Sheilati u’Bakashati: An Exchange

Print pagePDF pageEmail page

Q-A

Rabbanit Idit Bartov responded to R. Yosef Gavriel Behhofer’s review of the volume of responsa she co-authored. Below is her response and R. Bechhofer’s last word -Gil

I’d like to respond to several issues put forth by Rabbi Bechhofer in his review of my Halakhic responsa in “Mah She’elatekh Esther V’Te’as” published this past Spring by Ohr Torah Stone.

1) As I read the critique, I was struck by R. Bechhofer’s observation that on the one hand there was not much new in the responsa that justified their being published as we already have the collection of source material available in the Bar Ilan software. On the other hand, the reviewer claimed that there was too much innovation and not enough deference paid to prior piskei halakha of gedolei Yisrael. Perhaps the reviewer should let us know just what exact formula must be adhered to by all who dare to “pasken” – in the balance between deference and innovation?

2) I was particularly puzzled by the critique of the reviewer concerning my supposed lack of deference for gedolei Yisrael – this false accusation in the same review in which the reviewer levels a sweeping ad hominem attack on the gadol Rav Chaim Hirschenson z’l based mainly, it would seem, on the identity of the publishing house that most recently republished his works! Rav Hirschenson enjoyed a mutual relationship of respect with Rav Kook z’l and is quoted not only in my teshuvot but also in those of Rav Ovadia Yosef z’l and the late chief Rabbi Uziel z’l. Would the reviewer also criticize them for quoting someone who was republished by Machon Schechter? Perhaps we should all stop reading or quoting the Tosefta? While the reviewer may be forgiven for any disrespect for the teshuva he criticizes, it may be more complicated for him to seek mechila from the late Rav Hirschenson.

3) The reviewer criticizes my candid admission that I find puzzling and sometimes hurtful the lengths that are gone to in rereading the plain meaning of scripture thus explaining away the contradiction between what was clearly not their historical reality (i.e. women serving as dayanot) and the verse in Shoftim regarding Devora. He believes that I have shown ignorance of the acceptable style for halakhic writing and worse, have committed the cardinal sin of having an “agenda” in writing a responsum. Let me refer the reviewer to Rav Lichtenstein’s article in Tradition, “The Human and Social Factors in Halakha,” and particularly his quotation there from Teshuvot Mas’et Binyamin – which is only one of many examples of poskim sharing their emotions and dare I say, their agenda. Can any posek or for that matter, any psak, emerge from an emotional or situational vacuum?

4) As for the teshuva on women’s achieving tahara in advance of ascending to the Temple Mount, it seems to me that the reviewer’s research and knowledge of this area of halakha suffers from a serious time lag. Yes, Rav Kook forbade this. But in the past 75 years many, many poskim have ruled otherwise – mostly based on the changing realities that have ensued – including Rav Goren z’l’s measurements and the ability to know with certainty which precise areas of Har HaBayit need not be restricted by halakha. Many halakhists are also influenced by the fact that since Rav Kook’s time there is a different issue that comes into halakhic play – that of the impact of sovereignty on the application of “Lo Techanem.” The reviewer seems also to be unaware that among the hundreds of rabbanim who allow ascent to Har Habayit are the following gedolei yisrael: Rav Chaim Druckman, Rav David Chai Cohen, Rav Yisrael Ariel, Rav Eliezer Melamed, Rav Dov Lior, Rav Nachum Rabinovitch, Rav Zefania Drori and the aforementioned Rav Goren. Note that many of these are talmidim muvhakim of Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook – who understand that there is no guarantee that Rav A. Y. Kook would have maintained his issur if he lived today. The reviewer should note that the list includes Ashkenazi poskim as well as Sephardi ones. I’d be happy to send him the full list upon request; all this without mentioning the fact that the Rambam went up to the Mount and subsequently celebrated the date of his ascent each year on the 6th of Cheshvan.

5) As for the issue of how much time must pass before achieving “tahara” after intercourse in order to ascend the mount: The Mishna in Masechet Mikvaot Chapter 8 Mishna 4 states that “A woman who had intercourse and did not conduct a cleansing swipe – it is as if she had not immersed…” As understood by the Beit Yosef (YD 196, se’if 13) – “That is to say: It is sufficient to swipe or douche before immersion (instead of waiting 3 days)”. As for the pesak of the Rambam (Terumot 7:7), the reviewer has quoted his words partially and thus incorrectly. The case where the Rambam requires 3 days wait after intercourse and not just cleansing and tevila is a very specific case of התהפכה . All of the mefarshei HaRambam understand, unlike the reviewer, that this halakha in the Rambam begins with the usual situation in which 3 days wait is neither required nor mentioned. Only then does the Rambam move on to the unusual case of התהפכה. This is perhaps why the Shulchan Arukh does not quote this Rambam. It is also clear that the Rema does not base his chumra on this Rambam, but rather upon a presumption that the women of his time may not be effective at cleansing themselves. I believe that, upon understanding these basic sources, the reviewer will realize his own mistake and will understand more clearly why I maintain my position.

6) As for the reviewer’s declaration that it is clear that halakha is more stringent with regard to matters of purity and impurity than with matters of heter l’baal: he would be correct if it were a case of din torah and not a chumra that was first introduced by the S’mak and the Rema at a later time. Chumrot like that of the Rema (who is concerned that the women of his time were not adept at cleaning themselves), were never said with regard to matters of tevila l’shem kedusha. To suggest otherwise is a great chidush on the part of the reviewer and certainly not grounds for his uncharitable attack on my analysis. The idea that one could extend the chumra of the Rema to tahara l’shem kedusha would be tantamount to creating a new gezera which runs counter to the well-known principle that we are not authorized to create new gezerot. See Rosh Shabbat perek 2, siman 15, Beit Yosef OH, siman 13, Har Tzvi OH 2, siman 24 (and in many other teshuvot of Rav Frank z’l), Tzitz Eliezer 8, siman 14, and in many other sources. While I understand that the reviewer might maintain that this would be no new gezera but rather a logical extension of the original one – my shimush with Rav Yehoshua Reich shlit’a who had conducted ongoing shimush with several gedolei hador including Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, leads to the understanding that the extension would be similar to including potato flour in a gezera of kitniyot for use on Pesach. It would be logical but nonetheless inappropriate to extend the chumra.

7) (Yes, we women in the Bradfield program have traditional shimush with a well-regarded posek. We are in daily attendance as he receives she’elot from rabbanim around the world; He then shares his shikulei pesika with us.) With regard to complicated questions that I receive, I invariably seek his counsel.

8) It may interest the reviewer that Rav Shmuel Eliyahu, the Chief Rabbi of Tzefat (who is known to be very stringent in matters of heter l’baal), heard an oral version of my teshuva with interest and told me personally that I am correct in my analysis and that Ashkenazi as well as Sephardi women may rely on my pesak. I am quite aware of what is happening in this sphere as I receive many she’elot from women who wish to ascend. I know of no Ashkenazi women who purposely wait for three days after “tashmish” before ascending.

9) The reviewer generously offers advice to my teachers at Midreshet Lindenbaum’s Susi Bradfield Institute for Halakhic Leadership that they educate their students toward greater respect for the traditional methods of pesak and for deference to gedolim. I can only comfort my revered teachers that there is a long history of false accusations in the heat of milchamta shel Torah and that they are in good company with the other objects of the reviewer’s scorn – the likes of Rav Hirschenson, Rav Goren and others.

May we be zocheh to argue Torah with mutual respect l’shem shamayim,

R. Idit Bartov

 

To respond to Rabbanit Bartov, point by point:

1) I certainly did not question the justification for publishing Mah She’elatekh Esther V’Te’as (MSEV). One need have no justification to publish any Torah work other than that it is Torah! I noted that one could not judge the erudition of its authors based on the number of sources mustered and presented. (A side note: The term “innovation” does not appear in my review. I do not regard MSEV as innovative.)

2) To be lomdish, the reference to the current publisher of Rabbi Hirschensohn’s works was as a siman, not as a sibbah. The reference to his heter to use safety razors was more of a sibbah. As to his being quoted by other poskim – many poskim quote works that would not serve them as authorities upon which to base their rulings. As to Rabbi Hirschensohn’s personal honor, I noted the heroic role he played in fighting the good fight for Yahadut in the United States.

3) I thank Rabbanit Bartov for directing me to Rabbi Lichtenstein’s essay – which may be found at http://www.lookstein.org/articles/human_social_factor.htm. Nevertheless, its point is not relevant to this discussion. The Mas’et Binyamin notes how he felt emotionally impelled to research to the utmost of his capacity a matter of allowing an agunah to remarry. As a great posek, once he embarked on that research he restricted himself to intellectual analysis. Rabbi Lichtenstein gives no license for the introduction of emotion into the assessment of the positions taken by great authorities.

4) I am well aware of the differing positions on the ascent to Har HaBayit. My point was not that Rabbanit Bartov was taking a position, but that she did so without reference to the opposing positions. It is not appropriate – and borders on intellectual dishonesty – to write a teshuvah on a controversial issue and not acknowledge the controversy.

5) The Ra’avad (ad loc.) rules that if a woman walks at all between the time of relations and the end of the three day period, then her status is the same as hithapchah. The Mahari Kurkus (ibid.) notes that this is also the opinion of Rashi and the Ritva. The Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Deah 196:42) is machmir in accordance with the Ra’avad et al. The Rema is basing his ruling on the Hagahot Maimoniot (Hil. Issurei Bi’ah 6:2) and Semak (cited by the Hagahot Maimoniot) which are, in turn, based on the Ra’avad. Be all that as it may, Rabbanit Bartov does not respond to my dismay at the way she describes the Rema’s ruling as “for the Jews of the European diaspora.

6) I cannot follow Rabbanit Bartov’s reasoning here. I do not understand why tevilah l’shem terumah should be more stringent than tevilah l’shem kedushah. Moreover, this is not a gezeirah. It is true that gezeirot are not extended – even logically. We treat the chumrah of kitniot (for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion) as a gezeirah, and therefore do not extend its parameters to potato flour. But here we are considering a chumrah based on pre-exisiting d’oraita and d’rabbanan parameters that, in turn, are based on chashah tumah d’oraita – and, at the same time, contingent on specific behaviors that in themselves are in questions (e.g., hithapchah and halchah) and the relative expertise of individuals involved (e.g. beki’in). Gezeirot are treated as “arbitrary” decrees, chumrot on account of chashashot are not. Again, be all that as it may, both the discussion in point #5 above and this discussion, should have been carried on in the teshuvah, not in a dialogue between the reviewer and the author.

7) I did not use the word shimush in my review. It appeared in comments on the review. I do not question that Rabbanit Bartov did shimush under the auspices of her mentors. Which is precisely why I wrote: “Therefore, this brief critique of the work is, in essence, a critique of the derech that Midreshet Lindenbaum has inculcated in its students. Such critique is gender-blind, and applies to any and all of the instructors who have trained their students to approach issues in the questionable ways that we have touched upon.”

8) I refer Rabbanit Bartov to http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/286902, in which MK Orit Sitruk notes that she does not ascend Har HaBayit in deference to Rabbi Dov Lior’s opposition to the ascent of women.

9) I wholeheartedly agree that false accusations and scorn have no place in Milchamta Shel Torah. Which is one of the reasons (it is also bad middot!) that one will find no false accusations nor scorn in my review.
B’birchat haTorah,

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

Read the original review here: link

About Idit Bartov

Leave a Reply