Mesorah and Change: Women Rabbis, Tznius - Rabbi Twersky

Thank you very much. Have a Puzansky. Just a sort of shifter. Have Puzansky, Maraudasva. Maraudasva, both say. It would be easy to say and to perhaps short circuit the discussion this evening by saying that our Masala 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 Psaq al-ocha on a question which has been discussed and debated amongst the Khachmeha Masawe throughout the generation. Sometimes the Psaq al-ocha at a certain point. So we live in an age when the opinion of the film the gong in terms of Zmanehayom is the dominant opinion. There's of course still many communities that also make me for Abenotams' opinion. But the more dominant opinion is that of the film the gong. But that wasn't always the case. Historically if we go back a few hundred years. So the opinion of Abenotam in many, many areas was much more prevalent. So that's one example again of again phenomenological change. Another example which isn't, which would seemingly be more provocative and more relevant some of tonight's issues and foresight is the area of Khinachabanos. Clearly there again on a phenomenological level, there's been change that there was no such thing as formal education for girls, for millennia. And now with something all differences of opinion of what the curriculum should be, notwithstanding but now with 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 Masoah. But it's rather a dynamic which is playing out within the Masoah. So for instance in the example we gave with Abenashmashas, that on the gone didn't come and ex-Nilo and in Yashmeiayan come up with a new opinion with a new approach to Smyanehayom. 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 re-shownment and the go-on and opposing opinions. And as is the case with many halakhic issues, so the discussion and debate amongst the Khachmah Masoah transcends the boundaries of individual lifetimes. The same way I have raised the discussion about Khadash in Khutsla, whether or not one has to be careful about the prohibition of Khudsh in Khutsla. Again it's 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 Masoah. It's not something which again a change which is being affected upon the Masoah, but rather the Masoah allows for this intergenerational discussion and debate. And sometimes in Psycalochha, sometimes a 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 Rambamites in Hilkhoz Mamran. The Rambam is referring to Sanhedrin there, but the same is true for this intergenerational discussion and debate amongst Khachmah Masoah that one bestden can disagree with the rulings and the decisions of an earlier bestden. And when they're dealing with the Dinam Dau Isan, they don't even have to meet the standard of Godobachachmah Buminium. So it's not going to be an outstanding bestden. And if so, again there's an intergenerational discussion and debate. And that's what allows within the Masoah again for what on one level appears as change. And again I guess it's a question of synantics if one wants to call a change. But it's important to understand again that it's phenomenologically change. It's something it's what the Masoah allows for because of the intergenerational debate. Similarly in terms of the issue of Ginnah Habondas, no one, not a Khafatchayan, not the Belzer Rebbe, who was the first of the Gidoli as well to be consulted. Now when we're going to want to let's learn overbrew the Gimar and Sauta, no one said that we think definitely, they said that they felt that the Masoah when it gave the directive of the Gimar and Sauta where Hazal opposed the imposing learning upon girls who are not obligated in Talmatura, that Hazal gave that directive in a time when Emunah and Havastra and Yerashemayim were something that were imbibed in the home through a Smosis where the tradition was so strong and so vibrant. And then our times that Hazal 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 Masoah internally will give a different response, the same way if you come to a rave and you ask him a shailer 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 Masoah is changing, the answer changes but that doesn't mean the Masoah change, the Masoah 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 a parent change that it's not change which is imposed from without but it's rather an example again of an internal dynamic within the Masoah. The second common denominator which is also very important to keep in mind is that even these examples are very rare. There are other examples, I don't know 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 root that it's very rare to have these that they do exist but it's very rare. It's the exception rather than the root. And the third common denominator is that in any such case again when on the level of appearances that there is change so that change is decided upon and authenticated by the decision of the Khachmeh Masoah, 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 Khachmeh Masoah so we can segue a little bit into talk about our issue about Masaura in a changing world. So we need to perhaps give a little bit of a definition of what Masaura is. So the first definition that would come to mind is that Masaura is the aggregate of halochos, values, attitudes, patterns of behavior and thought, which comprise our tradition. That's what Masaura is. But the truth is that that definition is solely deficient in one respect. And to try to explain that, I just like to share the following. Many years ago, I asked the Roves of Halil of Acha what the background was to his S.A. Isha Halacha. I was there sort of what prompted him to write it. What was the story of the genesis of Isha Halacha? And he answered that he had been invited to give a talk about what is halacha. 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 halacha was, but he would talk about who Isha Halacha was. And then the preparation for that talk ultimately became Isha Halacha. So why was it that the Roves changed the topic from talking about halacha again as again the abstract noun, the discipline of halacha to insisting that he talk about Isha Halacha? Because Halacha isn't only a compilation of dos and don'ts, of rules and regulations. Halacha, ultimately, is a way of experiencing the world. It's a way of experiencing life. It's a way of relating Takoraj Baurho. It's a way of experiencing Takoraj Baurho. And that can't be captured as long as one only talks about halacha in the abstract to really depict that. You have to be talking about actual Isha Halacha who embodied and personified and lived. All that that halacha is intended to be. And the same is true for Masaura as well. As long as we just talk about Masaura in the abstract, we're missing something crucial. The Khachmeha Masaura, not just incredibly reliable transmitters, I used to say, tape recorder is not sure what iPods and all, whatever the more current description should be of tradition. But the Khachmeha Masaura are intrinsic and integral part of what the Masaura is. The Khachmeha Masaura, again, not only transmit, again, all those halachles, 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, in which our Masaura is. So one can't really talk about the Masaura without talking about the Khachmeha Masaura. And in that context, the Ramzif Al-Bahra had a very famous heiwara where he commented on a phrase in the Rambaam in Paragamel and Philchus Truva, where the Rambaam is talking about the Rambaam lists all those in Paragamel and Philchus Truva who forfeit their Khaylek in Al-Mahabah. So the Rambaam says that amongst those is a person who is Kofar-Bitaura, for a person denies Torah, and he says if a person is Kofar-Bip-Perusha, Vahamak-Rishmagi-Dahal, if a person denies the Torah Shabal-Pah, the oral interpretation of Torah, he's a herit-Quh-Ahmunal at-Slan, forfeats his, share in Al-Mahabah. But in addition, the Rambaam also adds the phrase, Vahamak-Rishmagi-Dahal, one who contravenes those who transmit the Masaura. So how is that? Why isn't that simply repetitious? You already said, Haka-Fa-Bip-Perusha, if you're denying the oral transmission, the oral tradition regarding Torah, so that's what the Magi-Dahal, that's what they say also. So what does Makh-Rishmagi-Dahal add? But that's exactly this point, again, that the anyone who, again, not only questions the transmission of what was taught in previous generations, but one who denies the authority of Khaymah-Masawir to interpret, to apply, and denies the validity of those interpretations and applications is also being co-fair, it's also denying our Masaura. So who are Khaymah-Masawir? So I'll try to give a little bit of a thumbnail sketch, but the words will ring hollow. Anyone who's ever had this chlust to see one of the Khaymah-Masawir, up close, will realize that words 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 zhrus and the ability to appreciate who the Khaymah-Masawir will be. In another Dhrasha building off of the Gimmar-Masekh-Haz-Buchhaz, which talks about how Khaymah-M can resemble a Sahr-Lif-Nah-Hamellach, or an Ever-Lif-Nah-Hamellach, an officer before the king, or a servant before the king, so they've all developed the idea that, again, that the Khaymah-Masawir really are both, they're both so-em as well as Avadim, a Sahr-an-Officer in the sense that they rule over the corpus of Torah. They rule over, they have an extraordinary mastery, not the kind of mastery that one gets by knowing how to use the computer well. They have an extraordinary mastery over thousands of years of the Binnik literature, of Shaz, of Reshawman, of Sughon-Oirach, and more. An extraordinary mastery. You can't mention a Sahr-Lif-Nah-Hamellach, again, that they're sovereign in that area. You can't mention a Gimmar-Masekh. You can't mention a Sahr-Lif-Nah-Hamellach. On the other hand, they're also K'evid-Lif-Nah-Hamellach. 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, the mastery also means insight with penetrating and keen insight as well. But just in terms of the encyclopedic knowledge, the one who edits the blue maharals with the notes tells the following story. That when he was working on one passage in the maharal, so he found the maharal called the chazal. He couldn't find the chazal. So he did the best he could. He consulted a lot of prominent Tha-Mid-I-H-H-Hamellach, and there was a neighbor. So once he was in the neighbor, and then the Khaym-Kan-E-E-F-S-Ki was working on the street. So he went over to him, and he told him about what the maharal mentions in the G-A-E-A. He says it's a chazal, and he can't find it. So he describes the scene as follows. Again, what would he experience, what would he witness? He describes the scene as follows. That the Khaym-Kan-E-F-S-Ki stops, and for a moment, it's a moment, and says, Nishdin-Mathli, Nishdin-Yusham, Nishdin-Tos-Efta, and continues like that. And then says, "Ef-Shah-Mashmah-Sah-Tikuna-Zohar" and tells him what parrots to look in Tikuna-Zohar. So he was reviewing, I don't know, maybe someone who specializes in neuropsychology can explain. I can't fully explain, but he was reviewing, call it Tarakula, 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 the quantity of understanding that the Khaym-Hamasah have, Zamaq-A-Woo-Sana'i have been learning recently, one of the Stiklahtorians in Rupchayim in Hilfershabiz. 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 the Khmerha Masoah 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 Masoah 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 Khmerha Masoah because 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 the bays and brochers based on everything he's learned from the rest of Torah. There's a Tosaf in Masachis and Edwin that says, "Call it, O'Kool is in your nechard." So it's not the case that the difference between the Wilma Gahun and the, and me is that I know brochers that bays and the Wilma Gahun knew everything else. No, the difference between the Wilma Gahun and me is that brochers that bays. That the Wilma Gahun's understanding of brochers that bays 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 a tool, then the more one can intuit what Torah really means. So it's not such thing as being a specialist in a narrow area of Torah and that's why the Gidolans throughout the generations weren't specialists. They were the Gidolans in all areas of Torah. I think that the rav said about Rupiah and that he understood in a shama of Torah. Now that's how he expressed this idea that to be attuned and a martiala madhava dhamma. You have a, it can be a couple, it can be a husband and wife, it can be a very close parent, a mild relationship, Rabbi Talmud 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 Chachmeha Masaura, 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 Allah, but it's a distortion of the whole Masaura because those advocating don't, are not really entitled to an opinion. It's not an insult to say that someone doesn't belong to the rather elite group of Chachmeha Masaura and then obviously it obviously is the case that none of the contemporary Chachmeha Masaura have spoken in favor of such an initiative, have given the slightest indication that there's any rumor, any legitimacy to it, so it's a distortion, not only of this particular area of Allah, it's a distortion of the entire Masaura because that's not how our Masaura functions and it undermines the integrity of the entire Masaura. 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 Chachmeha Masaura don't think there's room for any such thing. Traditionally historically, Smeerha always represented Suraura. Receiving Smeerha meant it didn't mean that a person nowadays Smeerha historically, what it always meant is that this person was now recognized and had now been given the imprimatur to go become a ravena community, where his word would be law, where his word would be ruled and where people would have to accept if appointed as ravena community would have to accept his word and that he could exercise a certain Suraura, that he had the Torah knowledge that authorized him to exercise a certain Suraura. That's what the title of Rav always represented, that's what Smeerha always represented. So we know that Tahlach says, precludes women from positions of Suraura. How is this different, how is this issue different than let's say the issue of Khinochabanas that we mentioned at the outset. So the issue is very different. The issue of Khinochabanas sometimes we lack a sense for history and historical context. Khinochabanas historically wasn't a concession or a response to any kind of feminist movement or demand. The quote changes on the level on which it's to be considered a change came about long before feminism existed when the Khuf'at-Zehayim wrote his famous lines in Lakuteh Allah Khuf'at and then the letter that was published in the Baysyak of Journal. And when the road advocated his views on Khinochabanas it was long, long before there was any type of feminism in terms of, and certainly in the Orthodox world. So it wasn't the question of compromising with some kind of external values and being influenced, but it was rather again a recognition on the part and decision. The part of the Khachme'a Masaura that the directive that the Masaura provides for this situation is different. In light of the fact that Smeechul historically has always again represented Suraura that the Musmach again is entitled to exercise Suraura 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 Masaura. And that's what the Khachme'a Masaura 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 have a better explanation than the one I just tried to give and it doesn't resonate. So what should one's response be then? So you'll hear a better explanation than the one I just tried to outline and it doesn't resonate. So when the Sifri says, "Los osu manadabashai agido khayyamanos smal" so we know that Khazal famously darshan al-Yamin, shahu smal, al-smal shahu shayyaman, that we have to listen to the Khachme'a Masaura even if they tell us left is right and right is left. So Khagy, it doesn't really mean that they're actually wrong. The Khumarun Khagyus talks about what happens if the sun heads and makes a mistake. 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, Hazala telling us that I should recognize that that's due to my meager understanding. And it's not necessarily that not ultimately, again, maybe it looks like, maybe it looked like to some person that when Khina Habanah was being advocated that the Khachamim 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 why our humility is supposed to come into play in recognizing and deferring that these again are the Khachamah, Masaura, with their again extraordinary mastery and with dazzling insights and again that slavish devotion to Torah, that they're the ones who are the sorry Hathala to be able to interpret and apply the Masaura. Okay. And in the sensitive area of Tsunias as well, it also requires, again, the keen understanding to be able to draw the line between which aspects of Tsunias are time conditioned, Al-Fiha-Mokam-Verhasman, and which aspects of Tsunias are perennial and unchanging? I don't know too many people who think that once upon a time it was pre-Sizdik 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 what the Tsunias Dikil 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 Tsunias which should, which is the Fihha-Mokam-Verhasman, which is kind conditioned and that in our social setting, it's acceptable even once upon a time, it wasn't, well, no, maybe this belongs to those aspects of Tsunias which are absolute and unchanging. So there too, again, we look to Tullhach-Behama so to be able to intuit, interpret and apply for us how the, again, principles as well as details of Tsunias, Gavin, Gavin, our behavior today, the, Panossa was also on my list as well as, it's rather a Przansky noted as well as the, the, the, the, the dot, dot, dot, but, but I think rather than, rather than try to, to run through other topics superficially, I would just conclude with the, the Pchaim Velasana in Rulchachayim comments on the first mission in, in Pekyavos, of Moshe-Kybil-Tahumisina, Yumsar Ali-Ashur, Yashur-Dazukayim. So the Pchaim Velasana correlates each of the links in the Masoah with the outstanding humility that each of them possessed and the fact that Moshe-Kybil-Tahumisina is directly attributable to the fact that each Moshe-Annav-Mahoud, Mikhol-Aud-Masha'l-Pine-Adama, and he continues with that, with Yashur-Aud-Dazukayim, with every link in, in the Masoah. So the same way that, that this characterized and continues to characterize Chach-Maham-Asoah, that Annav, that humility, so the more that we cultivate on our part that Annav-A, so maybe the more that we'll be Zolchah to understand their interpretations and applications, and the less often will need to invoke the Allah-Qa-Valiyaminsha who's small, and I'll small, sure, who you're in, but rather that we'll be privileged to understand and recognize the wisdom and sagacity of recognizing what's you in and what's small even in what to many people appears as changing and confusing world.