X hits on this document

Word document






89 / 157

they may nevertheless constitute a minyan for this purpose, because the role of the minyan is to publicize its performance. He further maintains that only the recitation of Barekhu is a davar she-bi-kdusha but not the keriat haTorah benedictions themselves. Finally he suggests that there is no issue of kavod haTsibbur in a women-only reading. Hence, he raises the possibility of a bona fide Torah reading by women with benedictions but without the recitation of Barekhu. It should be noted that in sec. 28 R. Stern himself places two restrictions on this ruling: firstly, that it is limited to an educational setting; and secondly, that it should be promulgated only if accepted by a forum of leading poskim. In sec. 31, he retracts the suggestion completely noting that women are freed from keriat haTorah and such a novel institution would only lead to pritsut (immodesty). We note that R. Stern’s analysis is fundamentally quite problematic. There is indeed a school of scholars that maintains that women may be counted towards a minyan quorum where the minyan is needed only to give "publicity" to the performance. But, this is in cases like megilla reading, kindling Hanukka candles in the synagogue, recitation of the birkat haGomel blessing etc., where the minyan is not intrinsic to the performance of the mitzva, for the obligation is essentially the individual's. See Aryeh A. Frimer, supra, note 3, “The Third School.” This is certainly not the case with keriat haTorah which appears in the Mishna’s list in Megilla 23b of rituals requiring a minyan. As Nahmanides notes, the practices included in this list are communal obligations (hovot ha-tsibbur) for which the halakha requires a minyan because of their special sanctity or public character. See: R. Moses ben Nahman, Milhamot Hashem, on Rif to Megilla, chap. 1, sec. 1067, 5a [page 3a in Vilna edition of Rif], s.v.veOd amar Rav.” R. Stern’s additional suggestion that only barekhu is a davar she-bi-kdusha and not the subsequent benedictions is not a compelling position. We will discuss this point in Part II of this paper. See also note 223 below. Finally, his underlying supposition that all the aliyot can go to women is contradicted by the ruling of Rema, O.H., sec. 282, no. 3 who writes: “but they cannot be all women” - to which Mishna Berura, ad loc., subsec. 14 adds “nor the majority.”

 57.R. Shlomo Goren, responsum to R. Mordechai Eliyahu, 1 Tevet 5750 (December 29, 1989) - reprinted in R. Shlomo Goren, “Seder Nashim,” Tehumin 25 (5765), pp. 369-380, section 1, nos. 1-2. R. Goren’s contention therein that he never intended for his 1974 responsum to be used halakha le-ma’ase is somewhat surprising for two reasons. First, Prof. Aron Siegman, who asked the original “shaila,” has indicated (interviewed by

Document info
Document views162
Page views163
Page last viewedThu Oct 20 20:37:56 UTC 2016