[Avodah] Minhag Yisroel

[Chana Luntz]

RMB wrote here on Avodah under this heading:

> If teaching girls Torah were declared "assur" rather than 
> "tiflus", the CC's grounds for backing Beis Yaakov would 
> qualify.

And in Areivim in responding to another poster who wrote:

>:  Girls' Torah education was a pretty
>: major break, and IIRC, had to rely on 'eys laasos'....

RMB responded

>It did not. First, there is no issur -- the word used is "tiflus". 

Um, I am not sure where you are getting this from.

The precise language of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 246, si'if
6) which is word to word with the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah perek 1
halacha 13:

V'afal pi sheyesh la schar tzivu Chazal shelo yilmod adam es biso Torah
mipnei she rov nashim ain da'asan micavenes l'hislamed u'motzios divrei
Torah l'divrei havai lfi anist da'asan. Amru hachamim kol hamelamed es
biso torah kielu melamda tiflus (Rema [dvar averah]) b'ma devarim omrim
b'torah sheba'al peh aval torah shebichsav lo yilmod osah l'chatchila,
v'im melameda ano k'lamda tiflus."

Now, I struggle to see "tzivu Chazal" as anything but an issur.  The is
modified (at least for Ashkenazim) by the Rema adding that in any case a
woman is obligated (chayaves) to learn dinim shayachim l'isha. 

>Second, the CC argued that since girls were always taught enough to
become observant 
>women, today's world mandates broader education. The opening of
universal secular education changed the metzius of pre-existing pesaq to
include more.

Yes, you can try and argue that the Rema's dinim shayachim l'sha has
been broadened by the reality of the modern world - but is is a stretch,
a big stretch.  Especially when you are talking about learning Rashi,
which of course is chock full of Torah shebaal peh that is hard to argue
really falls within the category of shaychim l'isha.  And you can try
arguing that schools aren't fathers and therefore aren't included in the
issur (especially when it is done by other women! - just don't learn
Rashi with your daughters round the shabbas table!).  But both of these
are radical breaks with the way the issur was traditionally understood,
and I don't think, in the interests of emes and honesty, one should
pretend otherwise.  

> He held that universal secular education for girls 
> was a change in realia which changed the definition of 
> "teaching them enough to keep them shomeros Torah umitzvos". 
> Teaching halakhah is no longer enough; they now must also see 
> that Torah has greater beauty than the other systems of 
> thought to which they are exposed. As it is, the CC justified 
> a change in minhag Yisrael, which is KEdin and thus follows 
> the same rules -- but what was changed wasn't actually din itself.

I confess I don't think I have ever seen anything in writing from the
CC, so I don't know how he justified it, but I would be surprised, given
the explicit wording of the Shulchan Aruch, if he said anything of the
kind.  Eis la'asos sounds a fair bit more likely  - although eis la'asos
is usually about uprooting Torah prohibitions, and the language of the
Shulchan Aruch/Rambam, as well as the mishna on which they are based,
seems to make it clear that it is a gezera of the Chachamim, ie
d'rabbanan, not d'orisa - which arguably gets us back into the  - if the
reason for a gezeras chachamim no longer applies (the clapping/dancing -
the average person does not mend instruments, Tosphos argument) does it
still apply?   But with an even stronger argument that the gezera is now
counterproductive (although I have certainly heard the rationale for
allowing clapping/dancing as being related to oneg shabbas, ie that the
ban is counterproductive)?  That seems to be what we are dealing with
here - more along the lines of - if girls are going to be learning about
divrei averah from their secular education (or their television
set/other exposure to the outside world) don't you at least need to try
with the antidote?  Another example of seemingly overruling the simple
ruling of a d'rabbanan in favour of the touchy feely/it may be
counterproductive stuff is zmanei tephila in favour of proper
preparation for davening - but that is precisely why the non Chassidim
don't like it.
 
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

Regards

Chana