[Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha

[Noam Stadlan via Avodah]

R. Micha,
thanks for the response.
so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah.
And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't
necessarily apply to anything else.  But the OU authors claim that some of
YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of
classic semicha should apply.  But that makes no sense of you are claiming
that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship.  So your own
argument works against your claim.  There is not a single hint that
anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call
semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive
connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we
dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other
attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic
semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women).

You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly
where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much
against that possibility.  It states:

עִנְיַן הַסְּמִיכוּת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ כָּל
הָעָם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וּמַה שֶּׁמּוֹרֶה הוּא בִּרְשׁוּת רַבּוֹ
הַסּוֹמְכוֹ, וְלָכֵן אִם כְּבַר מֵת רַבּוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לַסְּמִיכוּת. וְכֵן
בְּתַלְמִיד חָבֵר, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל, בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין
צָרִיךְ רְשׁוּת אֵין צָרִיךְ סְמִיכוּת.(ריב''ש סִימָן רע''א וּדְלֹא
כְּנַחֲלַת אָבוֹת פ' שָׁנוּ חֲכָמִים). וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ
מֻסְמָךְ לְמוֹרֵנוּ וְנוֹתֵן גִּטִּין וַחֲלִיצוֹת, אֵין בְּמַעֲשָׂיו
כְּלוּם, וְיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְגִטִּין וַחֲלִיצוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן, אִם לֹא
שֶׁיָּדוּעַ לַכֹּל שֶׁמֻּמְחֶה לְרַבִּים הוּא רַק שֶׁמִּצַּד עֲנָוָה
וְשִׁפְלוּת אֵינוֹ מְבַקֵּשׁ גְּדוֹלוֹת. (מהר''ד כֹּהֵן סי' כ' ומהרי''ו סי'
פ''ה וקכ''ב). וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִים וּמְקִלִּין(תְּשׁוּבַת ריב''ש
הַנַּ''ל). וּבִמְקוֹם
עִגּוּן יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל אִם כְּבַר נָתַן גִּטִּין וַחֲלִיצוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא
בְּדֶרֶךְ אַחֵר, כִּי מִנְהָגָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹרָה, כֵּן נ''ל. וְעוֹד
נ''ל שֶׁמֻּתָּר לָתֵת מוֹרֵנוּ לְאֶחָד שֶׁיְּסַדֵּר גִּטִּין, וְאַף עַל
פִּי שֶׁמִּדִּין הַסְּמִיכָה שֶׁבַּיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לֹא הָוֵי דִּינָא
הָכֵי, מִכָּל מָקוֹם עַכְשָׁו אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נְטִילַת רְשׁוּת בְּעָלְמָא
וְשָׁרֵי.

specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has
permission.  So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha.

The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the
ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general"

It is very forced to claim that there is more here.  You basically have to
read things into it that are not there.

I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that
they cannot be moreh hora'ah.  because it seems very clear here that those
who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long
list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah.

Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be
witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable.  And also, that even
though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category
cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's
abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or
judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud
was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories
is not fixed.

If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et
chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in
issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions,
being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah.

Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi
and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the
talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I
understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether
Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah.  It would seem that such a
distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not
automatically apply to hora'ah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170528/5ff5ed0a/attachment-0003.htm>