Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 136

Sun, 04 Jul 2010

• 1. Rav on Women's Ordination - Rema's rationales (Chana Luntz)
• 2. RYBS on minui hakahal (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Beis Yosef Meat (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: The Cult of Pe'or and Darwinism (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 5. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re RYBS - definition of Serarah (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Error in baby naming (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Correct a korei (Dov Kaiser)
• 9. Re: Error in baby naming (Yitzchok Zirkind)

RIP wrote:

> >2) How can the Rav assume the Rema's support for the minhag that women
> >are not shochtot is based on the Rambam?

And RAF responded:

> I think you should read the cited. {Shi'ur Shi'urei HaRav on Yoreh
> De'ah is available for purchase here:
> http://www.ou.org/oupress/category/1680. The article was translated by
> R. Gil Stuident in this post
> (http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-slaughterers.html)}. You
> will see why the Rav is disatisfied with the other rationales (like
> women fainting).

As mentioned in a previous post, I have not read the original, as that
requires purchase, but I have read RGS's translation.  I confess I cannot
see anywhere where RYBS addresses the question of the Levush's reason (ie
that women faint), nor indicates that he is dissatisfied with it.

What RYBS does appear to do, as per RGS's translation, is give two reasons
for the Rema's position vis a vis women shochtim.  The first is that of the
Shach, that the Rema is following the Maharik and the Agur, that while vis a
vis a halacha, we say lo rainu aino raya, with a minhag, we say lo rainu
yesh raya.

The second is the reason being discussed here, ie that the Rema holds like
the Rambam vis a vis serarah, and that his position is based on this Rambam.
RGS commences this section with the words "We can add another reason why we
should not allow women to serve as slaughterers ."

Now if you think about it, these two reasons brought by RYBS in fact
contradict.  Because the second reason is a reason based on halacha - ie
that there is a Sifri, and the Rambam poskens like the Sifri and the Rema
poskens like the Rambam.

However the first reason is a reason based on minhag, and the whole premise
of the reason is based on the fact that we are dealing with minhag and not
etzem halacha.  If we were dealing with etzem halacha (a la the Rambam, that
women were forbidden to shect), then everybody, the Maharik, the Shach etc
agrees that lo rainu aino raya, as is clearly set out in Zevachim 103b.  The
disagreement about the possible application of lo ra'inu yesh raya vis a vis
women shochtim can only take place if it is clear that (as per the Mechaber)
there is no issur min hadin for women to shect, and the only reason they do
not shect is minhag.

Now RYBS does not, in the notes translated by RGS, advert to the fact that
these reasons that he gives conflict, nor do I know enough about his
standard approach when teaching his students for smicha to know whether his
custom was to just give students different approaches to an issue or whether
one can assume that if he brings a second reason that contradicts a first
reason he is thereby rejecting the first reason.  There appears to be
nothing in the discussion on the first reason which suggests that he is
ultimately rejecting it (and in fact he brings two other Remas which seem to
support it).  And the language of "we can add another reason . " does not
seem to suggest a substitution or a rejection of the first reason.

The assumption behind RAF's writings, as far as I can see, is that, if
forced to choose, RYBS would have poskened like the second reason rather
than the first, but I do not quite see where he is getting this from.
Rather, from the fact that we have two reasons that patently contradict, my
interpretation of what is going on in this shiur was more a raising of
potential issues surrounding the question, for the student's edification,
and not intending to give anything like final psak.  Nor does it read like
the kind of discussion that RYBS would have expected to be closely examined
by those trying to tease out his final position on a question.   But, as
mentioned, RYBS was never my teacher and I don't have any feeling for how he
truly worked.

And even if, given the contradiction, it is true that RYBS would have
rejected the Shach's position (a lot of others have difficulty with this
Shach, as I think I have discussed in previous posts), that does mean that
we would seem to have an RYBS versus the Shach and the Levush and all the
other achronim.  That is, RYBS appears to be the first to identify the
Rema's position as being based on the Rambam.  Now we are not discussing
rishonim here, one can certainly say that RYBS can take on the other
achronim (Rav Moshe certainly did it), but I confess that if it comes down
to a conflict between the major achronic commentators and an American Rav
who never published a halachic work in his life, where the conflict is
between the written achronic positions which have had hundreds of years to
be discussed and notes taken by others in shiur around 50 years ago, which
have only recently seen the light of day, my instincts are towards the major
achronic commentators.  Now I do understand that if RYBS was one's rav
muvhak, perhaps one might take a different view, but for those not in that
position, it is hard to see it carrying a huge amount of weight, even were
it clear that this was the final psak, and not just halachic musings.  And
particularly where the disagreement in question is over what the Rema went,
I would be rather inclined to support views that were closer in time and
place to the Rema, than an interpretation 400 years later.

> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Regards

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100702/7f529032/attachment-0001.htm>

RIT writes:

> >4) When drawing a distinction between converts and women, the article
> >notes that women all prohibited from serving in the capacity of minui
> >kahal - "community wide appointments" and from being entrusted with
> >serara - "discretionary authority," whereas converts are barred only
> >from serara. If that is the case, how is it that women are permitted
> >to serve in any of the positions mentioned above in, since those are
> >indeed communal positions and were only permitted to her by the Rav
> >because they lacked serara. Somewhere, the definition of serara and
> the
> >Rav's distinction within the Rambam between serara and minui kahal is
> >not completely clear.

And RAF responds

> Please read my article again and the Rav's shiur [or R. Gil Student's
> translation].  The Rav clearly distinguishes between "community wide
> appointments" and Serara.  He is forced into this because women are
> precluded from serving as communal dayanim, yet the Gemara indicates
> that a Ger can sit on a bet din to judge gerim. Hence a ger is not
> assur from minui kahal per se - only one of serara.  According to the
> Rav, minui kahal or serara is assur for women;  only minui kahal of
> serara is assur for  gerim.

I am not sure how it is that RYBS is "forced into this" - or indeed how he
derives it at all.

As far as I am aware, the generally accepted reason for women to be
prohibited from being dayanim (except, perhaps, in a kabala type situation
where a karov or a posul can also sit) is based on Mishna Nida 6:4 "all who
are kosher to judge are kosher to give testimony" - ie the prohibition on
women being dayim is based on the prohibition on eidus. See also Tosphos
Nida 50a, Shavuos 29b and a whole string of rishonim on Shavuos 30a (The
Rashba, the Ramban etc) all of whom cites this Mishna (and an explicit
Yerushalmi) as the basis for women's exemption from dayanus. As a
consequence a convert, who can give eidus, can therefore judge other geirim,
the only issue there becomes one of serarah.

Eidus however has nothing to do with minui kahal. An eid does not hold a
communal position.  So it would seem that RYBS, in positing this
distinction, is arguing with all of these rishonim as to the basis of
women's psul for dayanus.  But based on what?  While these rishonim have a
Mishna and a Yerushalmi to base themselves on, where is RYBS getting this
distinction from?  Where is even the concept of minui kahal coming from? The
"proof" brought in RGS's translation is about an alternative explanation in
the Kol Bo to that brought by the Beis Yosef.  Ie RYBS has to disagree with
the Beis Yosef's explanation in the Kol Bo in order to postulate this
distinction and get to his conclusion that this is what the Kol Bo really
meant.  But there is nothing in this translation that gives any hint as to
where, in the Torah or the Talmud or even the Rambam this concept of minui
kahal, distinct from serarah, is derived.  At least for serarah, there is a
Sifri and and Rambam, but as acknowledged, to the extent serarah applies, it
applies as much to a convert as to a woman.  Where this extension comes
from, I rather struggle to see.

> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Regards

Chana


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100702/c9e85474/attachment-0001.htm>

At 07:54 PM 7/1/2010, R. Micha wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:30:19AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> > I don't know about shechitah, but it's my understanding that nikkur
> > according to minhag Sefard, which is more lenient than minhag Ashkenaz...
>
>I don't know about practice, but the amoraim are choleqim on the shiur
>for shehiyah, the Rif, Rambam, Tur and Mechabeir all have a shiur,
>and we Ashk (starting at least with the Rama) hold it's a mah shehu.
>
>However, RYL asked RSM, who is *the* authority on how meat is shechted
>lemaaseh. If R' Mandel said that all Seph meat is kosher to Ashk, I
>assume they lemaaseh do niqur and avoid shehiyah in ways that make
>that statement true.
>
>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha


Here is more of what R. Seth Mandel wrote to me.

Me:  My understanding is that what is called Bais Yosef today in 
America is meat that is slaughtered

Reb Seth: You mean badkened.  The shechita is the same

according to the standards of both the Bais Yosef and the Rema. Am I correct?

Reb Seth: Yes.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no real Beit 
Yosef meat produced in America, although you can find in other countries.

Of course, claiming it is Beit Yosef is no better than claiming it is 
glatt.  Everything depends on the kashrus agency, and Beit Yosef is 
not a certifying agency.



Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100702/1b3c65b9/attachment-0001.htm>

> On 6/27/2010 11:16, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
>> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25:
>>
>> /*The cult of Pe?or is an illustration of the type of Darwinism that

This discussion has me curious; does anyone have the original German of 
this passage?

Thanks,

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@tourolib.org

Access Problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

Unless you are in the Holy Land, where there is the Badatz Beit Yosef.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Prof. Levine 

  Of course, claiming it is Beit Yosef is no better than claiming it is
  glatt.  Everything depends on the kashrus agency, and Beit Yosef is not a
  certifying agency.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100702/fc2a469a/attachment-0001.htm>

RAF wrote:

> The Rav did not consider being a school principal a minui Kahal,
> because it did not demand certification and only affected a limited
> population.

How do these two limitations differ from a shul president?  Being a shul
president too does not demand certification and only affects a limited
population (namely members of that shul).

In fact, I don't know the law in the United States, but in this country (ie
England) being a school principal, and indeed a teacher, in a *government*
school does require certification (but in a private school it does not).
Does that mean, according to your understanding of RYBS, that a woman cannot
be a teacher in a government school in this country, but can in a private
school (remembering that the Jewish schooling system spans both - Hasmonean
Primary and High School and indeed certain of the Beis Ya'akovs and charedi
schools, are for example, government schools, my own children's primary
school is private, although it may at some stage in the future when it is
better established seek to be government funded.)  Indeed one of the issues
for Jewish private schools in this country looking to go government funded
is to ensure that all of their teachers, particularly the kodesh teachers,
have the necessary certifications.  While that may be a bureaucratic
nightmare, nobody has suggested it had serarah implications vis a vis the
women staff.  

>  Likewise, a position does not
> qualify as serara if its holder's decisions require the consent of a
> higher authoritative body.  For example, the decisions of a school
> principal (such as employing or dismissing teachers) must be approved
> by the board of education (Rabbi Aryeh Leib Grosenes, Shu"t Lev Aryeh,
> 2:21).

Again it varies from school to school and from country to country.  If it is
a requirement that the decisions of a school principal such as employing or
dismissing teachers must be approved by a board of education for it not to
be serarah, then whilst certain American schools may perhaps be said not to
have this problem, many many Jewish schools with female principals in other
parts of the world will.  As mentioned, my own children's school is a
private school, and the headmistress unquestionably has the power to hire
and fire without any recourse to any board of education (although there may
be unfair dismissal issues if, like any other employer, staff were dismissed
in an illegal way).   There is a board of governors, but I do not believe
they make hire and fire decisions.  And certainly there are many many
decisions made by every school principal below the level of hire and fire,
where any board of education, should it exist, will not interfere, so the
bar is set rather high if the Rambam's "all the appointments in Israel" are
read to mean only those with power of hire and fire.

The case of a school principal is certainly a fascinating one, for the
simple reason that never in my adult years has anybody ever had the power
over me that my teachers and all the more so my principals had during my
schooling, and, barring ever being sent to prison, I never expect anybody to
have such power again.

Teachers and all the more so a principal had the power, during my schooling
years, to enforce detentions, to require the writing of lines, to demand the
memorising of poems/tehillim what have you, to require pupils to stand in a
corner or to stand with their hands on their heads, to make them do sit ups
or press ups or run around the school playground;  to be on playground duty
and pick up all the mess and rubbish - and on and on the list can go.  I am
sure that other members of this list, remembering back to their schooling,
can give many many other examples of powers that are just not available in
any other context (barring, perhaps, prison or the army).  And indeed, at
the time I was growing up, and even more so at the time that RYBS was
considering the matter, most school principals around the world had, at
least in theory, the power to administer corporal punishment (even if today
many countries have now banned that practice), a power not in fact found in
either prisons or the army.  

And of course, if we are talking about a high school, the majority of pupils
are, in fact, halachic adults.

Now, the more usual justification I have heard for female high school
principals is that that just as for gerim there is no problem if they have
serarah over other gerim, there is no problem for female high school
principals having serarah over other women.  But while this works for all
girls schools, that kind of logic would not work for a school like
Maimonides, where a goodly portion of the student body was and is male.

And all I can say is, while many shul presidents might dream of having the
power to order detentions, appearances at their offices, lines and homework
to their constituent members (failure to attend minyan without good reason,
Cohen, that'll be a perek of tehillim to be recited in my office next week)
that is clearly pure fantasy (and as for the power to give malkos, well
...).  The only environment that matches the power of a school principal
over her pupils is that of the army.  And in the army certainly, important
decisions of the equivalence of hire and fire to a school can only be made
much higher up than the petty officer with the power to throw you in the
brig.  Thus, on the logic being presented above, there should be no serarah
problem within the army unless you are talking about generals and the like
being women, not merely petty officers   And having set the bar so high,
there should be no serarah problem for shul presidents who are usually
answerable to their board far more directly than the average school
principal is to theirs, and there certainly should be no serarah problem for
a shul rabbi, whose powers, in many many cases, only extends as far as his
power to persuade, and who tends to have no serious decision making powers
above the level of whether we say this or that in the tephila then.

Something about this definition therefore does seem to come across as rather
odd.


> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Shavuah tov

Chana

Anyone know of any sources on implications/what to do if a baby girl's announced name was incorrect and it wasn't realized until after davening was over?
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/20100703/1b24ffa5/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:
 
>The Manhig, as quoted, does not qualify his statement. Therefore, the 
> AhS, in an attempt to harmonize him with the Rambam, states that the 
> Manhig was talking about a mistake in taamei mikra, while the Rambam was 
> talking about saying the wrong word. The difficulty with this 
> explanation is that Aharon to Haron is not just a mistake in taamei 
> mikra, and although the AhS has an explanation for this, it is a bit forced.
RZS replied: 
<<Indeed it's not just a mistake in ta'amim. However it is a mistake that
doesn't change the meaning. Harun is the same name as Aharon.>>
 
Absolutely, except that the AhS argues that the Manhig would agree that if
the korei said keves instead of kesev, we would make him go back because it
is a different word, even though there is no change in the meaning of the
word.  That is why he (the AhS) needed to find an alternative explanation
for why Aharon to Haron is alright according to the Manhig.  
 
As RRW has pointed out to me offlist, this seems to be case of poskim relying on a daas yachid, rather than actually paskening that way.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser                                        
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100704/d35cbecd/attachment-0001.htm>

A Gute Voch,
See Sefer Bris Olom page 229, and Shu"t Mivaser Tov # 79.  See also Shu"t
MaHaRam Brisk Chelk @ # 7 also brought in Sefer HaBris page 320 ois 320
(taken from Sefer Ziv HaSheimos Perek 14, more detalis there).
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:

>  Anyone know of any sources on implications/what to do if a baby girl's
> announced name was incorrect and it wasn't realized until after davening was
> over?
> KT
> Joel Rich
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100704/28840a5e/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 136
***************************************

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..."