Q&A: Regarding your article “Exclusion” That Creates Mediocrity
Regarding your article “Exclusion” That Creates Mediocrity
Question
I would like to draw your attention to I Chronicles 7:18.
It speaks there about the sons of Manasseh, and it mentions “his sister Hammolekheth,” and Radak explains: “The sister of Gilead, and she ruled over part of the land that belonged to the Gileadites.”
And Metzudot: “The sister of Gilead, who ruled and governed part of the land.”
And this is also how Solomon ben Melekh explains it in Mikhlol Yofi.
So what about “a king, and not a queen”??
P.S. I also found that Rabbi Hirschensohn holds that the exposition in the Sifrei has a different interpretation, one that does not rule out appointing a woman to the monarchy.
Best regards,
Gershon Hazan
Answer
Fine, but it still seems to me that Maimonides has a different halakhic standing than these or other interpretations of the Sifrei.
In any case, thank you for the sources.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that you did indeed grasp it fully. I understood your intention to be to note that my comments weren’t necessary, since there are those who rejected the Sifrei’s exposition. To that I wrote that Maimonides brings it as Jewish law, and therefore it needs to be explained. About that I wrote that perhaps it is merely textual support, at least regarding the extension to other positions of authority. If your intention was to bring further support for my suggestion, then that’s perfectly fine. Many thanks.
A link that might interest you:
https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/406269
When I saw this, I was reminded of your above-mentioned article in Makor Rishon; it’s nice to see how struggles seep in little by little.
So apparently I didn’t fully grasp what you meant in the article.
I understood you to be offering a new insight into the exposition “a king, and not a queen.” That is, it is not a real exposition but rather a kind of “rabbinic law, with the verse serving merely as textual support,” as understood by Maimonides himself in the introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah: “They attached it to this verse as a kind of sign, so that it would be preserved and remembered, and this is not part of the meaning of the verse. This is the sense of their statement, ‘the verse is merely a support,’ wherever it is mentioned.”