- This topic has 240 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Charlie: It is standard practice for those with semicha without yadin yadin to serve as Dayanim.
Sam: We shouldn’t be watering down the traditional meaning of the heter or semicha.
PAA: The semicha given from Moshe Rabbeinu indicated a license to serve as a Dayan.
Lior, we are not discussing semicha from Moshe Rabbeinu. How can somewhat who doesn’t know Choshen Mishpat serve as a dayan?
The current smicha is intended as an imitation of the original smicha. And the current smicha indicates a license to serve as a Dayan.
“The current smicha is intended as an imitation of the original smicha. And the current smicha indicates a license to serve as a Dayan.”
Where are you getting this from? Current Semicha is a certificate that certifies the recipient as knowledgeable in the areas of halacha which are specified in the certificate.
Lulei D’mistafina (that’s for you Sam) I would think that claiming that there is a halachic issue with ordaining a woman if there actually isn’t, would fall under the category of yehareg v’al ya’avor as per the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma 38a.
“The current smicha is intended as an imitation of the original smicha. And the current smicha indicates a license to serve as a Dayan.”
Where are you getting this from? Current Semicha is a certificate that certifies the recipient as knowledgeable in the areas of halacha which are specified in the certificate.
Saul Lieberman made this argument in his responsa on this issue.
Lior:
I know that. What we are discussing here is whether it is halachically objectionable to ordain a woman.
Popa:
And therefore it must be so?
PAA: How is it relevant whether it is what you term “halachically objectionable” if leaders of world Jewry said it is a radical and dangerous departure from Jewish tradition and the mesoras haTorah, and must be condemned in the strongest terms and that a woman in a rabbinical position of any sort cannot be considered Orthodox? That statement is clearly stating it is objectionable in the strongest terms. Suppose, hypothetically, it isn’t “halachically objectionable” (however you differentiate that “objection” from the Gedolei HaTorah’s objection), if it can’t be done what are you aiming at?
Lior:
1) What is the definition of Orthodox, which necessarily precludes the ordination of women?
2) The mere fact that something wasn’t done in the past, does not inherently make it bad.
3) In what way is it a “radical and dangerous departure”?
The case with R’ Weiss is very different then what I am discussing. He was clearly trying to advance a feminist agenda, and his ordainees have positions which could be halachically objectionable as positions of serarah.
My main point is that it is very important to be properly nuanced and to be clear on whether something can’t be done because of a halachic issue or because of a policy issue. Conflating the two, might be (as I posted last night) yehareg v’al ya’avor. See http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/265846/rabbi-avi-weiss-announces-his-retirement.html which says “contravening thousands of years of Jewish tradition and halacha, yes halacha”. Can that claim be substantiated? If it can be substantiated regarding R’ Weiss, can it be substantiated regarding what I am talking about?
So, to conclude, I have no problem if people are against having women Rabbis. I might even agree that we shouldn’t have women Rabbis. What I am against is the obfuscation that tends to get involved in this highly charged issue.
2) The mere fact that something wasn’t done in the past, does not inherently make it bad.
Chadash is Assur Min Hatorah. That is why we have electricity, Kollel and universal Jewish schooling.
“Chadash is Assur Min Hatorah.”
But the Bach was mattir it.
The definition of a smicha is just that one’s rav muvhak is giving the person being ordained permission to answer people’s halachic questions.
However, the prominent qualification of being a rabbi is not about knowing every halacha (many well accepted frum smicha programs traditionally never tested on the laws of kitchen kashrus and other relevant and crucial parts of halacha); it’s not about being able to practice taharas, dayanus, shechita, milah, and other community services – most people with the title “rabbi” have no first hand experience in any of those upon ordination; and it certainly has nothing to do with being able to lead a congregation. Of course knowledge in Torah is crucial, but it isn’t the only qualifier, as you can have a talmid chacham apikores who also is not eligible for smicha.
Rather, (one of) the main factors that a rav hamasmich looks for when determining whether one is ready for ordination is whether or not this person has the right daas Torah hashkafah and dedication to uphold the mesorah passed down from Moshe Rabbeinu to this day. Of course, in order to prove this the student must also display his knowledge in Torah and dedication to its study, but testing one on Torah knowledge is not the sole requisite.
These women who want to become ordained are inherently missing the proverbial boat on the meaning of being ordained. Call it unfair if you please. It is what it is. By Hashem’s mesorah that he so graciously taught us, men and women each have very specific and very different roles to play in Jewish society. Thus, by definition, to try and change the mesorah and innovate upon it is one of the most sacrilegious things one can do. It follows that, for a female, actively seeking ordination inherently disqualifies her from eligibility for ordination. Devorah, and other female Jewish sages in history were sought after by the Great Men of their generation for their wisdom and humility, they were not the ones to seek a foothold in the sphere of influence of those men, and thereby, they attained their rank by the virtue of their lofty qualities, not by their persistence in seeking a public position that is traditionally reserved for a different kind.
It is similar to the mechanism of the proof of national revelation and how the halacha of testifying to our children about ma’amad har Sinai works- it is all included, self encapsulated, self affirming, and self propagating proof to Hashem’s existence and to the truth of our mesorah. Revisionism would disqualify the proof, and that is why it has sustained to this day. Ve’hameivin yavin.
I hope the ones who are insistent in the pursuits that contradict our mesorah dedicate a few moments of deep thought to this idea.
Curiosity:
So in a one sentence summary, you are basically saying that a woman can’t be certified to answer halachic questions because it would be against her inherent role. Now what might I ask, makes it against her inherent role?
PAA,
That is not what I’m trying to convey. The focus is not that it is against her inherent role.
The point is, rather, that a major component of smicha is about being recognized as one who is steadfast in the Jewish people’s Torah hashkafa, mesorah, and traditions, and therefore, a woman who seeks out smicha is deviating from our heirloom of Torah haskafa, mesorah and traditions, and by doing so she inherently disqualifies herself from smicha and all that it represents.
Viewing a smicha as nothing but a social license to preach/teach is not representative of what real rabbanut actually represents.
“a woman who seeks out smicha is deviating from our heirloom of Torah haskafa, mesorah and traditions”
How so?
“Viewing a smicha as nothing but a social license to preach/teach is not representative of what real rabbanut actually represents”
Why not?
PAA,
“How so?”
Throughout Jewish history and throughout chazal’s writings women (as do men) are assigned a very clearly defined familial, social, and halachic, and even behavioral role (for one famous example, ref. Rashi on Shlomis bas Divri). To deny the existence of this is irrational, and to try to redifine how masoretic Judaism interprets these definitions is, again, a deviation from our mesorah.
Even looking at non-Jewish culture, you will find a period in American history (around the time of the Industrial Revolution) where feminists pushed for a dissolvement of what the society of their day called “the sphere of influence” of men and women – a defined role that women and men played in society. I am not saying that their definitions are correct, but I amm simply pointing out that the nullification of such a concept would be a relatively new phenomenon, heavily related to the feminist movement (which every credible Torah authority agrees is not in line with the mesorah).
“Why not?”
I am not qualified as the authoritative voice on what is or isn’t the definition of smicha, but it is well known that many reliable people who have been given the podium to preach and teach are not musmachim, and likewise many musmachim do not utilize their smicha to preach or teach. Receiving a smicha is typically not incumbant fulfilling a quota of classes given or speeches written. It stands to reason that this is not the main point of attaining smicha.
Besides that fact, it is objectively silly that there exist women who are fighting tooth and nail to become “rabbis”, when there exist many smicha programs whose hasmacha isn’t worth the paper that it is written on. To those women I would say, “mima nafshuch?” If you want to get a real, kosher, well recognized smicha from an institution such as the Mir, Lakewood BMG, Chofetz Chaim, or another recognized Torah Yeshiva – you never will because in their eyes you embody the antithesis of having a Torah mesorah. On the other hand, if you want to get a smicha at any cost, you can probably get one online at a variety of conservative or reform institutions, but it won’t be worth anything to anyone who knows anything. You can’t try to redefine Judaism and force all those who maintain a traditional view to succumb to your ideology and demand their respect. I think it’s silly.
Curiosity:
So what role are they violating by answering halachic questions?
As to your other point, semicha is simply a test on halacha. Now it happens to be that it is very likely that the majority of people getting semicha, are probably not doing it in order to be able to answer halachic questions. Two obvious reasons why someone would want semicha are 1)in order to get a job as a Rebbe – sort of like a college degree 2)to have something to show for (either themselves or others) their many years in yeshiva. Now it’s a bit circular to say that no one would give semicha to someone who (by desiring semicha) is going against Torah and Mesorah, until you demonstrate that it is actually going against Torah and Mesorah. I don’t think you have yet done so. As I said earlier, the mere fact that something hasn’t been done, doesn’t make it wrong. See also the various sources which I quoted earlier in this thread, starting from:
But anyway, I never suggested that any of those yeshivos should ordain women.
PAA,
Sorry for the delayed response.
“So what role are they violating by answering halachic questions?”
I don’t think women are violating a role by answering halachic questions (assuming they are learned enough to answer correctly). However, chazal specify that talmud Torah is a mitzvah particular to men, and women are only required to learn the Torah that is relevant for their role as mothers and wives (and nowadays for some, by necessity only, as persons of business). Just from that detail alone it is objectively apparent that dedicated Torah scholarship is a role halachically and traditionally intended for men.
Additionally, regarding the original question of, ‘Why can women not become rabbis?’: Assuming you define rabbi in the colloquial sense of one who acts as a dedicated higher level gemara teacher or one who acts as a community pulpit rabbi – you run into tznius issues. I don’t think you will disagree with the claim that it is inappropriate for a young ordained female to take the pulpit in front of a congregation of men to deliver a weekly sermon, to lead a davening (even from the other side of the mechitza), or to teach gemara to a classroom full of hormonal high school boys for several hours daily. For any other position, a smicha is not required, and then the question begs: If a smicha is not required for any position that a woman may be permitted to take, then why is it being demanded with such emotion and force? I believe the obvious answer is that it is not a totally altruistic reason as some may have you believe.
Finally, it seems to me that an easier answer to your question is available: Our gedolim and lesser Torah leaders have implicitly or explicitly come out against those who try to give smicha to women. Presumably, these Torah scholars have more da’as Torah than most (read ‘all’) on this forum, and they hold it is against da’as Torah. If an un-ordained woman thinks she has more da’as Torah than those in positions to grant ordination unto others, there is clearly something amiss.
“According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word they will tell you, right or left.” [Devarim 17:11]
Curiosity:
We are clearly talking about different things. I am not saying anything about a woman having any position. All I am saying is that I have not yet seen a reason why a woman cannot be certified to answer halachic questions. That’s it.
PAA,
I don’t believe we are. Unfortunately, it seems you have gotten caught up on a single part of my statement and missed the main idea I was trying to convey. There are several reasons illustrated in my responses to your questions.
I will address your four paragraphs, one at a time:
1) You seem to be agreeing that there is nothing wrong with a woman answering halachic questions (assuming she is capable). This accords with some sources which I quoted earlier in this thread. Your objection seems to be that Torah-study necessary to enable a woman to answer these questions is the problem. Now I will grant that men have a chiyuv to learn which women don’t have. But how does that make it an anti-women role? It just means that it is not her primary purpose. But there are many things which are not a woman’s primary purpose, which they can do anyway. And who says that peoples roles have to remain utterly stagnant over the course of thousands of years? Presumably people’s roles have changed somewhat as we moved from a nomadic society to an agricultural society and from an agricultural society to an industrial society. You did not bring up the argument about women inherently being unable to learn (e.g. da’atan kalos, tiflus) so I won’t address that.
2) The objections in this paragraph have nothing to do with what I am discussing. But just for the sake of arguing, your tznius objection does not pertain to being a Rabbi; it is simply an objection to any public role for women (in the presence of men).
3) The people they came out against, had a clear agenda. I am not pushing that agenda. Additionally, I would like to see the reasoning behind the statements. Other than it being simply a policy issue, I have not seen any reason why what I am saying cannot be done.
See also, the Peri Megadim in Seder V’hanhagos Hanishal Im Hashoel B’issur V’hetter ose 10 where he writes: ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???
4) There are a lot of undefined pronouns there.
PAA,
To illustrate one of the issues, let’s play a little game. Would you consider something wrong with the following scenario:
A young, orthodox, high school aged Jewish male decides that instead of going to yeshiva to learn during his early years, he wants to prepare himself for a different kind of familial role in life than the one typically fostered by young, frum, Jewish men. He decides to take baking and cooking classes for the purpose of providing for his children. He takes home-ec classes 5 days a week. He volunteers as a preschool and kindergarten assistant during the day so he can learn how to better care for infants and children. He also decides to do college online twice a week because he would probably also want to marry a girl is very learned in Torah (perhaps one who wants to go for her smicha) and he wants to be able to provide financial support for he in case she decides to do that, but not permanently. He figures that because of the life choices that he has made – to be the main caretaker of his children- he probably won’t have ample time to study Torah, and since one of the parents will have to pass on the mesorah to his future children, it might as well be her. He also wishes to marry a girl who would go out to work at the office all day because he plans to be a stay at home dad who makes breakfast, lunch, and dinner for his kids, as well as take care of things around the house like laundry, dishes, and cleaning. He makes time during the day to daven, put on tfillin, and reciting tehillim (which paturs his minimum responsibility for learning Torah). He figure osek bemitzvah patur min hamitzvah, and since raising kids is a 24/7 mitzvah (which he strongly desires to do) he is therefore patur from Torah learning and making money, he just needs to find his bashert that will fit his ambitions.
Is there anything wrong with this picture?
But to address your point directly,
“Presumably people’s roles have changed somewhat as we moved from a nomadic society to an agricultural society and from an agricultural society to an industrial society.”
True, people’s JOBS changed, but it was generally always the men that were the hunters, the ones who were plowing the field, or the ones going to the office. The women were always the ones caring for the home and the children, whether they were beating clothes on a rock down by the river, or hitting the on button on their washing machines. The jobs may have changed, but the roles have not – and that’s just the nature of humanity. The proof is anthropological and historical. It spans all racial, continental, and cultural divides, it is not simply circumstantial. The emergence of women taking on men’s roles en masse is a very new and somewhat isolated phenomenon. It is of no coincidence that the push to have women take on men’s roles in our Orthodox Jewish culture happened at the exact particular time and place in history as the former. Our culture is particularly porous to out environment these days, and this is an obvious side effect.
Curiosity: I see nothing inherently wrong with that. If a man feels that he is not going to be able to learn well enough and that choosing that life will be Marbeh Torah Biklal Yisrael, then Kol HaKavod.
Curiosity: That picture looks awfully like it was taken in Eretz Mitzrayim, circa our slave age.
Curiosity:
Allow me to modify your scenario slightly in order to isolate the issue under discussion. We have a guy who learns before Shacharis and after Maariv. The financial situation of the family is such that between Shacharis and Maariv he will not be learning. There are also things that need to be taken care of at home (e.g. taking care of the kids, cooking, cleaning etc.) which will take up the time between Shacharis and Maariv. Now there are two parents in this family and there are two jobs which need to get done during the same period of time (i.e. only one person can do each job) – the job in the workplace and the job in the house. Now let’s say that the husband is better at cooking and cleaning and taking care of children, and the wife is better at making money. Well according to the Fifth Principle of Economics, the productive way to run this household would be for the woman to go out and work and the man take care of the home. Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Furthermore, much of what is conceived of as men’s roles or women’s roles, is based on men in general being more _____ and women in general being more _____. Now everyone knows that in general men are taller than women and have more muscle mass then women. So obviously, if a married couple needed to get something done which involved height or strength, the husband should be the one to do it, right? But what if the wife is taller or stronger? Should it still be the husband’s job to do it simply because in general, men are taller or stronger than women?
Similarly, it may well be that women are generally better at cooking, cleaning, and childrearing, and are more emotional and empathetic and many other things. But that doesn’t mean that any given man can’t be better at those things and have more of those traits than any given woman. So why shouldn’t the husband do the cooking if he’s better at it and enjoys it more?
All this was just to show that there is no such thing as an inherent role. However, there are some exceptions. Some roles are Divinely dictated, e.g. a man has to do Time-Bound Positive Commandments, and some roles are physiologically dictated, e.g. women giving birth (at least for now). But on anything else, why should we create artificial limitations?
If someone can’t communicate with others who are learning, can’t be in a yeshiva then such a person is not truly part of the system. It doesn’t matter if she is very smart and knowledgeable from learning on her own. In order to be a rabbi, you must have connection with an oral Torah of real living rebbeim. (Shimush Chachamim)
Like they say, you have to be street smart and not just book smart. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with her. She just can’t have the experience that comes with being in close contact with those who know. Why? Because it’s not tznius to be that close.
ari-free:
Interesting point which can be a discussion in its own right. But for the purposes of this thread let’s assume that a woman has a father/husband who can be her Rebbe.
This seems like the right place for this: Has anyone in this discussion heard of the idea (Jewish) that the entire universe is moving towards a time when the genders will be equal as they originally were, symbolized mystically by the restoration of the moon to its original luminosity, and that the energy of this movement of the universe is the reason for the
emergence of the feminist movement? (Or something like that. I don’t remember any more details or where I came across this.)
Man and Woman will never be the same; just like the Sun and the Moon were never the same. Even when the Moon was at its full strength, it wasn’t the sun. And therefore there were not ??? ????, there was a ??? and a ????. Nishba and a Mashpia. Etc.
I just quoted parts of this Igros MOshe in two other threads so it would seem apropos to quote another part of it which is relevant to this thread.
Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 4:49:
?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????”? ??????? ??? ??? ???”? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????”? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???”? ????”? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????”? ?”? ?????? ?”? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????”? ??? ????? ????”? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??”? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??”?
“Curiosity: That picture looks awfully like it was taken in Eretz Mitzrayim, circa our slave age.”
Except that women today are happy to have more opportunity and contribute to society at large. Don’t make us out to be “nebach”s.
“The emergence of women taking on men’s roles en masse is a very new and somewhat isolated phenomenon. It is of no coincidence that the push to have women take on men’s roles in our Orthodox Jewish culture happened at the exact particular time and place in history as the former. Our culture is particularly porous to out environment these days, and this is an obvious side effect.”
Why do you think this is a bad thing? You speak about this as if it is some sort of poison. Any new situation that emerges that isn’t spelled out black and white somewhere in the gemara or what not presents such a monstrous threat to hashkafa… and the gut reaction is to fight without even thinking about what you’re fighting.
You speak about this as if it is some sort of poison. Any new situation that emerges that isn’t spelled out black and white somewhere in the gemara or what not presents such a monstrous threat to hashkafa…
There is a lot of emotion in that response but it is not what he said. Taking his specific ‘complaints’ about women taking on men’s roles en masse, and calling it “any new situation…not spelled out. . .” is a gross alteration. You obviously have a great dislike toward his opposition but in regard to your attack on his viewpoint I would certainly say that if anyone here is doing this: and the gut reaction is to fight without even thinking about what you’re fighting. it aint him.
Randomex:
It’s a Rashi in Megilla 22b based on a Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer:
???? ???”? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????”? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????????
Women of the Wall applied this to Feminism.
R’ Dovid Cohen in Ohel Dovid volume 7 writes:
?????? ??? ?”? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????
???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??”? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??”? ??? ???? ????? ????”? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????
?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.