Whoever told you that is either out to lunch or is trying to be diplomatic. What you heard is only true as far Broyde converts becoming members in Rabbi Feldman's shul which is still a very modern shul by NY standards. It did not even have a mechitzah for years until Rabbi Feldman's father manage to push it through. There are MANY conversion candidates that Rabbi Feldman will not work with. They end up with Broyde or leave the city. AFTER they are converted by Broyde, Rabbi Feldman is partially looking to avoid machlokes in town and partially conceding that at least some Broyde converts are gerim in what is a BIG BEDIEVED.
"YU refuses to revoke the semicha"
Can semicha be revoked? Please cite all relevant halachic sources. Also, please cite cases where smicha has been revoked.In any case, Greenberg has been condemned by Rabbi Rakeffet on many occasions. I'm sure many other YU RHs have expressed disapproval of his ideas. He certainly has not been endorsed by any YU Rosh Yeshiva. And nothing in his aberrant philosophy can be attributed to his rebbeim. He's written a book on the subject. I haven't read it, (nor have any interest,) but I would like to see where in his book he quotes a YU Rosh Yeshiva to back up his anti-halachic opinions. Thus, your comment adds up to nothing more than ignorance and implicit מוצא שם רע. (And has nothing to do with Rabbi Broyde.)
Rav Bloch from Telz Cleveland wanted to revoke the semicha of someone who was no longer a ben Torah. The trick was to get him to hand it over. He convinced the bum he needed to verify something on it and never gave it back. You can be sure it was over much less than telling everyone mishkev zochur is no problemo.
There is nothing to stop YU issuing a letter that they condemn vermin like Steve Greenberg and consider his semicha worthless. They just don't have the backbone to do it. They also allow homos to run rampant on their campuses because the almighty dollar is more important to Stormin' Norman Lamm and friends than what Hakadosh Baruch Hu wants. That is to paraphrase another Telzer rosh yeshiva, Rav Gifter.
Ephraim, I imagine you are trying to get away with your defense of YU with a straight face.
http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/
I'll tell you what. Since you are so well informed about all things YU maybe you can fill us in on what it is about the "enlightened" YU Weltanschauung that leads to dozens if not hundreds of high profile YU musmachim and alumni to sign the the letter welcoming open homosexuals into modern orthodox synagogues and schools. It's not like Steve Greenberg is given the red carpet treatment at shuls predominately filled with black fedoras and shtreimels, despite whatever other lowlives the corrupt sector of the right wing is harboring.
Efraim please answer all the basic charges against the BDA as to why they consistently violate halochoh all the time on this thread or shut the hell up. Enough is enough.
anti MO:
You say that the RCA Beis Din and other modernishe botei din are taking divorce cases where women are acting unreasonably and treating these women like innocent victims and agunos, and harassing their husbands. You say there are hundreds of cases like this.
Want to do something about it? Listen. Go and get these men's stories written up. Either you or someone else or maybe a group of people should talk to at least a dozen, better two dozen, of these men and get all the details. Do a real drisha v'chakira. Follow up the interviews with some research to check all the facts so that people will take you seriously. Then write it all up and put it out there for the world to read. Write it up in a way that commands respect, in real English and without anger, name-calling, and ranting. If the facts really are on your side people will have to listen.
I cannot believe some of the things I've read in these comments. I've personally had the zechus of learning from Rabbi Broyde, Rav Schachter, Rabbi Reiss, Rav Willig, and many others who are being openly mocked and ridiculed. From what I know about the ORA, they are trying to do good things about difficult problems.
I'm MO and proud of it, especially after reading the comments posted here. If I end up burning in hell as a result, at least I know all of you will be there right along with me.
Rabbi Menashe Klein has already written an 80 page sefer on this issue.
Go to the http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/GET_MEUSEH_BEARKAOT-H.pdf
or here: http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/MESIRAH_KLEIN-H.pdf
The gedolim have already over a decade ago publicized a Kol Koreh on this issue.
http://www.mishpattsedek.com/KolKoreh-70Rabbis.htm
Rav Gestetner has dealt with numerous cases but is ridiculed by the BDA. He put Schlechter in cheirem for issuing a false siruv on Kin.
Do you really think these animals of the BDA are interested in the truth? See the same web site.
And in case you do not believe me, call the BDA and/or read Broyde's book. They openly admit the allegations I have made and/ or seen on this website about them e.g. favoring women in arko'oys without heterim, using secular law etc. They are even proud of it.
Get real. Look up every single seruv issued in NY by the BDA as to who the Plaintiff is, 99% of the time , the woman!
Call them up. Do not believe me. Ask them how many times they have issued a seruv on a woman in arko'oys!
Frankly I suspect you are a sympathizer of their kefirah. Their polices and behavior are very well known.
And they are like Amoleik, they jumped in the hot bath with their support of women in arko'oys 1st. Now everyone else including many charedi women and even botei din are following.
As for claims of extortion, once a woman is in arko'oys she is the one doing the extorting. If any husband then turns around and says he wants a miilion bucks for a get, I can't even blame him. If one party is extorting, why should the other party not do the same.
anti-MO:
I know that it's already out there what those and other rabonim have said about botei din being involved with arko'os. But no one has put out there (at least not in a serious, professional way) the stories of the individual men affected.
I assure you I'm no sympathizer, even if I'm not on the same page as you. I have been listening to MO people go on about the agunoh "crisis" for years and it never added up. After a while I began to suspect that these people were not using the word "agunoh" in the normal way. It seemed like they would take the woman's side no matter what the facts were.
So research, collect, and write up the stories of the men you say whose lives were destroyed. In each case write up all the details of the course of events, what each side did and when. If unreasonable women have been using the modernishe botei din to make their husbands suffer, if injustice is being done, the facts will show this. People will listen and there will be change.
Matis, a few thoughts come to mind. One, there would need to be funding because this would be a big project and we would need an organization to counter ORA and it would be tough to raise money beacuse emotions are on the side of the woman not necessarily on the side of truth.
Secondly, many charedi rabbonim do not care about this avlah taking place. Just see how gedaliah Schwartz is horored in Chicago by Rabbi Cohen in Yeshurun and even by Telz when they know the truth. Similarly, recently Telz Alumni honored M Willig and all this is totally beyond belief!
Even more egregiously, there are just as many corrupt charedi botei din all over the US. All the rabbonim know about it, admit privately that this is problem, but cannot do anything about it.
As an example few people know that Belsky is persona non grata by Rav Elyashiv because of his involvement in corruption. Equally corrupt are Perertz Steinberg and Shmuel Feurst. Rav Elyashiv is too old to fight American Jewry. The question is why the younger gedolim do nothing about it in Eretz Yisroel.
If you think that I am able to combat this, forget about it. We are currently seeing totally fake yiddishkeit going on. As l,ong as the rule of Torah law gets trampled on, we cannot expect Moshiach. Depressing but true.
check out rabbiniccorruptionatrcc.blogspot.com and mamzeralert.blogspot.com for more info on how the rabbis are promoting mamzeirim in klal yisroel!!! this includes the policies of the RCA
Post a Comment