[Avodah] Maharat

Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 PDT 2017

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this
: other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that
: question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require
: require semicha?

Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an
open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting
the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community.

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote:
: > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore
: > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq.

: All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to
: offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not
: sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and
: possibly the latter.

I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would
never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never
give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there
are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to
their pasqening.

...
: I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the
: other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have
: comfortable space for women as well...

I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it
makes sense for it to be in the same building.

Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq
holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot
ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul
and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces,
we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it
a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job.

: > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for
: > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be
: > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah....
: > Second,
: > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about
: > the
: > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely
: > consistent with our religion....
: 
: Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that
: is highly egalitarian...

And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt
built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where
opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses
a challenge, not a license.

:                  And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the
: experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect
: religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction
: WITHIN what is halachically permitted.

I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting
of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling.
The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's
the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't
fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there
is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying
to find different but equally valuable roles.

Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is
simply sheqer.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that
: as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted
: (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by
: r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether
: HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all
: or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the
: debate on black letter law?

I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh
eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum
shellfish eaters.

Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to
black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be
leveraged further.

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote:
: But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah
: live in an increasingly egalitarian society...

Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively
becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the
notion that they should.

At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater
values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually
impact who enters the rabbinate.

But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change
that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting
values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they
are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women.

So, to get less abstract, here's an example.

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting
: R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing.
: Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid
: muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R.
: Micha's interpretation:
: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/

But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS
changing policy until after R/PSL's passing.
<http://www.torahmusings.com/2010/02/prof-saul-lieberman-on-womens> has a
complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS
read the letter, but the letter itself.

And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your
wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes:
    Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role
    for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that
    indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din
    as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain
    within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that
    are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not
    apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates.

So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as
rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by
"Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women
to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not
"dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS,
R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah".

Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that
his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection
made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah.

His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to
explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he
was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His
letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's
position.

For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point
WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was
justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that
letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point".

: Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and
: Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to
: understand the Rama, but one of them is:

But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your
read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq,
I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory
siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent;
saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture.

...
: the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have
: sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have
: sources to rely upon.  I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and
: Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong
: with semicha for women.

"Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking?

In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to
"someone to rely upon".

: The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether
: semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone
: have heter hora'ah and not semicha?  it seems that the concentration on the
: specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue.

Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this
question.

Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that
it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there
is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist.

Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for
hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a
dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a
"qlaf" or passed away.

We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah
-- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars
of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of
Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe.

And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also
reflect on Rabbah uManhigah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha at aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"