Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 79

Fri, 09 Jun 2017

• 1. Re: Maharat (Isaac Balbin)
• 2. Re: Redemption (Zev Sero)
• 3. Psak of a Musmach (Daniel Israel)
• 4. Explanation of the Tur? (Sholom Simon)
• 5. Re: Redemption (Daniel Israel)
• 6. Re: Redemption (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Redemption (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Psak of a Musmach (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: maharat (Daniel Israel)
• 10. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500
From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah 

> R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men
> gather.  Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis.  So that women
> can gather around women rabbis.  

I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't
gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when
the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side
and men on the other.

> certainly it is not an argument against
> women rabbis.  

It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least
likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other.

> And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like
> the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly
> dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual
> immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals
> does not apply either.

Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own
wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc

One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the
workplace either.

It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For
Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely.

On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of
> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even
> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of
> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption?

Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is 
unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his 
duty to provide it for him.

The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. 
The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe 
otherwise.  "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah".  For what 
are they shouting?  For revenge.  Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to 
enjoy his revenge on Eisav.  And every time we mention a murdered person 
we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem.

We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them 
and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would 
do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being 
commanded.  Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive 
his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so.  But we 
can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's 
behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his 
killer.

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

The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread.

It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then
he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the
halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. 
Where does this idea come from altogether?  It is certainly not obvious to
me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in
the classical sources regarding smicha.

?
Daniel Israel
d...@cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170608/23af0140/attachment-0001.htm>

At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote:
> >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather
>than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she
>noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask
>why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting.

Surely, *some* of it is.  Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but 
there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess 
(I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the 
mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some 
various rules.  (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, 
z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not 
considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to 
the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make 
tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt 
the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, 
etc etc etc).

I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent 
job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP.

-- Sholom

On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of
>> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even
>> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of
>> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption?
> 
> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish.

An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case.  Perhaps
the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think
the simpler reading is that revenge is bad.

That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like.  Going
back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only
thinking of revenge.  Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act
only for kinnos ha?emes.

?
Daniel Israel
d...@cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170608/882527bd/attachment-0001.htm>

On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote:
 >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not
 >> Jewish.

> An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. 
>   Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos 
> chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad.

But there is no issur on taking revenge.  There is only an issur on 
doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them 
like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself.  But the 
objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source.

> That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like.
> Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam
> should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise
> above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes.

He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam.




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

How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of
any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even
punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of
the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption?
-------------------------
The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

From: Daniel Israel via Avodah
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM

> It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach,
> then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying
> on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or
> her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not
> obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is
> mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha.

Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot

A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread.

1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion?  Let?s
concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways
for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. 
Not everything that is mutar is advisable.  I don?t see why we should be
embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which
are not purely halachic.  And while we are all entitled to our own
opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain
stature.  I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these
ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and
accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the
Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions.  They were
never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become
involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking
the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted.

2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line:
halacha p?sukah and hora?ah.  (And some comments make a third distinction,
between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.)  But
every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as.  Sometimes it is so
trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked
?bacon,' treif??).  But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST
pasken for ourselves.  Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to
justify taking asprin on Shabbos??.  OTOH, most of the questions we ask a
Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are
more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos.  I.e., they are topics that
we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves.  Note also that
any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels
capable of answering on his own.

Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made.  Given
that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category.  But
what it is is not so clear cut.  Also, I?m not pointing this out to support
Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather
to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out.

3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My
example for this would be chassidut.  The changes that it brought were huge
and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today,
with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.?

I think this is a good model.

First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly
disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach.  What has changed is that
no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread
k?firah.  (Keep in mind there was precedent.  Chassidus arose soon after
exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.)

That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two
camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this
is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay,
will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as
happened with the Conservative movement.  Fifty years from now, if that
happens, the question will be answered.  If it doesn?t happen, then those
who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of
Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way.

Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus).

4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less
of a big deal in E?Y.  And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel
Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be
different in E?Y and the US.  For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am
sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern
that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!).	And,
consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at
least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement.

After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason
for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a
response to a need.  That is, there are specific issues having nothing to
do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it
has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for
women.	Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there
should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself.

Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point
to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes.	Perhaps
certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really
shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen.

?
Daniel Israel
d...@cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170608/ed5116a9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam
: Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way...

But you neither explain

1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim
that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic
semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and
the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh
from Mosaic semichah for dayanus?

Nor

2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's
semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was
not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic
musmach?

Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume
he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true
semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of
doing just that (in Q #1).

See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah"
is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2)
his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a
community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen
in his town as well.)

This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash.
And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source,
talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does.

In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim
and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because
IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah.

Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how
can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's
not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with
or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag;
the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter.

The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is
just out one precondition before actually doing so.

:           Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of
: the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the
: Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources...

I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim
musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does
Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent
between the two, without which those derivations would not work?

What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will
bow out.

A few details:

 I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing
certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look
up the underlying sources to be sure.  The article is in Or HaMizrach 44
a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice).
There are  other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha
including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not
have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the
article cited above.

In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of
the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may
explain my difficulty in finding it.

I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he
is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the
Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz
Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot
both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern
semicha.  So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything
about current Hora'ah or semichah.

I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to
reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the
modern(non-Mosaic) context.  I am not arguing that some of the sources cant
be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic
statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff
that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are
forbidden from it.  I suggest that if someone on the left had made a
similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a
pre-existing mahalach.

I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the
discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very
least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of
women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable
understanding of the Halacha.  And perhaps even that those who oppose are
the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the
sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the
issue at hand.

Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage.  That
is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made
by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic
of triage.

thanks
Noam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170608/a949eff3/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.)