<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>RSN writes:</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">>The haredi Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Yitzchak Yosef reiterated his<br>>position that women are forbidden to serve in the IDF.<br>
<br>>But Yosef also doubled down by insisting, Yeshiva World<br>>reported<<a href="http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/218446/rav-yosef-shlita-induction-of-women-i%3Ento-the-idf-is-an-isur-doraissa.html" target="_blank">http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/218446/rav-yosef-shlita-induction-of-women-i>nto-the-idf-is-an-isur-doraissa.html</a>>,<br>
>that it actually is an issur d?oraita (prohibition from the Torah itself)<br>>for women to serve because women in the IDF must wear men?s clothing ? in<br>>this case, carry a weapon, which Yosef rules is a male-only adornment:<br>
<br></blockquote>
<div>I think you are mischaracterising the newspaper article that you are quoting, but that, if quoted correctly, Rav Yosef is further mischaracterising the psak fo his father.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are mischaracterising the article because in fact what it says is that Rav Yosef referred to:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>" a psak from Maran HaGaon HaRav Ovadia Yosef ZT”L appearing in Yechave Daas permitting a woman to handle a weapon, but not to serve in the IDF."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ie even Rav Y Yosef cannot say that a weapon is forbidden given that his father ruled explicitly that it was not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the other hand, I believe he is mischaracterising his father's psak (in Shut Yechave Da'at chelek 5 siman 55)<br><br>I discussed this psak in <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol32/v32n013.shtml#13">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol32/v32n013.shtml#13</a> at some length (towards the bottom). The psak is specifically about kindergarten teachers carrying weapons to protect themselves and the children under their care, But nowhere does he say that it is forbidden for a woman to go to the IDF. RYY appears to be trying to make a diyuk from the fact that the permissive teshuva was about kindergarten teachers, to the prohibiteness of the IDF, but I think that any honest reading of the psak indicates that it says nothing of the sort. And to claim that it is an issur d'orisa, using his father's teshuva as a basis, can at best be described as polemic, if not outright distortion.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">>Yosef also said that Jews are obligated to warn female family members about<br>>serving in the IDF, and must explain to these women that serving in the IDF<br>
>is not a prohibition of rabbinic origin but is instead an issur d?oraita<br></blockquote>
<div> RYY is obviously free to render his piskei halacha in contradiction to his father. But this is very clearly not what his father said. To quote what I brought in the previous Avodah piece, Rav Ovadiah writes:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And greater than this we find that the gaon Beit Chadash in Yoreh Deah<br>(siman 182) that he writes that it is forbidden that there should be a klei<br>gever on a woman etc, that this does not apply except for a thing that is<br>
for noy and kishut [beauty and adornment], and like it is proved from the<br>words of the Rambam (in perek 12 of Hilchos Avodah Zarah). And even a thing<br>that is for noy and kishut isn't forbidden except when a woman dresses in<br>
the dress of a man in order to be like a man, and so for a man who dresses<br>in the garments of a woman in order to be like a woman, but if they dress in<br>order to protect themselves because of the sun or because of the cold it is<br>
permitted. And so rules the Turei Zahav (siman 182 si'if katan 4). And<br>even though in the book Yad Katana (page 279b) he goes at length to push<br>aside the words of the Bach and the Taz, because even though the halacha is<br>
settled in the matter that something that is ano miskaven is permitted, this<br>is davka when he does a permitted action, and in any event when he does not<br>intend that he does melecha, but a man who dresses in the garments of a<br>
woman, and a woman who dresses in the garments of a man, even if they do not<br>intend to be like, behold this is in the category of psik resha, and we rule<br>(Shabbat 75a and 150a and other places) that Rabbi Shimon admits regarding<br>
psik resha v'lo yamus. And thus one should not rely on this argument to be<br>lenient regarding an issur Torah. But in the Shut of the Meharam Shik<br>(Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 173) he establishes the correctness of the words of<br>
the Bach and the Taz, according to the words of the Rashba (Shabbat 133a),<br>and thus the law is here that which the Torah concludes that it is an<br>abomination of HaShem your G-d all who do this, that the Torah does not<br>
forbid except when the man intends for a matter of toevah that is to be like<br>to a woman, and so the opposite. And so writes the Arigas HaBoshem (Chelek<br>Yoreh Deah siman 178 letter 4) to establish the words of the Bach and the<br>
Taz that I brought before. And so it appears in the Shut Avnei Tzedek<br>(Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 74). And so agrees the Gaon HaNetziv in his book<br>Emek HaDavar on the Sifri (Parshas Ki Tetzei). And see further in this in<br>
the Shut from the Meharsham chelek 2 (siman 243) and in the Shut Yemei Yosef<br>Yadid medorah basra (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 6). And according to this also<br>in our case that it is not the intention of the teachers in carrying guns in<br>
order to be like to men, but only to protect their lives and the lives of<br>their students, that are entrusted to them and supervised by them it seems<br>that the matter is clear that there isn't in this any issue of lo yiye kli<br>
gever al isha. [And so I found just now that HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in<br>Shut Iggeros Moshe Kruch 6 (Chelek Yoreh Deah siman 75) allows to permit<br>according to his words.]"<br><br>There appears to be a view (perhaps strengthened by some haskamot that Rav Ovadiah Yosef gave) that Rav Yitzchak Yosef rules only in accordance with his father. But I keep coming across examples where this is not the case. In some cases it might have been that the Yalkut Yosef was written first, and then Rav Ovadiah came out with a psak in one of the later volumes of Yabiat Omer that it turns out is not in accordance with the initial view of Rav Yitzchak Yosef, but in other cases it seems very difficult to say that. And it is clear from the Yalkut Yosef that where Rav Yitzchak didn't have his father's psak to go on, he seems almost inevitably to end up at the more machmir end of the spectrum (so that any later psak of Rav Ovadiah undercuts the Yalkut Yosef's moremachmir position)</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>------- question:<br>>do all agree that possesion and use of any and all weapons by females is<br>>an issur deoraita?<br>
<br></blockquote>
<div>As you can see from the previous postings and above, the question should rather be asked - who agrees that the use of any and all weapons is an issur deorita? And regarding women going out to war, as I quoted higher up in that piece, the Rambam agrees that women go out to war, if the war is not a milchemes hareshus. It is the Radvaz who disagrees.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">>does this include defensive measures eg pepper spray? is learning karate<br> >etc also biblically verboten?<br>
<br></blockquote>
<div>Again, see my posting - nobody appears to agree that defensive measures (where we are concerned with pikuach nefesh) are forbidden, even with bone fide weapons (such as guns).</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">>does this mean that military service is muttar absent weapons?<br></blockquote>
<div>See my discussion regarding the Radvaz and his perhaps.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kind Regards</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chana</div>
<div> </div></div>