Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 049

Tuesday, October 19 1999

• Re: An apology from Russell Hendel?
• Respect with Fear?/Long Term Agenda
• Re: Respect with Fear?/Long Term Agenda
• Rav Kook and women voting
• Re: REligious affiliation on Shop Rite Cards (was "Checking Scanners")
• Teching vs P'sak vs Hora'ah
• Re: Respect with Fear?/Long Term Agenda
• Re: Teching vs P'sak vs Hora'ah
• Re: Teching vs P'sak vs Hora'ah
• Re: Teching vs P'sak vs Hora'ah
• Lawrence Kaplan on Da'as Torah
• The destruction of Hungarian Jewry
• Unsolicited pesak
• Poskot, Poskim, Yoetzot, Yoetzim, Rabbonim and Rabbonot.

When sending out my DNAs (Darchei Noam Alerts) I make a point of doing so in
private. The downside of that is that many people think nothing is done when
one poster offends another or otherwise gets out of line. However, I believe
that sending so in public would often be a greater offense than the one I'm
addressing.

I am therefore kind of shocked when I see someone else call a poster to task
in public, on the list -- particularly when I don't even agree with the
severity of the supposed offense. If Russel thinks that public criticism is
in order, I see no reason to keep my criticism to private email either.

I might point out that just yesterday I asked everyone to hold off and think
thrice before posting on the subject of yoatzot, since we were starting to
drift into mud-slinging territory. Instead, we just leaped headlong into the
mud. And here I thought we were learning how to disagee agreeably.

: I have carefully reviewed all the postings on this
: YOATZOTH subject and I don't believe Rabbi YGB
: has answered any of them. Furthermore I believe
: he owes the group an apology. Here are my (grave)
: concerns.

Concerns 1-6 don't have anything to do with RYGB, they are observations about
the effect women have had on halachah in the past. I'm not sure how they
qualify as concerns or even grave concerns, never mind concerns that require
an apology from anyone. (Are you saying RYGB should apologize for women being
given credit for various medieval chumros?)

This phraseology as the intro to a list serves to create a false illusion that
your complaints have more substance than they, in reality, carry.

: 7) Although serious concerns have been raised to
: Rabbi Bechoeffer, he has repeatedly promised to
: give us solutions which he hasn't yet. At this
: point I must therefore ask him to retract his statement
: that programs to make women intensively learn halachah
: for purposes of helping in Taharat Mishpacha is a danger
: to ANY segment of the Jewish community.

First, this is a non-sequitur. Not providing an alternative solution is
different than saying there is no danger. Second, why should he apologize
for saying something you disagree with? Particularly since the "offense"
in question is concern over the direction and future of a movement you're
more affiliated than he is. Concern that other Jews could be leaping headlong
into a major mistake is offensive to you?

Third, the two sides are talking across each other -- it's mutual. See below
for an example.

:                                         The only danger
: to the Jewish community comes from people who think
: that learning is dangerous or should be superseded by
: vague philosophical problems like the emergence of 
: female Rabbis.

"Vague philosophical problems" is a mischaracterization. Jews have set practice
based on "k'vodah bas melech p'nimah" for millenia. You have an odd way of
dismissing it.

However, I have yet to see anything that warrants an apology. The man's allowed
to disagree with you, no?

:           .... We NEVER have heard any GADOL disparage
: any persons attempt to learn. On what grounds are we
: attacking these programs. This must be coupled with
: the observation that there are serious lacks of
: observances in Taharat Mishpacha which can be
: remedied by good female role models

Which have yet to be shown to require yoatzot to fill the role. I've repeatedly
pointed out that my wife, as mikvah lady, was trained and expected to serve as
liaison between shy women and the Rabbi. Why would a woman who isn't going to
a mikvah lady go to a yoetzes? I saw one person tangentially touch on a reply,
but the overwhelming majority, like you, assume the point.  I expressed to a
number of chaveirim my frustration at feeling ignored, speaking of mutually
ignoring issues raised by the other side.

: 8) I really believe that it is outright slander (leshon hara)
: to take women who have studied for 2000 hours, who have
: learned one of the most difficult sugyas in shas, who are 
: going to help less learned people understand these matters
: and to turn around and ONLY say OVER and OVER how
: there MIGHT be room for concern that THIS MIGHT LEAD
: to female Rabbis or men going away from Torah.

How? What did he say negative about these women? Or negative about a member
of the list? For what are you asking an apology, and to whom should it go?

:                              ...it simply requires comments
: whose tone and meaning undermine a persons integrity and that
: is what has happened here.

Does this qualify as an onomatopoeia?

:                            (I would be happy to start a thread
: on leshon hara...but I strongly feel that no one has the right
: to cast aspersions and doubts on movements or people without
: at least simultaneously ALWAYS balancing some of the good they
: are going t do).

And the balance in this post is...?

: 9) But I believe the above justifies a request for an apology (To
: the yoatzoth and to the Jewish community). Furthermore these
: postings are detracting this group from more serious topics.

You are distracting from the issue. There is sh'mad going on as well, as well
as outright murder (euthanasia). Should we shut down conversation of everything
but inyanei pikuach nefesh? After all, what can be a more serious topic?

:                                      ...yet all that is done is cast
: doubt after doubt that maybe women who have learned 2000 hours
: will cause problems. 

So, lishitascha, the appropriate response would have been to post something
about spousal abuse. Instead you chose to insult someone in public. I have
no idea how you think this is a constructive use of the Avodah list.

And again, he never casts aspersions on the women, he casts doubts about where
this program will lead the community.

The biggest issue I have with your email is that, in the name of righteous
indignation, you choose to PUBLICLY call someone to task. Do you really think
that's a halachically appropriate or productive way to get an apology -- even
if I believed one were warranted? Do you enjoy reading this post, getting
criticized in public? Compound that to the fact that you aren't even the ba'al
habayis, and perhaps you can see your post for what it was.

And that's my justification for giving public tochachah. I knew of no way as
effective of getting you to walk in your victim's moccasins.

In the future, if you have problems with comments made by other chaveirim on
the list, take it to them in private email. Or, if you feel too uncomfortable
(or feel too angry to trust yourself to say the right thing) ask me to relay
your concerns.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Oct-99: Shelishi, Lech-Lecha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 55b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan J. Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #46


> Plenty of people put up eruvin in cities while directly addressing, or
> explicitly explaining why they do not agree with, the various provisions
> in Reb Moshe's teshuvot against erecting eruvin in New York and Brooklyn.
> That is respect with disagreement.  What you demand is respect with fear
> and abrogation of one's will.  While that may go in the Chasidic world,
> it does not go in all of the Torah world.  "Make His will your will", not
> "make the RWs will your will."
>

Not at all.

The Rabbonim who put the Yo'atzos program in place are certainly entitled to
do what they have done. I made no demands. As I said, no one asked (nor
should ask) me. Nor can any "Mo'etzes" make demands. Not on people who do
not ask them. Respect, and trepidation of risk, are not reasons to desist
from a program, but, rather, as I said, to alloy one's rejoicing with
trepidation. No more, no less.

Me'inyan l'inyan b'oso inyan: I believe your assessement and my assessment
of R' Henkin's agenda are similar. Based on the essay R' Akiva Miller
alerted us to, it is evident that she is a brilliant tactician. I do not
doubt that she is motivated l'shem shomayim (that does not necessarily make
one correct. I believe that the Satmar Rebbe's virulent opposition to the
State of Israel was l'shem shomayim, but I also believe that he was wrong).
But her agenda is clear: She is out, with subtle and patient progress, to
establish women as Poskot without using that incendiary term. And, she could
and would have just as well hit on some other area of halacha as the first
one in which women would be certified as Yo'atzot. She chose THM precisley
because she anticipated such discussions as ours, in which it would be much
easier for defenders of the cause to make heartfelt arguments based on the
crisis that exists/will exist/may exist in THM, and the unique role women
play in this process. I imagine she could have chosen Basar b'Cholov (BBC),
allowing for heartfelt defenses based on the critical role of women in the
kitchen, on the spot, etc. But THM is much more subject to such defenses,
based on tzni'us concerns etc. But, BBC, or something like that, will
probably be next, and then something with even less defense - in
proportion: the further from ground zero, the less defensible the are need
be. Indeed, after three Yo'atzot programs: THM, BBC and Ta'aruvos (since
Melicha is really not essential nowadays), you will have, de facto, women
rabbis "ota geveret b'shinui aderet".

Now, again, the motivation is not the issue, but, to raise another issue
that I have not yet addressed, the result. L'havdil, R' Tzadok says, Korach
was correct in his statement "kol ha'edah kulam kedoshim". But "gevul samta
bal ya'avorun". I can study Hilchos Nesi'as Kappaim as much as might make me
the greatest expert in the world, but I still may not duchan, as I am not a
Kohen. A Levi who was a meshorer might study the halachos of gatekeeping to
the hilt but still cannot serve as a mesho'er. I do not know where the gevul
is reached here. It is a fuzzy area. But it is precisely this fuzziness that
makes it more controversial, not less. And, that, too, is cause for
trepidation. True, from your perspective, and the perspective of others on
the list, not, I understand, cause to desist. But, I do not understand why
not cause for "Gilu b'Re'ada".

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/19/99 10:06:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 Now, again, the motivation is not the issue, but, to raise another issue
 that I have not yet addressed, the result. L'havdil, R' Tzadok says, Korach
 was correct in his statement "kol ha'edah kulam kedoshim". But "gevul samta
 bal ya'avorun". I can study Hilchos Nesi'as Kappaim as much as might make me
 the greatest expert in the world, but I still may not duchan, as I am not a
 Kohen. A Levi who was a meshorer might study the halachos of gatekeeping to
 the hilt but still cannot serve as a mesho'er. I do not know where the gevul
 is reached here. It is a fuzzy area. But it is precisely this fuzziness that
 makes it more controversial, not less. And, that, too, is cause for
 trepidation. True, from your perspective, and the perspective of others on
 the list, not, I understand, cause to desist. But, I do not understand why
 not cause for "Gilu b'Re'ada".
 
 Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer >>
I wouldn't say that everyone who supports the Yoatzot approach feels it is an 
unalloyed good, much like I don't think everyone who supports girls learning 
tora shbal peh thinks its an unalloyed good either.  We live in times that 
just about everything we do is probably gilu breada -  even just keeping the 
status quo.  The waves of change in general society have been increasing in 
frequency and the question of how to react to them becomes increasingly 
complex.  Even the most RW subculture is impacted by these waves. 
It's interesting that you use the kohen levi analogy. I've often thought how 
nice it might be to live in a world/society in which everyone had a clearly 
defined role and knew their responsibilities. If I knew that HKBH wanted my 
role to be a tanner, I'd be perfectly happy to tan all day knowing that I was 
doing the ratzon hashem. Unfortunately perhaps, we can't put that genie back 
in the bottle and I suppose without nviut we need to each (as individuals and 
as fate/destiny partners) try to determine, with great reada, the proper 
approach.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Discussions can be sought in M. Friedman: Hevra va-Dat (relevant chapters)
& in the journal Hagut, issue dealing with women (~1985).

My recollection is that R. Kook did not retract his opposition but did
modify his formulation in the face of mahloket.

From RJHendel:
>>> (Otherwise
a supermarket could find upon audit that only non jews
were making restitution) <<<
> I meant if say 30 people come to reimburse errors found on
their bill then you would notice if there are no Yamekes among
them....Similarly if Jews can back when errors were made against them..
you could recognize them by their head coverings...again you
could make inferences.  It wasn't a big point...Im just pointing out we
shouldn't act like
noone notices <
No one's disputing your larger point; again, however, the SR Courtesy Desk
personnel don't note "for the record" the religious affiliation of
customers who point out errors in either direction -- I tried to say,
perhaps too indirectly, that these errors are *not* "auditable" (point A of
your original response).  Kiddush HaShaim is a Good Thing, but does it
alone answer RYGB's Hilchos Momonos-based question?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I mentioned I was curious to define the difference between teaching halachah
and p'sak halachah.

For example, suppose I ask a friend who happens to be a musmach what the
halachah is in some case lima'aseh. He gives me an answer of what he thinks
is the halachah lichol hadei'os. So, he thought he was teaching me and it
turns out he was rendering a particular ruling. Is it binding?

When we were discussing this topic on a more theoretical level, I proposed
that a p'sak involved choosing between multiple positions that are usable
in practice bizman hazeh. The other opinion, once viable, is now literally
nifsak, terminated. This definition obviously shaped the example I chose
above. However, now that we're talking far closer to lima'aseh, I'm curious
to know what the chevrah think. Consider it a strawman to get the conversation
started.

In addition is the notion of hora'ah. I recently invoked "halachah vi'ein
morin kein", which would lead me to conclude that one can decide the halachah
without engaging in hora'ah. (Or am I mistranslating "morin"?) Perhaps the
difference between answering a sho'eil and publishing a teshuvah?

There is also the notion of being michadeish halachah. As opposed to deciding
if one should follow the Rambam or the Ra'avad, there's also the notion of
finding the new case unique and requiring a new p'sak. For example, R' Mosheh
and chalav hacompanies. I have no idea how to pigeonhole this -- is it a kind
of p'sak, or something new ligamrei?

My position WRT yoatzot has radically changed over the weekend. I proposed
that a learned woman who aspired to some leadership role like Rebbetzin
Jungreis' might be less problematic than a yoetzet.

It would appear after looking through the sources in Mrs Henken's article,
there is far less problem with women providing p'sak than with a woman in
a leadership position. We might want to dismiss "kevodah bas melech p'nimah"
as aggadic, but for at least millenia it played a role in determining
practice. There's a real prohibition against a woman assuming sh'rirus.

Perhaps the appropriate line to draw lihalachah is between a posekes and a
morah hora'ah. The latter being more of a halachic leadership position.

(This is aside from my hashkafic concerns about reinforcing the notion
of Judaism as a synagogue-and-rabbi thing instead of the religion being
centered around the home. Or the possibility that the program will be used as
a launching pad for other groups aiming for the slippery slope to redefining
yahadus and rendering it secondary to western values. Or my question about why
yoatzot will help T"H in ways mikvah ladies couldn't.)

I'm more interested in defining hora'ah vs p'sak vs teaching mishnah than
continuing the yoatzot discussion. I wasn't sure how to provide the proper
context to my question without using yoatzot as an example.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Oct-99: Shelishi, Lech-Lecha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 55b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

----- Original Message -----
From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Respect with Fear?/Long Term Agenda


> I wouldn't say that everyone who supports the Yoatzot approach feels it is
an
> unalloyed good, much like I don't think everyone who supports girls
learning
> tora shbal peh thinks its an unalloyed good either.  We live in times that
> just about everything we do is probably gilu breada -  even just keeping
the
> status quo.  The waves of change in general society have been increasing
in
> frequency and the question of how to react to them becomes increasingly
> complex.  Even the most RW subculture is impacted by these waves.
> It's interesting that you use the kohen levi analogy. I've often thought
how
> nice it might be to live in a world/society in which everyone had a
clearly
> defined role and knew their responsibilities. If I knew that HKBH wanted
my
> role to be a tanner, I'd be perfectly happy to tan all day knowing that I
was
> doing the ratzon hashem. Unfortunately perhaps, we can't put that genie
back
> in the bottle and I suppose without nviut we need to each (as individuals
and
> as fate/destiny partners) try to determine, with great reada, the proper
> approach.
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich
>

I believe we can agree to your perspective as above. Others on the list,
however do not. So be it.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/19/99 11:57:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> When we were discussing this topic on a more theoretical level, I proposed
>  that a p'sak involved choosing between multiple positions that are usable
>  in practice bizman hazeh. The other opinion, once viable, is now literally
>  nifsak, terminated.

In the Sheiris Yehudah (Tshovos by the brother of the Bal Hatanyoh) he quotes 
from his brother that in the case of Yochid Vrabim, since another Sanhedrin 
can reverse the Psak by making that Daas Horov, it never becomes terminated, 
and therefore we can use such opinions as a Snif with other reasons.

>  In addition is the notion of hora'ah. I recently invoked "halachah vi'ein
>  morin kein", which would lead me to conclude that one can decide the 
> halachah
>  without engaging in hora'ah. (Or am I mistranslating "morin"?) Perhaps the
>  difference between answering a sho'eil and publishing a teshuvah?

See Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech Halacha V'ein Morin Kein.

>  
>  There is also the notion of being michadeish halachah. As opposed to 
> deciding
>  if one should follow the Rambam or the Ra'avad, there's also the notion of
>  finding the new case unique and requiring a new p'sak. For example, R' 
> Mosheh
>  and chalav hacompanies. I have no idea how to pigeonhole this -- is it a 
> kind
>  of p'sak, or something new ligamrei?

This IMHO would be called in the Halachic lexicon as "Mdameh Milsah Lmilsah".

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/19/99 11:57:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> We might want to dismiss "kevodah bas melech p'nimah"
>  as aggadic, but for at least millenia it played a role in determining
>  practice.
And this practice is Nogeia Lhalacha, see Enyclopedia Taalmudid Erech "Esha"

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/19/99 11:57:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 It would appear after looking through the sources in Mrs Henken's article,
 there is far less problem with women providing p'sak than with a woman in
 a leadership position. We might want to dismiss "kevodah bas melech p'nimah"
 as aggadic, but for at least millenia it played a role in determining
 practice. There's a real prohibition against a woman assuming sh'rirus.
  >>
One item that I find consistently missing from this type of discussion is 
"Who is watching [giving over the mesora) to the kids?" Any role redefinition 
should take this into account (i.e., even if we find halachically that both 
the father and mother can sit in the bet medrash all day and night, does that 
fit into the metahalachik scheme of things)?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Further to R. Mechy's reference to:

> Larry Kaplan's>famous (or -charedi - infamous) article on daas torah>

As many are aware, Kaplan was criticized and later conceded that his
article, in daring the origin of the term "da'as Torah,"  relied
overmuch on G. Bacon's work on Agudah to the exclusion of Piekarz's
study of nineteenth century Polish hasidut.

However, the late great Jacob Katz burned Kaplan by pointing out that
the issue is not when the term was first used, but when daas Torah was
first put into practice.  On this issue he finds an example dating to
1865, in the fight led by R. Hillel Lichtenstein against the neologues
in Hungary.   This topic is of course addressed in his book, Ha'kera
she-Lo Nit'aheh.  Katz's article on da'as Torah, however, appears in a
volume entitled Bein Samkhut le-Autonmiyah, ed. by Z. Safrai and A.
Sagi.  Among other things, the book contains a piece by listmember
Jeffrey Woolf and was cited here not long ago by R. D. Eidensohn.
Interestingly, in his article Katz briefly doffs his historian's hat and
expresses his personal views on da'as Torah as manifested in the Israeli
political scene.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Although I was not able to find a discussion of the Joel Brand affair in
Dawidowicz's book, there is an entry on Brand in the Encyclopedia
Judaica.

R. Amrom Singer asks:

>I would really appreciate it if someone could suggest some scholarly
>references (including, if possible, from an Orthodox point of view)
>regarding the statements and actions of religious leadership in Europe
>before and during the war, regarding emigration.  The little that I've
>encountered so far has been from an overtly anti-religious perspective,
>making it difficult for me to gauge its veracity.  Thanks very much.

David Kranzler has written about Orthodox attempts to save Jews from the
Nazis.  The work, entitled Thy Brother's Blood, was published by
ArtScroll.  However, I believe his focus is on rescue attempts.  I am
sure Brand is discussed there.

For what it's worth, the few other sources I know that have been written
from an Orthodox perspective have not struck me as over-reliable.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Regarding the question of the obligatory nature of unsolicited pesak,
this issue is addressed by Rav Y. H. Henkin in his ShuT Benei Banim,
Vol. III, no. 8:5.

R. Henkin's teshuva addresses "hakham she-asar ein havero reshai
le-hatir" and describes a mahloket rishonim regarding the rationale for
this prohibition.  According to Ra'avad, the reason is "de-shavyeh
hatikhah de-issura."  The Urim ve-Tumim, HM 25:13 writes, according to
the view of Ra'avad, that it is the owner of the hefetz, not the posek,
who in fact render the item a hefetz of issur.  This implies that the
submission of the sho'el to the authority of the moreh hora'ah is the
essential act that renders the object a hatikhah de-issura.

However, the Netziv, in ShuT Meshiv Davar rejects the notion that it is
the sho'el who, by asking for a pesak and accepting it, renders the
object assur.  The Netziv points out that Ran views the Ra'avad's view
as contradicted by the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 40 (regarding two views
among the shipori of rava and R. Huna).  But in that case, Rava was not
asked a she'elah!  R, Henkin suggests that the case of Rava may have
been different, because his authority was generally accepted  by the
community.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I have been following this thread ad nauseum and have
even responded to it a time or two.  But... it's time
to move on.  I'm sure no one will listen to me so I'll
be the first to violate my own suggestion:).

I do believe I've done a 180 on this one.  I think it
is an Eis Lasos in the same way that it was when the
Bais Yaakov movement was established. 

After reading almost all of the posts on this subject
I've concluded that the greater good is served by
having an institutionalized form of Female advisors
for Taharos Hamishpacha. The need seems to be there
and  formalizing the study will provide quality
control. There does seem to be a reluctance by many
women to discuss potential shailos with male Poskim,
and men in many cases are reluctant to ask shailos to
their Poskim on these types of matters. This probably
leads to great errors in Halachic practice, both
L'Kula and L'Chumra, due to shyness on the part of
many in Klal Israel.  And I further believe that it
cuts accross the spectrum of observant Jews Right to
Left.  

The people presently involved seem to be impeccable
and L'Shma.  I further think that the Gedolei HaTorah
would not necessarily be opposed to it if it were done
in the right way, perhaps through the Seminary system.
The  unspoken objection to Yoatzot is that the MO
thought of it first and actually went ahead and did
something about it.  Everything I have read here about
the Yoatzot program indicates the women are of the
highest Caliber.  If only Yeshivos would choose there
Musmachim on that (highest calibre) basis! 

This leads me to one of the objections made, namely,
that there might arise a situation where the women
Yoatzot will know more and be of higher calibre than
their male counterparts, most particularly in the MO
camp.  My answer to this is that learning should be
L'Shma and let the chips fall where they may. If
women's learning surpasses men in the MO camp than it
either behooves the men to excel or get out of the
way.  I'm not concerned that the next Gadol Hador may
be a woman (not tht there's anything wrong with that).
 I don't believe the traditional (and I believe
innate) role of women as the Akeres HaBayis, i.e.  the
great nurturers of the family will be abandoned to any
kind of extent. Nor  do I believe that men with
"Greatness potential" will give up their strivings. 
There will be no Lakewood, Brisk, or Mir for women. 

The question has been raised as to what or whom is
feuling the Yoatzot program.  Is it femminist driven?
I doubt it.  True, it might attract femminist type
women (and men) and due diligence should be excersized
to weed out  anyone with a femminist agenda from
leadership positions and from applicants to the
program.  With appropriate leadership and guidance
this could turn into a great Kiddush HaShem and a
great enhancement of Tahras HaMishpocha observance. 
We, also, need not fear the "slippery slope" argument
here more  than anywhere else. A non femminist agenda
should help gaurantee that. 

This is unlike Womens Prayer groups which I believe to
be femminist driven, even though it has a sincere
following and  a L'Shma attitude by many. 

As to R. Lichtenstien's reported objection, I'm not
sure I understand his reasons.  What possible problem
could there be in a limiting ones area of expertise?
It's done all the time as was pointed out by a poster
there are para-leagals, para-medics and the like.  Why
not a Para-posek? Don't we already have this anyway? 
Aren't there experts in specialized areas of Halacha,
such as Eruvin or Shmiras Shabbos? It's true that to
be an expert in psak one should know Shas and Poskim
but we are not talking about psak.  We are talking
about being Morah Behalacha in areas where the psak
has already been well established. It's only that
precious little is known about by the public.

When sincere non-agendized G-d fearing people get
involved in a project like this, it is incumbent for
us to ask "How can I help?"

HM






=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]