X hits on this document

Word document






101 / 157

and 15; R. Leib Baron, supra, note 68. R. Ben Zion Rosenthal maintains that bal tosif also applies to mitsvot which are optional (kiyyumiyyot); see R. Ben Zion Rosenthal, “Bal Tosif beMitsvah sheEina Hiyyuvit,” HaPardes 33:2 (Heshvan 5719), p. 17; R. Ben Zion Rosenthal, “Bal Tosif beVirkhat Kohanim,” HaPardes 33:11 (Av 5719), p. 16—reprinted in R. Ben Zion Rosenthal, Tenuvat Tsiyyon, secs. 42 and 43. Cf. Birkei Yosef, O.H. sec. 17, no. 2, who leaves the issue of bal tosif by women unresolved.

Finally, there is also some discussion as to whether there is a prohibition of bal tosif on one who adds to a rabbinic enactment. The consensus is that there is not; see Resp. Ketav Sofer, sec. 120; Sefer haMikna, kelal 51; Resp. Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura Tinyana II, H.M. sec. 478.

 96.Those halakhic authorities who disagree with this ruling argue that a woman who voluntarily prays impliedly accepts all the requirements imposed upon one who is obligated to pray, i.e., a man; see note 97, infra. (For a discussion of the related view of Behag, see Resp. Benei Vanim, II, sec. 19, p. 72.) This contention has no logical parallel to women’s prayer groups. The latter clearly have no intention to constitute a minyan and could not halakhically constitute a minyan for public prayer even if they so intended. The voluntary assumption of obligation is not the same as legally imposed obligation; see Gidon Rothstein, “The Roth Responsum on the Ordination of Women,” Tradition 24:1 (Fall 1988), pp. 104-115; Sha’arei Tohar, I, supra, note 23. Minyan requires legally imposed obligation; see Aryeh A. Frimer, supra, note 3. An analogous argument can be found in R. Isaiah di Trani (The Elder), Piskei Rid, Rosh haShana 33a and again in Sefer haMakhria, sec. 78.

 97.For a summary of the halakhic literature on the subject of me-ein ha-me’ora for women, see Resp. Yabia Omer, VI, O.H. sec 18; Hazon Ovadiah, Hanukka, Dinei Ya’ale ve-Yavo, sec. 12, note 15; R. Judah Naki, Resp. meEin Omer (Oral rulings of R. Ovadiah Yosef), I, Hilkhot Tefilla, secs. 54 and 144; R. David Auerbach, Halikhot Beita, sec. 6, no. 9; Halikhot Bat Yisrael, sec. 2, no. 19. In addition, see R. Israel Abraham Alter Landau, Resp. Beit Yisrael, I, O.H. sec. 10; R. Aryeh Tsvi Fromer, Resp. Erets Tsvi, sec. 24, s.v.Od yesh;” R. Shraga Feivish Schneebalg, Resp Shraga haMeir, V, sec. 114; R. Pesah Elijah Falk, Resp. Mahaze Eliyahu, sec. 24; Resp. Rivevot Ephrayyim, III, sec. 67, IV, secs. 44, 79 and 81, and VIII, sec. 344, no. 2; R. Abraham David Horowitz, Resp. Kinyan Torah beHalakha, VII, O.H. sec. 10; R. Benjamin Joshua Zilber, Resp. Az Nidberu, XI, sec. 48 (67); R. Zalman Druk, Sha’arei Tefilla, sec. 20; R. Baruch

Document info
Document views589
Page views590
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 09:25:31 UTC 2017