X hits on this document

Word document






129 / 157

197.Resp. Yehave Da’at, supra, note 194 at p. 111. Cf. R. Isaac Herzog, “Proposed Enactments in the Laws of Inheritance,” in Constitution and Law in the Jewish State according to the Halacha (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav KookYad HaRav Herzog, 1989), pp. 2-4, regarding rabbinic concern with charges of discrimination against women in inheritance matters. Excerpts of R. Herzog’s proposal have been translated into English and annotated by R. Ben Zion Greenberg in “Rabbi Herzog’s Proposal for Takkanot in Matters of Inheritance,” Jewish Law Association Studies, V: The Halakhic Thought of R. Isaac Herzog (1991), p. 50, at 58-64.

197*.See various articles in Daughters of the King: Women and the Synagogue, note 3* supra.

198.Supra, note 62.

199.R. Menashe Klein, supra, note 64.

200.Psalms 45:14.

201.For an extensive review of “Kol kevuda bat melekh penima,” see the series of articles by Meir Shoresh, Shema’atin 17:60 (Tevet, 5741), p. 57; 18:64 (Kislev, 5741), p. 57; 18:65-66 (Nisan, 5741), p. 106; 19:67-68 (Tishrei-Kislev, 5742), p. 75.

202.M.T., Hilkhot Ishut, 13:11; Tur and Rama, H.M. sec. 72, no. 1.

203.Shavuot 30a; Tur and Shulhan Arukh, H.M. secs. 96 and 124.

204.Resp. Benei Vanim, I, sec. 40. See also ibid., Ma’amar 6. Translated into English in R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, Responsa on Contemporary Jewish Women’s Issues (Ktav: Hoboken, New Jersey, 2003), Chap. 24, pp. 196-200.

205.Supra, note 202. We note the R. Israel ben Hayyim Bruna, Resp. Mahari Bruna, sec. 242, maintains that we do not rule in accordance with this dictum of Kol kevuda. This ruling of Mahari Bruna is challenged by Resp. Hatam Sofer, E.H., II, sec. 99. See also: R. Joseph Engel, Gilyonei haShas, Shabbat 67a, s.v. “Sham, R.Sh. hi;” R. Nahum Weidenfeld, Resp Hazon Nahum, I, sec. 99, no. 3; and the discussion of R. Tsvi Zev Friedman in Tiferet Yosef, Bereshit (Monsey, 5764), va-Yera 18:9, p. 221.

206.Surprisingly, R. Schachter (supra, note 62) suggests that kol kevuda is the rationale behind the exclusion of women from a minyan quorum. We have previously (supra, note 3) demonstrated that according to many, if not most, posekim, there are a variety of instances where women may indeed count together with men, and certainly alone with other women, towards a minyan quorum; see text at note 24, supra. Although public prayer is not one of these instances, the reason has nothing to do with kol kevuda. It

Document info
Document views501
Page views502
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 16:23:32 UTC 2017