X hits on this document

Word document






136 / 157

689, no. 8, he takes serious issue with him in Sha’ar haTsiyyun no. 16, ad loc. Midrash Ne’elam is not accepted as normative halakha by the following: Arukh haShulhan, O.H. sec. 689, no. 5; former Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, cited by R. Moses Harari, Mikra’ei Kodesh—Hilkhot Purim, 6:8, note 29; several other posekim cited by R. Nahman Kahana, Orhot Hayyim, O.H. sec. 689, no. 2, note 6.

The second ruling is that of R. Nethanel Weil, Korban Netanel, gloss to Rosh, Megilla, chap. 1, sec. 4, note 40 and Netiv Hayyim, gloss to Shulkhan Arukh, O.H., sec 271, no. 2 on Magen Avraham, subsec. 2, who, based upon Tosafot Sukka 38a, s.v.beEmet amru,” indicates that it is a breach of propriety (zila milta) for a woman to read Megilla for a group of women. Although the Arukh haShulhan, O.H. sec. 689, no. 5, explicitly permits women to read for other women, the view of Korban Netanel is cited approvingly by Mishna Berura, ibid., Sha’ar haTsiyyun no. 15 and Kaf haHayyim, O.H. ibid., no. 17. Nevertheless, the posekim cited above (who support women’s megilla readings), as well as many others cited infra in the next paragraph of this note, would argue that Korban Netanel misunderstood the ba’alei haTosafot, who were in fact discussing the impropriety of a woman’s reading of the Megilla for men. This latter understanding of Tosafot is maintained by Magen Avraham, O.H. sec. 271, no. 2 (as noted by Korban Netanel himself), R. Menahem Mendel Auerbach, Ateret Zahav, O.H., sec. 689, no. 2, s.v.sheNashim,” R. Isaac haLevi of Lemgo, Toldot Yitshak on Tosefta Megilla (Jerusalem: Ofeq Institute, 5762), chap. 2, no. 4, secs. 27 and 38, and has been confirmed by the text in Tosafot haRosh, ad loc., which explicitly refers to men. (R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, suggests that this is also the understanding of R. Alexander Zuslin haKohen, Sefer haAguda, Sukkah, Perek Lulav haGazul, sec. 32; see: “Hiluk Behag bein Mikra leMishma Megilla, u-miMatai ne’esru Aliyot Nashim laTorah,” Bet Hillel, 6:2 (22), pp. 99-102 (Adar II 5765).) According to this approach, Tosafot’s “zila milta” is only a different formulation of the Kevod haTsibbur concept applied to keriat haTorah (Megilla 23a; Shulhan Arukh O.H. sec. 282, no. 3), though the two may not be identical. See also the comments of R. Chaim Zalman Dimitrovsky to Rashba, Megilla 4a, s.v.veAmar R. Yehoshua,” note 431; the related comments of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in Reshimot Shiurim, R. Zvi Joseph Reichman, ed. [New York: 4749], Sukka 38a, p. 184, s.v.Beram le-fi haTosafot”; Otsar Mefarshei haTalmud, Sukka, II, 38a, s.v.I nami mishum.”

As pointed out above, several posekim—in addition to those cited in the first three paragraphs of this note—have taken issue with Korban Netanel. Hence, R. Jacob Zev

Document info
Document views283
Page views284
Page last viewedThu Oct 27 01:35:31 UTC 2016