A Headline in Today's HaModia: Why No Ladies Section at Kinus Klal Yisrael?in

UPDATE:


I erred. Please see http://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-erred-in-my-assumption-that.html. Evidently the question of why this is apparently not a "Kinus Klal Yisroel" should be addressed equally - if not more - to the "askanim" on the "left." And, one we are asking that of them, we must also ask them why they are apparently taking an "ostrich" approach? 


Excellent question.


But I have a better question.


Why is Klal Yisrael not at Kinus Klal Yisrael?


On the basis of all I have read concerning the Kinus Klal Yisrael, I would have to conclude that Klal Yisrael extends from Lakewood on the left to Skulen on the right.


Satmar was extended an invitation, but as of the latest news they have decided to boycott. That's those to the "right" of Skulen.


But those to the "left" of Lakewood were never extended an invitation. To many - if not most - of them, to whom no reach has been extended, the event is not on the radar screen.


Are my ti'erer talmidim from MTA not part of Klal Yisrael?


Are they and their families - yerei'im u'sheleimim - not a matter of concern for the organizers? Why are the Chassidim concerned with the Misnagdim and vice versa - but only if they are the right kind of Chassidim and the right kind of Misnagdim?

Or, perhaps, they will be "following the entire event on screens via a live audiovisual hookup" (as an "askan" asked about the ladies was quoted as replying) in Teaneck, in Wesley Hills, in Hillcrest, in Fairlawn, in the Lower East Side, in Brooklyn etc. - just like the ladies? (Yeah right, and there is this bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy from me, a great deal...)


Does a person (quoted in the article) who speaks of "40,000 Jews from all sectors" realize how hurtful (and inauthentic) is his remark?


And no one in the Lakewood-Skulen "Klal Yisrael" shhould be fooled by the artificial and arbitrary boundaries. They are utterly and completely porous. (As they should be.) If you are not concerned with the entire real spectrum of Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos, you will never be able to cope effectively with the issues.


MTA (and many more such schools) are producing Bnei Torah - and true Gedolei Yisroel must sense, feel and express an acharayus for all Bnei Torah. If the Ichud ha'Kehillos l'Tohar ha'Machane places large segments of Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvos me'chutz la'machane, I cannot believe that HKB"H will grant siyata d'shemaya to yet another venture that ends up causing more pirud - v'he lo titzlach.


It's not too late, of course. I look forward optimistically to seeing posters and placards in our building at MTA - the building in North America in which Torah has been taught to tzi'erei ha'tzon longer than any other still in use today (since 1928) - inviting the talmidim and their families to participate, and including those of us who are just as much - if not more! - involved in the Avodas HaKodesh of Chinuch as the Menahel of the Yeshivah Ketanah of Lakewood quoted in the article - in seeking to pave the derech through the jungles and swamps that endanger all of us together.

Mecho'oh continued

I heard this story in Sha'alvim many years ago. This is how it appears - in all places! - at
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DivorceRequiresDeath


In traditional Jewish Law (not to be confused with contemporary Israel), a woman cannot divorce her husband. Thus it occasionally arises that a man will refuse to give his wife a divorce, often in attempt to extort money out of her, and many legal devices are used in an attempt to pressure this recalcitrant husband into granting his wife a divorce. The story is said of Jewish Sage Rabbi Akiva Eiger, that such a man was brought before him once, with the hope that Rabbi Eiger would convince him to divorce his wife. Rabbi Eiger brings him into his study, and opens a volume of the Talmud to its first page. He turns to the man, looks him in the eye, and says, "The Talmud says here that a woman is freed from her husband in one of two ways. Through divorce, and through the husband's death. Which one would you prefer?" The man looks at Rabbi Eiger, laughs and says, "What, are you trying to threaten me?". He walks out of the study, walks out the front door, and collapses dead of a heart attack on the front steps.


It seems to me evident that Rabbis Eidensohn and Gestetner would have passeled the get - had the man had more emunas chachamim and acquiesed - as a get me'useh.


For a more traditional source, see the Talelei Oros to Ki Teitzei on the pasuk V'kasav la sefer kerisus. For the English, see below, pages 222-223:

Back Up! (Tartei Mashma)

Just as mysteriously as the blog disappeared yesterday, it returned today. I made sure, first thing. to back it up by exporting it to my computer!

Mecho'oh

I know that my opinion is but an insignificant drop in the sea of Torah, but I nevertheless feel obligated to express my pain and protest at the "Daas Torah" blog, http://daattorah.blogspot.com/, whose author seems intent on shackling wives to broken marriages, and on maximizing the numbers of mamzerim in Am Yisroel.

Since the Chillul Hashem is ayom v'norah, I would like to state clearly and categorically that there are alternative opinions concerning almost any point he might contend, opinions of gedolim v'tovim memenu.

The Internet is NOT the place to discuss such delicate matters in intricate detail.

See http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_law3.html.

We are allowed to have an opinion. Just saying.: An open letter to Ichud Hakehillos, re: Convention at Citi Field:

We are allowed to have an opinion. Just saying.: An open letter to Ichud Hakehillos, re: Convention at Citi Field:

As we say in Avodahland: ZZGG! (=Zehr, Zehr Gut Gezogt!).