aspects of “The Women of the Wall” (Neshot haKotel) issue have been reviewed at length by former Israeli Supreme Court Deputy President, Justice R. Menahem Elon, in the High Court’s published decision; see “Hoffman et al. vs. The Custodian of the Western Wall; Alter et al. vs. The Minister of Religious Affairs et al.” (1994), Bagats 257/89, Piskei Din 48 (ii), pp. 265-358. See also Eliav Shochetman, “Minyanei Nashim baKotel,” Tehumin 15 (5755), pp. 161-184; Shmuel Shiloh, “Tefillat Nashim beTsavta beRahavat haKotel,” Tehumin 17 (5757), pp. 160-164; Rivkah Luvitch, “Al Tefillat Nashim,” Tehumin 17 (5757), pp. 165-167; Eliav Shochetman, “Od liShe’eilat Minyanei Nashim,” Tehumin 17 (5757), pp. 168-174. The articles of Professors Shiloh and Shochetman are based on the expert opinions they filed with the Israeli Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case on behalf of the plaintiffs and respondents, respectively. For a discussion of the events from the perspective of an Orthodox feminist, see, inter alia: Bonna Devorah Haberman, “Neshot HaKotel: Women in Jerusalem Celebrate Rosh Hodesh,” in Celebrating the New Moon: A Rosh Chodesh Anthology, Susan Berrin, ed. (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1996), pp. 66-77; Bonna Devorah Haberman, “Women Beyond the Wall: From Text to Praxis,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 13:1 (Spring 1997), pp. 5-34. For the perspective of the Rabbi of the Kotel R. Meir Judah Getz, see: Simcha Raz, Rav HaKotel: Harav Meir Yehuda Getz (Jerusalem: Kol Mevaser, 2003), pp. 241-244.
5.R. Shlomo Goren, responsum to Prof. Aron Siegman, dated 11 Kislev 5735 (November 25, 1974) – reprinted in R. Shlomo Goren, “Seder Nashim,” Tehumin 25 (5765), pp. 369-380, section 1, nos. 3-5. The unsigned letter was typed on the official stationary of the Chief Rabbi but carries a handwritten addition at the top of the first page which can be read as “ushar, lo le-pirsum” (approved, not for publication) or “ishi, lo le-pirsum” (personal, not for publication). R. Goren’s opening comments in his retraction/clarification cited in note 57 indicates it to be the latter; but using one reading over the other has no practical impact on the discussion. A position similar to that of R. Goren was proposed more than a decade earlier by R. Shalom Rubin-Halberstam and rejected by R. Menashe Klein, Resp. Mishne Halakhot IV, sec. 78, in a responsum dated 29 Heshvan 5723 (November 26, 1962), by R. Isaac Jacob Weiss, Resp. Minhat Yitshak, IX, sec. 11, no. a, in a responsum dated 2 Tevet 5723 (December 31, 1962), and Rabbis Ephraim Grunblatt and Yuval Nof, Rivevot ve-Yovlot, II, sec. 426.
6.See Encyclopedia Talmudit, II, “Isha,” pp. 244-246.