X hits on this document

Word document






151 / 157

and that he was not at all happy with the direction they had taken; nonetheless, under the circumstances, this was the least detrimental alternative. On a separate occasion, he told Rabbi Kenneth Brander that in these type of be-di-avad situations, the services should preferably be held outside of the synagogue so that the differentiation between them and regular minyanim would be evident; see text after note 244, supra.

254.Our information regarding the initial attempts to start a women’s tefilla at the Maimonides School in 1972 is based upon our conversations with R. Oscar Wachstock and R. Charles Weinberg, as well as R. Wachstock’s above-mentioned notes (supra, note 249). R. Wachstock was a teacher at the Maimonides school during the relevant period, while R. Weinberg, a personal friend of the Rav, was a member of the Maimonides Board of Education. Our remarks regarding the 1974 attempt are based upon conversations with R. Carmi Horowitz and R. Weinberg. R. Horowitz taught at Maimonides at that time, while R. Weinberg then served as the school’s Head of the Hebrew Department. As far as the Rav’s fears that his halakhic ruling would be misunderstood and misapplied, it indeed seems that they were well justified; see supra, note 249.

255.Conversation with R. Aharon Lichtenstein.

256.Shulhan Arukh, O.H. sec. 135, no. 14. For a detailed discussion of the issue of tiltul sefer Torah as regards various other practical aspects of women services, see Part 2 of this paper and supra, note 138.

257.R. Aharon Lichtenstein, conversation with Dov I. Frimer, 20 Tishrei 5755 (September 25, 1994).

258.While this was implicit in his remarks to many of the people with whom the Rav discussed this matter, R. Soloveitchik stated it explicitly in his conversations with R. Haskel Lookstein and R. Baruch Lanner. A further discussion of nidda and sefer Torah will be deferred to Part 2 of this paper, which deals with the “Practical Issues” of halakhic women’s prayer groups. Apropos, the Rav indicated to R. Wachstock that niddut would similarly not prevent a woman from wearing tefillin. Cf., however, Arukh haShulhan, O.H. sec. 34, no. 6.

259.While the Rav expressed his opposition to hakafot in shul on many occasions, his opposition to hakafot extended, in reality, to other venues as well—even where tiltul sefer Torah was not involved.

260.See R. Zvi Schachter, MiPeninei Rabbeinu Zal,” Beit Yitshak 27 (5755), 120, at p. 5.

261.Conversation with R. Walfish.

Document info
Document views484
Page views485
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 11:50:20 UTC 2017