Fortunately, I now have a good cover story for why I'm going to be so brief. But the truth is I didn't have that much to say anyway, so it's not going to make that much of a difference. I want just to comment about principles, methodology, and approaches of psak halacha and issuing psak halacha in these areas. And the reason for that is that again, the principles, the methodology, and approaches are not the same. We can't simply transpose what we know from issur v'heter or other sections of Torah and simply apply it to these areas. And I just want to review together a few marei mekomot which are known to all of us, just to review together and to remind ourselves. גמרא שבת דף ל, again a Gemara with which we're all familiar: שאל שאלה זו לפני רבי תנחום דמן נוי: מהו לכבות בוצינא דנורא מקמי דאישה בשבתא?
Are you allowed to extinguish a candle on Shabbat for a חולה שיש בו סכנה that he should be able to sleep? The Gemara then begins with a long, long piece of Aggadah, Solomon with his chochma, etc. And then, after an omer of Gemara, Rabbi Tanchum returns to the original question and says: ולעניין שאלה ששאלתם לפני: נר קרויה נר ונשמתו של אדם קרויה נר. מוטב תכבה נר של בשר ודם מפני נרו של הקדוש ברוך הוא.
A candle is referred to as ner, the neshama is referred to as ner. Better the human ner, the candle, be extinguished than the divine ner, the neshama, be extinguished. In other words, yes, you can put out the candle for the choleh on Shabbat. Rashi is bothered, this is not really—I mean, the psak halacha is correct, but the presentation doesn't seem to be entirely correct. Rashi writes as follows: לאו מהכא יליף חילול שבת, דפיקוח נפש נפקא לן וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם.
This, of course, as we all know, is the makor for pikuach nefesh. אלא להטעימן הדבר באגדה המושכת את הלב. לפי שהיו באים לשמוע הדרשה נשים ועם הארץ, והיו צריכים הדרשן מושכת את הלב.
Rashi here tells us a very, very important yesod. And that is, sometimes when a shaila is presented to a rav, not that the rav issues a psak, at other times when a shaila is presented to a rav, he has to do so, the psak has to be issued in a fashion that's moshech et halev. What does moshech et halev mean in contemporary terms? Well, again, and relating to contemporary issues, it means that it's not enough to say assur when that is indeed the correct psak that should be said. If the answer is that it's assur, it should be said, it shouldn't be, and it should be said without apologetics, without accommodationism, but you can't simply say assur. It's critical that rabbanim provide a rationale to explain the psak, to account for the psak. And that's our fulfillment of אגדה המושכת את הלב in issuing a psak halacha. When one views retrospectively the profound influence which the Rav zichrono livracha exerted on our generation, of course it was due to his incredible erudition. However, he wouldn't have had that influence if it wasn't combined, if that erudition hadn't been combined with a singular ability to present piskei halacha. And if we'll, even if, and halevai we should do that. Even if we'll succeed in being mechaven the da'as hagedolah in what the psak halacha should be, unless we also succeed in the form of presentation, in the mode in which the psak is issued, we won't succeed in moshech es halevavos. And I think we all know this from experience. Just to remind ourselves of two famous causes célèbres, two famous examples in which this koach of the rav was so evident, if you reread the famous essay 'Confrontation' where the rav banned interfaith dialogue, basically, if you cut through all the beautiful philosophical jargon, all the beautiful Torah, basically the rav gave a psak on this and said it's an issur gamur vechamur. That's basically what he said, in no uncertain terms, very, very unequivocally. And yet if that's, if he had simply done that, I don't know that the psak would have carried the day. In point of fact, I suspect that it would not have carried the day. And the reason it did was because of as in keeping with that gemara in shabbos, the psak was presented not מתחילה באו בהן ולא שנו בהן, but מוטב שתכבה נרן של בשר ודם מפני נרו של הקדוש ברוך הוא.
The way in which the rav presented the psak was as critical as the psak itself. And I think in these issues, the women's issues, that is certainly, certainly the case. Another example with which we're all familiar, I choose this example only so we can review it in the rav's own words, rather than in any inadequate paraphrasing. In one of the rav's various English teshuvos about mechitzas, furthermore, again, it's impossible, I think, not just difficult, I think it's impossible to imagine a more firm, resolute, unequivocal stand than the rav adopts in these teshuvos. And yet again, it's done with אגדה המושכת את הלב. For instance, the entire concept of family pews is in contradiction to the Jewish spirit of prayer. Prayer means communion with the Master of the World and therefore withdrawal from all and everything. During prayer man must feel alone, removed, isolated. He must then regard the Creator as an only friend from whom alone he can hope for supporting consolation. I think the point is clear. It wasn't just the psak, it wasn't just the stand, it was his ability to communicate, to explain and thereby motivate. A second critical element in addressing such shailos is that it has to be done with a clear sense of empathy. And the empathy, that can't be a posture, it has to be genuine. But that genuine empathy must be clearly projected. Otherwise, certainly if we don't feel the empathy, and it's not tough to empathize, just imagine for a moment, all of the men in the audience, imagine for a moment that right now with a snap of the finger, all of the restrictions of tznius which bind women, which don't bind us, all of a sudden were imposed upon us. It wouldn't be so easy to accept, it wouldn't be such an easy adjustment to make. So I don't think having that sense of genuine empathy is at all difficult. So it's a sense of empathy which should be felt and once genuinely felt, it has to be projected because otherwise we'll be viewed as just totally irrelevant, as not understanding the realia which prompt and provoke questions and then the response will be, well with all due respect, if you don't understand the question, you certainly can't answer it appropriately. And here too, I'll refer you, I meant to bring the volume, I forgot to, take a look in a drasha which is summarized by Rabbi Besdin in his book Reflections of the Rav, it's around page 150. I jotted down here: the Rav darshens the psukim when Moshe Rabbeinu complains to Hakadosh Baruch Hu האנכי הרית את כל העם הזה אם אנכי ילדתיהו כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך כאשר ישא האומן את הינק.
So Moshe Rabbeinu complained to Hakadosh Baruch Hu that you're asking me to care for the Bnei Yisrael the way a mother nurses an infant. That Moshe Rabbeinu until now, the Rav explained, had thought that being a melamed meant being a teacher. And now Hakadosh Baruch Hu said that to be a melamed, it doesn't suffice just to teach, but rather the same sense of identity, total identification and empathy which a mother feels for the nursing child is a prerequisite for the Rav, for the melamed to feel, or for the manhig Yisrael to feel for the members of Klal Yisrael. And that's what that, that recognition on the part of Moshe Rabbeinu, that he thought was too much. And the Rav there makes the point that in our generation, in our generation, it's not enough to be a melamed, it's not enough to be a Rav, it's not enough to be a manhig, but that, that the rabbanus has to be conducted כאשר ישא האומן את הינק. And he refers this specifically to a sense of empathy and a sense of identification. And without that, again, the psak may be the correct one. There's no, as Rabbi Flamm indicated, there is clear, clear sources, there are clear sources in halacha why many of these initiatives are wrong. But the question has to be accepted and addressed with the empathy of כאשר ישא האומן את הינק. Yet a third element which is especially prominent in these questions is that we have to have a keen understanding of the reality and the ability to discern the Torah's prescription for this reality. The teshuva of Rav Soloveitchik that Rabbi Flamm mentioned is a perfect example of that. That one must first be able to assess the metzius accurately before one knows what meimar Chazal is to be invoked. And to simply cite precedent, and the story with the Rav illustrated it beautifully, to simply blindly cite precedent without recognizing and discerning whether or not the reality is the same as it was when that precedent was established, is can lead us astray. This point is made very, very powerfully by Rav Schachter in his introduction to his sefer Eretz HaTzvi. He refers to the Gemara in Sanhedrin where Hakadosh Baruch Hu faults Yehoshua for imposing a cherem on Yericho which was subsequently violated by Achan. That atah gramta lahem. Hakadosh Baruch Hu faults, he indicts Yehoshua. For the Maharsha asks that Yehoshua was simply following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeinu. Gemara in Sanhedrin there in the same sugya tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu in the milchamos which he had conducted, which he had waged, had a similar tactic. He also imposed a cherem. And the Maharsha says things had changed because once ovru es haYarden, so then arvus, the mutual responsibility, became binding. And given that change of circumstances, so then the course of action was not what, what. And this as well also characterized and was one of the secrets to the Rav's success in dealing with these sha'ilos and again to take an example where we can review his own words rather than paraphrasing so the Rav this is from the famous drasha in explaining his own metamorphosis in terms of supporting Mizrachi so the Rav said the years of the Nazi Holocaust and the rise of the state convinced me of the justice of the path of our movement. Again a clear discernment that sometimes in Halacha in certain areas of Halacha as the reality changes so too does the internal prescription of Halacha as to how that reality should be dealt with. Yet a fourth element in terms of psak Halacha in these areas which we need to review and remind ourselves of is the importance of not only details of Halacha but values of Halacha as well. Sometimes in discussing these sha'ilos we fail to see the forest, we're so preoccupied with the trees that we lose sight of the forest. And certainly a lot of this discussion about women's tefillah groups is a very good example of this, it illustrates this. The discussion over well, may they touch the Sefer Torah, may they not touch the Sefer Torah and yet the broader issue of what underlies and what is implied by the women's tefillah groups and whether or not that is consistent with the Torah's understanding of tefillah, of avodah she'balev so those issues get lost, those issues get lost. And many, many of these sha'ilos the more important angle and the more important perspective are the values of Torah rather than any individual detail of Torah. Just to illustrate many of these aspects and elements of psak which we're reviewing now and again, this was not intended and certainly wasn't any chiddush to any of you, but we'll review one more source with which we're all familiar and that is the famous tshuva of the Seridei Eish about celebrating a Bas Mitzvah. The Seridei Eish writes ve'yesh tonim in חלק ג סימן צג: ויש טוענים נגד ההיתר של חגיגת הבת מצווה משום שהוא נגד מנהג הדורות הקודמים.
A powerful argument. שלא נהגו מנהג זה. אבל באמת אין זו טענה כי בדורות שלפנינו לא הצטרכו לעשות חינוך הבנות לפי שכל אחד מישראל היה מלא תורה ויראת שמים וגם האויר בכל עיר ועיר מישראל היה מלא וממולא בריח וברוח היהדות. והבנות שגדלו בבית ישראל שאפו את רוח היהדות בקרבן ואפס מעשה וכמעט שיונקו את היהדות משדי אמותיהן. אבל עכשיו נשתנו הדורות שינוי עצום. השפעת הרחוב עוקרת מלב כל נער ונערה כל זיק של יהדות והבנות מתחנכות בבתי ספר נכרים או בבתי ספר חילוניים שאינם שוקדים להשריש בלב תלמידיהם אהבה אהבה לתורת ישראל ומנהגי הקודש של היהדות השלמה. עכשיו מוטל עלינו לרכז כל כחותינו בחינוך הבנות
and he continues. Just one more line here. ושורת ההיגיון הישר וחובת העיקרון הפדגוגי מחייב כמעט לחגוג גם לבת את הגעתה לחיוב המצוות. והפליה זו שעושים בנים והבנות. בנוגע לחגיגת הבת מצווה פוגעת קשה ברגש אנושי של הבת הבוגרת אשר בשטחים אחרים כבר זכתה בזכויות האמנציפציה המלאות.
Again, it's quite clear that the sense of empathy, the keen discernment of what the metzius is with which he was dealing, and the presentation אגדה המושכת את הלב. But let's perhaps elaborate on this example of bat mitzvah and try to apply it somewhat more concretely. So given this, I'd say not heter but this mandate of the Seridei Esh, though Rav Ovadia Yosef has as well in Yabia Omer, Helek Vav, also, where he disagrees with Reb Moshe in the Igros Moshe. How is this translated practically? So interestingly, the Seridei Esh himself says it. Bitnai, he says, the celebration should take place: שהרב ידרוש בפני הבת הבוגרת דרשה מאלפת ולהזהירה להיות שומרת מהיום והלאה המצוות העיקריות בדברים שבינו למקום כשרות שבת טהרת המשפחה הטיפול בחינוך הבנים וחובת העידוד והחיזוק לבעל בלימוד תורה ובשמירת מצוות והיה טוב לשים עיניה באשת תלמיד חכם ויראת שמיים.
I think the point which the Seridei Esh is trying to make is that the bat mitzvah celebration, and this is most most critical, should not be an attempt to simulate or emulate a bar mitzvah celebration, and there shouldn't be a unisex celebration where girls are told at age 12 and for boys are told at age 13. If that's what the bat mitzvah celebration will represent and that's all it will consist of, then certainly it has no place. There's no question about that. Such a celebration has no place. Again, in again trying to recreate as much as possible what a bar mitzvah celebration entails, thereby implying or encouraging or suggesting some kind of egalitarianism, which is clearly antithetical to the halacha's distinction and differentiation—not discrimination, again, but distinction and differentiation between the genders. So clearly that is wrong. And what the bat mitzvah celebration what has to be what the details of the bat mitzvah celebration must reflect is that this is different fundamentally from the bar mitzvah. How so? So one of the particular questions which we were asked to address is under what circumstances does the bat mitzvah address people, should she deliver a dvar torah? So I don't know, I'm going to sit down in a minute and allow Rabbi Bleich to get up and overrule me, but I would think that this is a perfect opportunity to accentuate the difference between a bar mitzvah and a bat mitzvah. Clearly, clearly the inescapable conclusion is that the Torah imposed higher standards of tznius for women than for men. I think that that is something which is indisputable. I don't think anyone is going to question that. And given that tznius is a ma'aloh, given that tznius is a route, an avenue to kedusha, that shouldn't be experienced or interpreted as a burden but rather as opportunity and brochoh. That being the case, I think... So if the bat mitzvah is inclined to speak, her parents are inclined that she should speak, maybe it would be appropriate, and again, not in a sense of repression or suppression, but rather in a sense of accentuating and celebrating tznius, that instead of speaking in front of everyone, she should speak, very often bar mitzvahs have the Polish smorg, right, there's three parts, four parts, five parts. So maybe, maybe the appropriate forum for them would be that she should speak amongst her friends, amongst her friends in a more private setting, a more private forum, and therefore, again, there is opportunity and there is occasion for divrei Torah. And yes, there can also be a public celebration. But this, this difference, this difference would accentuate that the bat mitzvah celebration is not our attempt to, again, to make everything the same and obliterate differences which clearly exist in the halacha between men and women. It would also seem to be appropriate, same way there's a tradition that the bar mitzvah boy talks about mitzvas tefillin, as the Sridei Eish says, it would seem to be appropriate that if a bat mitzvah is going to speak or is going to be addressed, that she too should focus on mitzvos which are especially within the domain of women. And I think that too would send a very clear and powerful message that, again, that the celebration is not a way of suggesting or promoting an egalitarianism, but is rather to celebrate the uniqueness and distinctiveness of a bat mitzvah and in no way to try to identify it in terms of importance, yes, but in terms of content, to identify it or reduce it to bar mitzvah. That's one other example of trying to apply some of the principles and perspectives we mentioned, and with this I'll conclude. One of the major questions halacha l'maaseh today, question of women serving on shul boards, serving as a shul president. Here, the Rav zichrono livracha was asked many times. This is just in terms of the psak without the aggada hamishatetes aleh but just what the kernel, what the psak is. And the Rav consistently said that it's assur, that it can't be. That it's not only that it shouldn't be but that it can't be. And for the reasons of serara, the reasons of serara. I think all of us know that in terms of a shul, certainly have the serara to make our life miserable if for nothing else, right? I'm not sure why this question, given that there is an unequivocal psak from the Rav, I'm not sure why this question would be reopened or revisited, either within Rabbinic alumni or within RCA. I'm not aware of any fundamental change in the metzius which would suggest that the question has to be re-evaluated. So in terms of what the psak is, I think there is a very clear and unequivocal psak which the Rav issued. But when that psak is communicated, I think it simply can't say it's assur and the Rav paskened that it's assur. That's not enough. That's enough for us to know what it is we're trying to prevent, but that can't be the presentation. And the presentation has to include an understanding of what it means to be precluded from serara and that serara is not viewed by the Torah as a form of fulfillment but wielding. authority is not viewed as any type of personal fulfillment and it's not thought to be gratifying, and if it is any form of fulfillment or if it is gratifying, so something is terribly, terribly wrong in the person who's wielding this serara. And the ideal again is הצנע לכת עם השם אלוקיך that serara is something which somehow or other has to be. It has to be, but in no way is it a vehicle or is it a spur to avodat Hashem, to coming closer to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And if anything, it just imposes extra challenges, and v'chu v'chu this has to be developed at greater length than time allows now, but it's in that kind of context that the Rav's psak should be communicated and should be shared. At this point I think we're way behind schedule so I'll stop and see if there are any questions or.