X hits on this document

Word document

NOT FOR CIRCULATION WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED - page 91 / 157

433 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

91 / 157

not the official position of the R.C.A. regarding this matter, that the R.C.A. has, to date, not taken any official position regarding the halakhic admissibility of women’s tefillot (sic!).” For further clarification of the position of the R.C.A., vide infra, note 248.

 60.R. Abba Bronspigel, Minyanim meYuhadim leNashim,” HaDarom, ibid., pp. 51-53. The responsum is dated “the eve of Hanukka 5745,” i.e. 24 Kislev 5745—December 7, 1985.

 61.R. Zvi (Hershel) Schachter, “Tse’i Lakh beIkvei haTson,” (“Go Thy Way Forth by the Footsteps of the Flock” [Song of Songs 1:8]), Beit Yitshak 17 (5745), pp. 118-134, reprinted in R. Zvi Schachter, BeIkvei haTson (Jerusalem: Beit haMidrash deFlatbush, 5757), pp. 21-37. All citations in this article to R. Schachter’s responsum are to its original publication in Beit Yitshak. For an English summary of R. Schachter’s lengthy Hebrew responsum (as well as a review of some of the other halakhic literature on women’s prayer groups), see R. Jonathan Sacks, L’Eyla 22 (Rosh haShana 5747, September 1986), p. 54. In a conversation with Dov I. Frimer (January 4, 2002), R. Schachter clarified that the views expressed by him in “Tse’i Lakh beIkvei haTson” are his own. Those of his revered mentor, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, were otherwise and are reflected in what R. Schachter wrote in miPeninei haRav (Jerusalem: Beit haMidrash deFlatbush, 5761), pp. 67-68 and 142 (see section E of this paper).

 62.R. Zvi Schachter, “BeInyanei Beit haKenesset uKdushato,” Or haMizrah, 34:1, 2 (Tishrei 5746), 54, at pp. 64-67; reprinted in Erets haTsvi, sec. 12—see especially pp. 96-99.

 63.R. Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Woman in Jewish Law (New York: Ktav Publishing House and Yeshiva University Press, 1978), pp. 144-146; see also ibid., p. 197, footnote 64. See also: R. Moshe Meiselman, “The Rav, Feminism and Public Policy: An Insiders View,” Tradition 33:1 (Fall 1998), pp. 5-30.

 63*. R. Aharon Feldman in R. Menachem Nissel, Rigshei Lev (Southfield, Michigan: Targum/Feldheim, 2001), Appendix I, pp. 281-292.

 64.R. Menashe Klein, lengthy responsum to Dov I. Frimer, 9 Shevat 5746 (January 19, 1986), on the subject of women’s tefilla groups. The second half of this teshuva is published in Resp. Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura Tinyana, V, O.H. sec 26. In addition, a short selection from this teshuva appears in the article of E. Shochetman, supra, note 4, p. 173. The major arguments are that: women’s services are a sharp departure from normative Jewish custom and practice over millennia; they contravene “kol kevuda bat melekh penima” and the rules of modesty; such innovations are clearly based on the

Document info
Document views433
Page views434
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 16:49:18 UTC 2016
Pages157
Paragraphs741
Words67521

Comments