Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 163

Tue, 11 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Kohen Gadol (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Halachah, Mussar, Qabbalah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Rabbi Angel: Halachic essay on Geirus (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: Rabbi Angel: Halachic essay on Geirus (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Kohen Gadol (Akiva Blum)
• 9. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 12. The Origins of R' Akiva (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Ken Bloom)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:04pm EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
: me
:> FWIW, I think the practical implication on men is far greater. Because
:> it implies that men, who already occupy leadership positions, are called
:> upon to make sure that their leadership is really warranted. Do they
:> bring something to the table that others can't or aren't, or is much of
:> it a pursuit of kibud?

: I understand the desire to preserve Jewish norms...

Your phrasing is skewed toward your response. I'm talking about the
desire to preserve Jewish values, whether or not they are norms. What I
(following RHS) and calling zeni'us is one such value. The fact that
it's not the norm speaks ill of the norm, not the value.

The problem with defying norms is that we will break the mimetic element
of our mesorah. But the core to my objection isn't this break. It's
another con, smaller than the one I chose to focus on. Rather it's a
textually identified value.

...
: That has certain specific meanings.  First, there is the issue of our
: limited ability to issue general gzerot in the post talmudic area.

Not really. You are the motzi meichaveiro, not the people who say that
the rabbinate should stay in the hands of men. You need to show the
ability to make taqanos; not prove an inability to make gezeiros.

: But the second is that the Jewish norms involved have to be authentic
: Jewish norms.  I understand the novelty in pulbic roles for women -
: but you are basing your opposition on a norm that is not a Jweish
: norm, and even created out of whole cloth. TO

Again, translating back from norm to value, of course it's a Jewish
value that predates my inventing anyting from whole cloth. "R' Eliezez
haQapar omeir: ... vehakavod, motzi'in as ha'adam min ha'olam." (Avos
4:21 sometimes numbered 4:27)

See the Keli Yaqar Shemos 30:
    ... ein kaparah zu meshameshes ki im bizman shekol echad yosheiv
    besokh ami kemo she'amerah haShunamis...
Or the Tzitz Eliezer XVI:35, who uses besokh ami to argue that it's better
(yeish to'eles yoseir) to make one tefillah for numerous neshamos rather
than single out one at a time.

(Aside from the Radaq on the pasuq in Melakhim II itself, the same idea
made by the Chovos haLvavos, Cheshbon haNefesh 3, and other rishonim
ad loc.)

None of these sources are gender-specific, even those based on the
Shunamis's words.

...
: This is not an oversimplicfication.  In pubilic policy terms, it it is
: the actual, practical implication of your policy.

Then why aren't I actually reaching that conclusion WRT toanot?

:> And the bottom line about what's missing from RMS's depiction of my
:> position is that I agree with:
:>: ? ? ? d) Even if one were to accept this definition of modesty with its
:>: restrictions as an ideal, it actually doesn't solve the issue of
:>: women's roles - because the underlying issue of public roles for
:>: women, such as yoetzet halacha, to'enet, high school tanach teacher,
:>: or maharat (all revolutions in some form or other), is not satisfying
:>: the base need for public adulaton of the individual - as viewed by
:>: some of the critics - but satisfying a communal need that has been
:>: identified by its leaders. ?The question then becomes of what are the
:>: needs of the community.

:> Very much so. I'm saying that such decisions need an active encounter
:> with the change, and a real assessment of pros vs cons. I am saying that
:> while RHS presented the notion in Brisker terms, the idea of tzeni'us /
:> anavah / avoiding kibud is an identified and significant "con".

: It is not a con for tzedaka dinners, it is not a con at weddings, it
: is not a con for any other aspect of Jewish life ...

Of course it is! However, we need as much tzedaqah as we can raise, to
honor mothers at weddings, etc... The presence of a con doesn't deny the
presence of a pro. That's the oversimplification of my position that I
wrote about -- you write as though my setting a threashold to justify
a change (that it must compete with the additional kavod threatening to
take a person out of the world) means an outright ban.

Rather, in cases where I see the advantages, I agree with the change.

In cases where the advantage is framed circularly, I don't. Such as
justifying promoting the Maharat concept rather than teaching women how
to fulfill their religious needs without being/turning to one being
based on the argument that it fulfills those needs. (Which in turn
was backed by the accusation that I didn't assess that as an honest
religious need, which is both wrong and less nuanced than what I really
said.)

Here's an example of that circularity:
: You find this new value compelling - and if everyone were like you, it
: might not be destructive of public enterprise - but our history, and
: nature of public practice
...
: The issue is not women who feel that they belong in the role  - but a
: community that thinks that they need women in the role. That is the
: major distinction.  Again, one can argue against hthe changes - but
: you are again focusing on the individual rather than the community.

So you justify going ahead with the Maharat idea because there are
people not like me who find the idea more compelling than a warning in
Avos. But it's the correctness of the worldview of those people that's
our very question!

Perhaps we need to teach that community that they don't need women in
that role. (C made this error in real halakhah, choosing to spread the
word that it's okay to drive to shul rather than teaching people that
being walking distance to a shul is something to look for in a house. You
don't need to take societal attitudes as a given when your task is to
foster a G-d-fearing society.)

Jumping back a bit:
: Besides the fact that signficance and prominence have an
: identification in tradtional Jewish sources as well (as RDR
: documented..), I think you are misrading the issue (and misreading
: feminism).
: The issue is not prominence but participation - being part of the community.

As a rabbi in all but name. We're not talking about taking down the
mechitzah, are we?

And why is participation as part of the community in the beis kenesses
valued so much that women want change in this domain so badly? Is it
not because of the prominence of such participation rather than those
mitzvos that Yahadus is /really/ about? (Particularly for people not
mechuyavos in tefillah betzibbur?)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:34pm BST, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I don't have children of that age myself yet, but I am certainly expecting
: it to be exactly the same for my children.  But that is because of a
: conscious choice on my and my husband's part, to raise them within a modern
: orthodox community and not a charedi one...

I think that you're working from an outsider's view of chareidi life.
It's like all the talk about subjugating onself to daas Torah as seen from
the media vs what you hear from yeshivish people on Avodah about how their
decision-making really works. (Thanks RJJB who recently brought up that
example in an IM discussion.) The child has to make a conscious decision
to allow their parents into that role. Just as daas Torah becomes a data
point in making a personal decision; not mindless robotics. But I don't
really want to carry this discussion too far, as it's a sore point with
a number of members of the chevrah right now. One whose off-list battles
already cost us yesterday the membership of one regular.

But none of this has to do with the role of Maharat and whether it
introduces any new pros to outweight the cons, which is why I see your
line of argument as off-topic. Or, as I wrote earlier:
:> I find this and your post in general off-topic, since there 
:> are different pros and cons with each change. Saying that we need more 
:> yoatzot doesn't mean we need Maharatot, and saying that girls need more:
:> role models of
:> their own geneder doesn't imply we need more of either.

:> The Maharat is a unique invention in that it intentionally shadows
:> the rav in both education and future job. It is on those criteria in
:> particular that I question its net positive value....

: I don't think I was grouping them together...
:                                                What I specifically focussed
: on, throughout my postings, was the fact that, as a consequence of
: modernity, women are getting married later, ie you have single women around
: at ages and in numbers you never had before.

Is that the question of Maharat? Or is it something else grouped
together?

...
: But your very suggestion is interesting.  Are you advocating creating a paid
: position in which a woman without a title will give lectures to women in
: shul?  It will need to be supported by the community of course, out of
: community funds, the same way that a rabbi is.  But if you didn't happen to
: know a local candidate for such a position, how would you advertise it?
: "Wanted, woman to give classes to women at shul X - salary $$$".  Does this
: deal with your concerns - ie if we advertised for a woman to fulfil this
: role without a title? ...

If we have a need for women in such a role, and I could see many
communities that would need a paid position for an adult educator of this
sort, then create such a position and a new title. I must be missing
something, because that seems trivial.

Learning YD wouldn't be a part of it. Nor would her being the one
officiating (being mesaderet) at lifecycle events, the leader of the
shul, etc...

...
: And what I was trying to focus on was, what about the needs of single women
: in such a community.   Is this woman that you have proposed will give
: classes at the shul without a title also going to fulfil any or all of these
: roles to the women?  For example, if the women are busy working all week,
: and only make it to shul on shabbas, are you proposing that we should split
: the shul, and while the Rav gives his drasha to the men, this woman should
: talk to the women (or is she only going to give the occasional class at
: inconvenient times or is she going to alternate with the Rav)? ...

Remind me again, why do they need the derashah to come from a woman?

Because otherwise they'll have a crush on the rabbi? They won't have a
role model? What exactly is your argument. How does this and that relate?
And why are we to redefine the traditional structure of the community
rather than tell them to come to the Tues night shiur rather than a
shabbos morning minyan if they really have to choose?

:> As above, I think the advantage of RHS's formulation that 
:> it's not about "man lecturing woman". It has as much to say to someone like 
:> myself, who manages to work bragging about my teaching gigs into more 
:> conversations than necessary -- as you yourself pointed out earlier in
: this thread.

: I fully understand that that is how it speaks to *you*.  What I was trying
: to get you to see, however, is that is not how it speaks to everyone.  There
: are other messages that can be derived from this.

This is more of taking the attitude as a given rather than the very
question whose fate we're trying to decide.

:> Second, I am nervous when I hear someone turning this into a 
:> gender-war thing, that turning to a rav for hora'ah is somehow related to
:> abusive men who use gender norms to self-justify their controlling natures.

: Not quite sure what you are getting at here - because I don't see any
: discussion about turning to a rav for hora'ah - which is very personal and
: hopefully taylored with abusive men...

Except that you spoke against men lecturing women. If this is an issue
for a woman, how can she be ready to accept hora'ah when she has to ask
a man?

....
:> My example was actually about extra-halachic customs in hand 
:> washing. I thought that some Qabbalah-based practice is closer to our case
: than
:> asking about din. After all, we can't ask questions about the 
:> viability of following a halakhah.

: But handwashing is indeed din - d'rabbanan perhaps, but din unquestionably.
: The quabbalistic practices only add weight to the din...

The practices are NOT din. Lehalakhah, I did a full neigl vasr if I
pour water over my weaker hand and then my stronger one (sorry, as
a lefty that's the only way I coudl phrase it) and then put the cup
away. Since I'm not Teimani, I violated minhag, not din. I never saw a
teshuvah arguing that we should break the mimetics of neigl vasr because
it is a danger for those of us with OCD. And I see that as something of
a parallel to your raising the issue of kol kevudah and abusive men.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 07:55:36AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: This is a very weird paragraph.  You started with a definition of tzniut 
: which purports to be gender neutral.  You deduce that women should be 
: forbidden to have public offices...

NOT AT ALL! Sorry for the caps, but you seem to have missed all the
times I contrasted Maharat to Yoezef and Toenet during the course of
this thread. I felt a need to "say it louder".

Yes, I do feel that feminism is suboptimal, because it's based on a
conflation of prominence and significance that is endemic in the west but
at odds with basics of the Jewish worldview. We are to do critical jobs,
and in theory we shouldn't care if we're something everyone can name,
like a piston, or that nameless screw that holds the case together.

However, that doesn't mean banning women from leadership positions. It
means only banning them in situations where the alternative isn't
worse. E.g. When women are too embarassed to ask a man about taharas
hamishpachah, or women can't speak up for themselves to a court or a male
to'ein, then we have an even less optimal situation for our other choice.

Here we are watching RAW go a major step beyond -- a school for women
who are rabbis in everything but actual name. Same curriculum and test
as Yoreh Yoreh going out for the same kinds of pulpits.

So I asked, what's the offsetting positive not already addressed by the
current set of opportunities to become or have a female role model?

Second, you rephrase my position as thought I said nothing about
encounter, grappling, and weighing pros and cons.

My question is very much Maharat specific (although it admits to having
parallels for every other communal innovation under the sun), and also
very much a confrontation we must think through weighing the pluses and
minuses of our options -- not a simple "women should be forbidden to
have public offices".

:                                   and that men should do introspection 
: before accepting them, and then you conclude that this is harder on men 
: than on women.  But the difference which I find glaring is that you let 
: individual men determine their own choice, but you make the choice for 
: women.

Because lemaaseh, there is no talk about institutionalizing male
leadership of a new sort. The change on one side is a communal one.
OTOH, the male leadership that has existed since Yisro proposed our
having sarei asarot are failing in our preservation of tzeni'us whereever
possible. That's an individual's struggle. And as already noted a few
times on this thread, one I personally have to face in spades; and I'm
not even a communal leader!

...
: It seems to me that you are missing RCL's point.  Surely by the time you 
: sent your daughter to seminary she was old enough to marry (I just 
: looked it up on the web, which is not necessarily reliable, but in NJ 
: she can marry at 17 with parental consent, and at 16 with the consent of 
: a judge).  We homeschool, and our only child is a boy, so I don't 
: actually know, but surely there are Jewish high schools in NJ which 
: encourage children to marry as soon as possible.  Why didn't you send 
: your daughter to one of those high schools and then marry her off, 
: rather than send her to a school which encourages further education at a 
: seminary?

Why the really odd assumption that I didn't weight pros and cons and
consciously make that decision? Actually, the girl in question had an
eclectic education from both chareidi and MO institutions, as her needs
evolved.

(At some point I might critique the disadvantages of trying to raise
children without affiliation to a particular O movement, but this isn't
the appropriate venue, nor is all the data in yet. The biggest danger:
Be very careful with the negative criticism, lest you create the illusion
that you believe that since no O movement fits your bill, O as a whole
does not.)

Earlier in this discussion I pointed to my critique of both MO and the
yeshiva velt (and to some extent chareidim in general) as being 
self-defined by one-off answers to questions that really need to be
handled casewise. Including a plug for mussar, which gives one the tools
to do such case-by-case assessment as well as historically (at least in
Kelm, Slabodka and Telzh) doing so to produce a broad diversity of great
people with unique perspectives. See
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/modern-orthodoxy-chareidism-
and-mussar.shtml

But again, instituting a communal strucrtural change isn't a
one-off question. It has to be dealt in aggregate, since this is an
all-or-nothing decision; you can't make and dimantle a school on a
one-by-one basis.

: "Movement" is an ambiguous word; we use it to describe both Hassidus and 
: Reform....

Tangentially, I don't think that's an ambiguity. The way I see it,
the Enlightenment caused a rupture in our culture, to which there were
numerous Isms developed about how to respond. Some of those Isms retained
the ikkarim of Yahadus, so we call them O movements, and others did not.

IOW, Chassidus, Yeshivish, Hungarian "Chadash Assur", DL, neo-O, MO,
etc... are sociological parallels to C and R. (And thus "movement" is
being used in the same sense.) O as a whole is not; it's used to refer
to an attribute that a movement could have, or to the set of movements
that share that attribute.

Yes, historically, it took us a while to agree on what that O property
is, especially with the rise of the first such Ism, Chassidus. And it
took Chassidus a generation to shake out the rebbeles that really
weren't O, and brought a negative impression of Chassidus as a whole
to Litta. But once we did have some clarity as to what we would call
the defining ikkarim of Orthodoxy, I believe the above description
fits.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> NOT AT ALL! Sorry for the caps, but you seem to have missed all the
> times I contrasted Maharat to Yoezef and Toenet during the course of
> this thread. I felt a need to "say it louder".
>   
Actually I read it and dismissed it.  If your argument is one based on 
kavod what possible distinction could there be? But if, to add another 
quotation
> Here we are watching RAW go a major step beyond -- a school for women
> who are rabbis in everything but actual name. Same curriculum and test
> as Yoreh Yoreh going out for the same kinds of pulpits.
>   
your objection seems to be not tznius but innovation.  I find that 
argument a lot more appealing, but it's not the argument you've been making.
> Because lemaaseh, there is no talk about institutionalizing male
> leadership of a new sort.
But it is something we've done since immigrating to the USA.  The 
rabbinate here is nothing like it was in Europe.  We have preserved the 
same title and a fraction of the same training, but the job is very 
different.  I have argued previously in this thread that by diluting the 
title we have also diluted the kavod, but you don't seem to buy that.
>  Why the really odd assumption that I didn't weight pros and cons and
> consciously make that decision? Actually, the girl in question had an
> eclectic education from both chareidi and MO institutions, as her needs
> evolved.
>   
You made an individualized decision rather than adopting a 
one-size-fits-all solution.  Something you wish to forbid in our case ....
> (At some point I might critique the disadvantages of trying to raise
> children without affiliation to a particular O movement, but this isn't
> the appropriate venue, nor is all the data in yet. The biggest danger:
> Be very careful with the negative criticism, lest you create the illusion
> that you believe that since no O movement fits your bill, O as a whole
> does not.)
>   
Our objection is not to the institutions of orthodoxy but to the 
institution of school, which is a major waste of time (and trains the 
inability to concentrate for more than short stretches of time) - - and 
another institutional innovation of the modern era.  If we could just 
dump him in a beis midrash half a day, and a library half a day, with a 
chavrusa,  a shoeil umeishiv, and occasional tests, we'd be very happy.

David Riceman

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 02:14:02PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: >NOT AT ALL! Sorry for the caps, but you seem to have missed all the
: >times I contrasted Maharat to Yoezef and Toenet during the course of
: >this thread. I felt a need to "say it louder".

: Actually I read it and dismissed it.  If your argument is one based on 
: kavod what possible distinction could there be? But if, to add another 
: quotation

My argument is that you need to have something outweighing the loss of
tzeni'us. That something depends on what the job is.

: >Here we are watching RAW go a major step beyond -- a school for women
: >who are rabbis in everything but actual name. Same curriculum and test
: >as Yoreh Yoreh going out for the same kinds of pulpits.

: your objection seems to be not tznius but innovation.  I find that 
: argument a lot more appealing, but it's not the argument you've been making.

No, it's both. It's justifying innovaiton in the face of loss of
tzeni'us. Justifying innovation requires the pros outweighing the cons
to the point of having sufficient motive.

:>Because lemaaseh, there is no talk about institutionalizing male
:>leadership of a new sort.

: But it is something we've done since immigrating to the USA.  The 
: rabbinate here is nothing like it was in Europe....

Eastern Europe. A Hildesheimer alumnus was quite similar. His job was
sermonizing, counseling and life cycle events.

But stull, that's not our current conversation.

Even if you were to argue that we erred, and the current role of rabbi
is one more frought with negatives than with positives, that would be
true for the Maharat taking the same role IN ADDITION to the current
conversation without this addition.

: > Why the really odd assumption that I didn't weight pros and cons and
: >consciously make that decision? Actually, the girl in question had an
: >eclectic education from both chareidi and MO institutions, as her needs
: >evolved.

: You made an individualized decision rather than adopting a 
: one-size-fits-all solution.  Something you wish to forbid in our case ....

Because there is only one seminary per community. This isn't a decision
that fits individual choice. The question is communal, not personal, by
nature of its content.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The occurrence of a kohen gadol encountering and being obligated to
bury a meit mitzva may be remote, but only if we only consider the
chief kohen gadol. Being away from sefarim, I can't refresh my memory
on the following point: is a mashua'h mi'hama prohibitedd from
becoming tame to relatives? If soo, it stands to reason that that kind
of kohen gadol would find himself more often in the situation at hand.

Can anyone refresh my memory regarding the MM's din?
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service
* Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

Akiva:
> Your post is about
> conflating halacha wih mussar, and halacha with kabbala. And that's
> where you've lost me.

No direct reply, I think each individual needs to reflect upon some
ideas for themselves...

Indirect reply:

There is an excellent bifurcation of Halachah and Muusar-Qabalah in one
of the most famous Sefarim of the 19th Century!

The sefer Chofetz Chaim is a classic halachah sefer
And its shemiras halashon component is mussar laced with quotes from
Zohar.

Surely this paradigm works for me, viz. Non-conflation.

There are many other similar dichotomies out there. 

Even the sefer hachinuch for the most-part separates taamei mitzvos from
the halachos themselves.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Teaser:

Rabbi Angel
    ...Most Orthodox Jews (including me) were taught to believe that
    conversion is valid only if the would-be proselyte comes with pure
    spiritual motives and if he/she will be observing all the mitzoth upon
    conversion. Because we have been taught in this way, it is difficult
    to examine the sources without bringing these assumptions into play.

    Yet, we cannot arrive at the truth unless we put aside our
    preconceived notions, and see what the texts themselves tell us.
    We must also keep in mind what the halakha prefers, and what the
    halakha allows. Obviously, the halakha prefers ideal converts who are
    motivated by pure love of God and Torah, and who fully desire to live
    a life of Torah and mitzvoth. Yet, the halakha allows conversions of
    individuals who do not fulfill the ideal qualifications. The classic
    halakhic sources provide significant leeway...

Full post:
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/more-issue-conversion-judaism

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 04:30:35PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Teaser:
: Rabbi Angel
:     ...Most Orthodox Jews (including me) were taught to believe that
:     conversion is valid only if the would-be proselyte comes with pure
:     spiritual motives and if he/she will be observing all the mitzoth upon
:     conversion. Because we have been taught in this way, it is difficult
:     to examine the sources without bringing these assumptions into play.
...

Do you mean to rehash the discussion at <http://bit.ly/8sHXg> titled "R'
Angel & Geirus Redux" (see also the previous and following subject lines
in the index), running from mid-March to mid-April 2008 and including
89 posts?

There are discussions on Avodah which informed me, some that made me
change my mind, many that made me conclude eilu va'eilu, and then those
that left me as convinced as when I started. Nothing in that discussion
led me to agree that RMA's intepretation was loyal to his sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Arie Folger
> 
> The occurrence of a kohen gadol encountering and being obligated to
> bury a meit mitzva may be remote, but only if we only consider the
> chief kohen gadol. Being away from sefarim, I can't refresh my memory
> on the following point: is a mashua'h mi'hama prohibitedd from
> becoming tame to relatives? If soo, it stands to reason that that kind
> of kohen gadol would find himself more often in the situation at hand.
> 
> Can anyone refresh my memory regarding the MM's din?
> 

Ossur. Yoma 73a.

How about a total-oversimplification?

Why not: 
1. Allow or empower women to learn all the Torah they want - including
   Yore Dei'ah?
2. Have these women learn lishma w/o any expectation of power or kavod?
3. Then in a generation allow the chips to fall where they may and no
   one forces anything - rather It evolves?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> How about a total-oversimplification?
>
> Why not: 
> 1. Allow or empower women to learn all the Torah they want - including
>    Yore Dei'ah?
> 2. Have these women learn lishma w/o any expectation of power or kavod?
> 3. Then in a generation allow the chips to fall where they may and no
>    one forces anything - rather It evolves?
>   
Hasn't that already happened? I graduated Maimonides School in Boston in 
1975 (easily a generation) and the girls took the same limudei kodesh  
(including gemara) classes we did.

David Riceman

Another clearcut source, Avos 1:10, "Shemayah omeir: ... usena es
harabbanus..." (See also TY, Yachin Avos 1:39)

Does our not living up to this ideal delete the mishnah from the Jewish
value system? Do we "not hold like this"? Or do we simply not live up to
everything we hold important?

Or Horios 10a-b, Rabban Gamliel could only get his talmidim to accept
the job of rabbi by arguing: Kemedumin adem shesherarah ani nosein
lakhem? Avdus ani nosein lakhem!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

We all know the story, the water etching the rock. I found the maqor,
it's Avos diR' Nasan 6:2 <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/avot/6-2.htm>.

The story begins "Ben 40 shanah hayah velo lamad kelum". Therefore,
it's usually told that R' Aqiva was an ignorant shephard at 40, and
began learning Torah after this incident convinced him that Rachel's
plan had merit.

RYS (OY #10) picks up on a later line, "miyad, CHAZAR lilmod Torah".
According to his take on the story, R' Aqiva was raised in a Torah
observant home and had an education. By age 40, he had left it all and
wasn't learning any longer. After this story, he returned to learning.

According to RYS (tr. R' Zvi Miller, pg 211), this was the lesson
of the water. Not the impact learning could have, but the impact his
past learning did have -- unknowingly to him:
    Chazal state that Rabbi Akiva 'returned' to study. This implies
    that Rabbi Akiva had stopped learning Torah because of a problem
    he experienced in his studies. His difficulty was that he thought
    his Torah study made no impression on his soul and he did not see
    himself growing spiritually. At that point, he was convinced that it
    was hopeless for him to continue. The example of the water that had
    carved deep into the stone, made him realize the flaw in his thinking
    and his feelings of despair. He then returned to his studies. The
    actual process of the altering of the stone is not discernible to
    the senses. The scientists explain that the flow of water makes an
    impression which is imperceptible to man.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Micha Berger wrote:
> No, it's both. It's justifying innovaiton in the face of loss of
> tzeni'us. Justifying innovation requires the pros outweighing the cons
> to the point of having sufficient motive.
>   
But the argument is much stronger in the absence of tznius.  After all 
there can be lots of reasons to avoid innovation unless you need it.  
Your invocation of tznius as the unique motivating reason is very 
suspicious, for all sorts of reasons that several people have pointed out.

David Riceman

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:20:20PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: But the argument is much stronger in the absence of tznius.  After all 
: there can be lots of reasons to avoid innovation unless you need it.  
: Your invocation of tznius as the unique motivating reason is very 
: suspicious, for all sorts of reasons that several people have pointed out.

If I felt that innovation was inherently wrong, I would be ascribing
to chadash assur min haTorah, a very odd position for someone trying to
revive mussar in his corner of the community.

Also, I am not invoking tzeni'us as the unique anything. (Yet another
false assumption of simplicity.) I'm saying that tzeni'us is weighing in
against this innovation. The inertia inherent in halakhah needs to be
exceeded by a significant gain, and to that I'm adding what I consider
to be a huge weight against the change. As per above about changes I
would /want/ to see, when not speaking in terms of specific halakhos I
don't consider the need for inertia nearly as great of an issue as what
we're distrupting the status quo for.

But if the tzeni'us violation was the status quo, my assessment of the
situation would be different. It would be whether that which is gained
through having a Maharat minus the potential gain in tzeni'us opportunity
is so bad as to warrant changing it. I can't picture what that world
would be like, generations after O Jews accepted the notion of female
clergy, so I can't guess what my dopple-ganger would think. In truth,
I don't think the culture that produced the rishonim's takes on kol
kevudah would have gone there before now. I think the hypothetical is
necessarily false.

And so, I think it really boils down to someone explaining why we should
be accomodating a worldview in which control, power, prominance, etc...
should be further enshrined as being the essence of being more of an
eved Hashem.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In an off-list discussion about something I said, RMB pointed out to me
that I made as statement that sounded like an ad-hominem attack when I
called RAW "disingenuous". That was not my intention.

I wrote:
>     Here's where I think the issue is. I think R' Weiss is being
>     disingenuous about how he presents this. He wants to create a woman who
>     can be the sole leader of a community, and he's not doing it because he
>     thinks that people can improve their halachic observance that way. 
>     AISI, R' Weiss wants to build a female pulpit rabbi so that he can show
>     the world we have gender equality. His constituency is so enamored with
>     the idea of gender equality that they're willing to pay for this.


And RMB responded:
> If I'm reading him correctly:
> Ken finds that creating a Maharat that people will only realize after
> the existence of women with the title are accepted really means "woman
> rabbi" is disingenious.
> 
> I do not think this characterization of RAW and his community is fair,
> though. I think they do believe that can improve their avodas Hashem
> (including observance) this way. I think the flaw is that they're
> accepting the worldview in which that's true as unchangable, rather
> than jettisoning the desire for egalitarianism and with it the illusion
> that excluding women from the clergy in unfair. Unless they do that,
> their girls will be alienated by the current communal structure. And
> that problem is real.

I guess you're right, and I probably should have stated it the way you
did. He probably really does see a perception that excluding women from
the clergy is unfair, and feels that he should accommodate this by
creating a Mahara"t.  And I agree with you that they should look at
changing their worldview rather than promoting women to fit their
worldview.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "disingenuous". He's only being
disingenuous if he's saying the goal is to solve the problems RnCL has
been discussing on Avodah. He isn't saying that, but I got confused from
the context I was writing from earlier in the post.

--Ken


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 163
***************************************

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..."