<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On 20/01/2014 6:17 PM, <a href="mailto:jay@m5.chicago.il.us" target="_blank">jay@m5.chicago.il.us</a> wrote:<br>><br>>> Someone who has not read Sotah 8:6 (or 8:7, depending on whether you<br>>> split the first long Mishna into two pieces), or has read it but does<br>>> not believe that we pasqn according to it, posted the following:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And RZS replied:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>Though it would surprise me if RTK had learned that mishnah, or the<br>>Rambam who quotes it, that conclusion doesn't actually follow from her<br>>post. It's obvious that neither the mishnah nor the Rambam mean that<br>>women actually go to war.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I don't think it is as obvious as all that. To help those for whom the Mishna is not necessarily easily accessible, the relevant texts are as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Meseches Sotah perek 8 halacha 6</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>With respect to what is this said [discussing those who can return from war, eg built a house and not lived in it], with a milchemes reshus. But with a milchemes mitzvah – all go out, even a chasan from his room and a kala from her chuppah (Yoel 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda said, with respect to what is this said, with a milchemes mitzvah, but with a milchemes chova, all go out, even a chasan from his room and a kala from her chuppah.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And the Rambam consequently rules:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Hilchos Melachim Perek 7 halacha 4</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>With respect to what are we speaking, that men can return from the arrangement of wars, this is a milchemes reshus, but a milchemes mitzvah – all go out, even a chasan from his room and a kala from her chuppah.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Note by the way that the Rambam defines a milchemes mitzvah as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Rambam, Hilchos Melachim Perek 5 halacha 1</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>... And this is a milchemes mitzvah – the milchama of the seven nations, and the milchama of amalek, and to help Israel from an enemy that comes on them. ….<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The fact that the Rambam himself understands the Mishna in Sotah k'pshuto would seem difficult to dispute, because he states, <b>in </b>the introduction to the count of the mitzvos in the Sefer Hamitzvos– <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“And know that women do not judge, and do not give testimony and they do not bring a korban by their hands, and they do not fight [nilchamos] in a milchemes hareshus and each mitzvah that is dependent upon beis din or eidim or avodah or milchemes hareshus it is not necessary to say regarding it that this women are not obligated in it .”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And that this is the view of various meforshim can be seen by those who quote the Mishna in Sotah in support of a position that women are required to hear pashas zachor, on the basis that they are obligated in the milchemes mitzvah of uprooting Amalek (such as the Minchas Chinuch (Parshas ki tezei 603), the Mitzvos Hamelech (daf 55a), the Maharil Diskin in kuntrus acharon (siman 102) etc).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> > The Torah makes it clear in many places that it is not the way of women to make war, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am not sure it is so clear direct from the Torah, but certainly the gemora states in Kiddushin (2b) “it is the way of a man to make war and it is not the way of a woman to make war.” And of course your reference to pru u’rvu (Yevamos 65b) - that women are exempt from pirya v’rivya “as it says, pru u’rvu and fill the earth and conquer it, it is the way or a man to conquer and it isn’t the way of a woman to conquer.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, those who learn the sources differently can understand the first as a reference to milchemes reshus – ie women only fight when they have to, and when they need to protect what they have, not for kibosh purposes, so these sources are not definitive.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On the other hand, the Radvaz clearly feels as RZS does, and is bothered by what appears to be the straight psak of the Mishna, and he comments as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Radvaz Hilchos Melachim Perek 7 halacha 4</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>With respect to what are we speaking that they return etc: </b>The braisa is like the language of the Rambam but there is a question in that is it the way of women to make war? as it is taught "and a kala from her chupah" but behold it is written kol kavuda bas melech penima? But it can be answered that this is what is being said, that since the chassan goes out from his room, the kala goes out from her chupah that the days of the chupah do not apply to her, [or alternatively] it is possible that with a milechemes mitzvah the women are preparers of water and food for their husbands and so is the custom today amongst the Arabs.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Now the second suggestion of the Radvaz would seem something of a half way house. In modern terms he seems to be saying, women should go to the army in a milchemes mitzvah situation, just they should be the cooks and the cleaners and do the jobs that enable more men to be in the front line units.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is interesting though that he quotes "kol kavuda" and not, as RZS later refers to Nazir 59a (although for some reason, only to Rashi, not the main text, which states):<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Talmud Bavli Meseches Nazir 59a</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: from where do we know that a woman does not go out with weapons [klei zayin] to war? The Torah teaches: lo yiyeh kli gever al isha, v'lo yilbosh gever simlas isha.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Most people generally understand that Rambam as paskening like Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (because he is kav v'naki) when he brings this halacha in which he states as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Hilchos Avodah Zara perek 12 halacha 11</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One should not witness [tedah] a woman with the witnessings [edei] of a man, like she puts on her head a turban or a hat, or she dresses in armour, and similar to it or she shaves her head like a man, and one should not witness a man with the witnessings of a woman, like that he dresses in coloured clothing and gold adornments – in a place where they do not dress in these clothes, and where they do not put on them adornments except women: all is like the custom of the state.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> The language of the Rambam here is reproduced exactly by the Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah siman 182 si’if 5.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, you always need to consider the question of beged ish in the light of the Bach. I was going to summarise the Bach and then apply it here, but I see that Rav Ovadiah has already done it for me, so I can only quote him:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Shut Yechave Da’at chelek 5 siman 55</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:115%'><b>... </b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And greater than this we find that the gaon Beit Chadash in Yoreh Deah (siman 182) that he writes that it is forbidden that there should be a klei gever on a woman etc, that this does not apply except for a thing that is for noy and kishut [beauty and adornment], and like it is proved from the words of the Rambam (in perek 12 of Hilchos Avodah Zarah). And even a thing that is for noy and kishut isn't forbidden except when a woman dresses in the dress of a man in order to be like a man, and so for a man who dresses in the garments of a woman in order to be like a woman, but if they dress in order to protect themselves because of the sun or because of the cold it is permitted. And so rules the Turei Zahav (siman 182 si'if katan 4). And even though in the book Yad Katana (page 279b) he goes at length to push aside the words of the Bach and the Taz, because even though the halacha is settled in the matter that something that is ano miskaven is permitted, this is davka when he does a permitted action, and in any event when he does not intend that he does melecha, but a man who dresses in the garments of a woman, and a woman who dresses in the garments of a man, even if they do not intend to be like, behold this is in the category of psik resha, and we rule (Shabbat 75a and 150a and other places) that Rabbi Shimon admits regarding psik resha v'lo yamus. And thus one should not rely on this argument to be lenient regarding an issur Torah. But in the Shut of the Meharam Shik (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 173) he establishes the correctness of the words of the Bach and the Taz, according to the words of the Rashba (Shabbat 133a), and thus the law is here that which the Torah concludes that it is an abomination of HaShem your G-d all who do this, that the Torah does not forbid except when the man intends for a matter of toevah that is to be like to a woman, and so the opposite. And so writes the Arigas HaBoshem (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 178 letter 4) to establish the words of the Bach and the Taz that I brought before. And so it appears in the Shut Avnei Tzedek (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 74). And so agrees the Gaon HaNetziv in his book Emek HaDavar on the Sifri (Parshas Ki Tetzei). And see further in this in the Shut from the Meharsham chelek 2 (siman 243) and in the Shut Yemei Yosef Yadid medorah basra (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 6). And according to this also in our case that it is not the intention of the teachers in carrying guns in order to be like to men, but only to protect their lives and the lives of their students, that are entrusted to them and supervised by them it seems that the matter is clear that there isn't in this any issue of lo yiye kli gever al isha. [And so I found just now that HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Shut Iggeros Moshe Kruch 6 (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 75) allows to permit according to his words.]<span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As can be derived from the portion I quoted, the issue at hand was whether certain kindergarten teachers could carry weapons to help protect their charges from terrorist attack, with Rav Ovadiah ruling, no problem.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>With regard to Ya'el, he comments earlier in the teshuva:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>...And that which Ya'el did not kill Sisera with the sword, because Sisera was tired and sleepy, and it was possible to kill him easily by way of a tent peg, but when the time is pressing and it is necessary to act quickly, like when the terrorists come with weapons .. for sure it is necessary to hurry to precede them with a gun and similar to it…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>What Rav Ovadiah did not bring, but could also be brought in support, is the fact that we have in our history not just one but two women famous for killing the leaders of our enemies. And while Ya'el may have used a tent peg, Yehudis (as in das Yehudis ) famously used Holefornes own sword.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Interestingly what appears to be assumed here, in allowing kindergarten teachers to carry weaponry, is that they have been or will be taught to use them, which as I understood it, is one of the primary goals of basic training in the army. As far as my limited knowledge of the Israeli army extends, there is no assumption that just going through basic training will equip anybody, male or female, for front line duty, but merely assist them if they encounter the kinds of pikuach nefesh situations that Rav Ovadiah was contemplating in his teshuva (earlier he deals with pikuach nefesh, and the need to carry weapons in these circumstances for pikuach nefesh reasons, ie he clearly deems carrying guns in case of a possible terrorist attack in the light of Israeli reality as a pikuach nefesh situation, even though no terrorist was imminently threatening at any time the woman would put the gun on). It was only once he had dealt with that question that he turns to the understanding of the Bach which would seem to permit women to carry weapons for protection (as opposed to for noy or kishut and to be like men) even in situations that might fall outside a pikuach nefesh psak.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So it seems difficult to assur the army based solely on the fact that everybody gets put through basic training, if they then end up making coffee for the army officers and doing a bit of typing (which is a major complaint of many women who do go to the army). Indeed, such a job would seem to fall within the position of the Radvaz. Others, however, would seem to justify even front line positions for women in a milchemes mitzvah situation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>> Personally I don't see why it should vex people any more than the fact that Shma`ya and Avtalyon were nasi and av beth din of the Sanhedrin.<br><br>>That's completely different. "Mikerev achecha" can be waived if necessary, and presumably so can "melech velo malka",...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So can eidus and dayanos, if both parties accept eg a certain karov as an eid as per [Mishna Sanhedrin 3:2] “ne’eman alai aba..”. Indeed one of the justifications for allowing a waiver of melech velo malka and mikerev achecha is based on it being similarly structured on a national level to that mishna in Sanhedrin on an individual level. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chana<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>