Modern Halakha – How Jewish law is responding to modern controversies

Feminism and the changing role of

women in contemporary

halakhic literature

Rabbi Johnny Solomon

1

A. FEMINISM

1. Rabbi Emanuel Feldman , Orthodox Feminism and Feminist Orthodoxy In a recent panel discussion about the Jewish feminist movement, a female Jewish academic, not observant but religiously sensitive, related that in her “egalitarian” congregation — a mixed minyan of men and women — she was told that if she learned to read the Hebrew from the sefer Torah for a certain aliyah, she would be called to theTorah and be invited to read aloud that portion.She practiced with a tutor for several months, and then was called to the Torah. She read her portion flawlessly. “It was a moment of supreme joy for me,” she said. “I felt religiously happy.” Turning to me, she added, “Why do the Orthodox deny such joy to their women?” I quicky assured her that Orthodoxy is all in favour of joy. “But,” I added, “joy is not the overarching criterion of Jewish religious life. There are many mitzvot we perform — such as fasting on Yom Kippur — that do not necessarily give us joy, and yet they help us make contact with our Creator. It is fine that you were happy, but that is not the touchstone of serving God.” I went on to suggest that one surely experiences a deep inner joy reaching out to God, but it is best not to confuse joy and religion, because, while in a profound sense, things that are deeply religious are deeply joyous, not everything that is joyous is religious.

2. Rabbi Joel B. Wolowelsky , Women, Jewish Law and Modernity Halakhically committed Jews living in a secular society often find their core principles under attack, both from within and without the Jewish community. We are obligated to fight for our religious principles regardless of whether or not they are popular; nevertheless, it is both pointless and counterproductive to replay yesterday’s battles when the rules of engagement have changed. There is no halakhic imperative requiring us to automatically reject proposals simply because they are innovative when they no longer pose a threat to Torah values…….There is no doubt that feminism as a movement has included themes antithetical to halakhic values, such as abortion on demand, support for lesbianism, dedication to a unisex society lacking gender-specific roles, and so on. Given the overall friction between feminist ideology and halakha, Orthodox leaders have been suspicious of arguably constructive suggestions for increased women’s participation in religious activities on the grounds that accepting them could legitimise feminism in the eyes of the halakhic community. It is now time to move past this fear of feminism.

2

B. WOMEN AND MITZVOT

3. Mishna Kiddushin 1:7 וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה אחד

 אנשים ואחד נשים חייביןEvery positive precept dependent upon a set time, men are obliged to observe but women are exempt. But those Positive Precepts not dependent upon a set time both men and women are obliged to observe.

4. Rabbi Getsel Ellinson, Serving the Creator pgs. 39-40

FIRST APPROACH – THE MALE’S PREROGATIVEa. Malmad ha-Talmidim, Parashat Lekh LekhaThe sign of the covenant [circumcision] is rightly limited to the male, seeing that the female’s role is that of helpmate to the male. It is said, Yet, your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall dominate you (Bereishit 3:16); implying that her husband will lead her and direct her in his ways, and that she act in accordance with his instructions. For this same reason women are exempt from all Positive Precepts dependent upon a set time. Were she bound to observe these mitzvoth at the set time, her husband would then be left without help at such times. This would lead to discord between them and undermine his authority, which was designed to benefit both husband and wife.

SECOND APPROACH – DOMESTIC HARMONYb. Abudarham, Section III, Blessings before the mitzvothWoman is exempt from Positive Precepts dependent upon a set time because she is bound to her husband, to attend to his needs. Were a woman obliged to perform such mitzvoth, her husband might bid her to do something at the precise moment she is fulfilling one of these mitzvoth. Should she fulfil the bidding of her Creator and neglect her husband’s demands, she faces her husband’s wrath. On the other hand, should she fulfil her husband’s demands and neglect the bidding of her Creator, she faces the wrath of her Creator. Consequently, the Creator exempted her from these obligations in order to promote harmony between husband and wife. Do we not find that even the Great Name written in sanctity and purity is effaced in order to promote harmony between husband and wife?

THIRD APPROACH – WOMEN HAVE NO NEED FOR THESE MITZVOTc. Yalkut Shimoni, Samuel Para. 78Why were women classified with minors and slaves with regard to the mitzvoth? Because they have but one heart, as it is written, And Hannah said in her heart (Shmuel I 1:13).

3

d. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary to Torah, Vayikra 23:43Clearly, women’s exemption from Positive Precepts dependent upon a set time is not a consequence of their diminished worth; nor is it because the Torah found them unfit, as it were, to fulfil these Precepts. Rather, it seems to me, it is because the Torah understood that women are not in need of these precepts. The Torah affirms that our women are imbued with a great love and a holy enthusiasm for their role in Divine worship, exceeding that of man. The trials men undergo in their professional activities jeopardize their fidelity to Torah, and therefore they require from time to time reminders and warnings in the form of time-related precepts. Women, whose lifestyle does not subject them to comparable trials and hazards, have no need for such periodic reminders.

5. Gemara Bava Kamma 87aיהודה פוטרו מכל מצות וכן היה רבי אין לו בושת, יהודה אומר: סומא ר' תניא אידך, אמר יהודה? דר' טעמא מאי אידי? דרב בריה שישא רב אמר בתורה. האמורות

ו'+ קרא: במצות +דברים ישנו שישנו במשפטים כל והמשפטים, החקים ואלה המצות וחקים, וכל שאינו במשפטים אינו במצות וחקים. אמר רב יוסף, מריש הוה אמינא: מאןיומא טבא לרבנן, דאמר הלכה כר' יהודה, דאמר: סומא פטור מן המצות, קא עבדינא ר' חנינא, דאמר דר' להא והשתא דשמעית עבדינא מצות, וקא מ"ט? דלא מפקדינא חנינא: גדול המצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה, מאן דאמר לי אין הלכה כרבי יהודה,

עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן, מ"ט? דכי מפקדינא אית לי אגרא טפי.Another [Baraitha] taught: R’ Yehuda says: 'A blind person is not subject to [the law of] Degradation. Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda exempted the blind from all commandments stated in the Torah.' R’ Shisha the son of R’ Idi said: The reason of R’ Yehudah of was because Scripture says: ‘Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances’ (Devarim 6); he who is subject to the 'ordinances' is subject to 'commandments' and 'statutes', but he who is not subject to 'ordinances' is not subject to 'commandments' and 'statutes'. Rav Yosef said: Formerly I used to say that if someone would tell me that the halachah is in accordance with R’ Yehuda who declared that a blind person is exempt from the commandments, I would make a festive occasion for our Rabbis, because though I am not enjoined I still perform commandments, but now that I have heard the statement of R’ Hanina, as R’ Hanina indeed said that greater is the reward of those who being commanded and do than of those who without being commanded, do, if someone would tell me that the halachah is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda I would make a festive occasion for our Rabbis, because if I am enjoined to perform commandments the reward will be greater for me.

6. Tosfot Kiddushin 31a - מכאן מדקדק ר"ת דנשים מברכות על מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא דלא מפקידנא ועבדינא

אע"ג דפטורות לגמרי דאפילו מדרבנן לא מיחייבי כדמוכח פרק מי שמתו( ברכות דף

4

מ"מ יכולות הן לברך ואין כאן משום לא תשא את שמו לשוא (שמות כ) משום מברכות כ(ברכה שאינה צריכה דאי לאו הכי היכי שמח רב יוסף והלא מפסיד כל הברכות כולן.

Because though I am not enjoined I still perform commandments - Rabbeinu Tam concluded from here that women may recite blessings over positive precepts dependent upon a set time, despite their total exemption. If this were not so, why would Rav Yosef have rejoiced? He would have denied the privilege of reciting all the blessings.

7 . Rambam, Hilkhot Tzizit 3:9 י פטורין מן הציצית מן התורה, ומדברי סופרים שכל קטן שיודע נשים ועבדים וקטנים להתעטף חייב בציצית כדי לחנכו במצות, ונשים ועבדי' שרצו להתעטף בציצית מתעטפים בלא ברכה, ל וכן שאר מצות עשה שהנשים פטורות מהן אם רצו לעשות אותן בלא מ

ברכה אין ממחין בידן...Women who wish to wear a garment with Tzizit do so without reciting the blessing. Similarly, with all Positive Precepts dependent upon a set time; if they wish to observe them without reciting the blessing we do not object.

8 . Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chaim 17 para. 2-3 ב טוכתב הרמב"ם דין שלישי בלא פרק – מתעטפים ועבדים שרצו להתעטף דנשים

ברכה. וכן שאר מצות עשה שהנשים פטורות מהן, אם רצו לעשות בלא ברכה – אין ממחין בידן. עד כאן לשונו. אבל נשים שלנו מברכות על סוכה ולולב, ואנן סבירא לן כשיטת רבינו

( דיבור המתחיל "הא"( דיכולות לברך אף ראש השנה לג אתם בתוספות ראש השנה אבל באמת לא]שפטורות, עיין שם. ולפי זה גם בציצית לכאורה יכולות להתעטף ולברך.

שמענו זה. ואין מניחין אותן ללבוש טלית, וכל שכן לברך. ואינו דומה לשופר וסוכה ולולב דהוי פעם אחת בשנה והמצוה כרגע, אבל ציצית מצוותה כל השנה ולא נאה לנשים. ועוד: דכל המצות הם חובה לאנשים, ולכן יכולות גם הן לעשות כן. אבל ציצית אינו חובה כמו

, ואיך נניח לנשים לעשותה? וזהו כוונת רבינו הרמ"א שכתב: ומכלסימן י"טשכתבתי ב מקום אם רוצות... אך מיחזי כיוהרא. ולכן אין להן ללבוש ציצית, הואיל ואינו חובת גברא. עד כאן לשונו, כלומר: דמיחזי כיוהרא כיון שהיא תמידית, וגם כיון שאינו לחובה לאיש אלא

כשיש לו בגד של ארבע כנפות. ולכן אין מניחים לנהוג מצוה זו. וכן המנהג ואין לשנות.

The Rambam has written in Ch. 3 law 9 that Women who wish to wear a garment with Tzizit do so without reciting the blessing. Similarly, with all Positive Precepts dependent upon a set time; if they wish to observe them without reciting the blessing we do not object. However, it is our accepted custom that women recite the blessings on Sukkah and Lulav. We follow the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam who maintains that women may recite the blessing even though they are exempt from the obligation. Accordingly, it would appear that women should also be permitted to wear Tzizit and recite the appropriate blessing. In practice, however, this is not done; we do not allow women to wear Tzizit, and we certainly do not allow them to recite the blessing. This mitzvah is not comparable to the mitzvoth of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav, which occur but once a year; whereas the mitzvah of Tzizit is in effect throughout the year. Thus it is not considered appropriate for women. Furthermore, the other mitzvoth are a personal obligation, so

5

women are also permitted to fulfil them; but Tzizit is not a personal obligation. This is what Rema is referring to when he states that it could be regarded as manifestation of conceit; since the mitzvah must be fulfilled constantly and moreover even for a man it is applicable only when he wears a four-cornered garment. Therefore we do not allow women to perform this mitzvah. This is the accepted custom, and one should not deviate from it.

9 . Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chaim 38 para. 6 ויום טוב נשים ועבדים פטורים מתפילין, מפני שהיא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, דשבת פטור מתפילין. ואם רוצין להחמיר על עצמן – מוחין בידן. ולא דמי לסוכה ולולב שפטורות ועם כל זה מברכות עליהן. דכיון דתפילין צריך זהירות יתירה מגוף נקי, כדאמרינן בשבת

(: תפילין צריכין גוף נקי כאלישע בעל כנפים. ובירושלמי ברכות שם אמרו: תמןמט א) אמרין כל שאינו כאלישע בעל כנפים – אל יניח תפילין. אך אנשים שמחויבים – בהכרח

סימןשיזהרו בהם בשעת קריאת שמע ותפילה. ולכן אין מניחין כל היום, כמו שכתבתי ב . ואם כן נשים שפטורות, למה יכניסו עצמן בחשש גדול כזה? ואצלן בשעת קריאתהקודם

שמע ותפילה כלאנשים כל היום, לפיכך אין מניחין אותן להניח תפילין. ואף על גב דתניא ( דמיכל בת שאול היתה מנחת תפילין, ולא מיחו בה חכמים – אין למידיןצו אבעירובין )

מזה, דמסתמא ידעו שהיא צדקת גמורה וידעה להזהר. וכן עבדים כהאי גוונא.

Tefillin is a positive precept dependent upon a set time, since one is exempt on Shabbat and Festivals. If women should choose to be stringent, we should protest their being so. Tefillin is unlike Sukkah and Lulav because Tefillin requires that the person be meticulously clean. Thus the Talmud (Shabbat 49a) states: “Tefillin demands a body as clean as that of Elisha ba’al kenafayim”. Men who are obligated to wear them perforce must take care to maintain their cleanliness during the reciting of the Shema and the Amidah; and this is why men do not wear Tefillin all day. Thus women, who are exempt from the obligation, have no need to undertake so great a risk. For women there is no difference between the occasions of reciting the Shema and Amidah, and the remainder of the day; they are obligated at no time. Therefore we do not allow women to wear Tefillin. The statement in Eruvin that Michael the daughter of Saul donned Tefillin and the Sages did not object, does not constitute a precedent. It can be assumed that the Sages were aware of her exceptional virtue and of her ability to maintain rigorous and constant cleanliness.

10. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe OC 4:49)בענין התנועה החדשה של נשים השאננות והחשובות בע"ה. י"ח אלול תשל"ו.מע"כ ידידי הרה"ג מוהר"י קעלעמער שליט"א רב בבאסטאן בקהלה חשובה.

הנה בדבר הנשים השאננות והחשובות אשר בעניני הנהגות המדינות בעולם הן גם כן מהלוחמות יחד עם התנועה כזו עם הנשים הלוחמות בזה מכל העמים שבעולם, אבל נשים אלו שהן שומרות תורה רוצות להכניס מלחמתן גם במה שנוגע לכמה דיני התורהוכדומה בעוד דברים, ורוצה שאביע בזה דעתי בעצם ויש מהן אשר מתפללות בטלית

הדבר ואיך שיתנהג כתר"ה.

6

והנה ראשית צריך לדעת כי מעיקרי האמונה הטהורה שלנו שכל התורה בין שבכתב בין שבעל פה ניתנה מהקב"ה בעצמו בהר סיני ע"י משה רבנו ע"ה ואי אפשר לשנות אפילוחיוב על ולגדר היה צורך לסיג נצטוינו שכשיש ולא להחמיר. אך קוץ אחד לא להקל הסנהדרין וחכמי התורה לתקן איזה תקנות לאסור איזה דברים וכן לחייב איזה דברים אך בהודעה מרבנן שהוא לתקנה ולסיג, ומזמן שנתפזרנו בכל הארצות לית לנו כח זה אלא שיש לחכמים לתקן כל מקום ומקום איזה תקנה רק למקומם ורק לזמן קצר. וממילא זה שהתורה פטרה ממ"ע =ממצות עשה= שהזמן גרמה הוא מן התורה וגם רבנן לא חייבום כי לא ראו בזה שום צורך לחייבן ואדרבה משמע שהצורך הוא לפוטרן דוקא מהטעמים שפטרתן תורה, ולבד טעמי התורה שלא ידוע לסתם אינשי אף לא לת"ח גדולים ואנו מחוייבין להאמין שאיכא טעמים גדולים לקב"ה נותן התורה איכא גם טעמים גלוים לכל, כי סתם נשים בעולם אינם עשירות ועליהן מוטל גידול הילדים והילדות שהיא מלאכה היותר חשובה להשי"ת ולהתורה, וכן ברא השי"ת בטבע כל מין ומין דמבע"ח =דמבעלי חיים= שהנקבות יגדלו את הולדות ואף את מין האדם לא הוציא מן הכלל בזה שגם טבעזה הקל עליהן שלא לחייבן בלמוד התורה, יותר לגידול הילדים שמצד הנשים מסוגל ובמ"ע שהזמ"ג =ובמצות עשה שהזמן גרמה=, שלכן אף אם ישתנה סדור החיים בעולם גם לכל הנשים ולעשירות בכל הזמנים ואף כשאפשר למסור הגידול לאיזה אינשי ונשי כבמדינתנו לא נשתנה דין התורה ואף לא דין דרבנן, ולא תועיל שום מלחמה כי אין שום כח לשנות אפילו בהסכם כל העולם כולו שום דבר, והנשים שמתעקשות ורוצות ללחום

פ"ג מתשובה ה"ח דשלשה הן הנקראין ברמב"ם ולשנות הן בחשיבות כופרות בתורה, עיין כופרין בתורה האומר אף על תיבה אחת שמשה אמרו מפי עצמו, והכופר בפירושה שהוא תורה שבעל פה, והאומר שהוחלף דבר אחד כל אחד משלשה אלו כופר בתורה ודינם שאין להם חלק לעוה"ב, ואף שלשון הרמב"ם הוא האומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו, פשוט שהוא לרבותא דאף דאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו וכ"ש כשאומר שהרשות ביד האינשי להחליף, שג"כ הרי אומר בזה שאין התורה נצחית וכל הטעם הוא שהרי מכחיש כמה

כתובים המורים שהתורה נצחית כדכתב הכ"מ. איברא דאיכא רשות לכל אשה לקיים אף המצות שלא חייבתן תורה ויש להם מצוה ושכר על קיום מצות אלו וגם לשיטת התוס' רשאות גם לברך על המצות וכמנהגנו שמקיימות מצות שופר ולולב וגם מברכות שא"כ גם על ציצית שייך לאשה שתרצה ללבוש בגד שיהיה בצורה אחרת מבגדי אנשים אבל יהיה בד' כנפות ולהטיל בו ציצית ולקיים מצוה זו. ורקבידן משום דצריך למחות ד"ה מיכל ע"א צ"ו דף עירובין תפילין כתבו התוס' להניח דתפילין צריך זריזות מרובה בגוף נקי ובהיסח הדעת שמטעם זו אף אנשים שמחוייביןוכן איפסק זמן המועט דתפלה בשחרית, בתפילין נמנעין מלהניחם כל היום אלא רק ברמ"א או"ח סימן ל"ח סעי' ג', ובתרגום יונתן על קרא דלא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה איתא לא יהי גוליין דציצית ותפילין דהינון תיקוני גבר על איתא לא סבירא להו לתוס' זה, ופשוט שהתוס' סברי שאינו מתרגום יונתן. אבל פשוט שהוא רק בחשקה נפשה לקיים מצות אף כשלא נצטוותה, אבל מכיון שאינו לכוונה זו אלא מצד תורעמותה על השי"ת ועל תורתו אין זה מעשה מצוה כלל אלא אדרבה מעשה איסור שהאיסור דכפירה שחושבת דשייך שיהיה

איזה חלוף בדיני התורה היא עושית גם במעשה שחמיר. ושנית צריך לדעת כי אין זה בשביל שנשים פחותות במדרגת הקדושה מאנשים דלענין הקדושה שוות לאנשים לענין שייכות החיוב במצות שרק מצד הקדושה דאיכא בישראלוגם לנשים נאמרו כל הקראי דקדושה בין תחלת תנאי קבלת התורה הוא ציוי המצות ותגיד לבני יעקב אלו הנשים גוי קדוש שנאמר לבית לי ואתם תהיו לי סגולה והייתם ישראל אלו האנשים, ובין ואנשי קדש תהיון לי שבמשפטים והייתם קדשים דשמיני וקדשים

7

תהיו והייתם קדשים שבפ' קדשים וכי עם קדוש אתה לה' שבפ' ראה ובכל מקום שנמצאקדשנו אשר בלשון מברכות הנשים גם ולכן לנשים, גם נאמר דישראל קדושה ענין במצותיו כמו האנשים אף על המצות שלא חייבתן תורה, ורק שהוא קולא מאיזה טעמי השי"ת שרצה להקל לנשים כדלעיל ולא מצד גריעותא ח"ו, ובהחיובים בין איש לאשתו איתא חיוב הכבוד על האיש לאשתו ועל האשה לבעלה בלא שום חלוק, והרבה מהנשים שהיו נביאות ויש להן כל דיני נביא שבאנשים, ובהרבה דברים נשתבחו בין בקראי בין בדברי חז"ל עוד יותר מלאנשים, וליכא שום זלזול בכבודן ובכל דבר בזה שנפטרו מלמוד התורה וממצות שהזמ"ג וליכא כלל שום סבה להתרעם כלל, וזה יש לכתר"ה להסביר בכל פעם ופעם ולהיות תקיף וחזק בדעתו שהוא כדיני התורה למחות באלו הנשי שאחר כל זה

יעמדו בדעתן האולת והעקושה שלא לשנות שום דבר ממנהגי ישראל הקדושים.ולכל הקהל הקדוש ולכל אשר אתו וכוח"ט לכתר"ה ובזה אגמור בברכה לשלום אמת

האנשים והנשים והטף. ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין.This concerns the overconfident/complacent and important women who, on issues of worldly affairs, are involved with that movement of women battling the nations of the world. These women who are observant of the Torah wish to carry their battle even into the arena of some of the laws of Torah. Some of them even wear prayer shawls (tallit) during prayer and do other similar things. You (the questioner) want me to express my thoughts on the nature of the issue and on how you should conduct yourself.

Initially, one must know from the principles of our pure faith that all of the Torah, whether written or oral, was given by the Holy One Blessed Be He Himself, on Mount Sinai to Moses our teacher, of blessed memory. Therefore, it is impossible to change any part, no matter whether one wants to make it easier or more stringent. However, we were commanded, when there is a need to legislate preventative measures (fences) that it was the responsibility of the Sanhedrin and the Sages to amend the laws, to restrict or to obligate, as long as all was done with rabbinic notification as an amendment or a fence. With our dispersion amongst the nations, we no longer have the power to make global amendments. We can only make local and temporary regulations. In any case, the Torah itself exempted women from those obligations that are positive and time bound. Even the rabbis did not obligate the women for they saw no purpose to it. Quite the contrary, they understood the need to exempt the women for the very same reasons as are in the Torah’s release. Besides, even though there are reasons of the Torah that are unknown to the ordinary folk and even to the great sages, we are nonetheless obligated to believe that God has reasons. There are also reasons that are obvious to all such as that since ordinary women are not rich, they are left with the responsibility of raising their boys and girls, which is by far the most important job according to God and the Torah. Moreover, God created every animal species in nature in such a manner that the females will raise the children. And human beings are no exception to this rule. The nature of women is better suited to raising children. For this reason, God eased their responsibilities in the arena of Torah study and in respect to obligations that are positive and time bound. Thus, even if social patterns change for all women or for all wealthy

8

women in history, and even if it is possible to hand over childrearing to other men and women, as in our country, nonetheless, the laws of the Torah and of the rabbis have not changed. No battle can succeed because there is no power to change the law even if everyone were to agree. Those stubborn women who wish to wage war are considered deniers of the Torah (heretics). See Maimonides chapter three, the section beginning with: three that are called heretics, one who says even about one word (of the Torah) that Moses said it on his own (and not from God), one who rejects an interpretation that is the Oral Torah, and one who says that something was reversed (exchanged), all three are heretics and their judgement is that they do not have a part in the world to come. Although the language of Maimonides indicates that (the heretic) is the one who says that God changed this commandment, clearly this is just to add (to the category). Thus, if even those who claim that the change comes from God (are included), then obviously, those who claim men can make the desired changed (are included). No matter what the reasoning, all these claims are essentially contravening Biblical texts that claim the Torah is eternal, as is explained in the Kesef Mishnah.

To be sure, permission is given to women to perform mitzvot (ritual obligations) that are not obligatory in the Torah. They can even be considered to have a duty and a reward in the performance of these obligations. In fact, according to the ruling of the Tosafists they are entitled (authorised) to make the appropriate blessing. It is our custom for the women to observe the commandments of shofar and lulav and even to make the appropriate blessings. From this one would think that tzitzit (ritual fringes worn on four cornered garments, most specifically prayer shawls), could apply to a woman who wishes to wear such a garment, as long as it is different from the male garment. This garment would have the necessary four corners and the proper fringes attached and would be used to fulfil this obligation. It is only in connection with tefillin (phylacteries), that the Tosafists raised certain questions. In tractate TB Erubin 96a beginning with the world Michal there is a discussion of whether one must prevent women from wearing tefillin or not. Since this garment requires diligence either in terms of a clean body or in terms of concentration, even men who are obligated are not allowed to wear them all day long and are therefore, limited to the short time span of morning prayers. This is the judgement in the Rama Orach Chaim 38:3. The Targum of Jonathan, in reference to the biblical text on male garments which are forbidden to women, states: women shall not wear tsitsit and tefillin for they are male garments on women. This view is not in accordance with the Tosafists whose opinion simply does not agree with Targum of Jonathan. Plainly, they (the Tosafists) are dealing in a situation wherein the woman’s soul desires to perform a mitzvah even though she is not commanded. However, since (in our case) this is not for this purpose, rather the desire comes out of a rebellion against God and His Torah, it cannot be an act of mitzvah at all. On the contrary, it is a

9

forbidden act, forbidden as a heresy that expects a change in the laws of the Torah and as such must be dealt with as a very grave matter.

Secondly, one must know that it is not because women are inferior to men in levels of sanctity, kedusha. In matters of kedusha, they are equal to men: (specifically) concerning the relevance of the obligatory commandment relating to sanctity, there are specific commandments for Israel. Furthermore, women are included in all those biblical verses dealing with sanctity. Whether in those verses describing the conditions for receiving the Torah “And you shall be for me a treasured people and a holy nation”, in which words “house of Jacob” refers to the women and “tell it to the children of Israel” refers to the men, or whether in those chapters and verses of Mishpatim, Shemini, Kedoshim and Re’eh, in all the places where the sanctity of Israel is relevant, women are included. Therefore, women also must make the blessing saying “who has sanctified us in his commandments” just as the men do, even on rituals from which the women are exempt. Thus, it (the exemption) is just a leniency from God who, for some unknown reason, wished to lighten the burden of women. It is certainly not due to inferiority. Even in the realm of the obligations between a husband and wife, there is no difference, the obligation of respect applies equally. And many of the women who were prophetesses were rules by the same regulations of prophecy as the men. Furthermore, in many cases, women were praised even more than the men in the Bible as well as in the words of the sages. There is no disrespect in their exemption from the study of Torah and from precepts that are valid at a fixed time. And there is no reason to be angry. You, my respected colleague, must explain this every time, be firm and strong for these are the unchanging sacred customs of our Torah. Prevent these women, who after all this will remain steadfast in their sinful and twisted (stubborn) ways, from changing any sacred customs of Israel.

I shall conclude with a blessing for peace and truth for you and for all who are with you and to the entire holy community of men and women and children.

Moshe FeinsteinA. BAT MITZVAH CELEBRATIONS

11. Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:104 בדבר בת מצוה י"א שבט תשט"ז. מע"כ ידידי הנכבד הרה"ג מהר"ר ברוך אהרן פופקא

שליט"א. בדבר ענין החפצים להנהיג איזה סדר ושמחה בבנות כשנעשו בנות מצוה, הנה אין לעשות זה בבית הכנסת בשום אופן אף לא בלילה, כי בבית הכנסת אינו מקום לעשות דברי הרשות אף בנבנו על תנאי, והצערעמאניע /טקס/ של בת מצוה הוא ודאי רק דברי רשות והבל בעלמא ואין שום מקום להתיר לעשות זה בבית הכנסת. וכ"ש בזה שהמקור בא מהרעפארמער וקאנסערוואטיווער /מהרפורמים וקונסרוטיבים/. ורק אם רוצה האב לעשות

10

איזה שמחה בביתו רשאי אבל אין זה שום ענין וסמך להחשיב זה דבר מצוה וסעודת מצוה, כי הוא רק כשמחה של יום הולדת בעלמא. ואי איישר חילי הייתי מבטל במדינתנו גם סדר הבר מצוה של הבנים שכידוע לא הביא זה שום איש לקרבו לתורה ולמצות ואף לא את הבר מצוה אף לא לשעה אחת, ואדרבה בהרבה מקומות מביא זה לחלול שבת ועוד איסורים. עכ"פ מה שכבר הונהג בפה וגם בא זה ממקור מצוה קשה לבטל, אבליותר טוב למנוע אף לחדש זה בבנות שהוא בלא מקור מצוה כלל, אף בבית ודאי הי'

שליכא איסור, אבל לעשות בביהכ"נ אף בלילה בשעה שאין מתפללין אסור.The question concerns those who wish to conduct some kind of service and celebrate with their daughters when they become Bat Mitzvah. This should not be done in the synagogue on any account, not even in the evening. The synagogue is not a proper place for optional acts, even if it was built for these purposes. The Bat Mitzvah ceremony is definitely just an optional thing, merely vanity, and there are no grounds for allowing it in the synagogue. Moreover, since the origin for this is in the Reform and Conservative. Only if the father wishes to have a simcha at home, it is permitted. Nevertheless, it has no real standing and should not be considered as commanded or constituting a seudat mitzvah. It is merely the simcha of an ordinary birthday. If I had the power, I would also cancel the celebration of Bar Mitzvah for boys in our country, since it is obvious that it does not bring anyone closer to Torah and Commandment, not even the boy himself, not even for one hour. Moreover, in most places it causes many to violate Shabbat and other prohibitions. In any case, that which is already customary and emanates from a commandment is difficult to eliminate. However, even though there is no prohibition with respect to a house ceremony, it would be better not to start something new for girls that is not derived from any commandment. But, to do this in the synagogue, even at night when they are not praying, is forbidden.

12. Sridei Aish 2:39 על חגיגת בת מצוה והאיסור לילך בחוקות הגויים

ב"הכבוד הרב הגדול מהרא"ד, רב ראשי בעיר גדולה בצרפת

ענף ראשון: מחלוקות הראשונים בהגדרת איסור ההליכה בחוקות הגוייםבדבר שאלתו אם מותר לחוג חגיגת בת מצוה ואם יש בזה משום "ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו"…

משום לאסור שרוצים ויש מצוה. בת חגיגת לחוג מותר אם דידן בנידון נראה …ועכשיו נאמר שהקונפירמציאן של בזה, שבאם ולענ"ד תלוי ו'(, סי' זקן אהרן שו"ת )עי' ובחוקותיהם

העכו"ם הוא לשם עבודה זרה, יש לאסור משום ובחוקותיהם בכל גווני. אלא שלפי"ז הי' לנו לאסור גם חגיגת בר מצוה, שהרי אצלם עושים קונפירמציאן גם לזכרים, והי' לנו לאסור גם את התפילה, שהרי גם הם מתפללים לעבודה זרה. אלא שבזה לא שייך שיש בווגם הרפורמים כן חגיגת שמחתם לרגל בגרותם של בניהם. זרה אלא שעושים משום עבודה מעמנו אינם עושים כן כדי להידמות להם, אלא לשם חגיגת משפחה ושמחתה שהגיעו בניהם

לבגרות. ואלה מאחינו שהנהיגו זה מחדש חגיגת בת מצוה אומרים, שהם עושים כן כדי לחזק בלב הבת, שהגיעה למצות, רגש אהבה ליהדות ולמצוותיה, ולעורר בה רגש הגאון על יהדותה ועל היותה בת לעם גדול וקדוש. ולא איכפת לנו מה שגם הגויים חוגגים חגיגת הקונפרמציאן בין לבנים ובין

11

לבנות, הם בדידהו ואנן בדידן, הם מתפללים וכורעים בכנסיות שלהם ואנחנו כורעים ומשתחויםומודים לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה…

ויש טוענים נגד ההיתר של חגיגת הבת מצוה, משום שהוא נגד מנהג הדורות הקודמים, שלא נהגוהבנות, בחינוך לעסוק הצטרכו לא שלפנינו בדורות כי טענה, זו אין באמת אבל זה. מנהג

שכל אחד מישראל הי' מלא תורה ויראת שמים, וגם האויר בכל עיר ועיר מישראל]עמוד תנט[ לפי הי' מלא וממולא בריח וברוח היהדות, והבנות שגדלו בבית ישראל שאפו את רוח היהדות בקרבן

באפס מעשה וכמעט שינקו את היהדות משדי אמותיהן. אבל עכשיו נשתנו הדורות שינוי עצום. השפעת הרחוב עוקרת מלב כל נער ונערה כל זיק של יהדות, והבנות מתחנכות בבתי ספר נכרים או בבתי ספר חילונים, שאינם שוקדים להשריש בלב תלמידיהם אהבה לתורת ישראל ולמנהגי הקודש של היהדות השלימה, עכשיו מוטל עלינו לרכז כל

כחותינו בחינוכן של הבנות.והרוח ומדעי הטבע וספרות חילונית לימודי שפות זה דבר מכאיב לב, שבחינוך הכללי, והרי וחינוך וספרות המוסר של חז"ל, לימודי תנ"ך ואילו בחינוך הדתי, דואגים לבנות כמו לבנים, למצוות מעשיות שהנשים חייבות בהן, מזניחים לגמרי. לאשרנו עמדו גדולי ישראל בדור הקודם על הקלקלה הזאת ותקנו מוסדות של תורה וחיזוק דתי בעד בנות ישראל. הקמת רשת גדולה

ומקיפה של בית יעקב היא ההפגנה הנהדרה ביותר של דורנו.גם לבת את הגעתה לחיוב וחובת העיקרון הפדגוגי מחייב, כמעט, לחוג ושורת ההגיון הישר המצות, והפלי' זו שעושים בין הבנים והבנות בנוגע לחגיגת הבגרות פוגעת קשה ברגש האנושי של

הבת הבוגרת, אשר בשטחים אחרים כבר זכתה בזכיון האמנציפציא, כביכול. ואף שנוטה אני להתיר חגיגת בת מצוה, מ"מ מסכים אני לדעת הגאון ר"מ פינשטיין בספרו אגרותזו בבהכ"נ ואף לא בלילה …וברור שאין לדמות ענין משה או"ח ד' סי' ל"ו, שאין לחגוג חגיגה חגיגת בת המצוה לאיסור החמור שהטילו גדולי ישראל בשעתו על הניגון בעוגב )אורגעל( בבתי הכנסת לא רק בשבת ויו"ט אלא גם בימות החול )במלמד להועיל או"ח סי' ט"ז(, שהניגון בעוגב יש בו משום סרך עבודה זרה…ועוד, שבתחילת הכנסת העוגב בבתי כנסת ע"י המהרסים בלטה כונתם הזדונית לחקות מנהגי העכו"ם ולהדמות להם בכל דבר. ולא זו בלבד עשו, אלא גם חיללו את השבת בפרהסיא, התירו אכילת נבלות וטריפות ומחקו מסידור התפילות כל זכר לשיבת ציוןלירושלים. העבודה וסדר ואמנם יש מקום לחשוש למה שכתב הגרד"צ הופמן במלמד להועיל הנ"ל, שיש גם איסור משום חיקוי האפיקורסים, כמו שנאמר במשנה חולין מ"א, א אבל עושה גומא בתוך ביתו,,, ובשוק לא יעשה כן, שלא יחקה את המינים. ופירש"י: "יחזיק ידיהם בחוקותיהם". יחקה לשון חוק. ובברייתא

שם: ובשוק לא יעשה כן, משום שנאמר: ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו, ואם עשה כן צריך בדיקה אחריו. ואף ששם האיסור לפי שיש בו סרך של עבודה זרה, כמו שכתב רש"י במשנה, דטעמא דגומא משום שהוא חוק הצדוקים לעבודה זרה, מ"מ יש בו משום חיזוק למהרסים, שהם הי' הראשונים להנהיג מנהג חדש זה של חגיגת בת מצוה וכמש"כ במלמד להועיל שם, וזהו באמת טעם שלא לחוג חגיגת בת מצוה בבתי כנסת, נוסף על הטעם שכתב הגר"מ פינשטיין שליט"א בספרו אגרותמנהגי לחקות הכוונה שאין הדבר ניכר לביהכ"נ חוץ זו חגיגה שחוגגים מכיון שם, משה האפיקורסים, כמו שכתבו התוס' בחולין שם ד"ה ובשוק לא יעשה כן, שהרואה שעושה בביתו אומר לנקר חצרו הוא עושה. וגם כאן יראו הכל שאין עושים חגיגה זו בבית הכנסת כמנהגם הם,

אלא לשם שמחת המשפחה ולשם חיזוק חינוכי לבת שהגיעה לגיל המצוות. כל הנ"ל כתבתי לבירורה של הלכה זו, ולמעשה הדבר תלוי בכוונת הרוצים לחדש מנהג זה של

חגיגת הבת מצוה, אם הם מתכוונים לשם מצוה או חלילה לשם חיקוי המינים. אמנם לא נעלם ממני, שיש בין היראים אוסרים ומחמירים, שאינם שמים לב בשאלות של מנהגים דתיים לשיקולים הגיוניים, ואף אינם נותנים דעתם לבירורים הלכותיים, אלא דנים עליהן עפ"יומורים, נרתע מכל שינוי שהוא בנוהג והלב היהודי הדבק במסורת הורים רגשות הלב בלבד. הדתי. עליהם יש להמליץ מה שכתב הרמב"ם בפירושו למשנה גיטין פ"ה מ"ח: ואלו דברים אמרויעי"ש. וכו', שלום דרכי מפני

12

אולם אין להם לשכוח כי גם המצדדים בהיתר של מנהג חדש זה של חגיגת בת מצוה, לבם דופק בחרדה לחיזוק החינוך הדתי של בנות ישראל, שבנסיבות של החיים בדור הזה הן זקוקות ביותר לחיסון רוחני ולעידוד מוסרי בהגיען לגיל המצות. ובמיוחד יש לזכור דברי הריב"ש בתשובתו הנ"ל, שאפילו בדבר שהוא איסור גמור, כל שאין מקבלים אמרו חז"ל מוטב שיהי' שוגגים ואל יהי' מזידין,

ושאין לדקדק בדברים כאלה אם רוצים לחיות עמהם בשלום. והואיל וכת"ר כתב שרוב בני הקהלה רוצים דוקא להנהיג מנהג זה של חגיגת בת מצוה לבנות, אין לכת"ר לצאת במחלוקת נגדם, רק לדאוג לכך שמנהג זה ישמש באמת חיזוק וחוסן להשלטת רוח

תורה ומצות בלב בנות ישראל.

יחיאל יעקב וויינברג

Section I. The debate in the Rishonim in the definition of the prohibition to go in the ways of the non-Jews.In the matter of your question if it is permissible to celebrate the bat mitzvah celebration, and if there is in this matter a violation of bechukoteihem, “In their ways you shall not go”…Section III. The permission to hold a bat mitzvah celebration not in the synagogue and not as an imitation of the practices of the non-Jews. And now, it appears that in our case, it is permissible to celebrate a bat mitzvah celebration. There are those who want to prohibit because of bechukoteihem. And in my opinion it depends on the above, for if we were to say that the confirmation of the non-Jews is for the sake of avoda zara, then we should prohibit under all circumstances based on bechukoteihem.But according to this we should also prohibit a bar mitzvah ceremony, for they also have confirmations for boys, and we should prohibit prayer, for they also pray to avoda zara. But in this case the issues of avoda zara are not relevant, because they do this to celebrate the coming-of-age of their children. And even the Reform from our people do not do this to be like them, but rather to have a family celebration that their children have come of age. Now, those from our brethren who recently adopted this practice of the bat mitzvah celebration say that they are doing this in order to strengthen in the heart of the girl, that has attained the age of mitzvot, a feeling of love for Judaism and its mitzvot, and to stir up in her a feeling of pride for her Judaism and for her being a member (lit, a daughter) of this great, holy nation. And it is of no interest to us that the non- Jews have a confirmation celebration, whether for boys or for girls. They have their practices and we have ours. They prayand bow down in their churches, and we pray and bow down before the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He…Now there are those who oppose the bat mitzvah ceremony and claim that it is against the custom of the earlier generations which did not practice this custom. But in truth this is not a valid critique, because the earlier generations did not need to address the

13

issue of Jewish education, chinukh, for girls, because every Jew was filled with Torah and fear of Heaven. Even the air in every Jewish city was filled and bursting with the smell and spirit of Judaism. Thus, the girls who grew up in Jewish homes, breathed in the aroma of Judaism into their core being, without having to be addressed in any way, and they practically suckled Judaism from their mothers’ breasts. But now, the generations have undergone a profound change. The influence of the street uproots from the heart of every young boy and girl any Jewish connection. The girls are educated in non-Jewish or secular schools, which are not devoted to inculcating in their students’ hearts a love for the Torah of the Jewish people and the holy practices of a full Judaism. Now it is our responsibility to focus our energies on the education of girls. Now, this matter breaks the heart. That when it comes to general education, the study of secular languages and literature and the sciences and the liberal arts, the needs of the girls are addressed the same as the needs of the boys. But when it comes to religious education, the study of Tanakh and the mussar literature of the Sages, and the education of the practical mitzvot that women are educated in, they are completely abandoned. To our delight, the great sages have arisen in the previous generation to correct this travesty and have established Torah institutions for Jewish girls. The establishment of the Beit Yaakov network is the greatest accomplishment of our generation. Straight thinking and pedagogical principles practically obligation to hold a celebration for a bat mitzvah when she reaches the age of mitzvot. And this distinction that they make between boys and girls when it comes to the coming-of age celebration profoundly wounds the human emotions of the girl who has reached adulthood, who in other areas has already achieved the rights of the emancipation, so to speak. And although I am inclined to permit a bat mitzvah celebration, nevertheless, I agree with the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein, OH 4:36, that one should not celebrate it in the synagogue, even at night…And it is obvious that one cannot compare the bat mitzvah celebration to the weighty prohibition that the sages of the past placed on the playing of an organ in the synagogue, not only on Shabbat but even during the weekday… because playing the organ has an element of avoda zara, because the non-Jews use it for the sake of their avoda zara in their houses of avoda zara…Moreover, at the outset the introduction of the organ into the synagogue which was done by the tear-downers, their wicked intent to mimic the practices of the non-Jews and to be like them in all things was blatant. And not only did they do this, they also desecrated Shabbat publicly, permitted the eating of non-Kosher food, and erased from the siddur any mention of returning to Zion and the worship in Jerusalem. However, there is reason to be concerned with what R. David Tzvi Hoffman wrote in Melamed LiHoeal, that there is also the prohibition of mimicking the heretics… There would be, nonetheless, a strengthening of the tear-downers, for they were the first to establish this new practice of bat mitzvah celebrations, as he wrote in Melamed LiHoel. Now this is actually a reason not to have the celebration in the synagogue, in addition to

14

the reason that Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote in his Iggrot Moshe, since when one has this celebration outside the synagogue it is obvious that the purpose is not to mimic the practices of the heretics… Here, too, all will see that they do not do these celebrations in the synagogue, like their (the heretics’) practice is, but rather for the sake of a family celebration and to strengthen the education of the girl who has reached the age of mitzvot.I wrote all this to clarify the halakha. In the end, the matter depends on the intent of those who want to innovate this practice of a bat mitzvah celebration. If they intend to do it for the sake of a mitzvah or – God forbid – for the sake of mimicking the heretics.However, I am not oblivious to the fact that there are among the fervently-religious those who forbid and are strict, and to not consider rational arguments when it comes to religious practices, and do not even bother themselves with halakhic arguments, but rather judge such matters only on the basis of emotions. And the Jewish heart that cleaves to the tradition of parents and teachers, recoils from any change in religious practice. Regarding them it can be advised what Rambam wrote in his Mishnah Commentary on the mishna in Gittin 5:8, “The following they said because of ways of peace.” See there. However, even they may not forget that even those who are in favor of this new practice of the bat mitzvah celebration, their heart as well beats with a deep concern to strengthen the religious education of Jewish girls… And that one should not be overly scrupulous about these issues if they want to live together in peace. Inasmuch as you wrote that most of your community wants to do this practice of a bat mitzvah celebration for girls, you should not fight against them. Rather, you should focus your concerns on ensuring that this practice truly serves as a strengthening and protection for the inculcating of the spirit of the Torah and mitzvot in the hearts of Jewish girls.Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg

13. Rabbi Alfred Cohen, Celebration of the Bat Mitzvah, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XII, 50 The Bar Mitzvah celebration in America has come in for more than its share of ridicule and caricature. Commercialization of this religious milestone and its mindless exploitation have managed to dim the lustre of a very beautiful and ancient Jewish tradition, one admired and encouraged even as far back as the Tannaitic age almost two thousand years ago. A festive meal to mark life's milestones has long been considered appropriate - a seudah is prepared at a Brit Milah, also for a bride and groom during theseven days after their marriage, and by many persons on the occasion of moving into a new house. Already in the Torah we find mention that Avraham our Patriarch tendered a great feast when his son Yitzchak was weaned. Consequently, the concept of the Bar Mitzvah does deserve our more serious attention to uncover its educational and ethical message.

15

Moreover, the new popularity of the feminist movement has made celebrations of Bat Mitzvah increasingly favored; even in quite traditionalist circles, it is not uncommon for the Bat Mitzvah date to be taken notice of in some manner. However, a great deal of controversy exists as to the proper or religiously valid and acceptable way to mark this rite...It may be that the very fact that the Bat Mitzvah was not traditionally celebrated with any great festivity is sufficient reason not to institute such a celebration at this time.Not so, argues Rabbi Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg; he emphatically rejects the claim that there is no basis for allowing this innovation. Drawing on the historic precedent of the Beth Jacob girls ' schools which represented a radical innovation when they were introduced earlier in this century, he postulates persuasive reasons for introducing a change which he deems vital to our future : In the generations before us , they did not have to be concerned with education and training of girls, for every Jew then was full of Torah...and every city of Jews was full of the spirit of Judaism. Girls who were raised in a Jewish home absorbed the spirit of Judaism without any active deed, almost taking it Inwith their mothers' milk. Although once it sufficed for girls to be trained by their mothers to be good Jewish women, now times have changed. The home may no longer be adequate or sufficient to assure that Jewish daughters will be committed to Torah values and observance.Changes have to be made. Fortunately, the leaders of our people in the previous generation became aware of this and established institutions of Torah and religious strengthening for girls.Rabbi Weinberg considers the establishment of a network of schools for girls to be " the most magnificent demonstration of our generation." He then proceeds to argue that other changes also must be made in recognition of the radically different status women enjoy today, as compared to previous generations. Clear logic and principles of pedagogy virtually require equal celebration for a girl when she reaches the age of responsibility for mitzvot. Moreover he warns of dire consequences if we do not face up to the impact which neglect may have upon girls ' attitudes: The difference which is made in the celebration for a boy and a girl upon reaching maturity makes a very hurtful impression on the feelings of the maturing girl, who has in all other areas attained equality.... Innovation often arouses controversy in Jewish circles, for sad experience has shown that there is always the danger it may have an impure origin or an unfortunate outcome. Even when that great tzaddik Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen, the Chafetz Chaim, approved the establishment of a school to teach girl s Torah and Judaism, he met with a storm of opposition. Nevertheless, the project continued and in the ensuing decades more than proved its essential worthiness. If the impetus to give more importance to agirl's reaching Bat Mitzvah arises from a similarly pure motivation, the verdict over a period of time may affirm its acceptability and importance. At the present it is difficult

16

to give a definitive answer as to the appropriateness of making a major celebration for a girl's reaching Bat Mitzvah. Perhaps we need the experience of time to render the final decision on this vexing halachic question.

B. WOMEN AND TORAH STUDY

14. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Women and Judaism: The Key Issues, in ‘Orthodoxy confronts modernity’ (ed. J. Sacks) pgs. 89-90The Talmud (Kiddushin 29b) cites a verse from the Shema, “And you shall teach them to your children.” But the sages chose to interpret the word beneikhem as “your sons” rather than “your children,” although the word might mean either. What precisely does this mean? Does it mean that our daughters are not obligated to study Torah? Or that our daughters are not permitted to study Torah? Does it apply to a specific type of Torah study or to all? In the Mishnah, Ben Azzai rules Chayyav adam lelemed et bito Torah, “It is incumbent upon every individual to teach his daughter Torah.” (Sotah 3:4). But Rabbi Eliezer says, Hamelamed et bito Torah, melamdah tiflut, “Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her immorality” or “nonsense.” Although this is the same Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus who lost another important debate with the sages, in this case it was his opinion that was adopted as normative by the halakhah. Maimonides, the great codifier of Jewish law and, with the possible exception of Rabbenu Tam, its most influential figure, put the halakhic position as follows: If a women studies Torah she receives reward; it is different from the reward of a man, since she is not obligated to do so (Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:13). Thus Maimonides understands the passage in Kiddushin to mean that a woman need not study but may do so if she chooses. Then he adds that an individual may not teach his daughter Torah. The reason he gives is that rov nashim ein da’atan mekhuvenet lehitlamed, “the majority of women do not have their minds trained for study,” and they will extract from words of Torah words of emptiness. Is Maimonides here being negative, or merely practical and honest vis-a-vis the situation in his day? One of the most important commentators on the Codes, R’ Joshua Falk, suggests that Maimonides is merely recording a sociological truth (Perishah to Tur, Yoreh Deah 246:15). Women in general did not have an opportunity to study. Their minds were not trained, and they were not in a position to understand Torah in depth. However, if a woman decides of her own accord to study, she has thereby demonstrated that she is an exception to the rule and she is permitted to do so without reservations. R’ Moshe Isserles rules that a woman must study the laws that apply to her so that she will know how to behave (Rema, Yoreh Deah 246:6). R’ Yisrael Meir Kagan, the Chafetz Chaim, went one step further. In his commentary to the Mishnah in Sotah, he stated that “it would seem that all of this applies to previous times, when it was possible and usual for women to achieve Torah education by observing their

17

parents at home. However nowadays, when this is no longer the case and when women acquire secular education, they most certainly must study Torah.” Since family traditions were no longer as strong as they were, and since in the twentieth century girls were compelled to receive a basic secular education, they must have a formal Torah education as well. My own teacher, Rav Soloveitchik, continued in this path. He argued that since in our time women go to university and obtain degrees, they must have the same opportunity to study Torah and Talmud.

C. WOMEN’S PRAYER SERVICES

15. Women’s prayer services – theory and practice, Tradition 32:2 (Winter 1998)

(see http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer3.htm#start for full article and notes)

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik has described prayer as "a basic experiential category in Judaism," one through which our forefathers achieved a covenant with God and through which we expect eventually to realize that covenant. The people of Israel is "a prayerful nation."2

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that both men and women are enjoined by Jewish law to pray daily, though there is some difference of opinion as to the extent of the obligation. Yet, despite this basic requirement to pray, women need not fulfill their obligation within the context of communal services-tefilla be-tsibbur. Moreover, ten women who join together in prayer-as opposed to ten men-cannot constitute the minimum quorum of ten individuals, a minyan, necessary by law to recite certain passages and texts generally reserved for public worship, including, inter alia, the kaddish, kedusha, barekhu or the thirteen attributes of God, the repetition of the amida, and the reading of the Torah and the haftara with their attendant blessings. While there are occasions within Jewish practice where women do count towards a minyan, public prayer is not among them.3 As a result, the synagogue service has historically remained almost exclusively male-oriented.

In the early 1970's, however, the Women's Liberation Movement stimulated within traditional Jewish student circles a re-examination of the role of women in Judaism. This coincided with an accelerating growth of higher-education opportunities for women in all areas of Jewish studies, including Talmud, halakha, Tanakh, and Jewish thought. The combined effects of this religious and educational exploration were eventually felt in the general, more established Jewish community as well. One manifestation of this trend was the development of women's prayer services. Women would join in all-female groups on a particular Shabbat or Rosh Hodesh morning or afternoon in order to recite together the Shaharit or Minha prayers. Similarly, these

18

women would gather on Purim for a women's reading of Megillat Ester or rejoice together on Simhat Torah, separate from the men, often dancing the hakafot with their own Torah scrolls.3*

Two different groups supported these women's services. For some participants, a women's tefilla was an act of rebellion against the traditional male-oriented ritual. Such individuals or groups were not terribly concerned with the halakhic propriety or parameters of their prayer forms. On the other hand, numerous other women, who articulated a commitment to the halakhic process, at the same time expressed their desire for a more active and meaningful involvement in the spiritual moments of public prayer. In addition, they argued, the prayer group could serve for them as a learning experience-an opportunity to study the relevant laws, to act as gabbai, read the Torah and the haftara, lead the services as hazzan, lift and roll the Torah (hagbaha and gelila), etc.-affording them a greater appreciation of the symphony communal prayer is meant to be. These women further explained that their identification with Orthodox Judaism prevented them from joining Conservative shuls or egalitarian minyanim. An all-women's prayer group was consequently an attractive alternative.

This latter group turned to members of the Orthodox rabbinate for rulings and guidance on the halakhic permissibility of such women's services. Some rabbis, while sympathetic to the religious sentiments expressed by these women, objected to the very idea of separate women's prayer services, citing various halakhic and sociological arguments to support their position. Other rabbis, though, advised these women that they could have their service provided they forgo saying all those texts which required a minyan quorum; they were, after all, a women's prayer group, not a women's minyan.

In our extensive discussions with participants in such services, we have found that a significant percentage report the experience enriching, moving, and edifying, despite the halakhic limitations. Many testify to davening (praying) with greater kavvana (religious devotion) or to discovering new meaning in their prayers. Satisfying what is perceived by the members as a real spiritual need, women's prayer groups have continued to meet in various communities on a regular basis for close to 25 years.

The recognition that women's prayer services are not a passing fad has compelled rabbinic scholars to confront and address the issue with increased earnestness. Yet, the years have not brought the halakhic authorities any closer to unanimity; if anything, the opposite is true. Essentially, three fundamental halakhic approaches to the subject have emerged. The first and most lenient position maintains that women may carry out a full service, including all those rituals and texts which normally require a minyan quorum. The second school is more stringent and openly opposes women's prayer groups on a host of halakhic and sociological grounds. The final approach argues that women's prayer services, if properly performed and religiously motivated, can be halakhically sanctioned, although some question their advisability on hashkafic and public-policy grounds.

Our survey and in-depth analysis of the responsa on this subject will be divided into two sections. In the first part of this paper (entitled "Theory") we will explore the basic question of

19

the halakhic permissibility of women's tefilla groups. However, even if one should conclude that women's tefilla groups are fundamentally permissible, a host of practical issues arise that must be faced if such services are to be carried out within the guidelines of Jewish law. We discuss these latter issues in the second section of this paper (entitled "Practice"), which will be published in the future. Needless to say, the views presented in this work are those of the authorities cited by the authors, and not necessarily those of Tradition or the Rabbinical Council of America. Let us turn now to the responsa themselves and the threshold question of whether women's prayer groups can be, in principle, halakhically permitted.4

A. THE LENIENT SCHOOL

The most lenient responsum on the permissibility of women's services was penned in 1974 by Israel's late Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi, R. Shlomo Goren.5 After reaffirming that ten women do not constitute a quorum for communal public prayer, R. Goren proceeds to contend that ten women may nevertheless carry out a full service, including all those rituals and texts which normally require a minyan. The gist of his argument is as follows: Jewish law generally frees women from those positive commandments which, like sukka, shofar and lulav, are not continual obligations but are, rather, time-determined-mitsvot asei she-ha-zeman geramman.6

However, while a woman is exempt from such commandments, she may nonetheless perform them on a voluntary basis, as a petura ve-osa (one who is exempted, yet performs the commandment).7 The question arises, though, whether she may also recite the attendant blessings along with her voluntary performance of the time-determined mitsvah. While the "unnecessary" performance of a mitsvah usually does not clash with any direct prohibition, 8

pronouncing a berakha she-eina tserikha (an unnecessary benediction) is normally proscribed on the grounds that it is essentially taking God's name in vain.9 Furthermore, the text of the blessing is troublesome. After all, the traditional form of these benedictions reads: "Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with Thy commandments, and commanded us (ve-tsivanu). . . ." Since women are not commanded to perform mitsvot asei she-ha-zeman geramman, how can they honestly proclaim that the Almighty has "commanded us"? Nevertheless, the noted Tosafist, R. Jacob Tam,10 rules that petura ve-osa me-varekhet: women voluntarily performing mitsvot asei she-ha-zeman geramman may also recite the attendant benediction. He argues that the prohibition of a berakha she-eina tserikha is actually rabbinic in origin, not biblical.11 As such, the Sages were free to carve out an exception for women, allowing them to make these "unnecessary" and seemingly improper benedictions when performing time-dependent mitsvot.

The crux of R. Goren's argument is that the petura ve-osa me-varekhet principle enunciated by Rabbeinu Tam is a special dispensation, unique to women and granted to them in order to give them spiritual satisfaction ("bi-khdei la-asot nahat ru'ah la-nashim").12 It should be pointed out that this concept actually appears in the halakhic literature as the rationale behind another rabbinic dispensation for women. When one brings a sacrifice, he is obligated in semikha, namely, to place his hands on the animal's head and press down. Although women are freed from this obligation of semikha, because of the above principle they may do so should they desire, though unnecessary contact with a sacrificial animal is usually rabbinically forbidden. R.

20

Goren suggests that similarly, in the case of the recitation of unnecessary benedictions, it was the rationale of "bi-khdei la-asot nahat ru'ah la-nashim" which allowed Rabbeinu Tam to formulate his petura ve-osa me-varekhet principle, thereby setting aside the rabbinic prohibition of taking God's name in vain.13

R. Goren further suggests that Rabbeinu Tam's approach, as just delineated, may be likewise extended to allow women to carry out a complete public prayer service without fear of taking God's name in vain, even when reciting those texts which normally require the presence of a bona fide minyan. The late Chief Rabbi does, however, forbid men from praying in such a service or from responding to the recitation of kaddish, kedusha, barekhu, etc., since men have no such dispensation, and as far as they are concerned, the requisite quorum is lacking.

R. Goren's argument is unquestionably intriguing. It is, however, equally problematic. As noted above, his conclusion rests upon the view of Rabbeinu Tam and the thesis that women have a special dispensation to recite sacred texts normally requiring a minyan even when this quorum is absent. One potential challenge to this thesis is raised by R. Goren himself, and deals with the traditional introduction to the grace after meals, the "birkat ha-zimmun." The birkat ha-zimmun must be recited when three or more adult males eat bread together. When a minyan is present, the text of the birkat ha-zimmun is amended so as to invoke God's name by adding the word "Elokeinu," and is then referred to as "zimmun beShem." Although three women, too, have the option of forming a quorum for birkat ha-zimmun, Maimonides explicitly precludes ten women from zimmun beShem.14 But if R. Goren's thesis were correct, why should ten women be precluded-why could they not say zimmun beShem on a voluntary basis, as peturot ve-osot?

R. Goren is not bothered by this seeming contradiction. He notes that the aforementioned petura ve-osa me-varekhet principle enunciated by Rabbeinu Tam is not universally accepted. Indeed, Maimonides disagrees with Rabbeinu Tam, maintaining instead that women may not pronounce benedictions which they are not halakhically bound to pronounce. Accordingly, Rambam rules-unlike Rabbeinu Tam-that women are forbidden to recite berakhot (benedictions) when performing time-dependent commandments.15 Consequently, when Maimonides proscribes ten women from reciting birkat ha-zimmun beShem, he is simply being consistent.15* Inasmuch as Ashkenazic practice has adopted Rabbeinu Tam's view, however, R. Goren rejects any challenge to his thesis from the ruling of Rambam.

Surprisingly, R. Goren neglects to mention that even among those rishonim and aharonim who agree with Rabbeinu Tam's ruling regarding women's permission to recite blessings over time-dependent commandments, there is almost unanimous endorsement of Rambam's exclusion of women from zimmun beShem.16 Apparently, then, Rabbeinu Tam's ruling is not to be so liberally expanded as to include permission to pronounce God's name "unnecessarily" when the "unnecessary" character results from the absence of a properly constituted minyan.

This brings us to a second problem. As R. Goren himself notes, although Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is indeed the accepted Ashkenazic ruling,17 it is not the only view on the matter. Maimonides, R. Joseph Caro,18 and, in fact, a majority of Sephardic authorities down to the

21

modern period-most notably R. Ovadiah Yosef,19 R. Goren's Sephardic counterpart when the two jointly shared the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel-take strong exception to the Ashkenazic custom. These posekim strictly forbid Sephardic women from reciting berakhot when performing mitsvot from which they are exempted.20 Thus, R. Goren's solution would not apply to Sephardic women.21

One also wonders why R. Goren insists at all on the presence of ten women. If, as R. Goren contends, Rabbeinu Tam's principle can be applied to public prayer rituals so as to obviate the need for a properly constituted minyan, even a lone woman should be able to say any of the prayer texts without being deemed to have taken the Lord's name improperly.21*

More fundamentally, the late Chief Rabbi interprets Rabbeinu Tam's ruling as a special dispensation for women, based on the nahat ru'ah (spiritual satisfaction) rationale. This novel interpretation radically departs from the way in which Rabbeinu Tam's ruling was understood by the earlier authorities. None of the rishonim22 who cite Rabbeinu Tam use the notion of nahat ru'ah as a justification for this leniency; rather, they cite explanations applicable to both genders. For example, Tosafot explain that "the blessing [of a patur ve-ose] is not in vain since he is reciting the (appropriate) benediction for a mitsvah which he is performing, although he is exempt."23 Furthermore, notes R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran), the text, ". . . commanded us," is not improper either; after all, the Talmud's conclusion-"greater is (the reward of) one who is obligated and fulfills the commandment, than (that of) one who is not obligated and yet fulfills the commandment"24-clearly implies that the latter, too, receives at least some reward. If so, then even an eino me-tsuve ve-ose must share in the commandment. Since men are fully obligated and, as just noted, women receive reward for their actions, women may recite the berakha, the phrase "and commanded us" notwithstanding.25

As further clarified by R. Ben-Zion Hai Uziel and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, 26 the mitsvot were issued to the nation of Israel as a whole, men and women alike. Accordingly, both men and women possess an equal degree of "kedushat Yisrael," Jewish sanctity.27 But despite sharing the general obligations of Kelal Yisrael (corporate Israel), women were granted a particular and individual exemption from the performance of time-determined commandments. This is not to say that time-determined commandments are irrelevant to women; there is a vast difference between one who is fundamentally subject to an obligation but exempt from its performance (e.g., a woman), and one who is not obligated altogether ab initio (e.g., a gentile).28 The former still falls under the umbrella of the general obligation of Kelal Yisrael, despite the exemption.29

A woman, therefore, may-should she so wish-join together with the rest of Kelal Yisrael and perform that ritual from which she is exempt.30 Rabbeinu Tam and the Ashkenazic posekim further maintain that women may also opt to recite the applicable blessing,31 including the word "ve-tsivanu." The phrase, "Who has sanctified us and commanded us," refers not to individual Jews, but to the people of Israel as a singular entity, of which women are an integral part.32

Rabbeinu Tam no doubt intended these guidelines to be applied broadly, so that anyone-man or woman-who is exempt and yet performs a mitsvah may also make the relevant blessing. 33 In

22

fact, Rabbeinu Tam supports his ruling, inter alia, from the pleasure expressed by the famous blind amora, R. Joseph,34 at hearing R. Judah's opinion that the blind are freed from the obligation to fulfill positive commandments. R. Joseph erroneously believed that, as one who would be performing such mitsvot on a voluntary basis, he would be worthy of greater spiritual reward than one who is obligated. From R. Joseph's expression of joy, Rabbeinu Tam deduces that when fulfilling a non-obligatory commandment, nothing is altered in its performance-including the recitation of the attendant benedictions. Were this not the case, argues Rabbeinu Tam, why would R. Joseph have been so happy? As a patur ve-ose, he would have been precluded from reciting these benedictions and, hence, from obtaining the concomitant reward! By invoking the blind, male R. Joseph as precedent, Rabbeinu Tam manifestly indicates that his principle is gender-neutral; we are not, as R. Goren assumes, dealing with a special dispensation. Indeed, the halakhic literature is replete with applications of Rabbeinu Tam's patur ve-ose me-vareikh principle to cases not specifically involving women.35

It is apparent, then, that Rabbeinu Tam's principle is equally effective for men and women. Yet, in a case where fewer than ten males are available, R. Goren would acknowledge that Jewish law and tradition prohibit the males assembled from reciting the public prayer texts even on a voluntary basis. Absent the requisite ten men, those praying are not merely exempt from reciting the public prayer texts-no obligation exists, ab initio. Under such circumstances, even R. Goren would agree that the patur ve-ose principle would not apply. Why, then, should it be any different for women?36

Thus, Rabbeinu Tam's heter (permissive ruling) to allow reciting a benediction over the voluntary performance of a commandment is broad in that it applies to both men and women alike. At the same time, however, it is apparently narrow in that it does not apply to those cases where the lack of obligation stems from the absence of a required minyan.

Further investigation, however, demonstrates that the matter is not so simple. While the above analysis indeed reflects the view of the vast majority of scholars, argumentation similar to that of R. Goren has been posited by isolated halakhic authorities in permitting to the individual certain religious practices which are normally communal. The first instance is the custom of reading Hallel on Rosh Hodesh with its attendant blessings. According to many geonim and rishonim, since the recitation of this particular Hallel is a custom, its benedictions can be said only together with a minyan.37 Rabbeinu Tam dissents, however, allowing individuals to recite the Rosh Hodesh Hallel with its berakhot, even in the absence of a minyan-its minhag character notwithstanding.38 Yet a third position is held by the 13th century French Tosafist, R. Samson ben Samson of Coucy (called "HaSar miCoucy"). Invoking the patur ve-ose me-vareikh principle, he argues39 that even if a minyan is required to recite the Rosh Hodesh Hallel with its berakhot, an individual can do so voluntarily, "similar to lulav and tefillin,"40 where women make blessings even though they are not obligated.41

The second case concerns the reading of the Book (or Megilla) of Esther. While the Megilla is generally read on the fourteenth of Adar and on the fifteenth in walled cities, there are circumstances where the Megilla is read as early as the eleventh day of the month.42 Although

23

some difference of opinion exists on the matter, the general halakhic consensus is that the presence of a minyan is only preferable-but not an absolute requirement-when the Megilla is read on its designated date, i.e., on the fourteenth of Adar generally, and on the fifteenth in walled cities.43 But when the Megilla is read at any other time (she-lo bi-zmano), the presence of a minyan becomes a prerequisite for the reading and its attendant blessings (three before and one after).44 Whenever a minyan is required but unavailable, one is perforce freed from the obligation of reading Megillat Ester. Nevertheless, applying Rabbeinu Tam's patur ve-ose me-vareikh principle, R. David Ibn Zimra (Radbaz)45 and R. Israel Jacob Algazi46 argue that an individual should still have the option to read the Megilla with its attendant berakhot, despite the absence of a minyan.

These two examples seem to indicate that a few authorities maintain that Rabbeinu Tam's principle can be used to allow the recitation even of texts carrying a minyan prerequisite. If so, why, according to these authorities, can't the patur ve-ose me-vareikh principle be extended still further-to permit the recitation of public prayer texts in the absence of ten men, as R. Goren contends?

The answer47 lies in a careful review of the Mishna in the tractate of Megilla48 which lists those rituals requiring a quorum of ten participants:

When fewer than ten are present, one may not recite the shema (including kaddish and barekhu) and its attendant blessings in an abbreviated form; nor appoint a hazzan (to repeat the amida with kedusha); nor do the priests bless the congregation; nor do we read the Torah or the haftara (in public with benedictions);48* nor practice the funeral halts; nor pronounce the mourner's benediction, the mourner's consolation (after burial), or the nuptial blessings; nor introduce the blessing after meals using the name of God (zimmun beShem).

As Nahmanides notes, not all practices requiring a minyan are included in the Mishna's list. The rituals mentioned are only those communal obligations (hovot ha-tsibbur) for which the halakha49 requires a minyan because of their special sanctity or public character.50 For example, the Mishna includes those prayer rituals designated as "devarim she-bi-kdusha"51-public acts or declarations of the sanctification of the Holy One, such as kaddish, kedusha, barekhu, the priestly blessing, the repetition of the amida, and the reading of the Torah or the haftara with their attendant berakhot. Not included, however, are those rituals which are inherently personal obligations (hovot ha-yahid) but which are performed-for reasons of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle) or the like-within a community setting (e.g., reading the Megilla).

From the unequivocal and forceful language of the Mishna: "Ein . . . [osin] pahot mei-asara"-"One may not . . . [perform these] when fewer than ten are present," it is eminently clear that under no circumstances may the texts enumerated in the Mishna be recited when a properly constituted minyan is absent.52 The Talmud53 underscores this point even further when it states,

24

How do we know that an individual may not recite kedusha? Because it is written, "And I shall be sanctified amongst the children of Israel"-no act of sanctification (davar she-bi-kdusha) may take place when fewer than ten are present.

In such cases, the presence of a minyan is both the trigger and an integral ingredient of these communal obligations. This requirement has little to do with unnecessary benedictions. Thus, without a minyan it is forbidden for anyone-man or woman-to say kaddish even though God's name is nowhere mentioned!

The reading of Hallel or Megillat Esther, by contrast, are not mentioned in the Mishna in Megilla, since they are essentially personal obligations. One may therefore argue, as did the Sar miCoucy and Radbaz, that perhaps in these cases the presence of a minyan is not, in fact, a prerequisite.54 But when dealing with those practices and prayers mentioned in the Mishna, all authorities concur that a minyan must be there; without one, the ritual simply cannot be performed.55 Rabbeinu Tam's patur ve-ose me-vareikh principle may allow the recitation of hovot ha-yahid, personal berakhot, but it cannot allow the recitation of devarim she-bi-kdusha nor any other hovot ha-tsibbur, communal berakhot, such as those listed in the Mishna in Megilla.

In summary, then, R. Goren's position allowing women to perform-on a voluntary basis-a complete public prayer service, leaves much room for serious challenge. While his fundamental logic and analysis are creative and insightful, his conclusions-at least as to the extent that they apply to those public rituals and texts which constitute devarim she-bi-kdusha-appear untenable. When it comes to the latter, the Sages of the Talmud have ruled unambiguously: no act of sanctification (davar she-bi-kdusha) may take place absent of a properly constituted minyan, and, as already noted at the beginning of this paper, in the specific case of public prayer rituals, this must be a minyan of males.56

We close this section by noting that in 1989, R. Goren wrote a clarification of his 1974 responsum.57 In a lengthy letter to former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, R. Goren reiterates that his 1974 correspondence was a personal one, which was publicized against his specific instructions. The original letter contained some purely speculative material, which he certainly never intended to serve as the basis of action (halakha le-ma'ase). On the contrary, it is clear that women cannot form a minyan for public prayer and, hence, cannot alone perform those rituals requiring such a quorum. In light of this retraction, there is apparently no acknowledged more hora'a-recognized halakhic authority-who condones the recitation of devarim she-bi-kdusha at women's services.58 It is noteworthy, however, that at issue in R. Goren's retraction is the recitation of devarim she-bi-kdusha; the late Chief Rabbi does not withdraw his fundamental support from those women's prayer groups which refrain from reciting devarim she-bi-kdusha. We will return to this point in Section C below.

B. THE STRINGENT SCHOOL

25

The next school of thought on women's prayer groups maintains that the entire institution is "forbidden by law." This position was adopted by a group of five Rashei Yeshiva from Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (Yeshiva University)-Rabbis Nissan Lipa Alpert, Abba Bronspigel, Mordechai Willig, Yehuda Parnes, and Zvi (Hershel) Schachter-in a one-page 1985 responsum on the subject, addressed to the president of the Rabbinical Council of America (R.C.A.), R. Louis Bernstein.59 To this responsum was appended a two-page addendum by R. Bronspigel, fleshing out some of the points raised in the responsum and indicating that a fuller presentation would soon be forthcoming.60 Indeed, a few months later, there appeared a rather lengthy piece by R. Zvi (Hershel) Schachter, assiduously explaining and clarifying the halakhic thinking which underpins the opposition to women's prayer groups as expressed by the above-mentioned RIETS Rashei Yeshiva.61 Shortly thereafter, within the context of an article on the synagogue and its sanctity,62 R. Schachter took the opportunity to once again condemn the practice of women's services, but withdrew his personal criticism of the women, which had appeared in the earlier piece. It is this body of literature, in particular R. Schachter's works, which constitutes the most detailed critique of the innovation to have been published to date. Rabbis Moshe Meiselman and J. David Bleich have also addressed this subject in a similar spirit.63

R. Menashe Klein,64 R. David Cohen,65 R. David Feinstein,66 Jerusalem Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shalom Messas,67 R. Leib Baron,68 and the Va'ad HaRabonim of Queens69 have also expressed their objection to women's prayer services, and their responsa echo many of the same issues and arguments put forward by R. Schachter. R. Judah haLevi Amihai (responding at the request of Israeli Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau)70 and R. Efraim Greenblatt71 have challenged women's hakafot. Former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu72 and Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg73 have penned related prohibitive opinions in reaction to "The Women of the Wall" (Neshot haKotel) controversy.74

Briefly summarizing, the stringent school's opposition to women's services is predicated on six major grounds: 1) in such services, mitsvah actions cannot be fulfilled in their most complete form; 2) the very existence of such services is a misrepresentation of Torah; 3) they contribute to divisiveness within a prayer community; 4) women's prayer groups are a serious, intentional departure from Jewish tradition; 5) these services are foreign to Judaism and violate the biblical prohibition against following non-Jewish religious practices and immodest mores (be-hukoteihem lo te-leikhu); and finally 6) women's prayer services (as well as women's Megilla readings and Simhat Torah hakafot) run counter to the traditionally more private and modest role of the Jewish woman…

16. ibid - Conclusion

…At least one conclusion is evident from the above lengthy analysis: while women's tefilla groups may well be halakhically permissible, the question of their desirability within the contemporary Jewish experience has no easy answer. There are clearly two sides to this issue which must be weighed be-koved rosh (with due deliberation). Rabbinic authorities who have qualms as to the advisability of this innovation cannot be simply waved off as callous or

26

insensitive to the needs of women; the hashkafic and public-policy concerns delineated above are very real, and should not be made light of. On the other hand, those rabbis who are amenable to the formation of women's prayer services, evaluating each instance on a case by case basis, are on solid halakhic ground as well. The question which must be seriously and deliberately confronted, therefore, is whether or not the advantages accrued by their implementation well outweigh the risks. As noted earlier, a proper response must address and analyze not only halakha, but Torah values and policy considerations as well. The important joint role of law and values in formulating a balanced Torah position concerning women's prayer groups has been articulated by Justice Menachem Elon in his "The Women of the Wall" decision:

In the clash of opinions and approaches regarding this important, complex and sensitive topic, arguments have not been limited solely to clarifying the law. Attention has also been focused on the values of the world of Halakha-which are also part of the law in its broader sense-and the manner in which these values should be applied to the issue at hand. There has been particular concern with both the "is" and the "ought," with the formulation of proper judicial-halakhic policy based on the foundations of the past, in light of the reality of the present, and in view of the aspirations of the future. These are accepted and legitimate considerations in the world of Halakha in general, and they hold an especially critical position in a sensitive issue such as that before us. . . ." 278

While the purely legal component-based upon objective and reasoned halakhic analysis-will remain more or less constant, the public-policy element calls for continuous review and reexamination by the Torah giants of each generation. After all, needs, sensitivities and public-policy concerns change with time and location.279 What may have been a valid concern in 1970 may no longer be substantive as we approach the year 2000; and what may not have been of concern three decades ago, may today be critical.

Perhaps there is no better example of the fluxional nature of hashkafa and public policy than the question of women mourners saying kaddish. While the general tendency of scholars for many centuries has been to dissuade women from saying kaddish, the modern period has heard a substantially different tone.280 Thus, in his discussion of this topic, R. Ahron Soloveichik argues:

Nowadays, when there are Jews fighting for equality for men and women in matters such as aliyyot, if Orthodox rabbis prevent women from saying kaddish when there is a possibility for allowing it, it will strengthen the influence of Reform and Conservative rabbis. It is therefore forbidden to prevent women from saying kaddish.281

In a similar spirit, R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin writes in connection with the lenient ruling of his grandfather, the outstanding American posek, R. Joseph Elijah Henkin:282

We are left where we started; at issue is essentially a question of policy and not issur ve-heter. In this context, my grandfather's words are worth repeating: "It is known that were it not for

27

kaddish, many would refrain from teaching prayer to their sons and would not come to synagogue. When they come because of kaddish, they also come a bit closer to Judaism the rest of the year; and for that reason itself, one should not rebuff the na'arot either, since it fosters closeness to Judaism." On questions of policy, others may legitimately disagree. We should support any rabbi who declares, "While such a practice may be technically according to Halakha, in my opinion it would have dangerous consequences in my community and so I will not permit it"-although I would urge careful consideration of my grandfather's approach even in the white heat of current controversy; also see Benei Vanim, I, no. 37, sec. 12. What must be avoided is the confusion of Halakha with polemics.283

In the same vein, the door always remains open for a public-policy reevaluation of women's prayer groups by Torah authorities.284 The significance of the reality that the majority of prominent Torah personalities have to date opposed women's prayer groups for one reason or another cannot be overlooked. Nonetheless, a significant number of community rabbis-those who have ongoing direct contact with the members of women's tefilla groups-contend that greater rabbinic involvement and direction can serve to allay the legitimate motivational, hashkafic, Torah-value and public policy concerns articulated by the gedolei Yisrael cited above.

How our generation, or any of the generations of the future, may ultimately decide in this important issue is uncertain.285 Indeed, a half a century ago, the great halakhic authority, R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, wisely observed that in questions regarding the role of women in society, time is often the final arbiter.286 Yet, until that time when a clear consensus is reached, and in light of the growth and apparent vitality of women's prayer groups, the Torah community as a whole must openly and honestly address the real issues-both halakhic and public policy-raised in this article. We pray that our Torah leadership will be blessed with divine guidance, inspiration and Solomonic wisdom to find the appropriate answers for our generation. And we pray as well that the community will allow itself to be led.

D. PARTNERSHIP/EGALITARIAN SERVICES

17 . Talmud Bavli, Megillah 23a עולין למנין שבעה, ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה. אבל אמרו חכמים: אשה לא הכל תנו רבנן:

תקרא בתורה, מפני כבוד צבור.Our Rabbis taught: All are included among the seven [who are called to the Torah on Shabbat], even a minor, even a woman. But the Sages said: A woman is not to read from the Torah on account of kevod ha-tsibbur

18. Rabbi Daniel Sperber, Congregational Dignity and Human Dignity: Women and public Torah Reading, translated in Women and Men in Communal Prayer – Halakhic Perspectives (ed. C. Trachtman) pgs. 39-41, 44 A close reading of the baraita indicates that it comprises two separate even somewhat conflicting, layers. From a halakhic point of view, anyone may be called up to the Torah,

28

including women...However, the baraita continues, it is not fitting for a woman to do so. It is not clear whether this is a halakhic statement, tantamount to a prohibition, or merely a recommendation. ...To me, it seems quite clear that this is, in fact, a recommendation...

19. Eliav Shochetman, Aliyot for Women, translated in Women and Men in Communal Prayer – Halakhic Perspectives (ed. C. Trachtman) pgs. 311-312 In my opinion, there is no justification for interpreting kevod ha-tsibbur in the baraita as a recommendation. The baraita makes it very clear that from a pure halakhic perspective a woman may receive an aliyyah, however, “the Sages stated that she may not read due to kevod ha-tsibbur.”...

20. Rabbi Yehuda Henkin. Qeriat Hatorah by women – where we stand today, Edah 1:2Regardless of the arguments that can be proffered to permit women’s aliyyot [Torah-reading] today— that kevod ha-tsibbur can be waived, that it does not apply today when everyone is literate, that it does not apply when the olim rely on the (male) ba`al qeri’ah and do not themselves read—women’s aliyyot remain outside the consensus, and a congregation that institutes them is not Orthodox in name and will not long remain Orthodox in practice. In my judgment, this is an accurate statement now and for the foreseeable future, and I see no point in arguing about it.

21. http://www.jofa.org/pdf/GuidelineHalachicMinyanimEnglish.pdfWhenever a minyan is required, it is common practice, to wait for 10 men and 10 women to start pray (as long as the time of tefilla [Zman Tefilla] has not passed) besides when women are counted for a minyan such as in the case of megilah reading on Purim.

E. WOMEN AS LEADERS/RABBIS

22. http://www.nishmat.net/article.php?id=160&heading=0

In September, 1997, Nishmat, of which I am dean (Rosh Midrashah), established the Keren Ariel Program to qualify women halakhic experts in the area of the laws of Niddah. The field of Niddah was chosen because of (a) the natural affinity of women to study this area of law which so intimately affects them; and (b) the easily demonstrable need for women experts in this area. Rightly or wrongly, very many Orthodox women do not bring their intimate questions to rabbis, at an incalculable personal and halakhic cost.

…The title Yoatzot Halakhah - halakhic consultants or advisors - was selected to convey that these women are not rendering original halakhic rulings. For new rulings, they refer

29

to recognized halakhic authorities. However, because of the volume and diversity of questions they handle, they are developing a noteworthy expertise in the field, exceeding that of many rabbis…

23. 2010 Convention Resolution: RCA Women's Communal Roles in Orthodox Jewish Life

1) The flowering of Torah study and teaching by God-fearing Orthodox women in recent decades stands as a significant achievement. The Rabbinical Council of America is gratified that our (members) have played a prominent role in facilitating these accomplishments.

2) We members of the Rabbinical Council of America see as our sacred and joyful duty the practice and transmission of Judaism in all of its extraordinary, multifaceted depth and richness – halakhah (Jewish law), hashkafah (Jewish thought), tradition and historical memory.

3) In light of the opportunity created by advanced women's learning, the Rabbinical Council of America encourages a diversity of halakhically and communally appropriate professional opportunities for learned, committed women, in the service of our collective mission to preserve and transmit our heritage. Due to our aforesaid commitment to sacred continuity, however, we cannot accept either the ordination of women or the recognition of women as members of the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title.

4) Young Orthodox women are now being reared, educated, and inspired by mothers, teachers and mentors who are themselves beneficiaries of advanced women's Torah education. As members of the new generation rise to positions of influence and stature, we pray that they will contribute to an ever-broadening and ever-deepening wellspring of talmud Torah (Torah study), yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven), and dikduk b'mitzvot (scrupulous observance of commandments).

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43