Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 71

Tue, 30 May 2017

• 1. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 5. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon)
• 7. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 8. Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 9. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Akiva Miller)
• 10. Shavuos (Lifeline) (Cantor Wolberg)
• 11. Re: Naso (Simon Montagu)

On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK  wrote:
> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events 
> in Megillas Rus were taking place.  Ploni Almoni held that there was no 
> mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was.

1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah 
explicitly limits it to brothers?

2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should 
have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth.  The fact 
that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole 
deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point.  Therefore that point was 
not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah.  Boaz pointed out that Machlon 
had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the 
mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled.  Ploni 
agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:     . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the
: mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the
: "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel
: Bedoro".

The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing
Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah".

Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our
obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring
whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so?

Yes, it's dachuq.

But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but
not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm
not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include
the generation's gedolim.

I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I
think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology,
but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH
medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield
the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq
who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the
notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of
mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> :     . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the
> : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the
> : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel
> : Bedoro".
> 
> The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing
> Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah".

Yes, precisely.  And yet he was the "gadol hador".


> Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our
> obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring
> whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so?
> 
> Yes, it's dachuq.
> 
> But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but
> not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm
> not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include
> the generation's gedolim.

Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means 
"gedolei *hatorah* shebador".  I am challenging that assumption.  I am 
saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it 
does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means 
that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro".  It just means they 
were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else 
would follow their lead.  Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah.

Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't 
dispute it.  So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that 
the article posits, exist?  This is how.  The Rambam accepts Yiftach 
bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is 
irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from 
that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas.


> I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I
> think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology,

Wow.  Just wow.  No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. 
It's an explicit pasuk and gemara.  Yiftach was the one and only gadol 
hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as 
Shmuel because the gemara says so.  But one wouldn't ask him a shayla 
about "an egg in kutach".

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting
R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing.
Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid
muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R.
Micha's interpretation:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-
professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/


Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and
Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to
understand the Rama, but one of them is:
"  The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the
above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe
and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah
when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and
licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be
limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual
knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible
to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such,
basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to
answer questions of law".

the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have
sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have
sources to rely upon.  I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and
Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong
with semicha for women.

The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether
semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone
have heter hora'ah and not semicha?  it seems that the concentration on the
specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170529/1b12dc5d/attachment-0001.htm>

.
R' Zev Sero wrote:

> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging
> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an
> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he
> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations
> would not be settled.
> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages
> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz
> agreed with them.

I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to
respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too
complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a
related question which is probably simpler:

What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then
there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry
a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of
convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware
of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife.
I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's
relatives would have.

I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband
himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy
the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech.
But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be
insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which
point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility.

My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the
Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was
absent or invalid?

(I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the
family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we
want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be
paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so,
then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech
left. Why did they wait ten years?)

Akiva Miller

>
> RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore
> can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq.
>

All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to
offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not
sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and
possibly the latter.

>
> RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of
> shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use
> to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi
> in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services.
>

On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love
about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei
midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools.
I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the
other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have
comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club"
gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and
ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for
men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during
the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does
having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it
depends on the community.

>
>
> RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for
> egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be
> frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah....
> Second,
> the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about
> the
> nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely
> consistent with our religion....
>

Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that
is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious
thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have
been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or
having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering
just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer,
chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the
experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect
religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction
WITHIN what is halachically permitted.

I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse
or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be
universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and
the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community.
We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel
on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds.

Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a
particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to
changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common
career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is
particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been
instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel,
Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most
male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer
programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time
shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four
respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving
women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think
this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not
really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox
credentials.

Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis
would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular
issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping
up as the latter.

Chag sameach,
Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170529/020b2483/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have
: sources to rely upon...

Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to
read the Rama and ignore his source.

: The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether
: semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone
: have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the
: specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue.

Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in
the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim".
http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an
-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?

R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use
the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean?
Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please.  Thank
you 

Sent from my iPhone

I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked
onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer",
which I confess to knowing very little about.

But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of
ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable
with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not
been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable
with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave.

Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative"
conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be
cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a
genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the
conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while
Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the
problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about
the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.)

I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy
Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first
geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on
topics that I am woefully ignorant about.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170530/e4b663de/attachment-0001.htm>

The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden.
Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along
the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.?
However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a
Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as
articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim.
Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more
than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a 
quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence,
MOGEN AVRAHAM.


Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. 
In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. 
As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because 
they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments 
to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. 

The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing.

Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth."   In Hebrew the
name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably
summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: 
        ? Compassion or pity for another
        ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170529/b9560335/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos
> 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which
> mitzvos are listed specifically?
>
> Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice
> of Shavu'os reading.
>
> To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms
> of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of
> observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani.
>

Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot
this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat:
when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta
dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of
atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something
like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all
Torat Hesed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170530/32695224/attachment.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


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

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)