preferable to find a male to read for them, but if she were not successful, she could read for them herself. The Rav also suggested that the grandfather should make the berakhot.
268.R. Ahron Soloveichik, taped conversation with Dov I. Frimer, July 8, 1997.
269.It is interesting to note that while R. Ahron Soloveichik casts doubt on the motivation of the overall majority of women’s tefilla participants, the Rav (text, supra, following note 244) tended to acknowledge the legitimate motivation of many of the rank and file. See also R. Nisson Wolpin and Levi Reisman, note 3*, supra, for a critique of the public pronouncements of some of the prominent Orthodox feminist leadership.
270.For a summary of the parameters of this halakhic concept, see Encyclopedia Talmudit, VI, “Geneivat Da’at,” pp. 225-231.
271.Regarding mimicry in women’s prayer services, see Joel B. Wolowelsky, Women, Jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in a Post-Feminist Age (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1997), pp. 105-110.
272.See Encyclopedia Talmudit, XV, Hillul Hashem, p. 340 at 347-351, s.v. “beAdam hashuv.”
272*. Similarly, R. Yechezkel Abramsky, cited in Addendum, Part 4, sec. E, after permitting gelatin in theory, writes: “Since until now  it has been accepted that gelatin is forbidden…it is not an unwarranted fear that if we will issue a responsum permitting gelatin, it will strenghten the hand of those who profess the erroneous view that the halakha is in the hands of rabbinic decisors, as is clay in the hands of the artist. Regarding an analogous situation, the Rabbis (Yoma 40b) stated ‘do not strengthen the hand of the [heretical] Sadducees’ who, Rashi explains, claimed that the Rabbis rule according to their whim.” (Translation by R. Howard Jachter, “Taking Medicine in a Gel-Cap,” The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 30 (Fall 1995), pp. 66-80, at p. 78.
273.See above, note 220, first paragraph. R. Ahron Soloveichik also opposes a women’s Torah reading in a school setting, irrespective of whether berakhot are recited.
274.R. Gedalia Dov Schwartz, supra, note 223; conversations with Dov I. Frimer, November 19, 1997 and March 8. 2000.
275.Cf. note 139, supra.
276.R. Schwartz cites the responsum of R. Aryeh Leibush Balachover, Resp. Shem Aryeh, O.H. sec. 5, as precedent for the position that the possibility of fragmentation and divisiveness is a legitimate consideration in halakhic rulings.