[Avodah] maharat

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:
: if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL).

It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the
talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did
higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to
each.

The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b.

: It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can
: give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is
: one of them.

So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright.

: You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get
: semicha...

Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability
between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis
for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave
him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into
the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah
(and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be
moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din.

So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of
dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with
the Rambam and Tosafos:

: Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for
: those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness...

The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus.
See Nidah 49b

But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of
them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from
a gezeira shava from eidus.

...
: We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be
: dayyanim in some cases.  So, the disqualification of women from HL actually
: wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot.  So
: your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not
: claiming to be eligible for semicha.

One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it
reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now.

Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require
semichah.

: I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive
: lomdus.  Is there a source that specifically states that women are
: forbidden from being HL?

There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic
semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's
"semichah" are derived from those.

The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually
connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community
considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s
(including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument
less compelling.

If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you
that A =/= C?

: The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara
: and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age...

No, that HL in the SA is the same.

...
: And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the
: requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ...

Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter
hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during
services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian
yearnings in halakhah.

You have only responded to the first.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
micha at aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507