[Avodah] maharat

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:
: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress.  You are engaging in a
: theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU
: rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls...

Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently
for whom is semichah meaninful.

But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on
that point. See their paper, pp 8-9
<https://www.ou.org/assets/Responses-of-Rabbinic-Panel.pdf#page=8>

:                                        Given what you wrote, we both agree
: that the OU argument against does not hold water.  Even if they are
: technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give
: hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are
: capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need
: permission from their rav).

HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement
on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim
(plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for
Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have
no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"?

: Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch
: who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R.
: Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a
: later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't
: invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and
: others.   Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav)
: have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and
: the authority is in the sources, not the person.

Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied.

Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not
hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you
to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his 

: You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments...

Another? What's the first?

:            So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only
: poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong.

The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the
way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to
follow their opinion than my own.)

Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither
<http://www.yeshivatmaharat.org/s/160328_Women-and-Semikha.pdf> (his
general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him
discuss the OU panel <http://j.mp/2rMYd4L> on Lehrhaus.

As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading
up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references?

But let me deal with what you wrote:
IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was
absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that
we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so
no one even considered making any of them one.

The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have
precedential authority.

But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing

: (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an
: arguement, that it be consistent.  So if you are claiming that the reason
: women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from
: being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including
: that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot.  you cant
: have it both ways).

I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to
dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the
subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos
generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's
sense.

(YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am
really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.)

: Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.'  Please read the
: article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier.  He makes it very
: clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that
: external 'modern values' are an important part of that.  Modern values are
: neither positive nor negative...

Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some
negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior
to modern values.

Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good
idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the
Torah expects of Jews.

: You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'.   It isn't
: about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers
: to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion.  As
: R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice...

The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior
iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian,
but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality.

So I don't know what you're rebutting.

I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather
than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace
as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas
Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands
they're there, as a good thing?

Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at
09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote:
: But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight
: halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's
: education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent
: this", no?

To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah
broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values
and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu,
vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos
or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os).

I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of
"Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability
to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with
Brisker eyes.


Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked
about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt
it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject)....

Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their
religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's
more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended
for them. More equal, if less egalitarian.

...
: Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women.
: The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large
: or as small as possible?...

That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have
those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above,
we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP.

: The OU paper brought up tzniut.  I do not think that the MO community
: thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a
: violation of tzniut...

Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't
fight strawmen.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
micha at aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507