[Avodah] The Rav on the Ordination of Women

[Esther and Aryeh Frimer]

I was very pleased to see that Chana Luntz has taken out time to study my 
piece.  My goal was to get people to discuss the view of the Rav, pro and 
con.  It looks like I've succeeded to some extent - though I had hoped that 
more of the senior Talmidim of the Rav would do so.  I viewed my role as 
bringing the Rav's shita to the forefront - but now people are expecting me 
to defend him; I wish the Rav were here to do so himself!

    My personal life has been very busy, but I'll try to respond to some of 
her comments briefly. As always her comments are wise and informative and a 
pleasure to read.


Chana Luntz (Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:41:24 +0100) wrote:



". whether RYBS held that the Rema was ruling like the Rambam in the face of 
the majority of the rishonim."



I'm not sure Briskers were ever terribly concerned whether the majority of 
Poskim agreed with the Rambam or not. The Rambam was a Giant, and that was 
that.



"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."



IMHO Rav Moshe Feinstein was obviously unaware of the alternate Girsa in the 
Sifrei since he wonders where the Rambam got the idea that women were 
excluded from all minuyei serara.  He concludes that there is indeed no 
source and it was Rambam's own logical extension -  presumably extrapolated 
from ger.  Clearly, RMF was unaware of an alternate girsa which comes out 
just like the Rambam.



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



Chana Luntz (Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:13:17 +0100) Wrote



"Just to note that Rav Hertzog used precisely the same argument from 
Shlomozion to say that this proves that a woman can validly be a queen where 
necessary."



I really don't know what the Netsiv would have answered regarding Shlomzion 
haMalkah. He may have responded that she was allowed to remain as queen 
because of pikuach Nefesh. Furthermore, there was no one her equal in piety 
who could rule, and allow Torah to flourish.  But this does no detract from 
the fact that the Netziv saw a distinction between gerim and women.



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



Chana Lintz (Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:12:19 +0100) wrote:



"I cannot see anywhere where RYBS addresses the question of the Levush's 
reason (ie that women faint)"



Chana is correct.  I responded from memory and erred.  The Rav does not 
relate to the Levush and Fainting - only to the claim that lo rainu ra'aya.



"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,"



It would seem to me that the Rav proposes the second approach because he is 
fundamentally unhappy with the proposal that inaction can create a minhag! 
This leads him to suggest what he thinks is a more satisfying answer.