X hits on this document

Word document

NOT FOR CIRCULATION WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED - page 88 / 157

336 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

88 / 157

 54.Supra, note 48.

 55.Consequently, we find a similar discussion regarding the necessity of a minyan for the recitation of the “thirteen attributes of God.” For a summary of this discussion, see Einayyim laMishpat, supra, note 49; Resp. Yehave Da’at, I, sec. 47.

 56.See references cited in Aryeh A. Frimer, note 3, supra; Resp. Minhat Yitshak, supra, note 5; Resp. Rivevot Efrayyim, VII, sec. 314 and addendum p. 446; Halikhot Beita, Petah haBayyit, sec. 24. Surprisingly, in his discussion of women’s tefilla groups, R. Eliezer Berkovits, Jewish Women in Time and Torah (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1990), Chapter 4, pp. 82-83, proposes that the reason for the exclusion of women from the minyan of communal prayer rituals “can only be that the rabbis would not allow men and women to pray together.” Based on this analysis, he suggests that for public prayer and devarim she-bi-kdusha “one might give serious consideration to the halakhic possibility of a female minyan.” With all due respect, however, R. Berkovits errs both in his analysis and his conclusion. As the scores of rishonim and aharonim cited in Aryeh A. Frimer, note 3, supra, make clear, unambiguous rules and rationale exist for the exclusion of women from the minyan of public prayer—and they are quite different from that deduced by R. Berkovits. Indeed, the codes and codifiers are unequivocal: public prayer rituals require a minyan of males. See Shulhan Arukh, O.H. sec. 55, no. 1 and decisors ad loc.: Levush, no. 4; Shulhan Arukh haRav, no. 2; Mishna Berura, no. 3; and Arukh haShulhan, no. 6. CLEAR THIS WITH JEFFREY WOOLF Interestingly, in a written communication, dated June 27, 2003, R. Jeffrey R. Woolf recounted the following story regarding R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik: “When we learned Hil. Avoda Zara, the Rov asked us which of the following is worse: Mitnabeh be-shem HaShem la'avod Avoda Zara or Mitnabeh be-shem Avoda Zara la'avod Avoda Zara. His answer was that it depends. Intellectually the latter is obviously worse, and that is the plain meaning in Rambam. However, morally, the first is much worse, as it legitmizes Avoda Zara in the name of God. He gave two examples of the latter approach: 1) People who go through Shulhan Arukh looking for leniencies. 2)  Similarly, anyone who says that when the Gemara says “ten” it means lav davka (not necessarily) men - is both ignorant and mitnabeh be-shem HaShem la'avod Avoda Zara! (The Conservatives had recently voted to count women in a minyan.)”

R. Samuel Tuvya Stern, Resp. haShavit, V, secs. 28 (written in 1974) and 31 (dated 1977), opines that even though women are freed from the obligation of keriat haTorah,

Document info
Document views336
Page views337
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 16:35:31 UTC 2016
Pages157
Paragraphs741
Words67521

Comments