X hits on this document

Word document






150 / 157

group held by R. Berman while serving as rabbi of Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan. R. Berman was apparently unaware that the Rav had distinguished—albeit on public policy grounds—between the educational setting and a communal one; see below at note 254. Moreover, as noted in the text, the Rav withdrew his support for the idea even within educational settings.

250.See, for example, Siddur haGra (before Aleinu), pp. 182-184; R. J. Emden, Siddur Beit Ya’akov (following Tahanun), p. 81; Otsar haTefillot (before Ashrei), I, pp. 418-420; Seder Avodat Yisrael (following Tahanun), pp. 120-121; Siddur Tefilla haShalem (before Ashrei), pp. 99-101; Siddur Beit Tefilla (after shaharit), pp. 149-151. Interestingly, R. Ovadiah Yosef has ruled that Hashem’s name should not be used in these recitations; see: Resp. Yabia Omer, III, O.H., sec. 14, no. 7, and VI, O.H., sec. 38, no. 3. R. Soloveitchik and others cited by R. Yosef disagree.

251.This is explicitly stated in the notes of R. Wachstock, supra, note 249. R. Soloveitchik gave the same instructions to Rabbis Riskin and Horowitz when they, respectively, discussed the matter with the Rav. See also R. Meiselman, Jewish Woman in Jewish Law, supra, note 63, p. 197, note 64. R. Wachstock and R. Horowitz indicate that the Rav might have considered allowing birkhot limud haTorah “were it not for the Conservatives.” (From R. Wachstock’s notes: The Rav was concerned about the confusion the berakhot might generate in light of the general egalitarian movement within Conservative and Reform Jewry.) Cf. R. Meiselman, ibid., p. 145. We will defer further discussion of the issue of birkhot haTorah (limud or keri’a) before a pseudo keriat haTorah to Part II of this paper. Re: the issue of nidda and sefer Torah, see infra, note 258.

251*. This point was discussed with R. Riskin. See also: http://tinyurl.com/355fkb.

252.To R. Jeffrey Bienenfeld.

253.R. Soloveitchik also provided the same guidelines, outlined in this paragraph of the text, in situations where it was clear that the service could not be totally prevented—as was indeed the case in the Brandeis University women’s service; vide supra, note 236. A similar case arose in 1978, when a rabbi who was about to assume a rabbinical position discovered that the synagogue had a regular women’s tefilla group. Under the circumstances, there was no possible means for the new rabbi to halt the women’s service entirely. The Rav advised the rabbi to make sure that no devarim she-bi-kdusha would be recited. R. Soloveitchik made it clear that he did not endorse women’s services

Document info
Document views468
Page views469
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 17:50:44 UTC 2017