Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 77

Wed, 07 Jun 2017

• 1. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 2. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: Support? (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap (Isaac Balbin)
• 5. Re: Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap (Micha Berger)
• 6. Maharat (Sholom Simon)
• 7. Re: maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 8. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: maharat (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Support? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Re: maharat (Noam Stadlan)

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.  certainly it is not an argument against
women rabbis.  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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170606/8c95fa16/attachment-0001.htm>

-



> I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value
> as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters
> of grave import.

No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively
learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe
circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical
less-learned nominally-Orthodox person.

Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made
my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to
stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was
to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain
level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my
gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell
them to keep quiet.

Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a
mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was
devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be
right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha.
I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get
my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim.

All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I
will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I
*will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for
disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi
Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha.

Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar
things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent.

Akiva Miller

-



> I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur
> derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what
> consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to
> include any contact in any social situation in addition to
> more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly
> consistently not included are professional scenarios where
> your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors,
> nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who
> can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like
> the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says
> there that even in his generation he was unique in being able
> to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for
> this situation.
>
> But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively
> certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei
> aveira then there is no issur of negia.

I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses,
physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a
"melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one
will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so
too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked
her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her,
she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia.

But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is
the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical
contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the
goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support.

I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that
the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same
time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will
choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability --
but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from
a friend than from a stranger.

> I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And
> preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in
> sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved
> in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred
> option.

"The need to comfort the bereaved..."

Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor"
regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he
cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep
distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha
forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this
"needed" comfort from someone else.

Akiva Miller

R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43

Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold
its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably
the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute.

There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action
https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap

(He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare
me being corrected in public.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

>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?"
>-----------------------------------------------------
>As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question 
>(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", 
>on what basis
>are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a 
>Halachic reason to do so?"

But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, 
but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we 
ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no?

We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to 
ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni 
or Tzlophad's daughters.

-- Sholom

R. Micha-
if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL).
It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can
give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is
one of them.

You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get
semicha.  You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier
to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in
the category of hl.

Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for
those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness.  There are
others in that category.  Since there is no reason to differentiate between
those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category
also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL.

We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be
dayyanim in some cases.  So, the disqualification of women from HL actually
wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot.  So
your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not
claiming to be eligible for semicha.

I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive
lomdus.  Is there a source that specifically states that women are
forbidden from being HL?

The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara
and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age.  It seems that you may
be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not
in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to
deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can
give hora'ah).  So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the
mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a
different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL.  Because if there is hora'ah
that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women.

And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the
requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that?  It
seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found
any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from
having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of
that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what
rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere.  Your restriction only keeps them from
occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job
description.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170607/ca37ad2c/attachment-0001.htm>

But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, 
but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we 
ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no?

We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to 
ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni 
or Tzlophad's daughters.
=========================
So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom
Kt
Joel rich



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxE
U5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFG
SUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&a
mp;Z
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 Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:
: if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL).

It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the
talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did
higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to
each.

The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b.

: It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can
: give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is
: one of them.

So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright.

: You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get
: semicha...

Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability
between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis
for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave
him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into
the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah
(and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be
moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din.

So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of
dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with
the Rambam and Tosafos:

: Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for
: those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness...

The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus.
See Nidah 49b

But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of
them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from
a gezeira shava from eidus.

...
: We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be
: dayyanim in some cases.  So, the disqualification of women from HL actually
: wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot.  So
: your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not
: claiming to be eligible for semicha.

One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it
reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now.

Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require
semichah.

: I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive
: lomdus.  Is there a source that specifically states that women are
: forbidden from being HL?

There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic
semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's
"semichah" are derived from those.

The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually
connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community
considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s
(including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument
less compelling.

If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you
that A =/= C?

: The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara
: and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age...

No, that HL in the SA is the same.

...
: And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the
: requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ...

Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter
hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during
services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian
yearnings in halakhah.

You have only responded to the first.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses,
: physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a
: "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one
: will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so
: too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked
: her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her,
: she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia.

"Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos,
so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei.

In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is
ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals
and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a
problem for someone who has a license at risk.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's
lead and hold like the Mahariq, or  the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a
viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't
heter shopping, after all.)

The Birkei Yoseif says
    Af de'ishah besulah ladun,
    mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah
basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi",
Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem
dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.)

It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word
"hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei
Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established
halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But
he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah
lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such
a heter when he does.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
 > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I
 > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I
 > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for
 > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi
 > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha.
 >
 > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar
 > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent.

I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I 
can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not 
on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with 
a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more 
seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al 
habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I 
don't have to listen to him".

 >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value
 >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters
 > of grave import.

I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning 
Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or 
not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of 
halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from 
criminals?  Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on 
these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim 
issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do 
whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things 
(obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, 
but I mean a straight psak)?

R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress.  You are engaging in a
theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU
rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not
arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing
against holding a specific position).  Given what you wrote, we both agree
that the OU argument against does not hold water.  Even if they are
technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give
hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are
capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need
permission from their rav).
Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch
who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R.
Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a
later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't
invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and
others.   Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav)
have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and
the authority is in the sources, not the person.

You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments.  You have
admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until
recently.  So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only
poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong.

(and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an
arguement, that it be consistent.  So if you are claiming that the reason
women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from
being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including
that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot.  you cant
have it both ways).

Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.'  Please read the
article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier.  He makes it very
clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that
external 'modern values' are an important part of that.  Modern values are
neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are
elevated.  R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our
goal is to make moral progress.

You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'.   It isn't
about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers
to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion.  As
R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice.  I happen
to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and
their teachers.  It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and
the others to claim to know what their motivation is.  It was
reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when
they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise.

Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is
that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian
yearnings.  The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a
woman's.  I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that
way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and
rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that
RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though
l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead
of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the
OU panel said that we value women the same as men.

Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women.
The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large
or as small as possible?  Because as we have decided above, if we go by
strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis.  is
it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences,
you are going to prohibit women from doing things?  Just to have
differences?

There are differences between Jews and Converts.  Is it a Halachic value to
maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and
Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah
is not a problem.  Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva
because serarah is also not a problem for her?  (rosh yeshiva does not
require semicha).  Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach.

The OU paper brought up tzniut.  I do not think that the MO community
thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a
violation of tzniut.  So there is no violation of tzniut when women or
men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one
could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah
if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah).   if you are
claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every
interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside.  The OU paper
claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant
perform rabbinical duties.  That is a non-sequitor.  First of all, it hasnt
been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a
problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to
fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would
be a better starting place.

I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for
women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it.  If you dont
think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say.
But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't
ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent
because of your comfort or lack of comfort.  I would hope that you are at
least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing.  No
one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn
their Torah if you dont want to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170607/dbd3ac13/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.)