Sanhedrin 045
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
|
Having completed (to your satisfaction, I hope) the promised excursus on Biblical criticism, prompted by our mentioning the probable date of the composition of the book of Deuteronomy, before continuing with Chapter Three of our Tractate we must clear up a few of your messages – some of which, I am afraid, have been held pending for some time.
DISCUSSION:
Naomi Koltun-From (with several others writing in a similar vein) sends the following message:
I noticed in your last shiur, you quote the halakhot of the Mishnah Torah [of Maimonides] on appointing kings. Chapter 1:5 says "No woman may be appointed to the royal power…" Where does this come from? I respond: Dr Koltun-From knows what other participants may not know, so I'll explain first of all that the Sifré is a collection of Halakhic Midrashim on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. In all probability the collection was made in Eretz-Israel some time before the end of 4th century CE – but the precise date of its reduction to collated form is immaterial to our discussion. It reflects the traditions of the Tannaïm – sages whose halakhot are contained in the Mishnah and its kindred works – in the interpretation of the Torah. Sometime the exposition of a verse is long, detailed and convoluted. At other times is is short and terse. One such occasion is the Sifré on Deuteronomy 17:15 [Parashat Shoftim, Item 14]. You will recall that the verses of the Torah read:
When you reach the land … possess it and settle it, should you say 'I shall appoint me a king like all the nations around me', you must appoint a king over you that God chooses. He must be one of your brethren and you may not appoint a non-Jew over you…
The Sifré has one terse comment on the phrase You must appoint a king over your : 'king' and not 'queen'. (We shall return to this kind of exposition later on.) This is the (sole, but sufficient) source for Rambam's codification of the halakhah. Most interesting is the continuation of Rambam's halakhic statement:
Furthermore, all appointments to positions of authority in Israel can only be of men.
For this latter statement I can not readily find a source. The Hebrew phrase that he uses is obviously reminiscent of a phrase used in connection with the appointment of a king to be found in the Gemara [Yevamot 45b, Kiddushin 76b]:
You must appoint a king over you – all appointments that you make must be from among your brethren: if his mother is from Israel he is to be considered 'from among your brethren'.
But this statement of the Gemara is obviously dealing with the appointment of a king (based on the textual requirement of the Torah) and sheds no light whatsoever on Rambam's assumption that the restriction of the Sifré applies to all positions of authority.
It would be very easy (and very tempting) to assume that the Sifré and Rambam could just not imagine a woman ruler. But that is probably not the case. The exclusion of women from 'positions of authority' was not complete, as Rambam well knew! We can leave aside such a figure as Queen Salome Alexandra, since Rambam would probably have explained her situation as being anomalous and that in any case the real power lay in the hands of her brother, Shim'on ben-Shataĥ. (Historically this is far from being certain.) Nevertheless, Rambam knew that not having a woman as ruler was "a custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance", as Shakespeare's Hamlet says. Ramban [Moses Nachmanides, Spain, 13th century CE], in commentary on the Gemara [Shavu'ot 30a] writes:
How are we to interpret the words [Judges 4:4] that she [Deborah] judged Israel? It means that she was their leader: at her word and on her advice they behaved themselves as if she were their queen. Even though the Sifré says "'You must appoint a king over you' – a king and not a queen", either they treated her as if she were a queen [i.e. knowing that she was not] or alternatively they accepted her [authority over them] of their own free will.
I would conclude this mini-discussion with the somewhat wry comment that Rambam's halakhic statement did not prevent the ultra-orthodox from being a part of the government of Golda Me'ir z"l – and she, surely, was the first real "Queen of Israel" since Salome Alexandra, holding the ultimate reins of power.
Before we leave this topic I would redeem my indication above to discuss the exegetical validity of phrases such as "king, not queen". This is a favourite ploy of the sages, but sometimes it seems to be rather false – as if they were trying to use the text to prove a conclusion already arrived at rather than to elucidate what the text actually intended to say. "King and not queen" is not the only example of such exegesis. When we studied Tractate Kiddushin we noted that a similar exegetical method was used to exclude priestesses: "The sons of Aaron, and not the daughters of Aaron". When we studied Tractate Berakhot we noted this same exegetical method used to exclude women from Tefillin (and by extension from many other mitzvot): "The sons of Israel, and not the daughters of Israel". The great subjectivity of such a method became very clear to me when I was pondering the issue raised by Art Kamlet in the next item: Levirate marriage is mandated by the Torah in the case where a man dies "without a son" [Deuteronomy 25:5], where it would be more than justifiable to interpret the Hebrew word ben in its narrow connotation. And yet the sages, anxious already to reduce the number of instances where Levirate marriage would be applicable, did not hesitate to remove the necessity of levirate marriage when the widow has a daughter, if not a son. Art Kamlet writes concerning another statement of Rambam: He may not give "Ĥalitzah … even if he wishes to do so, for a king is not permitted to forego his honour. Since he may not give Ĥalitzah he may not take a woman in levirate marriage… When he suffers a bereavement he may not leave his palace… Should he enter the Inner Court of the Bet Mikdash he may sit down there only if he is of Davidic descent… The Davidic descent I assume was a backhanded slap at the Hasmonean kings. So why did the mishnah, or Rambam, stop here and not extend the backhanded slap to Alexander Yanni's levirate marriage? (Why not qualify the above v. 3 to Davidic kings only?) I respond: I agree with Art concerning the Hasmonean kings. Yoĥanan Hyrkanos, the nephew of Judah the Macabee, died in the year 104 BCE. He was succeeded by his elder son, Yehudah Aristobulos. Yehudah was married to Salome [Shelomzion] Alexandra, but when he died barely a year later [103 BCE] she was presumably childless. Yehudah's brother ascended the throne. He was Alexander Yannai, and he married his childless sister-in-law in levirate marriage. I can recall no instance of the sages deploring this marriage, which was obviously not in accord with the prescriptions of the Mishnah. Perhaps they realized that Yannai would "do his thing" regardless of their halakhic opinion. More of your messages next time. |