Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 042

Saturday, October 16 1999

• Re: Yoatzot
• Yoatzot
• Re: Chasam Sofer on chadash
• Chabad and Shabbos
• Re: CHenkin article
• Re: HKBH's intentions
• The destruction of Hungarian Jewry
• Yoatzot, psak
• re: yoatzot
• Re: Yoatzot
• Yoatzot
• Re: Yoatzot, psak
• Chabad + Driving on Shabbos
• RE: Avodah V4 #40

I always enjoy reading R' Meir's thoughtful comments, even though we often
find ourselves at philosophical odds. Some comments:


----- Original Message -----
From: <meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 12:41 PM
Subject: Yoatzot


> I think that the question itself betrays an enormous naivete of current
mores in
> MO community, which, if I interprete R Sherer's post properly, are also
invading
> the haredi community (part of what Rav Dr Chaim Soloveichik has described
in the
> subtle Westernization of haredi community). This is not directly related
to the
> issues of "Orthodox feminism", but is rather a  modern notion of zniut.
It is
> related to the fact that so many women today will not go to a male
gynecologist.
> (the fact that he may have a female nurse helps, but is not enough) There
is a
> reluctance to discuss, or even have discussed by others (one perhaps novel
> aspect of this zniut), one's intimate bodily functions with a male, even
someone
> in a supposedly objective, professional role.
>

I have a problem with this line of reasoning. Normally, a problem in the
Orthodox community is aired, people become ever more aware of it, and,
usually, it will reach minor or major crisis proportions before something is
finally done. Case in point: The agonizing and tragic Agunah situation.
Another case in point: The problem of Yeshiva-system dropouts. Another one:
Shalom Bayis and spousal abuse.

To the best of my awareness, and I try to keep my ear to the ground, there
was no great crisis in taharas ha'mishpocho (THM). This is probably because
every THM issue takes two: wife and husband, and the husband should *anyway*
have a Rav or Posek whom he consults on halachic and hashkafic issues. This
person, indeed should be the *family* Posek. If the Posek is not accessible,
lo alman Yisroel. The Yo'etzes will not (if indeed, they exist and will
exist only for women to consult on THM issues) be the family Posek - not the
husband's in THM and not anyone's in other areas. (This opens another line
of inquiry that I had not thought of till now: the potential divisiveness
and Shalom Bayis issue that may arise when the Yo'etzes says one thing to
the wife and the Rav says another to the husband!).

But several people here have claimed that there was such a need that seems
to exist. It is possible that I missed its development. But it would be nice
to have some solid evidence to its existence. Even if we are to ascetain
that there was a crisis extant or brewing, I still do not believe that this
development is necessarily solely motivated to rectify this problem, nor
that this is the proper rectification of this problem. But I would like
evidence of the problem.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
ygb@aishdas.org  http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

RJJB:From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Yoatzot

From: Yitzchok Zirkind
>From: "Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf" <woolfj@mail.biu.ac.il>
>>1) In my ten years of experience as a shul Rav,I found that most women
>>would rather be mahmir in marot than ask (though about 80% of the
>>shaylos were open and shut either way). Being able to ask a
>>knowledgeable woman will only enhance TM and maybe raise the birthrate.,,<<

An Agudist friend of mine took to task anyone {including shy wives} who is 
inhibited from asking a Shei'lo.  As far as shy wives go, they can use their 
husband's to ask the sensitive questions on their behalf.

Question: is it realistic to expect husbands to ask sensistive she'los on behalf
of their wives?

If yes, the Yoatzot are {apparently} unncecessary.
If no, then they ARE necessary and not optional.

Comments please.

Rich Wolpoe 

Micha Berger wrote:

<<<
I stated that I'm not of the Chasam Sofer's school of "chadash assur min
haTorah". (Actually, I said Chazon Ish, I misspoke.)
>>>

I raised the point once before, so forgive my raising it again.  I am
not so sure that the Chasam Sofer was issuing a dogmatic
pronouncement when he said "chadash assur min haTorah."  He
was obviously engaging in word-play based on the mahloket
rishonim on the status of hadash b'zman ha-zeh.  His bon mot 
certainly had ideological resonance, but I question whether when
he made that remark he meant to be taken literally.  Just a thought.
Can any of scholarly types out there provide any textual or
historical information about the Ch. S's intent in this little pun?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

I think Micha was clear that he was contrasting not comparing Chabad and 
Conservative.

It is also interesting to look at results.   From my own vantage point in 
a very small community, I see many people that drive up to shul at 
Chabad, but I also see those that are now shomer shabbos that a year or 
two ago were not.  I also see those looking for homes close by so they 
can become shomer shabbat.

OTOH, unfortunately, I also know some people who were estranged from the 
MO congregation and went to the Conservative place.  They originally were 
walking there.  Too many of them are now no longer shomer Shabbos.   I 
don't know of a single person from the C congregation who became shomer 
shabbos there.  (Of course there were some who went  to Chabad or other O 
congregations elsewhere and then became shomer Shabbos.)


Obviously this is only a non statistical sample, but it does bear out 
what Micha said.> 

In Avodah 4#41, Akiva Miller wrote:
> An interesting article is available on the web. It seems to be an excerpt
from a larger article, and I can't tell whether the full title is "Women
and the Issuing of Halakhic Rulings by Chanah Henkin", or possibly just
"Women and the Issuing of Halakhic Rulings", written by Rabbanit Henkin.

In any case, those interested can read it at
http://www.virtual.co.il/channels/torah/feature2.htm <
Here's a measurable, if small, quantity of gasoline from that article for
the "Yoatzot"-thread fire:
"In order to meticulously observe the Halakha, women need women! For
reasons of modesty,
women do not wish to, and often will not, discuss a hilkhot nidda question
with a man."
I believe Jon Baker was making a related point when he wrote:
> Because the individual woman *doesn't*
have experience of anyone other than herself, and because it is widely
known that women *don't* ask the rav for situations that should be
questioned. <
For reasons of privacy, some women don't want to discuss their situations
with *any* non-family member.  For reasons of modesty, some women want
their husbands to bring Halachic questions to their Rav.  Call me dense,
but I don't see how the point in the 2nd CHenkin sentence I quoted
buttresses her program; worse, I find the 1st sentence's statement way
off-base and look to the women on Avodah to debate its truth.

Jon further stated:
> Remember, for the woman to ask the rav, she has to go
through an intermediary, who may or may not want to be involved, so
she not only has to convince herself to ask, she has to convince either
the Rebbetzin or her husband to ask, and in either case, details can
be lost in transmission. <
and I have to second YZirkind's comment via a rhetorical question: who says
she has to go through an intermediary?  If she does use an intermediary
(e.g. her husband), she would assuredly ensure that said intermediary has
all the relevant details in hand.

Time to leave the office for the week...all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:

<<<
If HKBH (Hakadosh Baruch Hu) would not have made Talmud Torah an obligation
for men and only an option for women; and Din Torah (as in membership in a
Beis Din or Sanhedrin), an option for men, but not for women, then there
would be room for your objection, but, as is, I simply do not understand it.
>>>

I hate to be picky, but where did HKBH express Himself one way or the 
other about these matters?  All we have is the view of Hazal (which, I 
hasten to add, is quite sufficient for me).  But just to be precise, we
ought to distinguish between the revealed word of the Almighty (emet
hehletit) and its interpretation by Hazal (emet heskeimit).  The two are
not intrinsically the same, and it is at least possible that they do not
coincide at all times.  If you would don't believe me, I can think of at least 
one Gadol who wrote something that might be relevant to the issue.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

R. Levi Reisman asks:

>Eli Clark writes that "I thought that, had the leadership of
>Hungarian Jewry encouraged their communities to leave Hungary, they
>would not have still been there in spring of 1944 when R. Weissmandl was
>trying to secure their escape."  If you are talking about during the war,
>where were they supposed to go?

[snip]

As I hope my previous post indicated, I think it is generally
distasteful to hear various attempts to lay blame for the death of the
kedoshim during the Holocaust.

Somehow the person who started this thread thought the yated column
would change the minds of those who "blame" the Gedolim for the
destruction of Hungarian Jewry.  I consider anyone who thinks that way
about the Gedolim to be sick.  Yes, it is tragic that the gedolim did
not foresee what was to come, but no one did and no one could be
expected to.  To me, all this proves is that they were not nevi'im,
which I do not consider a great revelation (though some may be upset by
that conclusion).

With respect to your specific question, I admit I do not understand your
point.  I concede that from a practical perspective, it was unlikely
that the entire Hungarian Jewish community would have been able to leave
en masse, whether in the 1930's or early years of the war.  But does
that mean it would have been pointless for a theoretical Jewish leader
(who foresaw the catastrophe) to encourage his people to try to leave?
Surely not.  Some Jews from central Europe who tried to flee in the
1930's and early war years succeeded.  Sadly, some were told by their
leaders not to try.  As I said before, it is indefensible to
second-guess these leaders from the vantage point of the 1990's.  But it
is absurd to suggest that the practical obstacles of emigrating made any
attempt to flee a futile one, and therefore straying put was the only
rational choice.

>By the way, I suggest reading Lucy Dawidowicz's take on the entire Joel
>Brand affair.  It would seem that things weren't as clear cut as the Yated
>makes it.

Words cannot describe my surprise at your suggestion that Yated's
account of the Brand affair is not universally shared by Holocaust
historians.  Nevertheless, I will beli neder check the source you
mention and thank you in advance for alerting me to it.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark.

Micha Berger writes:
>Another real open question is defining "giving a p'sak" in distinction to
>"teaching the halachah". There's a grey area there. I realize I assumed the
>problem with woman Rabbis is that women can't be on the p'sak end of the
>spectrum. (*) Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that's a big issue.  Rebbetzin Henkin presents sources
for women being able to give psak qua teaching the halacha in the 
article cited in Avodah (chida, based on Chinuch and Tosfos).
(which is itself interesting, as the chinuch and tosfos were both
radicals in their own way).

Rebbetzin Henkin's article is also interesting for the way it 
addresses the issue.  First it tells how women can be authorized 
to give psak, to derive halacha for new situations and to rule
authoritatively, then it says "don't use the word poskot" purely
for PR reasons.  But it seems clear that she sees the role of the
yoatzot to be decisors in this one narrow area, every bit as much
as the mikva lady *decides* if this particular object is a chatiztzah
or not.

But then, what is psak and how would you differentiate problematic
psak from teaching halacha?

If Jane Doe asks a question which is answerable from an explicit
Rema in Shulchan Aruch, is that psak or teaching halacha?

If Mary Roe asks a question which is answerable only from a tshuvah,
is that psak or teaching halacha?

If Chana Shmo asks a question which is answerable only by taking
positions from three different teshuvot and interpolating, is that
psak or teaching halacha?

If Esther Po asks the same question as Chana Shmo, and the yoetzet
has already determined the halacha to be X, in repeating X is she
giving psak or teaching halacha?  Is it qualitatively different if
Rabbi Moe has made that three-way interpolation, explained it orally
to the yoetzet, and the yoetzet explains X to Esther Po?  How?

Mikva Lady Bracha has had four days of training, two of which are
specifically in halacha.  If she repeats halacha X above, is that
qualitatively *better* as teacheing halacha, than Yoetzet Dina 
giving X as her chidush?  

Is that it, that unacceptable (to you) women's psak involves chidush?
Because, women have been paskening for each other for ages.  When my 
mother has a kashrus question, she asks a more knowlegeable female
friend, rather than run directly to the rabbi.  The whole mimetic tradition
thing depends on mothers teaching their children.

As I see it, the problem with women rabbis is that they can't be dayanot,
they can't lead services, or lein for the tzibur (except possibly at one
minyan in Israel which has somehow decided that its kavod allows women
to lein) - all of which are things that a modern rabbi often has to do.

They can't be witnesses at weddings - an issue which concerned the 
Conservatives' conservative faction in the women rabbis debate - as 
oftentimes there is a dearth of kosher witnesses (even by their standards
of observance) at weddings.

All of these are issues that came up in the Conservative debate on 
ordaining women.  It seems they would be less problematic in an Orthodox 
context, since most shuls *have* other people who can lein, daven, teach,
be witnesses, etc. - it doesn't  all fall on the rabbi.  As for teaching
positions, I've heard that rabbis get paid more because of the title.
Since women already teach limudei kodesh, why penalize them just because
of a title?

You could never have a woman with yadin yadin certification, or so I
would think - although, doesn't that Tosfos which talks about Devorah
suggest that it was because of the people's acceptance of Devorah that
she was allowed to judge?  In which case, if people would accept it,
there's no real reason that a woman couldn't judge dine mamonot.

       Jonathan Baker     |  Marches-wan, marches-two,
       jjbaker@panix.com  |  March the months all through and through

I've read the article mentioned by Akiva Miller, and while granted this 
seems to be the end of a longer article, there are some things that jump out at me.

"First of all, I want to say-as the head of a learning institution which is 
qualifying women to address questions of hilkhot nidda in practice-we should
stop using the term poskot...We are embarked on a tantalizing journey toward 
va'atzumim, learned women with the profound Torah scholarship, force of 
religious personality, and penetrating insight which will lead the community
to seek them out as halakhic authorities, PERHAPS (emphasis mine) initially
specializing in areas of Halakha which relate to women or which demand 
mastery of highly technical, scientific material." 
"In order to meticulously observe the Halakha, women need women! ...As 
little as ten years ago, we had no solution to this problem."

It appears to me that a) the intention here is in fact to create Poskot 
and b) who could have been covering up this horrible crises for so long?!  

I would like to also point out another issue. For Rabbanit Henkin's ideal to 
come true, there would need to be a drastic overhaul of the girls yeshiva 
system - you cannot really expect to get the best and brightest if you wait
until post high school. Besides the headaches involved in this I don't  
see how this movement would not create havoc in raising our children. 
(Yes, I know that there is a de facto change already, but now we're putting
a "shtempel" on it) 

G'S
Sender Baruch

Rav Bechhofer wrote in response to my post

>I have a problem with this line of reasoning. Normally, a problem in the
>Orthodox community is aired, people become ever more aware of it, and,
>usually, it will reach minor or major crisis proportions before something is
>finally done. Case in point: The agonizing and tragic Agunah situation.
>Another case in point: The problem of Yeshiva-system dropouts. Another one:
>Shalom Bayis and spousal abuse.

Does he suggest that this mode of  response only to a crisis as optimal? Perhaps
we should respond before it is such a crisis situation, especially if the
solution is not a new takkana, and does not violate any existing halacha.

I would note that MO poskim, such as Rav Berkovitz, were aware of the tragic
Agunah situation far before it became accepted in the haredi community, but that
is another discussion.  Solutions to the agunah will,of course, require far more
unaminity among poskim than creating a new source of halachic information.  

>To the best of my awareness, and I try to keep my ear to the ground, there
>was no great crisis in taharas ha'mishpocho (THM). This is probably because
>every THM issue takes two: wife and husband, and the husband should *anyway*
>have a Rav or Posek whom he consults on halachic and hashkafic issues. This
>person, indeed should be the *family* Posek. If the Posek is not accessible,

I think that several posters have documented the low level of questions, and
that even in haredi communities, poskim have remarked that many fertility
problems come from people not asking questions soon enough.  The crisis is one
that is silent, because people are just not asking questions.  Silence  is hard
to hear.  Furthermore, as  taharat hamishpacha is now far more widely followed
in MO  circles than a generation ago, the silence may be even less noticeable,
as the overall volume of questions has increased.  The issue is not that there
is an absolute prohibition on consulting standard lines of communication, but
that the threshold for asking is set very high (I would venture that in general,
in MO communities, the threshold for asking any she'ela is set higher than in
the haredi, and not because of greater knowledge.  This is greatly compounded
for THM ..)

It is therefore not surprising that an institution like Nishmat, run by women
and catering to MO women, would be far more attuned than the standard  press.

>lo alman Yisroel.

Indeed, we are fortunate in having rabbanit Henkin...

> The Yo'etzes will not (if indeed, they exist and will
>exist only for women to consult on THM issues) be the family Posek - not the
>husband's in THM and not anyone's in other areas. (This opens another line
>of inquiry that I had not thought of till now: the potential divisiveness
>and Shalom Bayis issue that may arise when the Yo'etzes says one thing to
>the wife and the Rav says another to the husband!).

Clearly the husband has to consent, and the question should be asked only of one
authority.  However, the issue here is that 1 is better than 0, not that 1 is
better than two.  

>to have some solid evidence to its existence. Even if we are to ascetain
>that there was a crisis extant or brewing, I still do not believe that this
>development is necessarily solely motivated to rectify this problem, nor
>that this is the proper rectification of this problem. But I would like
e

The secondary motives and slippery slopes is a different issue.  However, first,
the existence of the problem needs to be admitted. 

Meir Shinnar

Kenneth G Miller cites "An interesting article is available on the web. It 
seems to be an excerpt from a larger article, and I can't tell whether the 
full title is "Women
and the Issuing of Halakhic Rulings by Chanah Henkin", or possibly just
"Women and the Issuing of Halakhic Rulings", written by Rabbanit Henkin."

There, Rabbanit Henkin writes:  

R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, the eminent 18th century Jerusalem-born sephardi 
sage, rules in his Birkei Yosef that although a woman cannot judge, she can 
pasken, issue a halakhic ruling, and this is the meaning of "hayta melamedet 
lahem hadinim" in Tosafot. He writes that the fact that a woman can issue a 
halakhic ruling is proven by Sefer haChinukh who, in Mitzva 83, agrees that a 
woman cannot judge, and on the other hand, in Mitzva 152, writes that a woman 
may not issue a halakhic ruling while drunk. This opinion of the Birkei Yosef 
is cited by the Pitchei Teshuva. 


This thread has not been pursued in this discussion.  Apparently the ability 
to render p'sak is not a function of one's obligation in Talmud Torah or in 
his/her ability to function as a dayyan.

Another issue that is being ignores, and as a proud MO it grieves me to 
discuss it publicly, many of our women are not going to the mikvah (some go 
before they want to become pregnant, afraid of a pgam, others not at all.)  
This is true in many cities and (challilah, I do not want to be chosheid 
bich-sheirim or motzi la'az) possibly across the religious spectrum.  At a 
meeting of the Vaad haRabbonim in Toronto, of which I used to be a member 
before relocating, I remember the rabbanim discussing the number of women who 
were attending the mikvaos in town and the number that should have been 
attending (and no there weren't that many pregnant women in town) and the 
discrepancy was alarming.  

So something's broke, my chaveirim, and we need to do everything that we can 
to fix it!

Also, as a MO rabbi, I would love to have more sheilos posed to me-- although 
you'd be fascinated by some of the sheilos that do come my way-- but I would 
much prefer that more people ask sheilos, even if they were to someone else.  

Mark Dratch

--- "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> (except possibly
> at one
> minyan in Israel which has somehow decided that its kavod allows
> women
> to lein) 

I'm curious about this.  Do you know the background on this?  Were
any rabbanim involved?


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

InV4#41, Micha wrote:

>Chas vishalom! My intent was lihefech 180deg from the way it apparantly read
>to you. I was contrasting (certainly not equating) two ways of approaching
>driving on Shabbos as a means to expose someone to Yahadus: the wrong way,
>which is Conservative policy; and what I understood Chabad policy to be, which
>I was using to show a more correct way of doing things.

Rereading your remark in context, I see your point. Thanks for the clarification
and sorry for my misunderstanding.

Kol tuv,
David

Rabbi Bechhofer:

Studying for semicha bechinos is not what I mean by a semicha program.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
ygb@aishdas.org  http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
=========================
 
That was a pretty snide remark. 

Next time your are in Israel spend a few hours at any Hesder Kollel in Israel and then 
talk.  It would be wiser.

Semicha programs are in addition to regular limud, which in Hesder Kollelim is on a 
very high level and includes not just Sh"s but all subjects (torah, n"ch, philosophy 
etc.).  

I think many have, without really intending to do so, become infected with the popular 
view that if something has to do with RZ it definitely has to be on a lower level than 
RW (I think that is what you called it, I'm referring to Chareidi Yeshivot).  

I think that true MO RZ realize that the truth is that much more is demanded of them 
than of any Chareidi Bachur.  They have to study the same, but they are expected to 
also carry at least part of the burden of their livelihood and army service.  While it 
is not "proof" the fact that so many Hesder graduates pass the same rabbinical exams 
that the Chareidi Yeshiva Bachurim pass, for both regular Semicha and Dayanut, should 
have lifted the veil of pride that has blinded people to the wonderful future these 
rabbis can lead us to -- a future where rabbis who are doctors,is not just a folk tale 
in the G'mara, where Rabbis earning their living is a fact of life. 

All the best

Shoshana

-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 16/10/99
Time: 08:34:42 PM , Israel

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------
Torah U'Madah Ltd. is developing a DB on the topic:
"Environmental issues and the Halacha (Jewish Law)"
any and all related information would be welcome.

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


[ 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         ]