Volume 58 Number 94
Produced: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:13:25 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Converts
[Chana]
To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
[Batya Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana <Chana@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Converts
Josh Backon <backon@...> writes (MJ 58#80):
> On the basis of the gemara in Yevamot 45b, Kiddushin 76b, and
> Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4:5 (on the prohibition of having a king not of
> Jewish stock)
For the benefit of those who do not find looking up these references so
easy, I bring them here in translation (translation and errors mine):
Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 76b:
The host of Rav Adda bar Ahavah was descended from a convert. He was
quarrelling with Rav Bibi. One said, I will run the town, and the other
said, I will run the town. They came before Rav Yosef. He said to them it
is taught: [Devarim 17: 15] you shall surely put over you a king from
amongst your brothers - all appointments that you make shall only be from
amongst your brothers. Rav Addah bar Ahavah said to him even if his mother
is from Israel? His mother is from Israel - he is called from amongst your
brothers. Rabbi Zeira would deal with them [and appoint them]. Raba bar
Avuha would deal with them. However in the west, even as the inspector of
weights and measures they would not appoint them. In Nehardea, they do not
appoint them even to the position of supervisor of irrigation.
Talmud Bavli Yevamot 45b:
Rava declared kosher Rav Mari bar Rachel and appointed him amongst the
officers [pursei] of bavel, even though the master said: you shall surely
appoint over yourself a king, all the appointments that you make shall only
be from the midst of your brothers. But here since his mother was from
Israel, from the midst of your brothers he is called.
Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4:5:
It is written [Devarim 17:15], you shall surely appoint over yourself a
king, I only know from here a king, from where do we know to include the
officers of the multitude and the charity officials and the scribes of the
judges and the one who administers lashes with a strap, it teaches "from the
midst of your brothers you shall appoint yourself a king", all appointments
upon you shall not be except from those with established genealogy which are
from your brothers.
Note however that there is an important gemora source that has been omitted,
that of Yevamot 191b-102a:
Talmud Bavli Yevamot 101b - 102a:
Rava said: A convert may judge his fellow as a matter of Torah law, as it
says [Devarim 17:15] "You shall surely put over you a king whom the Lord
your G-d will chose; one from amongst your people shall you put a king over
you". Over you, you shall put one from amongst your people but a convert
may judge his fellow convert, and if his mother is from Israel, he may judge
even a Yisrael; but in the matter of chalitza, [he may not judge] unless his
father and his mother were from Israel: as is written [Devarim 25:10] "and
his name shall be called in Israel".
> [see also Minchat Chinuch 498], the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 1:4 rules:
Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 4:
A king shall not be appointed from the community of converts, even after
many generations unless his mother is from Israel, as it says [Devarim
17:15] do not put upon yourselves a foreigner who is not your brother, and
not to the kingship alone, but all "sareros" [official positions] in
Israel, not a sar of the army, and not a sar of fifty or a sar of ten, even
the one given authority over the waters that they divide from there for the
fields, and it is not necessary to say a judge or a nasi that he should not
be except from Israel as it says "from the midst of your brothers shall you
place on yourself a king", all appointments which you shall place shall not
be except from the midst of your brothers.
As you can see, this draws heavily upon Kiddushin 76b and the other sources
that Josh Backon brought.
> that a convert can have no "serara" [authority] over a Jew and this is also
> codified by the Beit Yosef TUR Yoreh Deah 269 and Beit Yosef TUR Choshen
> Mishpat 7.
Well it is interesting to note that what is codified in the Tur in these two
places relates solely to being a dayan, and not to other positions of
authority. The language is as follows:
Tur Choshen Mishpat Hilchot Dayanim siman 7
All of Israel are kosher to judge, even a mamzer, and a convert is invalid to
judge Israel even for monetary matters unless his mother is from Israel but
he is able to judge his fellow convert even though his mother is not from
Israel.
Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Gerim siman 269
And in the matter of judgement that a convert is invalid to judge capital
matters but monetary matters they may judge even a Yisrael, with regard to
what are we talking, if they accept him upon them to judge without force but
by way of force they are invalid to judge a Yisrael unless his mother is
from Yisrael but his fellow convert he is kosher to judge even by way of
force and for chalitza he is invalid even if they accept him on them, even
the chalitza of converts like those who were conceived and born in holiness
until it is that his father and mother is from Israel.
And what is actually brought in the Shulchan Aruch is:
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mispat Hilchot Dayanim siman 7 si'if 1
A beit din of three, where one of them is a convert, behold this is invalid
to judge for a Yisrael, unless his mother is from Israel, or his father
(Mordechai in the name of the Tosphot perek 2 mitzvat chalitza) from Israel.
And a convert may judge his fellow convert, even though his mother is not
from Israel. And see in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 269)
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Hilchot Gerim Siman 269 si'if 11
In the matter of judgment, a convert is kosher to judge monetary matters,
and this is if his mother is from Israel. But if his mother is not from
Israel, he is invalid to judge Israel, but his fellow convert he may judge.
And for chalitza he is invalid, even for the chalitza of converts until his
father and his mother are from Israel.
It is also interesting to note the formulation of the Levush on this:
Levush Yoreh Deah siman 269 si'if 11
And in the matter of judgement, a convert is invalid to judge a Yisrael as
it says [Devarim 17:15] you shall surely put over yourself a king from
amidst your brothers, from amidst your brothers and not from a convert, and
a king is a judge. And davka by way of force to force the Yisrael he is
invalid, because you shall surely put implies by way of force, as if to say
in matters of authority [sarera] and force [kafiya] to appoint him a judge
this is davka from amidst your brothers and not a convert, but if the
litigants accept him upon them by themselves he is able to judge, and if his
mother is from Yisrael he is called from amidst your brothers and he is able
to judge Yisrael in monetary matters even by way of force, and his fellow
convert he is able to judge even if his mother is not from Yisrael, because
you shall surely put upon you it is written, as if to say on you it needs to
be from amidst your brothers, but a convert may judge his fellow. And for
chalitza he is invalid even if his mother is from Yisrael and even the
chalitza of converts as it is written [Devarim 25:10] and they shall call
his name in Yisrael the house of one who shoe was loosened, and by "in
Yisrael" his father and his mother is implied
> The term to be defined is "serara". The Iggrot Moshe YD IV 26 has no
> problem with a convert being a rosh yeshiva
Here is an extract from Iggeros Moshe Yoreh Deah Chelek 4 siman 26 In the
matter of appointing a convert to Rosh Yeshiva and mashgiach:
"... And therefore after great consideration it seems, that these are not
considered authority positions in our times, that it triggers a situation of
sererah, since in essence the purpose of a yeshiva is to teach to the students
that which they want. And that which there is power to the leaders and the
Roshei Yeshiva over the students to throw them out or to not receive them
originally and similar, this is only like the authority of the master of a house
over his workers, and there is not in this any matter of appointing to authority
[minui l'serarah] at all...."
Elsewhere in the teshuva, Rav Moshe distinguishes this case, ie of a Rebbe
or Rosh Yeshiva, from the case of a mashgiach kashrut, on the grounds that a
mashgiach kashrut has to enforce the halacha against the will of the baal
habayis [ie the owner of the shop or whoever] and this is a form of
authority of force. However, interestingly, he suggests that the case of a
Rav of a Shul is rather similar to the case discussed here and not to a
mashgiach kashrut, in that he says:
"...And the nature of authority [sarerah] that was referred to in Iggeros
Moshe Choshen Mishpat chelek 2 siman 34 in connection with dismissing a
Rabbi, that is of a different nature from the authority to investigate for
prohibition that you should not place upon yourselves since it is not due an
authority of force which is forbidden for a convert, but because of the
authority of honour [kavod] that one is obligated to conduct oneself towards
him in a matter of kavod, which we do not find that this is forbidden with a
convert..."
In the case referred to in Iggeros Moshe Choshen Mishpat chelek 2 siman 34
where he is discussing the dismissal of a Rabbi, or not renewing his term,
because some people don't like him he says:
"... And thus after they have accepted a Rabbi to a synagogue to give
drashot there on Shabbatot and Yom Tovim and also agreed his pay even if the
leaders decide to remove him this is nothing and they are obligated in all
honour which it is customary to a Rabbi and his agreed pay and they need to
pay him for all the time for which he has not been paid...."
Now in this earlier case he was not discussing a Rabbi who was a convert,
but the implication from his teshuva in Yoreh Deah Chelek 4, and his
distinguishing of the serarah [authority] due in the case of the mashgiach
from this case, does rather suggest that Rav Moshe would agree that the
position of a Rabbi of a community involves only the authority of honour,
and not the authority of force, and that it is only in this latter case that
there is a problem of forbidden serarah.
However, one can perhaps understand from the sources why Young Israel think
differently Note also that Rav Moshe does refer to the obligation to love
the convert in this teshuva as a reason to construe the sources referred to
above as leniently as possible "But in practice there is to know, that there
is a commandment to love the convert (Devarim Ekev 10: 19) that obligates us
to draw them close and to be lenient in all these matters."
>nor does the Tzitz Eliezer XIX 47 on whether a convert can be a dayan.
I think this is slightly overstating the case. The Tzitz Eliezer is well
aware of the prohibition as stated in the Shulchan Aruch mentioned above
regarding a convert being a dayan. The question is whether either community
acceptance and/or acceptance by the litigants is enough to waive that
prohibition, and he concludes that certainly if you have both that it is.
The following teshuva in the Tzitz Eliezer 19:48 is in regard to a convert
being a gabbai of a shul and he finds that certainly if two factors exist
(as presumably existed in the case in question), general community
acceptance and the fact that the role of gabbai was shared with others it is
permissible. This Tzitz Eliezer's second criteria is to my mind quite
difficult, because (presumably) he is distinguishing between other positions
of serarah and that of a dayan (given that the Shulchan Aruch says
explicitly that a convert cannot even share the dayanus with others on a
beis din of three), something not discussed directly in the later teshuva.
> The Encyclopedia Talmudit Volume on "gabai tzedaka" does indicate
> that a convert shouldn't be a gabai tzedaka (person responsible for
> disbursement of funds).
As you can see, this appears to come direct from the Yerushalmi. But again
there is a question as to whether the gabai tzedaka in our times has the
same level of responsibility as in those times. In those times tzedaka
could be forced, and so, if one wanted to use Rav Moshe's (and inter alia,
the Levush's) distinction between situations of force and situations of
kavod, one might perhaps say that this is only a problem in situations where
the gabbai had the power to compel the giving of tzedaka.
> But a shul president ?? [all jokes aside) [Murray wants to know where
> Moishe the shul president lives. Irving says, "Moishe ? That
> dreck? That ganiff? Two blocks up, 2nd house from the corner". Murray
> continues walking another block and asks Sammy. Sammy spits in disgust and
> says, "Moishe? That neveyla? That oysvorf?? He lives half a block up, 2nd
> house from the corner". Murray knocks on Moishe's door and asks why he
> serves as shul president. Moishe says, "Why? FOR THE KOVID!!" (honor) :-)
> Well quite.
BTW there are yet other positions vis a vis serarah that it is possible to
explore. For example Rav Hertzog (the first Chief Rabbi of Israel) in
Tchuka L'Yisrael al pi HaTorah section 1 Sidre Hashilton umishpat b'medina
HaYehudit p97 argues that:
"since it says "king" and from there comes the drasha, "you shall surely put
upon yourself a king and so all the appointments which are in Israel", it
needs to be an appointment similar to a king, and this is clear that the
appointment of a king in Israel is for all the days of his life, and so all
the appointments in Israel which are for all the days of the life of the
appointee, and if he merits that his children inherit the position from him,
which is not the case in appointment to parliament, where they are chosen for a
fixed time of three years or five years, and this is not similar to a king,
and there is not here a prohibition according to the halacha."
But this post is long enough as it is.
Regards
Chana Luntz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
Shoshana L. Boublil wrote (MJ 58#93):
> But on the practical side, Jeanette is right that somehow too much
> of being Orthodox has been pinned on the questions of keeping Shabbat,
> Kashrut and Family Purity laws, and not enough on laws of commerce,
> social justice and general Bein Adam LeChaveiro issues and behavior.
> Several years ago, at a book sale, I overheard a young Orthodox man (in
> his early 20s) make some ugly disdainful remarks about a secular woman
> who bought a book on Jewish thought [written by my daughter]. I asked
> him if he realized he had to go apologize to her for insulting this
> woman in public - and he didn't know what I was talking about. I asked
> him if he realized that when Yom Kippur came around, he wouldn't be
> getting forgiveness from Hashem until this lady forgave him - and he
> looked at me. He stated: No one in Yeshiva every taught him to think
> like this! Yes, he said, he was taught Shiviti Hashem LeNegdi Tamid [I
> imagine myself in Hashem's presence at all times] - but they never
> connected it to the issue of how to behave with other people!!!
> My response is that to bring about change all we need to do is change
> ourselves. If each and every one of us monitors our own behavior to
> improve it, the impact on our surroundings will multiply the effort and
> bring about a change for the better.
I think that the campaign against the "women in the back of buses" must be
based on this sort of halacha and not on western sensibilities of "equal
rights." Causing women pain by making them stand, since there are fewer
seats in the back. Men not helping women with heavy bags or getting up
for them when they need help and separating married couples or a parent
from an adult child of the opposite sex when one is needed to assist the
other are against Halacha. And while I'm at it, a synagogue which sets
up a Kiddush with seats for men only and none for women is also causing
women damage, bain adam l'chavero.
Batya Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 94
