Rav Chaim Kanievsky |
Rav Chaim
Kanievsky is one of the most respected rabbinic leaders in the Charedi world.
He is the son of the Steipler Gaon. And the son in law of Rav Elyashiv. He has written
many Seforim on Halacha and Hashkafa. His mind is encyclopedic.
His advice is sought everywhere.
In matters of public
policy, I have disagreed with him. I believe that in some issues he is not
fully informed before he makes decisions. Although I think he probably believes
he is.
Copy of Letter - Photo credit: Kikar Shabbat |
But every once in a while something is said (or in this case
published in writing) that is so outrageous, that I have to assume it is an
outright lie. There is no way that Rav Kanievsky could say this. Not if he knew
the actual Metzius (reality) of the situation. I have to assume that anything he
said along these lines is either a completely lie, or a gross mischaracterization
of what he said, or a complete misunderstanding of the Psak.
Rafi’s ‘Life in Israel’ blog features a photocopy of a letter by someone named Aharon Feinhandler who heads an organization called, Vaad L’Tohar Hiskashrus. In it he claims to have received a Halachic ruling from Rav Kanivsky about people who own any device that can access the internet. From Rafi’s blog:
A person cannot be a witness at a wedding or at a divorce, and one who did act as such a witness will invalidate the proceedings, even bdieved (after the fact) . The wedding should be performed again, and the get should be given again. This means that there are thousands of adulterers, eishet ish, mamzerim walking around out there without even knowing it.
Rav Feinhandler, director of the committee for purity in communications and the person quoting Rav Kanievsky, also said that such a person cannot build a mikva (i.e. do the hashaka process of connecting the mikva water pit to the mikva pool), and a woman cannot supervise the immersion in the mikva if she has an iPhone.
And, he adds, in many places, such as in Jerusalem, mikvas are built by, and weddings and divorces or officiated by, the Rabbanut and religious councils, and they don't ask such questions, so they cannot be relied upon - i.e. their mikvas, weddings and divorces must be assumed to be invalid. (source: Kikar)
So, we have eishet ish, mamzerim, passul mikvaot, boalei nidda and children of unions with nidda.
Rafi is
right. If this were to be the case, then in its most serious ramification there would be thousands of invalid Gitin in the world. Which means the
children of remarriages would be Mamzerim, and their parents will have
unwittingly committed biblical level adultery.
Every single person reading this blog that
ever witnessed a Get, know that you have increased Mamzerus in the world.
This Psak would include people like Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel, executive vice president of Agudah, Agudah spokeman Rabbi Avi Shafran and most of Agudah’s membership – including (I’m sure) some of their more prominent rabbis.
This Psak would include people like Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel, executive vice president of Agudah, Agudah spokeman Rabbi Avi Shafran and most of Agudah’s membership – including (I’m sure) some of their more prominent rabbis.
Half (if not
more) of the Charedi Mechanchim I know have smart-phones. It would probably
include the entire membership of the RCA. I could go on, but you get the picture.
There is no possible way Rav Kanievsky did this. This Feinhandler fellow is
either lying to us, or he lied to Rav Kaneivsky.
Oh… I’m sure
he asked him a question along these lines. But, Rav Kanieavsky or anyone of his
age and stature wouldn’t know what a smart-phone was if it was staring them in
the face. In light of that I strongly suspect that the question went something
like this: Is a person who uses
pornographic devices permitted to be a witness on religious documents? Since
every single senior rabbinic leader in the world has come out so strongly against using
such a device he probably considers
them to be Mumrim L’Hachis – people who purposely violate Halachic directives
of the rabbis. Such people are invalid witnesses.
Rav
Kanievsky only knows what he has been told and reacted to that. Same as Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner at the Internet Asifa a few years ago. He has been told that there is an
alarming number of Frum internet users that have been destroyed. Marriages have broken up. Children have gone OTD unprepared to handle the Apikursus they encounter… all because of this device.
Even those who don’t want to access the porn will eventually see it inadvertently. And the Apikurus is there at the click of the mouse. The slope is very slippery from there. So that even as they are told that the internet has some positive value, the bad so greatly exceeds the good, such devices should be completely banned from use and anyone using them are to be given the strongest sanctions.
Even those who don’t want to access the porn will eventually see it inadvertently. And the Apikurus is there at the click of the mouse. The slope is very slippery from there. So that even as they are told that the internet has some positive value, the bad so greatly exceeds the good, such devices should be completely banned from use and anyone using them are to be given the strongest sanctions.
If I knew
nothing about the internet and someone came up to me and told me all that, I
might feel the same way. Their understanding of the internet is that it a virtual Playboy Magazine - only worse. And that those who continue reading Playboy (even if it is
only for the articles) knowing full well that the rabbis forbade it are Mumrim L’Hachis
and to be treated accordingly.
Of course those
of us who do use these devices know how ridiculous that understanding is. Most know
how valuable it is…and how indispensable it has become. Eventually it will be
more vital to our lives than the telephone. And most Charedim know that too.
One way or
another, these Rabbinic leaders have been completely misled. I therefore fully
reject this letter as either a complete lie or a Psak based on false
information. It is not possible that a rabbinic leader of any stature who
actually understands the reality of the situation would have ever said this.