Friday, 11 November 2011

Ein Manichin, Forbidding the Permitted

Cases:

1. In SA YD 1:1 and in the underlying Beth Yosef, the m'chabeir sees no reason not to permit women to do Sh'chita. [Lo ra'inu eino Raya]In fact such Halachic permission is granted in Hullin by the Mishnah and the G'mara

Rema based upon [iirc kol bo and agur] says "she'ien l'haniach nashim lishchot". Shach there defends this Rema

Note - We have here a principle that what is Halachically permitted can still be restricted by "ein manichin" or similar language.

2. The m'chabeir himself use this same terminology as this With Regard To consecutive aliyot involving EG 2 brothers. See SA O"Ch 141:6 and the Lashon "y'cholim...v'ein manichim"

3. I found an early source in Mishnah Yoma 6:3 for this terminology viz. of Halachicallly permitted but "lo hayu manichin" With Regard To who takes out the s'ir hamisthalei'ach. There the B"D of Kohanim [Bartenura] legislated a higher standard than the Halachah. And an exemption was noted for "Ars'la"

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

For Further Research:

1. Are there more sources on these cases - especially those giving us any parameters?

2 Are there more cases in Sha"s and Poskim

3 What might be the parameters justifying exemptions?

4 Does EG Encyclopedia Talmudit or others define the parameters of this phenomenon of "mutar aval ein manichim"?

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

Comment: it does not take an Illuy to see that Traditionalists will likely defend the Agur/Rema/Schah on SA YD 1:1, while "feminists" will seize on this opportunity to promote women since it complies with "Halachah".

What bothers me I guess is that SOME on the left have impugned the Rema et al. as somehow doing something aweful, although we see that it is a policy rooted in Sha"s in other circumstances.

Shalom,
RRW

2 comments:

Adam Zur said...

I am not sure I understand the problem here. As far as I understand sometimes Jewish communities had a takana or such not to do something that is permitted according to the strict halacha. Though we find takanot in the Gemara that have the din of a Halacha derabanan but here the Rema is just saying that here is a takanah that does not have a din derabanan. Where is the problem?

Rabbi Ben Hecht said...

I think that the issue here is not one of takanah but rather judicial conclusion (psak). Rema is not making a takanah that women should not shecht but rather is making a judicial ruling that since this practice is not seen (lo ra'inu), women should not shecht. The question is thus whether this principle of lo ra'ainu is a proper one. This is an appropriate issue.

Rabbi Ben Hecht