the birkhot limud haTorah appearing in the birkhot ha-shahar—be recited, lest it create the erroneous impression that the women’s Torah reading constitutes keriat haTorah; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, infra, text at note 251, concurs. R. Jakobovits suggests the use of a Humash for Torah readings rather than a sefer Torah, although he does not explicitly forbid its use. His successor, R. Sacks, does, however; see supra, end of note 222.
224.In light of R. Feinstein’s clear skepticism, it might well be argued that he should be grouped together with the Rav, R. Ahron Soloveichik and R. Gedalia Schwartz (see infra, section E of text) as one who opposes women’s tefilla groups on hashkafic and public policy grounds (personal communication from Dr. Tovah Lichtenstein, May 29, 1997 and R. Shael I. Frimer, June 12, 1997). Nevertheless, because of the apparent leeway he gave ba’alei hora’a to determine the matter on a case-by-case basis, we believe it more correct to include R. Feinstein in this middle school. See also the exchange of letters by R. Bertram Leff and R. Alfred Cohen, note 217, supra, as well as note 225**, infra.
Supra, note 4, at p. 308. See also p. 323. The syntax of the original Hebrew is quite complex and has been somewhat simplified in our English translation. It should be noted that the issue of motivation is of substantially less concern when one is fulfilling an obligation. Hence, women’s Megilla readings have found more widespread acceptance among poskim (as we discuss supra, notes 219-221). However, the general policy is more guarded regarding non-obligatory innovations, in line with the dictum of Hazal: “kol ha-meshaneh yado al ha-tahtona (he who innovates is at a disadvantage, i.e., must prove his position)” (Bava Metzia, 76a). Moreover, Orthodox Judaism has always held religious subjectivism suspect, especially when it comes at the expense of a greater kiyyum ha-mitsva. See: R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Halakhic Mind (New York: Seth Press, distributed by the Free Press - A Division of Macmillan, Inc., 1986), pp. 62-99; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Nora’ot haRav, X, B. David Schreiber, ed. (New York, NY, 1999), pp. 88ff; references cited in note 241* infra.
With regard to the issue of motivation and intention, several authorities maintain that one who intended to perform a mitzva or ritual properly, le-shem shamayyim, but for some inadvertant reason erred in a crucial detail of its performance, is nevertheless rewarded by Heaven as if its performance was correct. See: R. Zidkiyahu ben Abraham, Shibbolei haLeket, part I, Shibbolet 5; R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Devash leFi, ma’arekhet khaf, no. 4; R. Joseph Hayyim, Resp. Rav Pe’alim, IV, O.H., sec. 2. This position is rejected by R. Abraham Maimon, Resp. Lev Hanun, sec. 2.