<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1255">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">>From: Ira Tick <<A
href="mailto:itick1986@gmail.com">itick1986@gmail.com</A>><BR></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman">>A few thoughts/questions:<BR><BR>>1) As already
mentioned in the article near its end, the Rambam is a<BR>>da'as yachid
regarding women and serara/minui. Which is worth mentioning,<BR>>because it
lends further strength to the next question:<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: Miriam; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: HE">Indeed,
Rav Moshe Feinstein maintains that Rambam is a da'at Yahid. However, he
was unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in the Finkelstein
edition of the <I>Sifrei</I>, <I>Midrash Tanna'im</I>, and <I>Midrash
Ha-Gadol</I>. In addition the Ritva also maintains like the
Rambam.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </DIV>
<DIV>>2) How can the Rav assume the Rema's support for the minhag that
women<BR>>are not shochtot is based on the Rambam?<BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think you should read the cited. {Shi'ur <EM>Shi'urei HaRav</EM> on
<I>Yoreh De'ah</I> is available for purchase here: <A
href="http://www.ou.org/oupress/category/1680">http://www.ou.org/oupress/category/1680</A>.
The article was translated by R. Gil Stuident in this post (<A
href="http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-slaughterers.html">http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-slaughterers.html</A>)}.
You will see why the Rav is disatisfied with the other rationales (like women
fainting).</DIV>
<DIV><BR>>3) Even if kabbala is seen as a siman that a given position is a
"minui<BR>>kahal," since when does kabbala become an ikuvah for minui kahal?
If<BR>>a woman is in a position of responsibility on the community's
behalf,<BR>>such as serving on a synagogue board, serving as a shul
vice-president,<BR>>treasurer or secretary, or as a mashgicha, how does the
absence of kabbala<BR>>prevent her service from being considered minui? These
positions should,<BR>>especially based on the distinction between gerim and
women at the end<BR>>of the article, be forbidden to women.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>PLEASE read the shiur. As I explained, the Rav believes that since one
cannot be a Shochet without being communally certified by a recognized
authority, hence being a Shochet becomes a minui Kahal. The required
examination/certification converts into a "an appointment over the community"
which the Rav believes the Rambam forbids for women.<BR><BR>>4) When drawing
a distinction between converts and women, the article<BR>>notes that women
all prohibited from serving in the capacity of minui<BR>>kahal - "community
wide appointments" and from being entrusted with<BR>>serara - "discretionary
authority," whereas converts are barred only<BR>>from serara. If that is the
case, how is it that women are permitted<BR>>to serve in any of the positions
mentioned above in, since those are<BR>>indeed communal positions and were
only permitted to her by the Rav<BR>>because they lacked serara. Somewhere,
the definition of serara and the<BR>>Rav's distinction within the Rambam
between serara and minui kahal is<BR>>not completely clear.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Please read my article again and the Rav's shiur [or R. Gil Student's
translation]. The Rav clearly distinguishes between "community wide
appointments" and Serara. He is forced into this because women are
precluded from serving as communal dayanim, yet the Gemara indicates that a
Ger can sit on a bet din to judge gerim. Hence a ger is not assur from minui
kahal per se - only one of serara. According to the Rav, minui kahal
or serara is assur for women; only minui kahal of serara is
assur for gerim. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>The Rav did not consider being a school principal a minui Kahal, because it
did not demand certification and only affected a limited population. As
far as serara was concerned according to several poskim, the serara prohibition
does not apply when the elected individual does not enjoy exclusive, final
decision-making power. No violation is involved, therefore, when dealing
with an appointment to a council which reaches decisions together as a group,
such as election to the Knesset (Rabbi Yosef Kafah, Ha-isha Ve-chinukha, Amana,
5740, p. 37), a municipal Religious Council, or to a synagogue board (Rav
Soloveitchik discussed in Article). Likewise, a position does not qualify
as serara if its holder's decisions require the consent of a higher
authoritative body. For example, the decisions of a school principal (such
as employing or dismissing teachers) must be approved by the board of education
(Rabbi Aryeh Leib Grosenes, Shu"t Lev Aryeh, 2:21).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For further discussion see: “Women in Community Leadership Roles in the
Modern Period,” Aryeh A. Frimer, In “Afikei Yehudah - Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni zt’l
Memorial Volume,” R. Itamar Warhaftig, ed., Ariel Press: Jerusalem, 5765 (2005),
pp. 330-354 (In Hebrew). HTML file available online at <A
href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mishpach/maamad/nashim-2.htm">http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mishpach/maamad/nashim-2.htm</A>.
See also “Women in Community Leadership Roles – Shul Presidents” "Text and
Texture" of the Rabbinical Council of America (June 2, 2010) - available online
at <A
href="http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=931">http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=931</A>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>>5) The other distinction made between gerim and women was
based on the<BR>>Netziv, who proved from the acceptance of Herod as a Jewish
monarch<BR>>that a ger may serve with serara if the need arrises--his
convert<BR>>status does not invalidate his position. This idea is
interesting,<BR>>though no actual reason was given as to why that distinction
should<BR>>be made. The real problem though is the proof in its support. The
idea<BR>>that Herod was "accepted" as both Jewish and as the legitimate king
is<BR>>inconceivable. The people of Judea accepted Herod firstly because
they<BR>>had no choice and secondly because he appeased them by refurbishing
the<BR>>Temple. Herod was never accepted by the rabbis, for he was their
sworn<BR>>enemy, and they both questioned and openly mocked his conversion
and<BR>>his claim to royalty. "Whoever comes and says I am descended from
the<BR>>House of the Hasmoneans is a [gentile] slave." And Chazal say
that </DIV>
<DIV>>Herod was a necrophiliac.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Herod had a lot of bad traits, Josephus is full of his blood thirsty
escapades. Of course Haza"l didn't like him. But all that is is irrelevant
to the question of whether his kingship was halakhically valid, and the Netsiv
says "Yes." Look at the Netsiv for yourself.
<DIV>The Hasmoneans should not have taken the kingship, certainly not
permanently. But it did not make them invalid Kings. If you
revolted against them you were mored be-malkhut. Ahav was king of
Israel, yet Eliyahu haNavi ran before his Chariot out of Kavod!!! You may
be inappropriate yet valid.</DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">--------------------------------<BR>Dr. Aryeh
A. Frimer<BR>Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University<BR>Ramat Gan 52900,
ISRAEL<BR>E-mail: <A
href="mailto:FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il">FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il</A><BR>Tel:
972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053<BR>Tel Home:
972-8-9473819/9470834<BR>Cellphone:
972-54-7540761<BR></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>