> Women in war

Here is a pdf of the Rambam with the pirush of the Radbaz which is availble at hebrewbooks.org - see page 801 (pdf is 61 mb)

Thanks.

Here's the text. I'm finding it a little difficult to read -- some of the letters aren't so clear. Can anyone translate it for me?

some words were too fuzzy to read, but in a nutshell (assuming the fuzzy words don't change the meaning):
Q: how do you square the seeming implication of "v'kallah mechupatah" - namely, that women engage in warmaking - with the old BY favorite, "kol kevudah bat melech p'nimah"?
A: the more appropriate implication of "v'kallah mechupatah" is that just as the bridgrooms are to stop lounging around their chambers and go fight with the other men when there's an obligatory war going on, so too the brides shouldn't act like they're on vacation from their duties as good citizen-wives. perhaps one of those good-citizen-wifely duties was to supply their warmongering husbands with water and munchies, as is currently the custom among arabian females.

in other words, women's proper role in a national war effort is to plant victory gardens and knit socks for the troops. brides aren't excused from these homefront tasks in times of obligatory war, just as bridgrooms aren't excused from the frontlines of battle.

Thank you for the translation, but I'm not so sure about your interpretation, at least the negative slant of it. There's a difference between staying at home and keeping a garden versus being support staff for an army. Army cooks and clerks and medics are soldiers too.

if anything, my "negative slant" interpretation is far truer to the original than any inference that might be drawn about women serving as army support staff.

I'm sure that's true, but I was thinking along more practical lines. In today's day and age people sitting at home aren't going to be too useful to troops on the battlefield.

Also, it doesn't seem to me like you'd need a special line to remind people on the homefront to "do their part" when the nation is at war.

It sounds to me like the commentaries are trying to weasel out of what the verse actually means.

as my original "translation" noted, this particular commentary is trying to square the verse with another verse that is seemingly incompatible with your favored interpretation.

And why do they feel the need to reconcile two verses that have nothing to do with each? Because they don't like the idea of women going to war.

11. And the Lord gave forth His voice before His army, for His camp is great, for he who performs His word is mighty, for the day of the Lord is great and very awesome; who can abide it?

12. And even now, says the Lord, return to Me with all your heart, and with fasting and with weeping and with lamentation.

13. And rend your hearts and not your garments, and return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and He repents of the evil.

14. Whoever knows shall repent and regret, and it shall leave after it a blessing, a meal offering and a libation to the Lord your God.

15. Sound a shophar in Zion; proclaim a fast, call an assembly.

16. Gather the people, prepare the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the infants and the sucklings; let a bridegroom come out of his chamber and a bride from her canopy.

or because textual commentators generally start with the assumption that texts - especially those to which divine authorship is attributed - aren't self-contradictory.

3. Rambam (Melachim 7:4): In Milchemes Mitzvah everyone goes to fight, even a Chasan from his room and a Kalah from her Chupah.

i. Radvaz: Women do not fight, due to "Kol Kevudah." Rather, a Kalah leaves the Chupah, i.e. she forfeits the week of Sheva Berachos because her husband must go to fight. Alternatively, women supply water and food for their husbands, like Aravi women do nowadays.

ii. Sefer ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah 603): Women do not fight in war.

iii. Question (Minchas Chinuch): What is the source to exempt them? This is an Aseh that is not Zman Grama!

iv. Rambam (introduction to Sefer ha'Mitzvos DH v'Atah): Women are exempt from optional wars.

v. Rashash (Sotah 44b b'Mishnah): It is a Chidush that women go. Perhaps they go to prepare food for the men.

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner – Chief Rabbi of Beit El
“Regarding Army Service for Women”

Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook said that theoretically speaking, even women are obligated to fight in a milchemet mitzvah [compulsory war]. As the Mishnah states, “Even a groom from his chamber and a bride from her wedding canopy [must go to war]” (Sotah 44b). Likewise, Rambam rules, “In a milchemet mitzvah all must go to war, even a groom from his chamber and a bride from her wedding canopy” (Melachim 7:4). Our situation today would be classified as a milchemet mitvah by Ramban, since we are still at war in our conquest of the Land (Note 4 from Ramban’s Additions to Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot), and by Rambam, since our wars involve “assisting the Jewish People against their enemies” (Melachim 5:1). The latter is itself an extension of the Torah’s command, “Do not stand by when your neighbor’s life is in danger” (Leviticus 19:16).

Yet our sages said, “It is the nature of man to conquer, but not the nature of woman” (Yevamot 65b). Therefore, Radbaz, Rabbi David ben Zimra, wished to soften Rambam’s statement and to say that he didn’t have in mind actual military tasks but offering soldiers assistance, in line with Rambam’s comment that women should “provide food and water to their husbands” (Melachim 7:4). This novel thought is not mentioned in the Mishnah, the Talmud or in Rambam, who quoted the Mishnah word for word. It is clear that Rambam’s intent was to all war tasks (and the same can be found in Sefer HaMitzvot, at the end of Shoresh 4).

Rambam would explain that “It is not the nature of women to conquer” was not said regarding milchemet mitzvah and women bearing weapons in them. While women bearing weapons is normally forbidden due to “No male article shall be on a woman” (Deuteronomy 22:5; Nazir 49a), in a compulsory war, a life and death situation overrides all else.

In this way Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda clarified the fundamentals of the law (Sichot Rabbenu: “Ish VeIsha, se’if 42-43, LeNitivot Yisrael I, page 124). Yet he immediately added that in making a halachic ruling, it is essential to take into account the trials and obstacles to modesty faced by girls serving in the army. “In girls’ military service, there is a danger of moral decline, and it is hard for a girl to maintain her pristine modesty… It is a fact that in the army there is a problem with modesty.” Therefore, Rav Tzvi Yehuda directs us to turn to the “judge who will be in those times” (Deuteronomy 17:9), in other words, the Chief Rabbis of Israel. As is known, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate forbade girls to participate in military service, in any form of a draft, from then until now.

Therefore, later on Rav Tzvi Yehuda publicized his view negating military service for girls, in accordance with Radbaz, not because that is the essence of the law, but as a fence around modesty. He also said that we should view National Service as a way of preparing girls to serve their people and land: “Our holy Mishnah states for all time that in a milchemet mitzvah even the bride goes forth from her wedding canopy. According to the decision and clarification of the greatest later sage following Rambam – Radbaz – the Mishnah means that girls should assist the army. Today this can be accomplished through the ‘National Service’ arrangement, bearing in mind our sages’ enormous caution regarding situations where modesty is at stake, as described at the end of Kiddushin” (Sichot Rabbenu, ibid., 44).

Obviously, even regarding National Service, not all locations are the same. Some are reputable, and it is a mitzvah to serve there, but unfortunately there are also places where things are different. We can employ the following yardstick: Just as we won’t eat food unless it carries the approbation of an authorized rabbi, so too, a girl should not do National Service without the program in question receiving the approbation of an authorized rabbi or rebbetzin.

Yet regarding military service for girls, that program has always been rejected entirely by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and Rav Tzvi Yehuda issued the same ruling. If, however, a girl enlists all the same, we have to engage in damage control. We must therefore praise the “Aluma” Organization which directs girls to army programs in which less immodesty prevails, providing them with guidance and assistance all through their service. After all, if someone is falling, we don’t push him down further. We further must praise the pre-military program for girls, “Tzahali VaRoni Yoshevet Tziyon,” slated for opening. If a girl is going to enlist either way, we have to strengthen her in Torah and the fear of G-d in preparation for her enlistment, and Torah study is always good.

Obviously these words of praise are not meant provide any legitimacy to girls’ military service. They are only an expression of our bearing responsibility for the entire Jewish People, even if they do not follow the straight and narrow. After all, there are co-educational pre-army programs, including one of the Reform Movement, and they, too, provide great assistance to draftees, hence they belong to the umbrella organization of the pre-military programs. All the more that there is a place for pre-military programs for religious girls. May we be so fortunate that from “Tzahali VaRoni Yoshevet Tziyon” we should advance to “The princess’s glory is all on the inside” (Psalm 45:14).

Okay, so I'm obsessing and no one else is interested, but I don't care.

maybe if you weren't obsessing, other folks would be interested.