Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 037

Wednesday, October 13 1999

• Re: Torah "un" Codes
• Re: Veses Kovua
• Re: Veses Kovua
• Re: Torah "un" codes
• RE: Fw: Poskot/Yoatzot
• Re: The Story of Mizrachi-Chicago, mappiq addendum
• Re: The Story of Mizrachi-Chicago, mappiq addendum
• Social Darwinism
• Re: Aramaic
• Objections to Women Yo'atzot
• Re: Aramaic
• Social D.
• the women clergy issue
• Building cities
• re: Women Yoatzot
• re: Women Yoatzot
• re: Women Yoatzot
• Re: Women Yoatzot

In a message dated 10/13/99 2:07:45 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> EG this weeks parsha describes the Geshem as 40 days and 40 nights.
>  
>  How many other cases in the Torah/Tanach - have that same phrase?
>  

An interesting thought, it says that the Teivoh was Bdugmas Losid Lovoi 
(Yemos HaMooshiach) when Vgar Ze'aiv im Keves, by Moshe Rabbeinu where for 40 
days and 40 nights he didn't eat, perhaps might resemble Olom Haboh (Lshitas 
HoRambam) Ein Boi Loi Achila..

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In Avodah 4#36, SBoublil posted:
> A separate issue is that so many people (Madrichot Kalah/Rabbis/women)
are sure that
Veset Kavua is rare, that little effort is spent on actually investigating
the matter
thoroughly, and just assume b/c it isn't the "natural" (another fallacy)
every 28 days
or every 30, that they don't have Veset Kavua. <
Is it possible that today's generation of young women (never mind prior
generations) are not being taught those sections of Halacha which relate to
veses and, more to the point of this discussion, what constitutes VK?
Based on personal experience, it would unfortunately seem that such is
indeed a possibility, even after sessions with a madrichah.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 10/13/99 2:29:46 PM EST, MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:

> Is it possible that today's generation of young women (never mind prior
>  generations) are not being taught those sections of Halacha which relate to
>  veses and, more to the point of this discussion, what constitutes VK?
>  Based on personal experience, it would unfortunately seem that such is
>  indeed a possibility, even after sessions with a madrichah.
>  
 "Roiv Noshim Ein Lohem Veset Kovua" is brought in Poskim, I would doubt that 
it was based on women not knowing how to calculate them (even the more 
complicated and less frequent ones).  However AFAIK the men are tought alot 
more WRT possible sequences, and are told that one should consult a Rov when 
there is such possibility.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Aryeh Kaplan associates forty with creation and birth. He touches on the
subject in his booklet on mikvah.

40, is in gematria the letter mem, named for mayim, water. It symbolizes
birth, rebirth, and change. Which is why a mikvah is 40 si'ah of mayim.
The parallel to 40 days of rain is suggestive.

And at 40 days gestational age, the soul enters the body. (And, perhaps
coincidentally perhaps not, neural activity is first detected at this age.)
Which affects halachah's attitude toward abortion.

RAK explains the number of melachos as "arba'im chaseir achas" to parallel the
40 steps of creation minus creation ex nihilo -- for which there can't be a
parallel melachah, people can't do it. He gets the 40 steps to creation from
Yeshaiah 43:7 "kol hanikra bishmi vilichvodi barasiv yatzartiv af asisiv"
suggesting 4 attributes to ma'aseh b'reishis (l'fi haZohar) multiplied by
the asarah ma'amaros (each ma'amar operating on four levels). Again, tying
40 to creation.

Similarly, malkos maxes at "araba'im chaseir achas", since he violated the
telos of b'riah. The maximum number of windings for tzitzis (and the number
made in Ashkenazi minhag) is also 39.

I'm sure the fact that Sanhedrin left the Lishkas haGazis 40 years before
the churban means something.

By having the Jews wander for 40 years G-d shows that this was the birth of
something new to the world. Which brings us back to 40 days: we have three
sets between Shavuos and the Second Luchos (Yom Kippur), one of which caused
those 40 years.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Oct-99: Revi'i, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 52b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 21

RYGB forwarded (and agreed with) the following:
> > 2. Keeping this in mind, do we now want to encourage more
> > recourse to the Mora D'Asra or Rebbe or less?

I would like to point out that (1) women tend not to have "Rebbes" the way
men do and (2) in Israel--where the yoatzot are being produced--most MO
communities do not have community rabbis.  Therefore yoatzot will probably
not be diminishing rabbinic authority in Israel.

> > 5. It's not necessary to formulate/use ideas about the thinking
> > capacity of men and women to justify the status quo (i.e,. no
> > poskot).  The burden is on the other side to show---based only on
> > Torah principles!!!---how a continuous chain of prophets, sages,
> > rishonim, and acharonim could have been totally off-base as
> > regards the male role of halachic leadership.  This I gotta see!!!

There are a number of different approaches to this:

1.  Who says that the current yoatzot are *better* than what historically
existed?  Perhaps they are just better suited to the *current* situation.
Compare to Bais Yaakov seminaries and Torah study for women: in a society
where women attain higher education it is foolhardy to exclude them from
Talmud Torah; this attitude does not undermine chazal.

2.  Rav Kook and others talk about divine inspiration which causes every
generation to improve upon the generation before (leading to biyat go'el
tzedek).  Perhaps this is the challenge which confronts our generation.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I am pleased to say I am completely ignorant of knowledge of any specifics
of those eiruv/mizrachi/HTC related events which seem to have roiled the
chicago community in the past - for me, chicago merely evokes visions of
urbanized, i.e. grey, snow  and the four dollar bananna (though that is a
quite different tale), but following the heated back and forth, a number of
more interesting-to-me generic questions do occur.   

1.  did anybody asociated with the sale actually first ask RAS for a pisaq?
or was it volunteered?  If the latter is true, was it volunteered in the
absence of any shailoh being asked of anybody else? the generic issue is the
appropriateness of offering unasked for opinions, compounded if another's
opinion has already been rendered - is this now considered a matter of
course "right" by some/all? rabbinic authorities and what do others think of
it?  there are many historical resonances here.   To note just relatively
recent events, there was the - apparently unsolicited - halachic opinion
offered by the RIETS 5 (don't know who exactly, but certainly including my
old chaveir and classmate R. Willig and, i think, R. Schachter) concerning
women's tefiloh groups (no way jose).  I recall the assertion as well that
R. Kook withdrew his negative pisaq about the right of woman to vote (in
jewish agency elections during the mandate) following protests by R. yehudah
L maimon that nobody had asked him, which logic R. kook, upon reflection,
agreed with.  then there were the manifold public positions promulgated by
such as R. Chaim ozer as part of his agudaist role in the inter-war years
where he viewed his responsibilities as extending far beyond his local vilna
purview.  this assumption of a much broader communal "right" to issue
halachic declarations on issues related to public policy, when that public
had not solicited such guidance, was of course the heart of Larry Kaplan's
famous (or -charedi - infamous) article on daas torah.  Do people on this
list think it obligatory for a tzibbur to follow such unsolicited
delarations from authoritative rabbinic authorities, at all?,  if they have
a contradictory opinion from a competent rabbinic authority whose guidance
they did seek?  i don't for a second suggest that any poseiq does not have
the 'right" to rule abut anything he wishes - its a free country - but
rather the focus is on the tzibbur's obligation to submit.  Nor am i in any
position to cast the slightest aspersion on RAS's take on the particular
sale discussed.

2.  One poster seemed to question the right of a single rabbi to go against
the halachic opinion of a bunch of other rabbis, including a Gadol Hador
(sic) who happens to be living in the city.  (Not intending the slightest
bit of disrespect to the kovode or great standing of RAS shlitoh  i must say
that i find the articulation 'a godol hador'  impenetrable. it is in the
singular form, yet i suspect even its user rather ranks RAS as one of many
gidolei hador.  I would guess that - if this usage is actually widespread -
we have here another instance of titular inflation in an attempt to render
yet more kovode at the cost of cheapening the semantic coin across the
board.  may we envision the day when everybody is a godole hador just like
every rebbe is a rosh yeshivoh? also recalls the (true) about two years ago
story when the college board people announced that more than 85% (or some
figure like that) of the tested had scored above the mean.)   Do people on
this list actually think that a local rav - who was described as 'a talmid
chochom in his own right" - actually need mivateil his personal halachic
opinion on a matter which directly affects his own community because others
- to include those  others would describe as 'greater' - hold a
contradictory opinion? and would it make a difference if a 'few" local
rabbis agreed with him?  at what point, if any, does someone think the local
talmid chochom is required to back off his guidance to his own flock if he
doesn't honestly agree on halachic grounds?  Does the fact that the local
yeshivish community - telz or whatever - which have represented enclaves
separate from the "town' community starting with volozhin (which
administratively invented the concept of  yeshivos completely independent of
the town in which located - the real chidush of volozhin) does, or does not
(of course i have no idea which) utilize the town eiruv supposed to
determine the kashrus of the "townies" eiruv with, presumably, the local
rov's hechsheir?

3. Mappiq hey addendum.  Not seeing much of substance to add to the recent
mappiq discussion I didn't. but as long as i lifted fingers to keyboard I'll
migalgeil a minor note to comment someone's assertion that it looked like a
dogeish.   this is of course true in all the printed chumoshim.  however in
the manuscripts, certainly in the better earlier codices, the dotted mappiq
hey is clearly differentiated from a letter with dotted dogeish as care is
usually (not always) taken by the naqdon to stick the dot in lower part of
the hey, rather than, as done for dogeish, halfway up. not sure why printed
tanachs abandoned this simple to replicate convention. also a slight quibble
with loose language usage. a mappiq letter is not identical to a mappiq hey,
other letters may be mappiqed, though of course it is only a mappiq hey
which gets its own sign.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H:  (301) 593-3949
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com

In a message dated 10/13/99 3:06:55 PM EST, Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil writes:

> Do people on
>  this list actually think that a local rav - who was described as 'a talmid
>  chochom in his own right" - actually need mivateil his personal halachic
>  opinion on a matter which directly affects his own community because others
>  - to include those  others would describe as 'greater' - hold a
>  contradictory opinion? 

See the last Hasogoh of the Ravad on the Rambams Hakdamah to the Yad.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:59:01 -0400
> From: "David Eisenman" <eisenman@umich.edu>
> Subject: Yoatzot
> 
> "And you need not call it Social Darwinism when kin'as sofrim will do."

> Gershon
> 
> Could you explain this comment further, please? I don't understand what
you mean.  
	You said "competition does lead to quality improvement".  Without
getting involved in the yoatzot discussion,  I merely renamed this
concept.  Nothing more profound than that.

Gershon

Micha Berger wrote:


> Otherwise, language is merely a means to communicate. I therefore would think
> that mimetic Aramaic is more important than the medkadeik's textually correct
> version.


Quite possibly, definitely for Talmudic Aramaic. But where our tefilot are
in other languages, does it not behoove us to learn them? This all started
when I commented thet Aramaic grammar is confusing for me. Someone pointed
out that the rules are the same for Aramaic as for Hebrew. They're not. In
fact, even though the rules for Hebrew vocalization can be applied to this
foreign language transliterated into Hebrew characters, the exceptions are
so prevalent as to obviate the rules. When I'm saying Petihat Eliyahu, and
the words don't flow properly, and I know that what I'm saying is not what
the author wrote, it bothers me. The construction of our tefilot is easily
as important as the context.



> You are assuming a textualist stance,


I generally do.


> that being grammatically accurate is
> more "correct" than saying it the way your avos did.


Yes, and if they had been more careful with their Aramaic, we wouldn't be
having this discussion. 



> As I said, I could
> defend that argument for Hebrew, but only by invoking ideas distinct to
> Hebrew.


Agreed. I don't make the argument for Aramaic, but for tefilah.



> 
> There is also a problem with being medakdeik in tefillos -- in can distract
> from thinking about peirush hamilim and from the d'veikus that tefillos are
> to achieve. It's not a cost-free decision. The motivation has to be
> significant.


Yeah, it is a problem sometimes. I find that I often have to pray without
a  siddur, because I find myself becoming distracted by the forms of the
words and losing sight of their meaning. I think it happens more often in
Tehillim, though.

And the motivation is significant. These are my tefilot. Direct
communication with HKBH, carefully constructed to achieve very specific
things. It's my obligation to put as much into them as the authors did.


---sam

On this topic, the majority of postings have plainly run in favor of
this innovation, leaving RYGB as one of the sole skeptics (a kol kore!).

I think RYGB's analysis is correct, up to a point.  While I believe the
yo'atzot program will likely encourage some women to ask she'elot that
they would not have otherwise, this alone is plainly not the sole
motivation for the program.  And I think it is disingenuous in the
extreme to argue that it is.  Of course, Orthodox politics is not immune
from spin control, and the spin on this issue is that "we are just
increasing halakhic observance."  But I think that we can, on this list
at least, be honest, and admit that we must evaluate the yo'atzot
program in the broader context of Orthodoxy and feminism.  Any other
approach, in my view, is myopic and self-deluding.

The question is how to go about making such an evaluation.  Certainly
the Jewish Week article describes the yo'atzot program as
"revolutionary" and the point of view of the reporter was evident from
her questions: Orthodoxy has moved a step closer to women rabbis.  It
think this is how the non-Orthodox world generally perceives the issue,
as do certain Orthodox feminists.

Of course, the non-Orthodox definition of "rabbi" is not ours.  From a
halakhic perspective, we know that women can be teachers (and
principals).  Can they, at least theoretically, make lasting
contributions in pesak and lamdut?

Interestingly, the article quotes Yo'etzet Zimmerman as saying that the
goal of the program is to involve women in the halakhic process.  I
think that is the most accurate statement about the program and that our
evaluation should be based on it.

In other words, I think the yo'atzot program did not develop in response
to a crisis in observance of taharat ha-mishpahah.  Rather, there has
developed a group of women who are interested in and capable of
learning, who are looking for something useful to do in the community.
They could teach, but there aren't too many places that would hire them
as "maggidot shiur."  Nor is the position of communal rav open to them.
Someone came up with the idea of training them in taharat ha-mishpahah
where they could serve a positive role.  And, notably, for the first
time you have women formally involved in pesak (as opposed to the
informal involvement of the rebbitzen).

Now, let us examine the reasons for opposition.  Several posters (and
one person in the article) have raised the issue of qualification.  But
that is a fairly narrow concern and can be addressed by a simple
empirical investigation.  I assume that RYGB would oppose the yo'atzot
even if they were qualified.   Are there fundamental reasons why women
should not be involved in high-level learning and pesak?

One point mentioned by RYGB is that, over time, women will displace men.
 I think that is unlikely here given the high barriers against entry
into the rarefied level of halakhic expertise.  After all, in the modern
orthodox community a woman is free to become a doctor, but very few do
so because the process is long, arduous and difficult to achieve while
starting and raising a family.  Certainly, mastery of Halakhah is no
less challenging!  (Indeed, it seems to me not a coincidence that
Yo'etzet Zimmerman is also an MD.)  For that reason, I just cannot see a
stampede of women into the bet midrash.

Another problem is that the non-Orthodox world (and select Orthodox
feminists) will misinterpret it as a concession to modernity and move
toward their egalitarian ideal.  The question is to what extent such
considerations should govern.  Personally, I am not moved by this
argument.  If something is muttar, it is muttar, and we have the burden
of making clear why.  (Is this muttar?  See below.)  For 150 years, the
Reform movement has pointed to prosbol as proof that we can change
Halakhah; does this mean we should not use prosbol any more?

RYGB quotes an anonymous opponent as follows:

>The burden is on the other side to show---based only on
> Torah principles!!!---how a continuous chain of prophets, sages,
> rishonim, and acharonim could have been totally off-base as
> regards the male role of halachic leadership.

Now this statement assumes that the absence of women from the halakhic
process was not an accident of history, but a clear, conscious
precedent.  I am sure there are sources to support this, but I do not
know them.  We know that women cannot serve on a bet din and are
generally excluded from edut (with some major exceptions).  We know the
limmud of melekh ve-lo malkah, and the Rambam's extension of that which,
so far as I know, is a da'at yahid.  But even treating the Rambam as
halakhah pesukah, I suspect that pesak does not constitute serarah
anyway, because the sho'el is voluntarily submitting to the posek's
authority.  We have some clear rules against teaching women Torah, but
these are now riddled with exceptions, especially post-Hafetz Hayyim.
And the evidence before us today suggests that at least certain women
are able to learn Torah without turning it into tiflut.  So where does
it say that women should not be involved in pesak?

(Arguments that the status quo should simply not be changed are, I
think, not self-sustaining.  If they were, we would still be living in
tents and heating our food on an open flame.  In the halakhic realm, we
would not have permitted sifrei kodesh to be printed by a printing press
(let alone scanned onto a CD) and we would view all synthetic food as
ma'akhalot asurot.)

I am sure there is also a slippery slope argument against the yo'atzot
program.   Would anyone care to articulate the real halakhic and/or
policy reasons why women -- who are qualified -- should not be allowed
to get involved in the halakhic process?

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I wrote:


> The construction of our tefilot is easily
> as important as the context.



Content. That should have said "content" not "context".

Pardon me.



---sam

> In a message dated 10/13/99 9:59:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> eisenman@umich.edu writes:
> 
> > Could you explain this comment further, please? I don't understand
what you mean.  
>to which Yitzchok Zirkind answered,
> While I am sure R' Gershon can explain for himself, ones choice of 
words are important Higeany Kpul rather then > >Kzanav Haltah, Kinas
Sofrim vs. Lhavdil d.
	I apologize for having posted my nearly identical answer prior to having
read yours.  Exactly my point,  no position taken on yoatzot or rabbonim
or rebitzens or mikva-ladies.

Gershon

actually (putting on my sociology hat for a second -- I still am officially 
a doctoral student), the situation is a bit more complex than has been 
stated -- what has tended to happen in most [liberal]religious movements 
which have granted expanded levels of participation to women is they tend to 
become women-dominated (not so much in terms of the pulpit b/c even in not 
yet frum branches of Judaism ordained females tend to teach in day schools 
versus congregations) but in terms of who tends to show up and play a major 
role in the life of the shul -- men tend to withdraw (which might say as 
much about male motivations for attending as it does about any real change 
in religious sentiments/attitudes.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In an effort to redirect the highly politicized and sometimes heated 
discussions about the role of women as morot hora'ah to a more
academic (generic sense) and calmer discussion of parshanut, let 
me pose the following question(s) about last weeks parash.

The Scripture tells us that after being sent into exile East of Eden 
for murdering his brother, Cain began a career as a builder of cities
(boneh ir).  The verse is ambiguous (since boneh ir implies that the 
activity was repeated), but suggests that the first city at least was
built for his son.  Now my question is who besides Cain's son lived 
in this city?  Now the Torah doesn't think it important to tell us
where Cain found his wife, but presumably he had one.  But we
are not aware of any other human beings at the time besides
Cain's parents.  Presumably Cain's exile meant that he was no 
longer living at home with them.  So what did this city look like?  
Who populated it?  Or was it a city for three?  Now economics and
other social sciences (okay so they're not very authoritative on 
this list) would suggest that cities come into being as the result of
some fairly advanced degree of division of labor and trade; cities
economize the costs of trade.  What was the division of labor in
which Cain and his son were engaged and with whom were they 
trading?

A related question.  Rashi in explaining Cain's exile (sorry I don't
have a Humash handy) says (I think quoting a midrash) that the
"beriot"would point to Cain and say there is the man that killed his
brother.  What beriot could Rashi have been referring to at the 
time Cain was exiled?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Mark Dratch wrote: <<< These students have had months of shimmush with
poskim, months of medical training, ... know that she comes to this with
real yiras ha-din and, like any responsble individual, will consult when
she knows she is out of her league. >>>

Rabbi Bechhofer responded <<< you make it eminently clear in the last
paragraph what
these women will really do. Which leads to very straightforward
questions, for example: 
How will they "advise" on: 1. What is onah beinonis? 2. When and which
contraceptives may be used? And such like? >>>

Excellent point. There will clearly be a number of questions which the
yoatzot will answer, whether they choose to call it "paskening" or not.
It seems to me that their answers -- and their decisions about which
questions should go to a higher authority -- will be at least as reliable
as that of a male who was certified in Taaruvos and Melicha.

When I hear about men whose semicha program includes any kind of shimush,
I'll take these objections more seriously.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I think it was Chana Luntz who mentioned how important it is that those
who decide halachic issues should have ready access to first-hand
information on the subject at hand.

Some people complain about the halacha being decided by individuals who
live in "ivory towers" isolated from the "real world". Others then defend
those poskim, pointing out how they are indeed very much part of the
"real world". Hilchos Nida is a good test case of this machlokes. How can
the poskim speak so definitively about things like Hargasha without
experiencing it first-hand?

I'm not (chalila!) suggesting that men should never pasken these sort of
issues. I'm only saying that I welcome the active input of women into the
discussion. And it's not only sexual issues where the input of women is
so important, but in other areas as well, the most obvious one being
anything that involves the kitchen. One of my wife's pet peeves is how so
many rabbis quote the Shulchan Aruch as forbidding "pot roast" at the
Seder, but they don't realize that many of today's recipes use a
considerable amount of liquid.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

RYGB's anonymous poster wrote <<< Nowadays, people already get much of
their halachic input from sources other than their Rav (their Mora D'Asra
or their main rebbe from yeshiva/seminary)---namely from Artscroll,
Jewish periodicals, other books and tapes, emails, web pages... Keeping
this in mind, do we now want to encourage more recourse to the Mora
D'Asra or Rebbe or less? >>>

This is a misleading question. Of course no one wants to encourage *less*
recourse to the Rav! But on the other hand, *more* recourse is often an
impractical impossibility.

In large communities the rav is often overloaded with questions from
others and can spare only small amounts of time with each person. In
small communities the rav is often busy teaching or at some other job. By
default, many people find other sources for their "halachic input" and
this is often in the form of a neighbor and fellow congregant who is more
knowledgable than the person with the question.

Men do this all the time. As Yisro suggested, the easier questions go to
the more educated congregants, and only the really tough ones end up at
the Rav. I think the idea of yoatzot is for the women to have someone to
go to in similar fashion. I hope that we can rely on the mikveh ladies
for mikveh questions, but that is only a subset of the questions these
yoatzot are trained for.

The big difference is that these women have a certification, whereas the
learned men can pasken whether they have semicha or not, so what does
this certification accomplish? Why not just have a school or seminary
where the women can learn these things and then they'll simply be learned
women who can help their friends and neighbors? Maybe the answer is that
many people think that men also need to be certified and given a title.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

This time, you are not correctly interpreting my position.

It is very likely that these women will issue far more correct and accurate
psakim than their male MO counterparts.

They probably will.

That is not an objection - how could it be?

But it is precisely the problem.

V'dok!

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 9:53 PM
Subject: re: Women Yoatzot


> Mark Dratch wrote: <<< These students have had months of shimmush with
> poskim, months of medical training, ... know that she comes to this with
> real yiras ha-din and, like any responsble individual, will consult when
> she knows she is out of her league. >>>
>
> Rabbi Bechhofer responded <<< you make it eminently clear in the last
> paragraph what
> these women will really do. Which leads to very straightforward
> questions, for example:
> How will they "advise" on: 1. What is onah beinonis? 2. When and which
> contraceptives may be used? And such like? >>>
>
> Excellent point. There will clearly be a number of questions which the
> yoatzot will answer, whether they choose to call it "paskening" or not.
> It seems to me that their answers -- and their decisions about which
> questions should go to a higher authority -- will be at least as reliable
> as that of a male who was certified in Taaruvos and Melicha.
>
> When I hear about men whose semicha program includes any kind of shimush,
> I'll take these objections more seriously.
>
> Akiva Miller
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]