Mesorah and Change: Women Rabbis, Tznius

Thank you very much, Rabbi Puzis, Professor Schechter, Rabbi Puzis, Mora D'Asra, Morai VeRabosai. It would be easy to say and to perhaps short-circuit the discussion this evening by saying that our Mesorah is eternal and unchanging and leave it at that. And that statement is true on one level, but simultaneously on another level is not true. So maybe let's try to just elaborate that a little bit. On a phenomenological level, and by that one means on the level of outer appearances, on the level of surface appearances, so things do change. For instance, give two types of examples, both well known. Sometimes the Psak Halacha on a question which has been discussed and debated amongst the Chachmei HaMesorah throughout the generations, sometimes the Psak Halacha at the pendulum will swing at a certain point. So we live in an age when the opinion of the Vilna Gaon in terms of Zmanei HaYom is the dominant opinion. There are of course still many communities that are also Machmir for Rabbeinu Tam's opinion in Zmanei HaYom, but the more dominant opinion is that of the Vilna Gaon. But that wasn't always the case historically if we go back a few hundred years. So the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam in many many areas was much more prevalent. So that's one example again of phenomenological change. Another example, which would seemingly be more provocative and more relevant to some of tonight's issues and foci, is the area of Chinuch HaBanos. Clearly there again on a phenomenological level, there's been change. There was no such thing as formal education for girls for millennia, and now it's something, all differences of opinion of what the curriculum should be notwithstanding, but now it's something which is just about universally taken for granted. Again, seemingly an example of change. What needs to be understood, and these are just intended as representative examples, what needs to be understood and recognized are at least three common denominators again to all examples of change or apparent change. First of all, in each of the cases, there is no fundamental change to the Mesorah, but it's rather a dynamic which is playing out within the Mesorah. So for instance in the example we gave with Bein HaShmashos, the Vilna Gaon didn't come and ex nihilo and Yesh me'ayin come up with a new opinion, with a new approach to Zmanei HaYom. The issue was an issue which had been discussed and there had been disagreement about for hundreds of years. It's an issue which goes back to the Rishonim and the Geonim, opposing opinions. And as is the case with many halachic issues, so the discussion and debate amongst the Chachmei HaMesorah transcends the boundaries of individual lifetimes. The same way, Ich vays, the discussion about Chodosh in Chutz La'aretz, whether or not one has to be careful about the prohibition of Chodosh in Chutz La'aretz, it is again something which the discussion and debate goes on for hundreds of years. So that's an example also. So it's not something from the outside which is being imposed upon the Mesorah. It's not something which again, a change which is being effected upon the Mesorah by And sometimes in Psak Halacha, sometimes the pendulum swings and sometimes what is the accepted opinion in some generations will be one way and in other generations will be another way. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim. The Rambam is referring to Sanhedrin there, but the same is true for this inter-generational discussion and debate amongst Chachmei HaMesorah that one Beis Din can disagree with the rulings and the decisions of an earlier Beis Din and when they're dealing with Dinim De'Oraisa they don't even have to meet the standard of Gadol Bechochma Uveminyan. They have to be an outstanding Beis Din and if so, again, there's an inter-generational discussion and debate and that's what allows within the Mesorah again for what on one level appears as change and again I guess it's a question of semantics if one wants to call it change, but it's important to understand again that it's phenomenologically change, but it's something, it's what the Mesorah allows for because of the inter-generational debate. Similarly in terms of the issue of Chinuch Habanos, no one, not the Chofetz Chaim, not the Belzer Rebbe who was the first of the Gedolei Yisrael to be consulted, no one Rachmana Litzlan overruled the Gemara in Sota. No one said that we think differently, that we say different. They said that they felt that the Mesorah when it gave the directive of the Gemara in Sota where Chazal opposed imposing learning upon girls who are not obligated in Talmud Torah, that Chazal gave that directive in a time when Emuna and Ahavas Torah and Yiras Shamayim were something that were imbibed in the home through osmosis where the tradition was so strong and so vibrant. And that in our times, that Chazal never gave such a directive. So again, change, on one level I guess you could say it is, but it's crucial to recognize that it's more of a change which is dictated by the fact that the question was different. When the question is different, so then the Mesorah internally will give a different response. The same way if you come to a Rav and you ask him a Shaalah about a little bit of milk that falls into the chicken soup, so depending upon what the proportions are, you may get different answers. You can ask the question one day you'll get one answer, you'll ask the question the next day you'll get a different answer because if the facts on the ground change, so it doesn't mean that the Mesorah is changing. The answer changes, but that doesn't mean the Mesorah changed, it doesn't mean the Halacha changed, it means that the Mesorah internally has different responses to different situations and to different scenarios. So that's the first common denominator to be recognized when, again, dealing with examples of apparent change, that it's not change which is imposed from without, but it's rather an example, again, of an internal dynamic within the Mesorah. The second common denominator, which is also very important to keep in mind, is that even these examples are very rare. That there are other examples other than the two examples we gave, we can certainly give more examples, but certainly percentage-wise in terms of topics and areas of Halacha, so it's the exception rather than the rule. That it's very rare to have these, they do exist, but it's very rare. It's the exception rather than the rule. And the third common denominator is that in any such case again when on the level of appearances there is change, so that change is decided upon and authenticated by the decision of the Chachmei HaMesorah, by the decision of whoever in that generation the contemporary leading Torah scholars and authorities are. Those are the three common denominators of examples of change, again, or what appears to be change within normative halachic practice. So I think at this point, having mentioned Chachmei HaMesorah, so we can segue a little bit into to talk about our issue about masorah in a changing world, so we need to perhaps give a little bit of a definition of what masorah is. So the first definition that would come to mind is that masorah is the aggregate of halakhos, values, attitudes, patterns of behavior and thought which comprise our tradition. That's what masorah is. But the truth is that that definition is sorely deficient in one respect, and to try to explain that I'd just like to share the following. Many years ago I asked the Rav zichrono l'vracha what the background was to his essay Ish Hahalakhah, what was the sort of what prompted him to write it, what was the story of the genesis of Ish Hahalakhah? And he answered that he had been invited to give a talk about what is halakhah. That was the invitation that had been extended, and he said that he accepted but on the condition that he wouldn't talk about what halakhah was, but he would talk about who Ish Hahalakhah was. And then the preparation for that talk ultimately became Ish Hahalakhah. So why was it that the Rav changed the topic from talking about halakhah again as again the abstract noun, the discipline of halakhah, to insisting that he talk about Ish or Ishei Hahalakhah? Because halakhah isn't only a compilation of dos and don'ts, of rules and regulations. Halakhah ultimately is a way of experiencing the world, it's a way of experiencing life, it's a way of relating to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, it's a way of experiencing Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And that can't be captured as long as one only talks about halakhah in the abstract. To really depict that you have to be talking about actual Ishei Hahalakhah who embodied and personified and lived all that that halakhah is intended to be. And the same is true for masorah as well. As long as we just talk about masorah in the abstract, we're missing something crucial. The Chachmei Hamasorah are not just incredibly reliable transmitters, I used to say tape recorders I'm not sure what the iPods now or whatever the more current description should be of tradition, but the Chachmei Hamasorah are an intrinsic and integral part of what the masorah is. The Chachmei Hamasorah again not only transmit again all those halakhos, values, attitudes, again patterns of behavior and thought, but they also interpret and apply it for us, and thereby through their interpretations, through their applications, enrich our masorah. So one can't really talk about the masorah without talking about the Chachmei Hamasorah. And in that context the Rav zichrono l'vracha had a very famous he'arah where he commented on the on a phrase in the Rambam in Perek Gimmel of Hilchos Teshuva where the Rambam is talking about the Rambam lists all those in Perek Gimmel of Hilchos Teshuva who forfeit their chelek in Olam Haba. So the Rambam says that amongst those is a person who is kofer b'Torah, if a person denies Torah, and he says if a person הכופר בפירושה והמכחיש מגידיה, if a person denies the תורה שבעל פה, the oral interpretation of Torah, he's a heretic who Rachmana litzlan forfeits his share in Olam Haba, but in addition the Rambam also adds the phrase vehamak-chish magideha, one who contravenes those who transmit the masorah. So how is that why isn't that simply repetitious? You already said hakofer b'perusha, if you're denying the oral transmission, the oral tradition regarding Torah, so that's what the magideha, that's what they say also. So what does hamak-chish magideha add? But that's exactly this point again that the anyone who again not only questions the the transmission of what was taught in previous generations but one who who denies the the authority of Chachmei HaMesora to interpret to apply and denies the validity of those interpretations and applications is also being kofer, is also denying our mesora. So who who are Chachmei HaMesora? So I'll I'll try to give a little bit of a thumbnail sketch but the words will ring hollow. Anyone who's ever had the zchus to see one of the Chachmei HaMesora up close will realize that that words don't don't capture it. And so much of the confusion nowadays and so much of what is said wouldn't be said if more people had the zchus and the ability to appreciate who the Chachmei HaMesora really are. In another drasha building off of a Gemara in Maseches Brachos which talks about how Chachamim can resemble a sar lifnei hamelech or an eved lifnei hamelech, an officer before the king or a servant before the king, so the Rav develops the idea that again that the Chachmei HaMesora really are both. They're both sarim as well as avadim. A sar, an officer in the sense that they they rule over the corpus of Torah. They rule over they have an extraordinary mastery, extraordinary not the kind of mastery that one gets by knowing how to use the the computer well. They have an extraordinary mastery over thousands of years of Rabbinic literature of Shas, of Rishonim, of Shulchan Aruch and more. An extraordinary mastery. Sar lifnei hamelech, again they're they're sovereign in in that area. You can't you can't mention a Gemara, you can't mention a se'if in Shulchan Aruch that that they don't have that that they don't have mastery over ke'sar lifnei hamelech. On the other hand they're also ke'eved lifnei hamelech, the piety, the humility and in the most positive sense of the word the slavish devotion to Torah is also equally remarkable and equally extraordinary. To give an example in terms of again the mastery in terms of encyclopedic knowledge. Mastery also means insight with penetrating and and keen insight as well but just in terms of the encyclopedic knowledge Rav Hartman, the one who edits the blue Maharals with the with the notes, tells the following story that when he was working on one passage in the Maharal so he he finds he found the Maharal quotes a Chazal and he couldn't find the the Chazal. So he he did the best he could and he consulted a lot of prominent talmidei chachamim and wasn't able. So once he was in Bnei Brak and then Rav Chaim Kanievsky was walking on the street. So he went over to him and he told him about what the Gur Aryeh, what the Maharal mentions in Gur Aryeh and he says it's a Chazal and he can't find it. So he describes the scene as follows, again which he experienced, which he witnessed. He describes the scene as follows that Rav Chaim Kanievsky stops and for a moment, just a moment and says nisht in Bavli, nisht in Yerushalmi, nisht in Tosefta and continues like that and then says efshar mashma'os in Tikunei Zohar and tells him what perek to look in Tikunei Zohar. So he was reviewing I don't I don't know maybe someone who specializes in neuropsychology can explain I can't I can't fully explain but he was reviewing kol haTorah kulah and he was looking for the source and faster than you can do a word search on the computer. So that's just the extraordinary mastery on an encyclopedic level. In terms of the depth and profundity of understanding that that Chachmei HaMesora have, so my machavrusa and I have been learning recently one of the shtiklach Torah in Reb Chaim in Hilchos Shabbos. You learn that, you try to learn it, you can spend days, you can spend weeks and finally appreciate some of what he's saying. You get a little bit of a sense of who the Chachmei Hamasora are, the piety, the humility, again, the slavish devotion to Torah. So little wonder, again, we mentioned in terms of the common denominators, that the third of the common denominators is that the crucial decision, the crucial judgment call to be made, so we said that on the one hand there is change and the other hand there isn't change. That the change is only when it's within, when the halacha says that this is a different situation which internally the masora dictates a different response. It's not always 100% clear, it's not always clear at all to us, well, is that what's happening or is this change which is being imposed from without? So little wonder that the decision, that that judgment call is given again to the Chachmei Hamasora because it's that ultimately, ultimately there's no such thing as being a specialist in a narrow area of Torah. That there is a certain intuition that a person has, a certain understanding that a person has on Daf Bais in Brachos based on everything he's learned from the rest of Torah. There's a Tosefta in Maseches Sanhedrin that says כל התורה כולה היא ענין אחד. So it's not the case that the difference between the Vilna Gaon and me is that I know Brachos Daf Bais and the Vilna Gaon knew everything else. No, the difference between the Vilna Gaon and me is on Brachos Daf Bais, that the Vilna Gaon's understanding of Brachos Daf Bais is informed because of his thinking is in sync with that of Torah based on that again extraordinary mastery of all of Torah. The more Torah one learns, so the more one thinks and the more one is attuned and the more one can intuit what Torah really means. So there's no such thing as being a specialist in a narrow area of Torah and that's why the gedolim throughout the generations weren't specialists, they were gedolim in all areas, in all areas of Torah. I think that the Rav said about Reb Chaim that he understood the neshama of Torah. Now that's how he expressed this idea, that to be attuned and to אמשל למה הדבר דומה. You have a, it can be a couple, it can be a husband and wife, it can be a very close parent-child relationship, rebbe talmid relationship. You work together year after year, hand in hand, so you begin to become attuned to what the other person thinks, how the other person thinks. And it's that which the Chachmei Hamasora, again, each one in his own individual way, each one with his, with his individuality, but it's that which they possess which entitles them and not us to an opinion on these issues. What's especially sad and painful about the recent advocacy for women rabbis, it not only is a distortion of that particular area of halacha, but it's a distortion of the whole masora because, because those advocating don't, don't, are not really entitled to an opinion. It's not, it's not an insult to say that someone doesn't belong to the rather elite group of Chachmei Hamasora and that obviously, obviously is the case that none of the contemporary Chachmei Hamasora have spoken in favor of such an initiative, have given the slightest, have given the slightest indication that there's any room or any legitimacy to it. So it's a distortion not only of this particular area of halacha, it's a distortion of the entire masora because that's not how our masora functions and it undermines the integrity of the entire masora. In terms of the issue itself, in terms of perhaps trying to understand a little bit and here I'm giving you what's not my opinion but my understanding of why the chachmei hamesorah don't think there's room for any such thing. Traditionally, historically, smicha always represented serarah. Receiving smicha meant, it didn't mean that a person nowadays, smicha historically what it always meant is that this person was now recognized and had now been given the imprimatur to go become a rav in a community where his word would be law, where his word would be rule, and where people would have to accept, if appointed as rav in that community, would have to accept his word, and that he could exercise a certain serarah, that he had the Torah knowledge that authorized him to exercise a certain serarah. That's what the title rav always represented, that's what smicha always represented. So we know that the halacha says this precludes women from positions of serarah. How is this different, how is this issue different than let's say the issue of chinuch habanos that we mentioned at the outset? So the issue is very different. The issue of chinuch habanos, sometimes we lack a sense for history and historical context. Chinuch habanos historically wasn't a concession or a response to any kind of feminist movement or demand. The again quote changes on the level on which it's to be considered a change came about long before feminism existed, when the Chofetz Chaim wrote his famous lines in Likkutei Halachos and in the letter that was published in the Bais Yaakov journal, and when the rav advocated his views on chinuch habanos it was long before there was any type of feminism in terms of and certainly in the Orthodox world. So it wasn't a question of compromising with some kind of external values and being influenced, but it was rather again a recognition on the part and decision on the part of the chachmei hamesorah that the directive that the masorah provides for this situation is different. In light of the fact that smicha historically has always again represented serarah, that a musmach again is entitled to exercise serarah if accepted in a certain community, so once that is correctly and accurately understood, so then the push for women rabbis is a push for not responding to changing conditions but is a push for changing masorah, and that's what the chachmei hamesorah see very clearly and that's why it hasn't been given the slightest bit of support. Let's say we hear such an explanation, let's say you hear a better explanation than the one I just tried to give and it doesn't resonate, so what should one's response be then? Let's say you'll hear a better explanation than the one I just tried to outline and it doesn't resonate. So when the Sifrei says לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל, so we know that Chazal famously darshan על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, that we have to listen to the chachmei hamesorah even if they tell us left is right and right is left. So lechora it doesn't really mean that they're actually wrong. The Gemara in Horayos talks about what happens if the Sanhedrin makes a mistake. Like, what it seems to mean is that even though I can't understand what they're saying, I think that what they're saying is they're confusing right and left and they're confusing left and right. So Chazal are telling us that I should recognize that that's due to my meager understanding and it's not, it's not necessarily, they're not ultimately. Again, maybe it looks like, maybe it looked like to some person that when Chinuch Habanos was being advocated that the Chachamim were confusing right and left, left and right. So you have to listen because the truth is that ultimately they're not confusing left and right, right and left, but it's rather because of our lesser and meager understanding that it appears that way to us. So even if the explanation doesn't resonate, that's where our humility is supposed to come into play in recognizing and deferring that these again are the Chachmei HaMesorah with their again extraordinary mastery and with dazzling insights and again that slavish devotion to Torah that they're the ones who are the Sarei HaTorah to be able to interpret and apply the Mesorah. In the sensitive area of tznius as well, it also requires again the keen understanding to be able to draw the line between which aspects of tznius are time conditioned, are l'fi hamakom v'hazman, and which aspects of tznius are perennial and unchanging. I don't know too many people who think that once upon a time it was pritzusdik for a woman to be outside on the street. I don't know too many people who think that that's true anymore and that that's and that that's what tzniusdik behavior entails nowadays. On the other hand, on the other hand, in terms of sort of objective norms of dress, so that hasn't changed, that hasn't changed. There are other areas perhaps which seem to us more gray areas where it's harder for us again to be able to make that call. Is this an aspect of tznius which should, which is l'fi hamakom v'hazman, which is time conditioned and that in our social setting it's acceptable even though once upon a time it wasn't? Or no, maybe this belongs to those aspects of tznius which are which are absolute and unchanging. So there too again we look to Chachmei HaMesorah to be able to intuit, interpret and apply for us how the again principles as well as details of tznius govern govern our behavior today. The parnassa was also on my list as well as the, as Rabbi Pruzansky noted as well as the, the dot dot dot, but I think rather than, rather than try to run through other topics superficially, I would just conclude with the Rav Chaim Volozhiner in Ruach Chaim comments on the first mishna in Pirkei Avos of משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע, Yehoshua l'Zekeinim, so... So Chaim Volozhiner correlates each of the links in the masoyra with the outstanding humility that each of them possessed. And the fact that משה קיבל תורה מסיני is directly attributable to the fact that

והאיש משה עניו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה.

And he continues with that, with Yehoshua, with the Zekeinim, with every link in the masoyra. So the same way that this characterized and continues to characterize Chachmei Hamasoyra, that anava, that humility, so the more that we cultivate on our part that anava, so maybe the more that we'll be zoche to understand their interpretations and applications, and the less often we'll need to invoke the halacha of על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, but rather that we'll be privileged to understand and recognize the wisdom and sagacity of recognizing what's yamin and what's smol, even in what to many people appears as a changing and confusing world.