[Avodah] Serrarah

[Chana Sassoon]

RJK writes:

> The discussion back and forth on this issue has my head spinning. So I
> would find it very helpful (and perhaps others as well), if we could go
back
> a step or two and someone could present the elements of serrarah; that
> is, to have serrarah there must be a, b c, & d.  Of course, if there is a
> dispute on the elements, it would be helpful if that were pointed out as
well.

But you should know by now that the halacha doesn't work like that.  Serarah
is a handy word that is used to encapsulate a topic under discussion, and
hence can have a range of different meanings.

So, let's start from first principles.

The Torah says:

Devarim 17:15
Then you shall surely put over you a king whom the Lord your G-d will chose;
one from amongst your people shall you put a king over you; you may not set
a stranger over you who is not your brother.

And then the Sifri says (in all versions):

Sifri Devarim Parshat Shoftim pesika 157:15
...
King: and not a Queen;
...
>From amongst: and not from outside the land [of Israel];
Your brothers: and not from others
...
You shall appoint: a positive command;
Do not set over you a stranger: a negative prohibition;

Then there is a version not in the classic Sifri, but which has been found
in various genizas, and which is considered by historians to be authentic,
or at least (almost certainly) the version the Rambam had which says: 

A foreigner:  from here a man is appointed a parnes [community leader] on
the community and a woman is not appointed a community leader on the
community;

Now there are various gemoras the discuss the situation vis a vis a convert
eg:

Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 76b
The host of Rav Adda bar Ahavah was descended from a convert.  He was
quarrelling with Rav Bibi.  One said, I will run the town, and the other
said, I will run the town.  They came before Rav Yosef.  He said to them it
is taught: [Devarim 17: 15] you shall surely put over you a king. from
amongst your brothers - all appointments that you make shall only be from
amongst your brothers. Rav Addah bar Ahavah said to him even if his mother
is from Israel?  His mother is from Israel - he is called from amongst your
brothers. . Rabbi Zeira would deal with them [and appoint them].  Raba bar
Avuha would deal with them.  However in the west, even to the inspect of
weights and measures they would not appoint them.  In Nehardea they do not
appoint them even to the position of supervisor of irrigation.

And there are other gemoras, particularly ones who deal with gerim being
dayanim etc.  However nothing that specifically deals with a serarah type
concept vis a vis women in the gemora.

The Rambam however says this vis a vis converts:

Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 4
A king shall not be appointed from the community of converts, even after
many generations unless his mother is from Israel, as it says [Devarim
17:15] do not put upon yourselves a foreigner who is not your brother, and
not to the kinship alone,  but all "sareros"  in Israel, not a sar [ie
prince] of the army, and not a sar of fifty or a sar of ten, even the one
given authority over the waters that they divide from there for the fields,
and it is not necessary to say a judge or a nasi that he should not be
except from Israel as it says "from the midst of your brothers shall you
place on yourself a king", all appointments which you shall place shall not
be except from the midst of your brothers.

And in the following halacha he says this vis a vis women:

Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 5
We may not appoint a woman to the kingship as it says on you a king and not
a queen, and so for all the appointments [mesimos] in Israel we only appoint
to them a man.

Now, you can see for yourself that the word serarah is only mentioned by the
Rambam in connection with gerim, and not in connection with women, the term
used vis a vis women is different.  In addition, this setting out of not a
sar of the army and not a sar of fifty and not a sar of ten and not one who
divides the water is only said vis a vis gerim even in the Rambam.  And even
the alternate version of the Sifri, which discuss limiting positions
available to women, mentions only parnes al hatzibur.

But, the tendency is when discussing the issue, to use the term serarah, as
it comes (inter alia) from the Rambam in relation to gerim, and apply it to
women.

Now the next point to note is that, as came up in our various discussions,
most of the Rishonim appear not to posken like this Rambam vis a vis women
at all, nor is it brought in the Shulchan Aruch.

So how do you identify elements a), b), c) and d)?

What you do have, now skipping loads of generations, is a whole bunch of
recent teshuvos on the subject of women.  One of the key questions at the
time of the founding of the State of Israel was, of course, could women run
for parliament.  One of the strongest arguments that opponents of this had
was this Rambam, because whatever else one may say, prime minster would seem
to fall squarely within parness al hatzibbur.  That is why Rav Uzziel and
Rav Hertzog had to deal with the question.

As I have mentioned previously, Rav Uzziel's position is:

a) the majority of rishonim do not posken like the Rambam, so, no matter how
great he was, we can posken against him particularly given that the Shulchan
Aruch does not mention it; and

b) even if we do take the Rambam as halacha, he is dealing with "appointing"
as you can see from his language, and not from acceptance of the people
[kabala], which is linked to voting.  Hence any position achieved by popular
vote is not a violation of the Rambam.

Rav Hertzog's position is:

a) the gemora does not mention any problem with women being in authority,
which is strange considering that it was halacha l'ma'ase for them.  And in
the case of gerim being king, they made sure to mention that it was a
problem, even when they had sympathetic kings like Agrippa.  He therefore
concludes that while they felt having gerim was a breach of the pasuk in
Devarim, melech v'lo malka was an asmachta b'alma and not applicable
l'halacha.

b) The majority of the Rishonim do not posken like the Rambam and the
Shulchan Aruch does not mention it; and

c) Even if we do take the Rambam as halacha, as we learn it out from melech
v'lo malka, the Rambam can only be referring to positions that are similar
to that of a king, meaning that we are referring to positions which are
lifelong and hereditary, like a king's.  Therefore we are not referring to
positions in parliament etc, which are for a set term of years only, and
cannot be inherited. 

As mentioned, Rav Moshe also holds that the Rambam is a daas yachid, but
seems to take across the definitions from the halachos of hilchos gerim
about things like making decisions vis a vis water divisions for fields in
terms of being machmir l'kol hadeos.

Now RAF is coming, based (I would imagine inter alia) on some shiurim that
RYBS gave, to propose that RYBS had yet a different definition of serarah,
one that included shochtim and presidents of shuls, but excluded principals
of schools.  He also is arguing that RYBS believed that the Rema who ruled
against allowing women shochtim was basing himself on the Rambam, and that
this has implications for halacha l'ma'ase.

My posts in response were concerning various aspects of this, as many
aspects are very strange.

> With those elements, it might be easier to apply them to particular cases
> (shul president, school principal, rabbi, shochet etc.) and see which have
> all of the elements and which do not.  My sense (and it's not much more
than a
> sense) is that some part of our discussion of this issue involves
> differing understandings of the powers of those in certain of the
positions
> (president etc.) being considered as opposed to halachic disagreements.

Well, it is mostly about halachic disagreements.  Do we hold like the
Rambam?  If we hold like the Rambam, what does the Rambam mean?  Does the
postulated position of RYBS make sense halachically.  These were various
aspects of my various posts.  My (I think final) post, however, was about
reality, and the slightly bizarre suggestion that, if you do hold that we
posken like the Rambam, and you do define serarah in the widest sense, and
define it as assur, that you could possibly say that school teachers and all
the more so principals, do not have serarah over their pupils because they
may (perhaps) not have hire or fire power over their staff.  Teachers and
Principals hold the future of their pupils (and in high school these are
mostly halachic adults) in the palms of their hands.  I don't know that
there is huge disagreements vis a vis the genuine powers of any other
position, but I do get the impression that those who discuss the question
vis a vis principals are sometimes only focussing on the staff, and
forgetting about the student body. [And let us not forget the irony of
modern charedi life, where actually it is so often the schools, and
particularly the girls schools, who demand a certain standard, and when they
say to the parent's jump, the parents say, how high?  But that at least is
indirect, the power over students in a school is direct and tangible and
enforced more overtly than in any other situation in our society]
 
I hope that helps your head spinning.  Please let me know if anything does
not make sense here.

> Joseph Kaplan

Shabbat Shalom

Chana