<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 08.00.0681.000">
<TITLE>[Avodah] Rav on Women's Ordination - Rema's rationales</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">RIP wrote:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">>2) How can the Rav assume the Rema's support for the minhag that women</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">>are not shochtot is based on the Rambam?</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">And RAF responded:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">I think you should read the cited. {Shi'ur Shi'urei HaRav on Yoreh</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">De'ah is available for purchase here:</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas"><A HREF="http://www.ou.org/oupress/category/1680">http://www.ou.org/oupress/category/1680</A>. The article was translated by</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">R. Gil Stuident in this post</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">(<A HREF="http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-slaughterers.html">http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-slaughterers.html</A>)}. You</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">will see why the Rav is disatisfied with the other rationales (like</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">women fainting).</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">As mentioned in a previous post, I have not read the original, as that requires purchase, but I have read RGS</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s translation. I confess I cannot see anywhere where RYBS addresses the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">question</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> of the Levush</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> reason (ie that women faint), nor indicates that he</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">is</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">dissatisfied</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> with it.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">What</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">RYBS</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> does appear to do, as per RGS</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s translation, is give two reasons for the Rema</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s position vis a vis women shochtim. The first is that of the Shach,</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">that the Rema is following the Maharik and the Agur, that while vis a vis a halacha, we say lo</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">ra</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">i</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">n</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">u</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">aino raya,</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">with</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> a minhag, we say lo rainu yesh raya</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">The second is the reason being discussed here, ie that the Rema holds like the Rambam vis a vis serarah, and that his</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">position</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">is based on this Rambam.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas"> RGS commences this section with the words</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">“</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">We can add another reason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">why we should not allow women to serve as slaughterers</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">…”</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">Now</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> if you think about it, these two reasons brought by RYBS in fact contradict.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas"> Because the second reason is a reason based on halacha</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">–</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> ie that there is a Sifri, and the Rambam poskens like the Sifri</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> and the Rema poskens like the Rambam.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">However the first reason is a reason based on minhag, and the whole pre</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">mise of the reason is based on the fact that we are dealing with minhag and not etzem halacha. If we were dealing with etzem halacha</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> (a la the Rambam, that women were forbidden to shect)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">, then</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">everybody</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">, the Maharik, the Shach etc agrees that lo rainu aino raya, as is clearly set out in</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">Zevachim 103b</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">. The disagreement abou</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">t the possible</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">application</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> of</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">l</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">o</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">r</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">a'inu</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">yesh r</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">aya</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">vis a vis women shochtim can only take place if it is clear that</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">(as per the Mechaber)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">there is no issur min hadin for women to shect, and the only reason they do not shect is min</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">hag.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">Now RYBS does not, in the notes translated by RGS, advert to the fact that these reasons that he gives conflict, nor do I know</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">enough</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> about his standard approach when teaching</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">his</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">students for smicha to know whether his custom was to ju</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">st give students different approaches to an issue</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> or whether one can assume that if he brings a second reason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">that contradicts a first reason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">he is thereby rejecting the first reason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">. There appears to be nothing in the discussion on the first reason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">which</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> suggests that he is ultimately rejecting it</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> (and in fact he brings two other Remas which seem to support it).</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> And the language of</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">“</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">we can add another reason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">…</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">“</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> does not seem to suggest a substitution</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> or a rejection of the first reason.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">The assumption behind RAF</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s writings, as far as I can see, is that, if forced to choose, RYBS would have</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">poskened like the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> second reason rather than the first</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">, but I do not quite see where he is getting this from. Rather, from the fact that we have two reasons that patently contradict, my interpretation of what is going on in this shiur</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">was more</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> a raising of potential issues surround</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">ing the question, for the student</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s edification, and not intending to give anything like final psak. Nor does it read like the kind of discussion that RYBS would have expected to be</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">closely examined by those trying to</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">tease</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> out his final position on a question.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">But, as mentioned, RYBS was</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">never</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> my teacher and I don</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">t have any feeling for how he truly worked.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">And even if, given the contradiction</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">,</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> it is true that RYBS would have rejected the Shach</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s position (a lot of others have difficulty with this Shach, as I think I have discussed in previous posts), that does mean that we would seem to have an RYBS versus</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> Shach and the Levush and all the other achronim</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">. That is, RYBS appears to be the first to identify the Rema</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s position as being based on</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> Rambam. Now we are not discussing ri</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">shonim here, one can</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">certainly</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> say that RYBS can take on the other achronim</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> (Rav Moshe certainly did it)</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">, but I confess that if it comes down to</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">a conflict between the major achronic commentators and an American Rav who never published a halachic work in his life, where the conflict is between</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">the written achronic positions which have had hundreds of years to be discussed and</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">notes taken by others in shiur</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> around 50 years ago, which have only recently seen the light of day, my instincts are towards</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> major achronic commentators. Now I do understand that i</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">f RYBS was one</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">’</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">s rav muvhak, perhaps one might take a different view, but for those not in that position, it is hard to see it carrying a huge amount of weight, even were it clear that this was the final psak, and not just halachic musings.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> And particularly where the disagreement in question is over what the Rema went, I would be rather inclined to support views that were closer in time and place to</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> Rema, than an interpretation</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">400 years later.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">Regards</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"><FONT FACE="Consolas">Chana</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-gb"></SPAN></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>