Comments on: The Legacy of Polemics: Microphones on Shabbat, Metzitzah, and the Rabbah Ordination by Shlomo Brody http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/ Tradition's Blog of Orthodox Jewish Thought Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:29:58 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: nathaniel helfgot http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-658 nathaniel helfgot Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:41:13 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-658 Dear Mr. Brizel: 1. I am not sure if you understood the import of my analogies , so I will try one more time. The Rambam's view on Eruvin is only a humrah today for most ashkenazim becuase over the course of halakhic history it has been neutralized because of reliance on other opinions because of the perceived need and other Torah values that led hakhamim to not be "mahmir" for the shitat ha-Rambam, but rely on rov rishonim. That was my only point, the fact that the Ramabam says something, e.g women and serarah, is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. Should this Rambam and its broad rather than narrow interpretation) be dispositive is the question and that's what I want everyone in this debate to recognize. Why this Rambam (and its broad application and reading) should be controlling versus other rishonim and baalnced against other Torah values, spiritual needs etc is the question and has both halakhic and hashkafic dimensions in it. It is not simply a question of being careful for the shitat ha-Rambam. 2. The analogy to members of Knesset was not made by me, it was made by my rebbi, Rav Lichtenstein as I noted in the essay. His feeling was that in Israel, the religous-ZXionists world and its poskim had clearly felt that the Rambam (in its expnasive rteading) was not binding and women could play those roles. 3. My references to "meta-halakhic issues" include the issues of mesorah and nishmat ha-halakha. These areas,however,require much more nuanced and calm discussion than has been proffered so far by many of those who invoke in public and private realms. Dear Mr. Brizel:
1. I am not sure if you understood the import of my analogies , so I will try one more time. The Rambam’s view on Eruvin is only a humrah today for most ashkenazim becuase over the course of halakhic history it has been neutralized because of reliance on other opinions because of the perceived need and other Torah values that led hakhamim to not be “mahmir” for the shitat ha-Rambam, but rely on rov rishonim. That was my only point, the fact that the Ramabam says something, e.g women and serarah, is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. Should this Rambam and its broad rather than narrow interpretation) be dispositive is the question and that’s what I want everyone in this debate to recognize. Why this Rambam (and its broad application and reading) should be controlling versus other rishonim and baalnced against other Torah values, spiritual needs etc is the question and has both halakhic and hashkafic dimensions in it. It is not simply a question of being careful for the shitat ha-Rambam.

2. The analogy to members of Knesset was not made by me, it was made by my rebbi, Rav Lichtenstein as I noted in the essay. His feeling was that in Israel, the religous-ZXionists world and its poskim had clearly felt that the Rambam (in its expnasive rteading) was not binding and women could play those roles.

3. My references to “meta-halakhic issues” include the issues of mesorah and nishmat ha-halakha. These areas,however,require much more nuanced and calm discussion than has been proffered so far by many of those who invoke in public and private realms.

]]> By: lawrence kaplan http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-657 lawrence kaplan Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:23:36 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-657 Did the Rav ever refer to the issue of electricity as as a safek de-oraita? My point is that the Rav's bon mot, whomever it was directed against, certainly cannot apply to RSZA. Did the Rav ever refer to the issue of electricity as as a safek de-oraita? My point is that the Rav’s bon mot, whomever it was directed against, certainly cannot apply to RSZA.

]]> By: Steve Brizel http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-655 Steve Brizel Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:41:47 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-655 One brief follow up point-discussion of these issues in terms of "the targeted halachic issues" without proper consideration of "public policy or broader sociological, boundary, minhag or other meta-issues" neglects to consider Mesorah and the Neshama of the Halacha. One cannot discuss Halachic issues in a vacumn , downplay or negate the importance of public policy, sociological, boundary, minhag and meta issues. Viewing the opposition to separate seating as being based on the objections of those who walked out of CJ on this issue is simply historically inaccurate. One brief follow up point-discussion of these issues in terms of “the targeted halachic issues” without proper consideration of “public policy or broader sociological, boundary, minhag or other meta-issues” neglects to consider Mesorah and the Neshama of the Halacha. One cannot discuss Halachic issues in a vacumn , downplay or negate the importance of public policy, sociological, boundary, minhag and meta issues. Viewing the opposition to separate seating as being based on the objections of those who walked out of CJ on this issue is simply historically inaccurate.

]]> By: Steve Brizel http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-654 Steve Brizel Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:37:05 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-654 R Helfgot-Thank you for your response. Having read your essay quite thoroughly prior to commenting on the same, I was struck by certain problematic features within your essay that raised questions for which no answer was presented in the text of your essay or the sources and examples raised therein-such as your analyis of the Shitos HaRambam in Hilcos Eruvin and Melachim, your understanding of Eruvin, which would admittedly render every Eruv Pasul based on the Daas Yachid of the Rambam's understanding of a Reshus HaRabim and any Jew who relies upon the same Mchalel Shabbos-an argument which Rov Rishonim and Poskim involved in buildin eruvin worldwide have rejected as a chumrah that only Tzadikim should concern themselves with, the Shitas HaRambam in the Perush HaMishnah as to communal suppport for Kollelim and its status as halacha lmaaseh and the equation of women's leadership roles with Israeli polititical roles, especially when the level of functionality between the Kneeset and the NYS Legislature are quite comparable. I don't think that a critique based on the above criteria is "unfair" but rather was meant to analze the argumentation that you relied upon and what IMO WADR, were its weak points. It is indeed sad that you resorted to the term "sad" to avoid and deflect any comments on the merits of your article. R Helfgot-Thank you for your response. Having read your essay quite thoroughly prior to commenting on the same, I was struck by certain problematic features within your essay that raised questions for which no answer was presented in the text of your essay or the sources and examples raised therein-such as your analyis of the Shitos HaRambam in Hilcos Eruvin and Melachim, your understanding of Eruvin, which would admittedly render every Eruv Pasul based on the Daas Yachid of the Rambam’s understanding of a Reshus HaRabim and any Jew who relies upon the same Mchalel Shabbos-an argument which Rov Rishonim and Poskim involved in buildin eruvin worldwide have rejected as a chumrah that only Tzadikim should concern themselves with, the Shitas HaRambam in the Perush HaMishnah as to communal suppport for Kollelim and its status as halacha lmaaseh and the equation of women’s leadership roles with Israeli polititical roles, especially when the level of functionality between the Kneeset and the NYS Legislature are quite comparable.

I don’t think that a critique based on the above criteria is “unfair” but rather was meant to analze the argumentation that you relied upon and what IMO WADR, were its weak points. It is indeed sad that you resorted to the term “sad” to avoid and deflect any comments on the merits of your article.

]]> By: Nathaniel Helfgot http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-649 Nathaniel Helfgot Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:53:33 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-649 Mr. Brizel: Your comments on my essay are once again unfair. I specifically noted in the introduction to my essay that I was dealing with some of the targeted halakhic issues that have been raised on women's leadership roles. I was not addressing the public policy or broader sociological, boundary, minhag or other meta-issues which are an (if not the) important dimension of the discussion. Mr. Brizel: Your comments on my essay are once again unfair. I specifically noted in the introduction to my essay that I was dealing with some of the targeted halakhic issues that have been raised on women’s leadership roles. I was not addressing the public policy or broader sociological, boundary, minhag or other meta-issues which are an (if not the) important dimension of the discussion.

]]> By: Shlomo Brody http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-640 Shlomo Brody Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:34:38 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-640 Thanks for everyone's comments, and sorry for my delayed response. 1) The issue of intent and knowledge of a polemicist is a very fascinating question. I think that it is rare for someone to purposely and blatantly distort halakha for some larger goal, although I do not think it is inconceivable. (Cf. one of the appendices to the famous Tradition article by the Frimer brothers on Women's Tefilla Groups, where they discuss sources on this matter). I think that there is a combination of genuine intellectual belief, meta-halakhic considerations which drive one to "see" things in sources, and a belief that certain conclusions "have" to be true. But I think that each case has to be understood on its own. In the case of the Chatam Sofer and halanat metim, he believed that it was assur, but attempted to present the halakha in an even more favorable position for his ultimate goal. I think that in the case of microphones, Rav Moshe intuits that they have to be assur, for both technical/legal factors and meta-halakhic/polemical reasons, even as he struggles to determine what exactly the issur would be. I hope to discuss this issue at greater length in a future post about Rav Saadia Gaon. 2) In terms of the Rav's position: Things seems a little bit more complex to me than presented in the comments, given the fact that some of the "mekilim" on this issue include his predecessor that headed that RCA halakha commission. See my previous article http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=724 Moreover, I am not sure that he simply looked at it as a safek deoraitta, based on stories I've heard from rabbis who tell me that he allowed them to take pulpits in shuls with a microphone. See note 3 to my previous post. His position still remains unclear to me. Thanks for everyone’s comments, and sorry for my delayed response.
1) The issue of intent and knowledge of a polemicist is a very fascinating question.
I think that it is rare for someone to purposely and blatantly distort halakha for some larger goal, although I do not think it is inconceivable. (Cf. one of the appendices to the famous Tradition article by the Frimer brothers on Women’s Tefilla Groups, where they discuss sources on this matter).
I think that there is a combination of genuine intellectual belief, meta-halakhic considerations which drive one to “see” things in sources, and a belief that certain conclusions “have” to be true.
But I think that each case has to be understood on its own. In the case of the Chatam Sofer and halanat metim, he believed that it was assur, but attempted to present the halakha in an even more favorable position for his ultimate goal. I think that in the case of microphones, Rav Moshe intuits that they have to be assur, for both technical/legal factors and meta-halakhic/polemical reasons, even as he struggles to determine what exactly the issur would be.
I hope to discuss this issue at greater length in a future post about Rav Saadia Gaon.

2) In terms of the Rav’s position:
Things seems a little bit more complex to me than presented in the comments, given the fact that some of the “mekilim” on this issue include his predecessor that headed that RCA halakha commission. See my previous article
http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=724

Moreover, I am not sure that he simply looked at it as a safek deoraitta, based on stories I’ve heard from rabbis who tell me that he allowed them to take pulpits in shuls with a microphone.
See note 3 to my previous post.
His position still remains unclear to me.

]]> By: Steve Brizel http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-634 Steve Brizel Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:53:23 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-634 Those interested in further detailed discussions on electricity should delve into the exchange of letters between RSZA and the CI in ShuT Minchas Shlomoh. I think that R S Brody's explanation of the view of RSZA is excellent-even if there is no Issur Min HaTorah involved, RSZA was aware of the great possibility for desecration of the atmosphere for Shabbos-a not unimportant consideration in Halacha in Chazal and the Rishonim. Perhaps that underlies how RSZA viewed microphones in a shul and his very different approach to hearing aids-a difference between the need for communal adherence to Hilcos Shabbos but grounds for leniencies for individuals with special needs such as a hearing aid. Those interested in further detailed discussions on electricity should delve into the exchange of letters between RSZA and the CI in ShuT Minchas Shlomoh. I think that R S Brody’s explanation of the view of RSZA is excellent-even if there is no Issur Min HaTorah involved, RSZA was aware of the great possibility for desecration of the atmosphere for Shabbos-a not unimportant consideration in Halacha in Chazal and the Rishonim. Perhaps that underlies how RSZA viewed microphones in a shul and his very different approach to hearing aids-a difference between the need for communal adherence to Hilcos Shabbos but grounds for leniencies for individuals with special needs such as a hearing aid.

]]> By: Steve Brizel http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-633 Steve Brizel Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:45:08 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-633 Larry Kaplan and Joel Rich-RF Schonfeld , a talmid neeman of RYBS, has repeated this view on many occasions, which WADR, is hardly an "anecdote", but as much as halachic statememnt as RYBS's views on Gerus and Hafkaas Kiddushin, especially since RYBS referred by name to the RA and the Agudas HaRabbonim in his comment on the deficiencies of the pronouncements of both groups. The absence of a formal written Psak hardly means that RYBS did not view the question as a Safek D'Oraissa. IIRC, RHS also understood that electricity was a Safek D'Oraisa. David Hojda- great story-but WADR, one should never compare RSZA with the Agudas HaRabbonim ( except for the Psakim of RMF ZTL and R Y E Henkin ZTL). Larry Kaplan and Joel Rich-RF Schonfeld , a talmid neeman of RYBS, has repeated this view on many occasions, which WADR, is hardly an “anecdote”, but as much as halachic statememnt as RYBS’s views on Gerus and Hafkaas Kiddushin, especially since RYBS referred by name to the RA and the Agudas HaRabbonim in his comment on the deficiencies of the pronouncements of both groups. The absence of a formal written Psak hardly means that RYBS did not view the question as a Safek D’Oraissa. IIRC, RHS also understood that electricity was a Safek D’Oraisa.

David Hojda- great story-but WADR, one should never compare RSZA with the Agudas HaRabbonim ( except for the Psakim of RMF ZTL and R Y E Henkin ZTL).

]]> By: Dovid Hojda http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-632 Dovid Hojda Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:56:49 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-632 Regarding the Rav's supposed statement that those who know the halacha don't know the science, I once heard Prof Lev relate how RSZA came to him, asking that he teach him how electricity works. The agreement was that, in return for Prof Lev's giving him the large amount of time that Rav Lev said this would require, RSZA would spend an equal amount of time studying with him some complex topic in Torah. (Prof Lev's choice was Mishnayos Oktzin or Ohalos. I forgot which one.) Prof Lev said that RSZA kept careful track of the hours, making sure to pay back an equal amount of time. Regarding the Rav’s supposed statement that those who know the halacha don’t know the science, I once heard Prof Lev relate how RSZA came to him, asking that he teach him how electricity works.

The agreement was that, in return for Prof Lev’s giving him the large amount of time that Rav Lev said this would require, RSZA would spend an equal amount of time studying with him some complex topic in Torah. (Prof Lev’s choice was Mishnayos Oktzin or Ohalos. I forgot which one.)

Prof Lev said that RSZA kept careful track of the hours, making sure to pay back an equal amount of time.

]]> By: lawrence kaplan http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-legacy-of-polemics-microphones-on-shabbat-metzitzah-be-feh-and-the-rabbah-ordination-by-shlomo-brody/comment-page-1/#comment-631 lawrence kaplan Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:54:36 +0000 http://text.rcarabbis.org/?p=780#comment-631 David: IIRC, the exchange is found in Kol Kitvei Mahratz Hayyot Vol. 2, the section of Shutim. Steve: The bottom line is that, as far as I know, the Rav NEVER explained his position on electricity. Anecdotes don't count. (I am willing to stand corrected if I am wrong.) By contrast Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, one of the greatest poskim of the second half of last century has expained very ciearly and cogently why there is no issur involved in elecritity, certainly not in terms of altering a current. And RSZA certainly knew both the halakhah and, as is well known, the science involved. David: IIRC, the exchange is found in Kol Kitvei Mahratz Hayyot Vol. 2, the section of Shutim.

Steve: The bottom line is that, as far as I know, the Rav NEVER explained his position on electricity. Anecdotes don’t count. (I am willing to stand corrected if I am wrong.) By contrast Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, one of the greatest poskim of the second half of last century has expained very ciearly and cogently why there is no issur involved in elecritity, certainly not in terms of altering a current. And RSZA certainly knew both the halakhah and, as is well known, the science involved.

]]>