[Avodah] Maharat

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

(And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".)

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you
: understand the OU panel as defining it.  Otherwise you are just using a
: nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning.

To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose
halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves
semichah in the discussion.

We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong
terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide
hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier
of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a
rebbe-chaver, or the like.

He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a
removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances.
Not a defining feature.

If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself
on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's
position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah
is still true for modern day semichah.

The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives
the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah.

IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah
and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah
lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic]
musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because
"rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or
Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a
hegi'ah lehorah.

I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter
and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general
before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would
seriously discuss.

I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood
his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why
he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option?

Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy
that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah
read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim".

: The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship
: between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah
: to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here:
: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah
...
: So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that
: apply to beit din.  That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist...

And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that
one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across
that bridge.

It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What
greater authorities do you need?

While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah...
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote:
: I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his
: students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the
: aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was
: a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter,
: the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat,
: is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is
: 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin
: and relay the answer.

There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first
magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to
pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they
can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in
over their heads and should call RMF.

Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a
Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions
that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah.


But then there's the second and third issues....

2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work,
or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that
went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul;
this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella
organization) discussion.

And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was
not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was.

This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role
of rabbi.

3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian:
a- Importing an external value over those implied internally.

And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally
male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that
glass ceiling.

b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone
   as far as it could up to that halachic limit.
and
c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model
   of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and
   erasing havdalah.

The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why
you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a
word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian,
or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism,
but apparently start out holier than I am.

Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW.
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote:
: For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community
: that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like
: Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi
: community consider to be kefira.

Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'"
(in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL
Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not!

:                                  If so, than kal v'chomer many of
: the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are
: some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in
: getting hung up on multiple non-issues.

There are two possible sources of division here.

1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were
only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My
predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply
de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators,
and therefore in practice will be a separate community.

Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic
tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is
a big issue.

2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in
how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition
to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the
proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why
are you giving us a hard time?"

This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of
metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle
isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document
Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are
apparently being made by a different set of rules.

And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue.

(* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also
used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even
when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we
say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in
this post-Sanhedrin era.)

Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan...

I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of
poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks
that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too
egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end
calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and
to be visible role models.

(An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts
on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls
that already have Maharatos.)

But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish
or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving
responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were
premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than
let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the
person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a
broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing
observance. Presentation and perception matter.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha at aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous