85, advised the women of his family to do. Second, and more fundamentally, even if a woman should choose to attend shul, she would not—and could not—thereby bring herself to a state of obligation in tefilla be-tsibbur.
119.See supra, note 104.
120.Supra, note 61 at p. 51.
121.R. Mordechai Banet, Hiddushei Maharam Banet, Berakhot 18a, s.v. “Ben Azzai Omer” – because of “hen el kabir ve-lo yimas” (cf. Berakhot 8a); R. Meyer Isaacson, Resp. MeVaser Tov, II, sec. 13 – because of “BeRov Am Hadrat Melekh,”; R. Moses Shternbuch, Resp. Teshuvot veHanhagot, II, sec. 57 – because of “BeRov Am Hadrat Melekh;” R. Isaac Bogatch, Beit Yehuda, Emek Yehuda, sec 20, at p. 288 – because the prayer of 10 women may also be considered “tefillat rabim” (communal prayer). See also Hayyei Adam, sec. 68, no. 11; Resp. Sheivet haLevi, IV, sec. 11, no. 1.
122.Note that R. Shternbuch, Resp. Teshuvot veHanhagot, ibid., cites the verse from Psalms 34:4: “O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together,” as the source text for the first form of public worship which does not require a minyan. This is the very same verse which the Talmud, Berakhot 45a-45b, utilizes as the basis for the birkat ha-zimmun recited by three adults—three men or three women—who eat bread together. See text at note 14, supra. Rashi, Berakhot 45b, s.v. “deIka,” clearly underscores that women as well are included within “the fulfillment of “O magnify the Lord with me.”
123.R. Solomon Luria, Yam Shel Shelomo, Bava Kama, chap. 4, sec. 9 (Bava Kama 38a). The Talmudic passage under discussion by Maharshal deals with a particular law in torts in which Jews are given preferential treatment over non-Jews. The Talmud recounts that upon learning of this ruling, two non-Jewish emissaries/spies of the Roman Empire queried the rabbis as to the details of this law. Maharshal notes that the rabbis were accurate in their presentation despite possible serious repercussions, including the loss of life. Maharshal adduces this as proof that one must choose martyrdom over misrepresenting halakha. The view of Maharshal is cited in R. Isaiah Horowitz, Shenei Luhot haBerit, Part 1, Tractate Shavuot, end of Perek Ner Mitsvah, s.v. “Kevod haTorah”; R. Elijah Rogeler, Resp. Yad Eliyahu, sec. 48; R. Moses Shternbuch, Ta’am vaDa’at, Shemini, s.v. “ve-et ha-arnevet.” For additional discussion of the view of Maharshal (and Rabbeinu Jonah Gerondi, discussed below in the Addendum section of this paper, Part 2 and Part 3p), see Igrot Moshe, O.H. II, sec. 51 and O.H. V, sec. 28, no. 21; R. David Cohen, Birkhat Ya’aveits, pp. 52-54; R. Abraham Drori, Resp. Aderet