Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 74

Sun, 04 Jun 2017

• 1. Re: Maharat (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 4. Re: Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller)
• 5. va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf (Rich, Joel)
• 6. support? (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: support? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Maharat (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)

On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> 
>> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business,
>> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send
>> them to the rav.

> And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to
> find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim
> wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us
> which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other
> expression of his personal opinion.
> 
> Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"?

AIUI no, it is not.  Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a 
specific shayla for a specific person.  Writing books does not involve 
any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one 
understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available 
to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as.

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

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to
: find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim
: wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us
: which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other
: expression of his personal opinion.

Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in
the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what
has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page.
Not halakhah lemaaseh.

I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that
one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was
out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts,
a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq.

The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah.

Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as
reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value.

But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally
not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis
were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc...
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb>

(Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes
before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.)


In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every
situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is
unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable.
And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone
else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving
R Ploni answering questions.

(The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe
this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the
model.)

This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or
not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter
hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads --
or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her
rebbe's license?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you
understand the OU panel as defining it.  Otherwise you are just using a
nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning.

The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship
between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah
to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-al
manacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah
).  There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer
points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet
communities had religious leaders.  So one does not need semikhah to be a
communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14).
Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293)
"originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't
of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference
guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its
sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather
than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the
name of his father, Rav Moshe.)  Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points
out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as
well as din.  However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha
semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a
Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah.   AND, there are lots of authorities who
clearly state that women can give Hora'ah.  So you really need to define
exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it

So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that
apply to beit din.  That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist.  The
semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being
given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women.
According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just
beit din.  And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and
gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many
communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah.   But obviously
there was some sort of Hora'ah going on.  So it is clear that Hora'ah
doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it
all illegitimately.   granting a degree of ordination was
re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons,
see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard
Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word
Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively).  But you
are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah
still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on
women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the
restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special
clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient
Semikhah.  I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside.  But just
because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student
doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to
ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no
sense.

Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition
trope.  It is a false dichotomy.  First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote,
the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts
of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism.  More importantly, it is
a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has
changed over time.  We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used
to. we value autonomy and democracy more.  And it is actually the 'modern
values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in
our Masorah.  Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before.
For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a
man before a women.  L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170604/f21a8ddc/attachment-0001.htm>

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in
the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities.

In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I
was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more
sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.)

One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and
"redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually
to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many
others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but
rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta,
Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?).
In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain
circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new
owner.

AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of
the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now
destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed.

I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a
person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to
redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach
that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption
would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka"
(not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's
primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives.

Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much
effort into helping me learn this subject.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170604/3e70e0a7/attachment-0001.htm>

When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170604/ab71b595/attachment-0001.htm>

Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern
Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah
restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug
between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of
them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam,
the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age,
comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate
to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and
Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins
to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to
comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not
make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but
she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion
of the community which did not pre
 sume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170604/6f44bd86/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a
: commentary how do you read it?

I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq
venimtza qal" were written out.

That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common.

HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas"
-- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

v'doke

On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a 
> commentary how do you read it?
> Kt
> Joel rich
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a
: Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah
: restrictions are generally not observed...

A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts.

One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine
gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming
and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and
lived. He didn't wake up that morning.

Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives
in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her --
the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in
which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed.

But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put
his arm around her.

I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked
a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Noam,

It's not a "trope".  While there can be situations in which 
egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is 
not one of them.  Though your first example (beginning with "First of 
all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy 
or not.  It seems a poor argument, as well.  I don't believe there is 
anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at 
halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain 
women."

Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian.  Distinctions are one of the 
hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews 
and non-Jews or men and women.  We have never viewed having different 
roles as indicating superiority and inferiority.  That judgment is 
foreign to our tradition.  Foreign to halakha.  Foreign to the Torah.

Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption 
that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in 
favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice.  I am talking about 
that assumption itself.  It is an assumption that comes from 
egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not 
subject to Brown v Board of Education.  Different does *not* necessarily 
mean unequal in Judaism.

Polygamy was never a "value".  To Mormons, perhaps.  Not to us.  It was 
simply something permitted.  Slavery is out of the question purely on 
dina d'malchuta dina grounds.  Were that not the case, we might still 
engage in it.  We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to 
either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri).

You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate 
what we value in our Mesorah.  Can I ask where the need for such a 
re-evaluation comes from?  It was my understanding that we value all of 
our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we 
value and what parts we do not.

Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, 
and *not* to feminism.  I don't believe that feminism requires 
egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox 
Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic 
idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what 
feminism was originally about.

On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
> Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus 
> tradition trope.  It is a false dichotomy.  First of all, as R. Shalom 
> Carmy wrote,  the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to 
> Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism.  
> More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of 
> our Masoretic values has changed over time.  We don't value slavery or 
> polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more.  
> And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for 
> us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah.  Furthermore, our 
> Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna 
> in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a 
> women.  L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

.
I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha,
> frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the
> ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression
> of his personal opinion.

R' Micha Berger responded:

> Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed
> this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone
> know what has been said in the years since the standardization
> of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh.

Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool.
But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha
l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I
do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah.

As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2
(near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some
say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But
(4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak."

Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly
tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun,
where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva,
fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention
to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as
being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely
on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the
Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the
Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should
be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak.

> In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in
> every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen,
> which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise
> unreachable.

Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it
seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the
criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed.

Akiva Miller

> 
> I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq
> venimtza qal" were written out.
> 
> That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common.
> 
> HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas"
> -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal.
------------
I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the
former.  I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem
easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch.  

Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li.  :-)
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.

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> It's not a "trope".  While there can be situations in which egalitarianism
> vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them.
> Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to
> the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not.  It seems a poor
> argument, as well.  I don't believe there is anyone who, without the
> impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical
> concepts of justice demand that we ordain women."

> Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian.  Distinctions are one of the
> hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and
> non-Jews or men and women.  We have never viewed having different roles as
> indicating superiority and inferiority.  That judgment is foreign to our
> tradition.  Foreign to halakha.  Foreign to the Torah.

Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed
incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis
are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community
in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to
do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness
and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi
Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent
students here:
http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf

Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously
owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that
current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in
fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here:
http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf

Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks
that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations
of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife)

Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and
see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the
past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us
figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah.
 And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards
egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the
Mishna in Horiyyot.

And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that
there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the
determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well,
there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those
differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against
women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should
be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument.
Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything,
since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women
shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different.


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



_______________________________________________
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.)