[Avodah] Rav on Women's Ordination - Rambam and whether he is a daas yachid

[Chana Luntz]

I am responding to various points in RAF's posting piecemeal.  Firstly
because it is getting late, and I am not sure how far I am going to get.
But secondly, because they are all interesting issues, and I think sometimes
things can get a bit lost if lumped together into a longer post.  I would
suggest therefore to the moderator (not that he has to take my suggestion)
to treat them as separate postings, so the issues can be discussed
separately.

RAF writes:

> Indeed, Rav Moshe Feinstein maintains that Rambam is a da'at Yahid.
> However, he was unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in
> the Finkelstein edition of the Sifrei, Midrash Tanna'im, and Midrash
> Ha-Gadol.  In addition the Ritva also maintains like the Rambam.

Just to add to Rav Moshe Feinstein's view, Rav Hertzog also holds that the
majority of the Rishonim did not hold like the Rambam, although he agrees
that the Ritva did so (section on sererah b'isha in his book techuka
l'yisrael al pi hahalacha  (Mosad Harav Kook edition  printed 1989) p103).  

As I have also mentioned in a previous post on Rav Uzziel in Mishpatei Uziel
44, he also held that the Rambam was a minority view.

Now it is not clear from RAF's article or from the translation provided by
R' Gil Student (I confess that since the original requires purchasing, I
have not read the original) whether RYBS held that the Rema was ruling like
the Rambam in the face of the majority of the rishonim, or whether RYBS was
disagreeing with Rav Moshe, Rav Hertzog and Rav Uziel and holding that in
fact the majority of rishonim did hold like the Rambam.

I confess that the first position does seem difficult, as, while the Rema
indeed tended to give weight to later and Ashkenazi rishonim over the
Mechaber's triumvirate, to say that he would hold, with nary a comment or
justification, like a minority of rishonim (ie would use the Rambam and the
Ritva to upshlug the others) seems rather problematic.

On the other hand,  if RYBS did hold that there was a majority of rishonim
supporting the Rambam, it is not clear, certainly from the information
provided, how he got there, and how he dealt with the objections of Rav
Moshe, Rav Hertzog and Rav Uziel, for example, who held differently.

One other thing in the above piece puzzles me.  RAF writes that Rav Moshe
was " unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in
the Finkelstein edition of the Sifrei".  Given that Rav Uziel writing in
1920 in his psak on women voting (Mishpatei Uziel 44) knew of this addition
to the Sifri, it seems rather surprising to suggest that Rav Moshe, writing
fifty years later, was ignorant of it.

This of course also gets into the question about how we treat material that
may have been lost or fallen out of the Jewish canon, only to be "found" in
more modern times.  Questions arise as to the extent we trust historians to
tell us that this material is valid, and even if one wants to say it is
valid, whether it having fallen out of knowledge means that it could not be
properly analysed by the rishonim, and/or whether this is HaShem's hand in
history.  The place of "lost" material is not so straightforward, especially
if one is talking about positions taken by the majority rishonim and whether
they would have changed their minds if they had seen the material.

And certainly such material cannot be used to buttress a position as to what
the Rema was really saying, as he would not have known it either.

> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Regards

Chana