.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}


Ore and let davven.™

Mail: lippomano@gmail.com

New feature: Hover your mouse pointer over green words, and you'll see an explanation!

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Disappointing lecture

I'm coming back from a talk about Women and Leadership. The local Bes medresh had invited a major expert on this, a dayyen of international repute or even fame, who has published books and article on the topic.

To make it short, it was disappointing. The public was a general one, not just "learned" people, so I fully understand he wasn't talking hardcore heloche. I also take into account that Americans have a style that is different from the European one. But he was very repetitive, very general, and evaded the more delicate issues. All that might be explained by circumstances etc., but what really irrated me was that he might (!) not have known the more detailed facts.

Among the few more concrete things, he explained the helochic concept that the requirements for "rulers" such as being a man, a born Jew etc. are only for rulers that are forced upon the people from above, for instance by a king. (He insensibly compared this to job applications where applicants might be good but "not A1".)

In the Q&A part, I asked something like "You said that according to Rav Uzziel, it might be that a woman cannot be appointed from above, but if she's elected and so chosen by the people that she's 'governing', it would be allowed. What does this approval have to be like? A simple majority? Or unanimous? The whole idea is that this way, the people can't claim their ruler is being forced upon them, so what happens if a single person doesn't agree? Can't (s)he say 'I'm being forced'? And is this different in places where there is only one community, and places where the person might simply join another shul to his likes?"

I think this is a very central question.

I had lerned this tshuve, among others, recently with my chevruse, but only started, and that was a question to which we hadn't yet found an answer. Even after his talk, I thought if anyone can answer it in within a radius of 500 miles, he can. I was a bit afraid that he'd answer it was a difficult question, or that there were contradicting opinions.

He answered: "Hm, I find a simple majority would not be much. Maybe more would be better."


Blogger The back of the hill said...

"Hm, I find a simple majority would not be much. Maybe more would be better"

Which, of course, leads one to ask whether that would be much better, or only a little better. Or if it would depend upon the circumstance.

I tend towards finding a simple majority more comfortable. A large majority, or even unanimity, tend to dampen the expression of alternate points of view. Especially assuming a diversity of opinion among the dissenters.

------ ------- ------

I also take into account that Americans have a style that is different from the European one.

You are in the US? Details, oh secretive man, details!

Friday, January 19, 2007 7:28:00 PM  
Blogger Phillip Minden said...

I understand your point about majorities, but the thing that astonished me in an unpleasant ways was that he obviously wasn't aware of the issue. This is more important than the answer to the question, or if it is a big feal anyway. If you're an internationally acclaimed expert on a field and write books about the tpoic of your talk and cite another work, you should be at least aware of an vital issue treated in it.

You are in the US?

No, I'm in Cispondia right now, but he came over.

Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger Phillip Minden said...

Sorry for the typos - hasty môtzeshabbes thing.

feal = deal

(and ways = way)

Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:55:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home