[Avodah] Rav on Women's Ordination - Rema's rationales

[Chana Luntz]

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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100702/7f529032/attachment-0002.htm>