OTOH,none less than RAL was the initial Rosh Kollel in RIETS and fulfilled that function until RAL went on aliyah, when he was succeeded by RHS. In the YU Judiaca book, RAL minces no words as to the various kollelim today in RIETS and its state when he became Rosh Kollel. As far as the Mishpacha interview is concerned, I think that one can read the same as merely indicating that RHS understood that RYBS never thought that “it ( the kollel lifestyle) was going to work out here.”

Rabbi Moshe in his Teshuvah clearly states that based on the Rambam it is forbidden to allow women to preside over synagogues. He says that the only members of the population that will act in such away are the Reform or Conservative or those who do not heed the Torah. Can you imagine what Rabbi Moshe would say about women rabbis? Kal VaChomer! Rabbi Moshe states that those that tamper do not heed the Torah. Shame on you!

I would, in the interim, like to correct a glaring historical inaccuracy posted by Mr/Rabbi(?) Brizel. The Rav zt’l never created a Kollel, in the contemporary sense of the term.

1) In the late 1930’s, the Rav established a Yeshiva that was called Heichal Rabbenu Hayyim Ha-Levi. Most (if not all) of the students were of college age and unmarried. There were advanced negotiations toward integrating the Yeshiva into the rubric of Yeshiva University, in order to give the Rav standing at YU. When, in 1940, Rabbi Revel zt’l passed away. followed soon thereafter by R. Moshe Soloveitchik zt’l, the plan was shelved and the Rav started commuting to NY. (The yeshiva continued for a bit longer under Reb Michel Feinstein, zt’l).

2) The Summer shiurim in Boston (and before that in Onset) were an informal series that the Rav graciously offered for six weeks (four afternoons a week) in Brookline. They were attended by regular talmidim and all sorts of visitors from around the US and Israel. Until the late seventies there was absolutely no formal structure, nor was any stipend or support provided. Tallmidim rented apartments and paid for their own food. A lot of us worked part time to support our learning.

3) The Yarchei Kallah were three days of intensive shiurim that the Rav offered his talmidim during Elul, under the auspices of the RCA. Again, these were informal and the rabbis not only paid their own way, they made an annual (and generous) donation to Maimonides school as a token of their gratitude to their rebbe for making himself available for ongoing Talmud Torah with them.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Kollelim. Neither does it conflict in the slightest with the Rambam’s ruling against taking money for Talmud Torah.

I never asked the Rav about that Rambam, so I have no way of knowing what he thought about its present day relevance. However, the upshot of Rav Schechter’s comment in the recent issue of Mishpacha Magazine is that he expected people to work for a living. Mirabile dictu!

The second halakhic issue that has been raised in some quarters is the notion of hikkuey haminim-imitating, confirming, or somehow strengthening the heterodox movements in their convictions and practices. This position maintains that in parallel to the explicit Biblical prohibition of imitating gentile practices (upon which there exists great halakhic debate as to its parameters) there exists a similar type of prohibition in imitating practices that originate in Jewish communities who are heretical in nature. In its simplest form it has been formulated by one Israeli rabbi as the prohibition to engage in action that are “domeh lareformim,” appear to mimic the practices of the reformers.

I believe that the comparison of ‘hiquy haminim with ‘huqot hagoyim is a fundamental misunderstanding of the category. The prohibition of ‘hiquy haminim is more closely related to lifnei ‘iver and messaye’a lidvar ‘aveira. Thus, it is prohibited to merely *greet* a farmer while he tills his field on shemitta. Practically, this prohibits greeting a Jew while he drives by on Shabbat, for example.

It is prohibited to give the heretics and their adherents a feeling of validation in their contrahalakhic behaviors, even when whatever equivalent *we* do is halakhicallly different and OK, unless it is obvious to them that we are doing something significantly different. Hence posqim advocate celebrating the active part of bat mitzvah ceremonies (where the girls speaks or reads some pereq Tehillim, for example) outside shul, or at least outside of services.

If you say that much of it is a matter of perception, I will agree, but point out that messaye’a lidvar ‘aveira, unlike lifnei ‘iver, is very much about perceptions, since the sinner is not dependent on the facilitator, but could realize his sin independently (“חד עברא דנהרא”). So we have halakha about perceptions. Like the whole category of maarit ‘ayin. Well, well, ואין כל חדש תחת השמש.

Thank you for your lucid and level headed piece. I am concerned however, with your presentation of the issue of serara. As I understand it, many many major modern poskim have been concerned with the practical implications of this Rambam, including reportedly, the Rav and on the basis of your edut, R. Lichtenstein. Questioning the logic behind being choshesh for this rambam and not others would then be irrelevant and a distraction to this conversation. At this point this chashash is a simple matter of precedent. The crucial question, which I still have yet to see discussed by members of either camp is: How has American Orthodoxy, specifically Modern Orthodox under stood the parameters of this din and does that relate to the case at hand?

At the risk of stating the obvious, I will point out that it is ironic that here, as in similar cases, the pros and cons of women being granted access to a certain Jewish experience, title, or role are being hashed out by men. Notably absent from this conversation, for obvious structural reasons, is the voice of women themselves. The imbalance is striking, even if in some ways the nature of the topic makes it not only impossible but also exceedingly unwise for most learned women to enter the fray. Especially when we recognize that this is not a technical question, I can’t help but feel that the marginalization of women in the conversation biases the outcome.