Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 440

Wednesday, March 15 2000

• holocaust
• Re: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re[2]: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: Re[2]: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Tav L'Meisav
• Re: Tav L'Meisav
• Re: Tav L'Meisav
• Re: Re[2]: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: Avrohom Ovinu's Clothes
• Re: humorous site
• Re: Chazalic sea faring?, Ayin tachas ayin
• Re: Tav L'Meisav
• Birkas Hagomel
• Daf Question
• birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: Re[2]: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Tav L'Meisav
• Re: Tav L'Meisav
• re: Science and Halacha
• Re: Chazalic sea faring
• (Fwd) Birkat hagomel

Sidebar: imho what makes commemorating the "shoa" hard to pin down to a specific
date is: that for about 4-5 years Jews were being killed every day.  Contrast 
this with some of the pogroms during the crusades (e.g.  Rosh Chodesh Sivan) 
aAnd of course Purim; those can be pinnned down to one specific date.

This reinforces then the rationale for obseving eithert 9 Av or 10 Teves, 
because how can oen pinpoint any one date.

As far as I can see one exception might be Krsytallnacht because we have a 
definite date when the pogrom reached nation-wide proportions.  But afaik, this 
is commemorated by German/Austrian Jews only. 

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I think what distinguishes the 40's from all the other pogroms is the 
systematic manner, the sheer numbers, and the use of modern 
technology to kill. But does that mean that Hitler YM"SH was more 
cruel than Chmelnieki YM"SH? Unfortunately, I suspect that all of 
them - going back to Amalek (to put it on point :-) - were equally 
cruel to us.



-- Carl

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:


> 
> Is this based upon shomeia k'oneh, that saying and listening bekavvana is like
> having said it oneself?
> 


Yes. My mind was elsewhere when I wrote "kavanah". It should have been
'shomea ke'oneh'.

---sam

Simple Brisker Torah <smile>

There are TWO dinnim in wearing a yarmulke

1) Kisuy Rosh - this is NOT a d'oraisso for men 
2) malbush ivri/yehudi 

IOW, since R. Mosheh wore a kappote,
therefore HIS need or a yarmulke was only to be yotzei the 1st din

BUT

If we are dressed in modern Western garb, then our Yarmulke might be the only 
way to avoid b'chukoseihem - which in this particular case might be a d'oraisso.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

> >  
> >  >>Question: wouldnt' wearing a kipa be yotzei the requirnment of 
> uniqueness, 
> > and
> >  therfore no other clothing changes are required.>> 
> >  
> >  The Taz in Orach Chaim 8 suggests that it is a chiyuv de'oraisa to wear a 
> >  yarmulka because of chukas hagoyim.  The Malbim in Artzos HaChayim 2:43 
> > notes that the Taz is against the Rema in Yoreh Deah 178:1. 
> 
> I pointed out earlier, the ET brings many opinions that the Yarmulke is 
> different, as that was the defining Jewish Beged.

I believe Rav Moshe held yarmulka not to be d'oraysa. See Igros 
Moshe OH 4:2.

-- Carl

On 15 Mar 00, at 11:27, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Simple Brisker Torah <smile>
> 
> There are TWO dinnim in wearing a yarmulke
> 
> 1) Kisuy Rosh - this is NOT a d'oraisso for men 
> 2) malbush ivri/yehudi 
> 
> IOW, since R. Mosheh wore a kappote,
> therefore HIS need or a yarmulke was only to be yotzei the 1st din
> 
> BUT
> 
> If we are dressed in modern Western garb, then our Yarmulke might be the only 
> way to avoid b'chukoseihem - which in this particular case might be a d'oraisso.

All well and good, except that the tshuva I cited permitted someone 
to go on a job interview without a yarmulka. I guarantee you that if 
they didn't wear a yarmulka, they did not wear a kapotte either....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

RM Berger wrote:

>>Second, he never really addresses why chazakos can't be overturned as we learn
more about the rules of thumb they embody. Instead RYBS notes how dangerous the 
consequences are. Rather than providing a philosophical basis for leaving 
chazakos alone, he provides a motivation. I was frustrated by that.>>

I heard from a descendant of RYBS that it is possible to say that chazakos 
depend on the mindset and psychology of those at mattan Torah.  Unfortunately, I
never followed up to find out what he meant by that.

The Chazon Ish (in Hilchos Tereifus) says that chazakos were determined during 
the 2000 years of Torah which ended around the time of R. Yehudah Hanasi (let's 
not get into the 166 lost years again).

In a message dated 3/15/00 10:57:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< I think it is probably a manifestation of the Brisker Derech to take 
umdenos
 of Chazal as dinim.
 
 I would personally strike a middle position between RYBS and R' Rackman:
 Umdenos of Chazal may change, but since we do not know how they were omed
 them, we, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, have no way to ascertain if they
 have changed or not. So, while theoretically R' Rackman may have had a case,
 in practice RYBS's position is the correct one.
 
 Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
 http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
  >>
How would this work wrt cheresh - if based on current technology any cheresh 
could communicate(and receive communication) so as to be perceived as a bar 
deah, and the majority of them did, would we still hold them not to be so.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 3/15/00 11:41:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

<< 
 I heard from a descendant of RYBS that it is possible to say that chazakos 
 depend on the mindset and psychology of those at mattan Torah.  
Unfortunately, I
 never followed up to find out what he meant by that.
 
 The Chazon Ish (in Hilchos Tereifus) says that chazakos were determined 
during 
 the 2000 years of Torah which ended around the time of R. Yehudah Hanasi 
(let's 
 not get into the 166 lost years again).
  >>
I've heard both, but never a satisfactory(to me) explanation of why (ie why 
should their be 2 realities - one halachik and one in mitziut)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

RR Wolpoe wrote:

>>IOW, since R. Mosheh wore a kappote,
therefore HIS need or a yarmulke was only to be yotzei the 1st din

BUT

If we are dressed in modern Western garb, then our Yarmulke might be the only 
way to avoid b'chukoseihem - which in this particular case might be a 
d'oraisso.>>

Except that R. Mosheh was talking about not wearing a yarmulke to work.  I'm 
pretty sure that he gave shiur at MTJ with a yarmulke on.  I think RY Zirkind 
has agreed that it is not necessarily assur to dress like a gentile.  It depends
on your kavanah.  [Although the mechaber and Gra disagree]

Gil Student
gil.sutdent@citicorp.com

In Avodah 4#438, SBAbeles wrote:
> And the Rebbe answered: "I don't know
what he wore.  But I can assure you that
he wore clothes which were different to
those of the Goyim." <
Source, please? or do we chalk this assurance up to
"da'as Torah"? :-)  IMHO, the thought underlying that
assurance is exactly the point: even if we have the tradition
that a set of parameters (e.g. language) highlighted how
[a certain portion of] b'nai Yisroel didn't assimilate into
their Egyptian surroundings, why should we assume that
the same set of parameters was operable in the land that
b'nai Yisroel traveled from?

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 4#437, renduRM wrote:
> I liked this site, it has Purim lessons for
all of us - and part of the site
is not even Bitul Zman!!!

http://www.yucs.org/~frazers/link.cgi <
I had trouble with that URL, but I think
this one might be of interest:
http://www.yucs.org/~frazers/specialhome.html

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 4#437, RWolpoe wrote:
> Note that peshat is close to literal, but
allows for idiom and some poetic license.
Most drush moves off the simple meaning, but
much drush - typically the medrash halacha -
is closer to peshat, or at least close to the text <
Of course, we Avodah-list members have looked at
the p'shat/d'rash coin from many angles.  I hope y'all don't mind
my tossing in a reference that hasn't, AFAIK, been
mentioned before: Dayan Grunfeld's intro. to the
Dr. I. Levy English translation of RavSRHirsch's
Commentary on the Torah.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I don't find this strange, this is the dichotomy of lomdus vs. lema'asseh which 
I understand was quite common in the litvisher velt.

I remember Discussing kaserhing ovens for pesach with R. Yeruchem Gorelick.

OTOH, he did not, and used above the stove cookers only

OTOH, he did not object to reasoning such as heter bola not issur balo. A strict
yekke, for example, might have been very uncomfortable finding a logical 
loophole in any given observance and mihga have felt thatt it threatened his 
version of hanhagah. While R. Yeruchem did not feel ill at ease at exploring 
alterantve views of the halachah, yett would not dobut have been quite 
uncomfortable changing his own hanhagah lema'aseh.

Thus, he seemed to adhere to his version of "strict observance with liberal 
interpretations" 

Thus, I do not qualm with Rackman's interpretation, I have qualms with 
implementing this in practice.

wrt to the other R. Rich, I would say the lomdus is good, but might not override
the accepted practice - absent a sanhedrin.  Certainly a sanhedrin can make a 
distinction between classes of Chireish, the question is: "Can we make such a 
distinction based upon technological shifts"? I would say we need precedent to 
do so.

E.G. did the tehchnological advance of landing on the moon cause us lemasseh to 
alter the nusach of kiddush levana wrt eini yachol lingoa bach?

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I would personally strike a middle position between RYBS and R' Rackman: 
Umdenos of Chazal may change, but since we do not know how they were omed 
them, we, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, have no way to ascertain if they 
have changed or not. So, while theoretically R' Rackman may have had a case, 
in practice RYBS's position is the correct one.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


>>How would this work wrt cheresh - if based on current technology any cheresh 
could communicate(and receive communication) so as to be perceived as a bar 
deah, and the majority of them did, would we still hold them not to be so.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

At Congregation Kehilath Jesurun, an Orthodox synagogue on the Upper East 
Side of New York, women routinely recite the birkat hagomel after childbirth 
at the bris of their sons, or in shul at the naming of their daughters.

My sister-in-law recited the bracha at my nephew's bris at the shul.  It was 
very meaningful to her. 

It seems that if there are no halachic issues, this practice is a wonderful 
way to allow women to be more participatory in the service.  Also, I would 
think that logically the more appropriate person to say the bracha would be 
the woman, who actually experiences the physical pain of childbirth (not 
discounting the stress that most men experience with the delivery of a child).

Maybe it's time for Orthodox shuls to rethink the practice of husbands 
benching gomel for their wives--and allow women to say the bracha.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

I am finally catching up. I actually did half of today's Daf today :-) 

Just wondering - what happens le'maiseh if a chareshes needs 
chalitza today. Is she stuck? 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:55:58 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil 
 
<<Is this based upon shomeia k'oneh, that saying and listening bekavvana
is like having said it oneself?>>

	Is there another situation where one person can be motzi another with a
birchas hashevach,  as opposed to birchas hamitzva or birchas hanehenin? 
Or does the custom in some communities for the husband to bentch gomel
for the wife stem from ishto kegufo?   If so,  does this have
implications for other birchos hashevach?
If not,  why can a husband be motzi a wife and all those people bentching
gomel seriatim cannot be yotze with one person's brocho?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 3/15/00 11:29:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> If we are dressed in modern Western garb, then our Yarmulke might be the 
only 
> 
>  way to avoid b'chukoseihem - which in this particular case might be a d'
> oraisso.
>  
Yes that is the Shita of the Taaz and the Shut MaHaRI Bruna, and also see 
Chidushei Chasan Sofer Ndorim 30b, (this is from the ET Hanal). There are 
others who disagree.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I've heard both, but never a satisfactory(to me) explanation of why (ie why 
should their be 2 realities - one halachik and one in mitziut)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich<<

here's a simple answer:

Stability.

Popular Scientific conslusions are in flux.

E.G. about 70 years ago, it was reasoned thusly:

Since Diabetcis are urinating sugar
Therefore they need sugar in their diet to replace the sugar lost in the urine.

I would venture to guess that nutritional thinking has changed.

Another example, I understand that the Cosnervative siddur has evolved 3 times 
during the last 55 years, and to me, this makes for a rather unstable tradition.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

It would work the same way. I believe RYIH Herzog deals with this in a
teshuva.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----

> How would this work wrt cheresh - if based on current technology any
cheresh
> could communicate(and receive communication) so as to be perceived as a
bar
> deah, and the majority of them did, would we still hold them not to be so.
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich
>

To: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>

I did not quite understand what you intended by using the example
of not wanting to marry someone whom you would not trust to give  a Get.
That sounds like a pretty good idea, but what, exactly did it have to do
with "Tav l'Meitav Tan Du M'Leitav Nitarmala" and a woman's level of
credibility after the fact? Did you mean to say that a woman can say that
she is entitled to an annulment because she, like any other woman, would
not have married this guy had she known that he was such a jerk that he
won't give a GET once the marriage is over, five years later? Are you
comparing that to Rav Moshe's case of a woman's discovering that her new
husband is permanently  incapable of having sexual relations? Or, to the
Gemara's examples of him being sexually repulsive because of certain skin
disorders or terrible physical odor?

As for the "metaphysical curse" business; my wife feels that the Rav's
"loneliness" idea is somewhat off-base: The "metaphysical curse" was that it
is woman's nature to see her greatest fulfillment through giving to others
and THAT is the reason that she would not wish to be alone. Loneliness or
yearning for social activity has nothing to do with it at all.

Mechy Frankel wrote:

<<<
Perhaps he meant "sea" instead of "ocean," sea being a general term.If
he wanted to be specific, he'd have said the Specific Ocean. David Finch>
No doubt he did. in fact certainly he did since, by chance, i ran into
DDG on the metro yesterday and he conirms your supposition, pointing
out that hebrew uses the single term "yom" for both. However, that misses
the point (such as it was) a bit. When sailing on the sea-mediterranean,
there was generally never any need for remaining out of sight of land,
and thus the position mystery of the longitude when sailing along fixed
latitude which plagued ocean going ships prior to harrison's clock was
absent.  (of course, to cross the med north-south was a snap, sailing
along fixed longitude). 
>>>

Mechy is, of course, right as usual.  I got a bit carried away with the 
longitude bit, which was not a relevant concern for sailing on the
Mediterranean.  I therefore was exaggerating to some degree the
riskiness of the sort of sea voyage Chazal were thinking of in 
connection with birkhat ha-gomeil.  I think that my larger point still
stands, but it may require some further thought.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Rav Henkin authorized me to forward this to the list.

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	"Rabbi Y. H. Henkin" <henkin@surfree.net.il>
To:             	<sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:        	Birkat hagomel
Date sent:      	Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:22:00 +0200



B"h, 8 Adar bet 5760

Shalom,

I am sending a translation of an unpublished teshuva on women and
birkat hagomel, which inter alia deals with a question you raised.
Iy"h it will appear next year in a volume of translations. You may
post it if you wish. It was written after the third volume of shut
Bnei Banim, which you recently purchased.

Many of the issues raised from time to time on the net are 
discussed
in Bnei Banim, some briefly such as the meaning of k'neged 
kulam, see
Bnei Banim volume 1, page 195, and some in depth, such as
Christianity, avoda 

zarah, and shituf, see volume 3, simanim 26-28.

With Torah blessings, 

Rabbi Y. Henkin



Eight

Women and Birkat haGomel

Unpublished Responsum


Kislev 5758


As you have read, the achronim discuss at length your question of
whether a woman can recite birkat hagomel in the presence of other
women. I will write what appears to me.

In Berachot 54b concerning birkat hagomel: “Abaye said, one must give
thanks before ten [men], as it is written (Psalm 107:32) ‘They will
praise Him in an assemblage of people (k’hal am)…’ ” Although “ten” is
in the masculine, men are not mentioned explicitly. Gilyon haShas,
however, cited Ketuvot 7b which discusses the requirement to recite
the marriage blessings in the presence of ten. R. Nachman explained
that its source is Ruth 4:20, “He assembled ten men (asarah anashim)
from the city’s elders,” while R. Abahu derived it from Psalm 68:17,
“Bless G-d in mak’heilot (assemblages), haShem from the makor (source)
of Israel.” 

R. Nachman’s verse explicitly mentions men, while concerning R.
Abahu’s verse, Rashi explained:

For a blessing on the makor, a kahal is needed; this refers to
(Bamidbar 20:8) “Gather the congregation (hak’heil et ha’eidah).”
Hak’heil involves at least an eidah, and an eidah is ten, as we learn
from the eidah of the spies, (Bamidbar 14:27) “How long for this evil
eidah…” excluding Caleb and Joshua.

This still does not explicitly mention men, but Ritva wrote: 

Certainly, they have to be adult males, since it is written “ten men”
or from what is written “bimak’heilot,” and kahal means a minimum of
ten adult males. Rambam z”l also wrote that adult freemen are
required.

In the same vein, Aruch haShulchan wrote in Orach Chayim 219:6:

Women are accustomed not to bless [birkat hagomel]. There is no reason
for this, only that because the custom [of men] is to bless [it] at
the time of the Torah reading, they imagine that women are not
obligated in this blessing. It is therefore proper that they should
say this blessing. Or perhaps because k’hal am is written and women
are not considered a kahal-- while to say the blessing before men is
not the modest way-- therefore they refrained from [doing] so.

Via bimak’heilot, then, we can learn from the word kahal in “They will
praise Him in an assemblage (k’hal) of people” that birkat hagomel
requires ten men and not women.

This needs to be examined, however. Does kahal signify only men? In
Kiddushin 73a and elsewhere the Sages said , “A kahal of proselytes is
not called a kahal,” but nowhere is it explicit that a kahal of women
is not considered a kahal. In Devarim 23:3 “ a mamzer may not enter
k’hal haShem” prohibits both a male mamzer from marrying a legitimate
female from k’hal haShem and a female mamzeret from marrying a
legitimate male from k’hal haShem. 

You might counter that a kahal of men alone or a kahal of both men and
women is considered a kahal, but a kahal of women alone is not. If one
could imagine that only legitimate females remained alive but not
legitimate males, would they then be permitted to marry mamzerim
because women alone are not a kahal? 

What can be argued more convincingly is that k’hal haShem is not the
same as simply kahal or k’hal am. But it can likewise be argued that
mak’hehilot is not the same as kahal. Rashi wrote that “hak’heil
involves at least an eidah”; his exposition is specifically of the
verb form hakheil which starts with a heh and means “to assemble a
kahal,” and is the root of mak’heilot. In my opinion this is Ritva’s
intention as well, and the above citation from Ritva should be
corrected to read, “hakheil means a minimum of ten adult males,” as
Tosfot Rid quoted Bahag, [This is itself questionable from Devarim
31:12, “Assemble the people (hak’hel et ha’am), men, women and
children…] It does not prove that both kahal and hak’hel signify ten
men.

Another difficulty is that while R. Abahu expounded bimak’heilot as
the source for requiring ten men for birkat chatanim, R. Nachman did
not. What was R. Nachman’s basis for interpreting k’hal am regarding
birkat hagomel as requiring men only? There is no reason to suppose
that he disagreed with Abaye and did not require the presence of ten
for birkat hagomel at all.

In my opinion, the Scriptural basis for R. Nachman is clear from the
one other place in Tanach where k’hal am is mentioned, in Judges 20:2,
“They mustered …an assemblage of the people of G-d (k’hal am
haElokim), four hundred thousand infantrymen with swords drawn.” This
explicitly identifies k’hal am as being men.

In any case, there is no doubt that according to Halachah the ten
whose presence is required for birkat hagomel are men.. This is the
meaning of Midrash Tehillim: “R. Yehuda said, one must give thanks in
[the presence of] ten, in public (b’tzibur),” that is to say, the ten
are males thirteen years and older who constitute a tzibur for prayer.

*

There are three customs among women regarding birkat hagomel. Some do
not recite the blessing at all. The achronim questioned this, and
Magen Avraham in 219 wrote that the women rely on the opinion that
these blessings are voluntary, i.e., Ravad’s opinion that all the
blessings of praise listed in the last chapter of Berachot are
voluntary; see Machatzit haShekel and Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham.. 

In my opinion it is more likely that only birkat hagomel is voluntary
for women, and that this is according to the other rishonim as well.
Psalm 107, the source for birkat hagomel, does not mention women. The
rationale to exempt women from birkat hagomel is that the blessing
must be made before ten men. It was not considered modest for a woman
to go and find them because of “kal kevudah bat melech pnimah,” and
since she normally did not have access to ten men within her
household, the Sages exempted her of the obligation to say the
blessing altogether. Even according to the view that bidi’eved ten men
are not required for birkat hagomel, they are at least they are
required lechat’chilah, and the Sages did not want to obligate women
in a way that would make bidi’eved into lechat’chilah. This somewhat
resembles Resp. Avnei Neizer, Orach Chayim, no. 39, which I cited in
Bnei Banim, vol. 2, no. 16. 

The key argument seems to me that there is no mention in the rishonim
of women reciting birkat hagomel. The first to raise the question was
Knesset haGedolah in 5418 (1658) and the other achronim followed. I
wonder why it was obvious to them that women are obligated in birkat
hagomel, something not stated in the Talmud and rishonim. If women
were obligated it would have been a frequent occurrence, and someone
would have had to clarify the issue of women reciting it before men.
And although other blessings of praise are also recorded without
reference to women and nevertheless women are obligated to recite
them, in the case of those blessings there is no rationale for
exempting women, as opposed to birkat hagomel.

The second custom, common among women today, is to recite birkat
hagomel only following childbirth, when the woman gathers ten men or
recites it from the women’s gallery the synagogue or even momentarily
enters the men’s section see Resp. Yechaveh Da’at, vol. 4, no.15. This
is certainly difficult to understand. Why recite it after childbirth
and not after other dangers that according to Halachah equally
necessitate birkat hagomel, such as severe illness or air or sea
travel? 

However, if birkat hagomel for women is intrinsically voluntary, there
is room for this custom. Perhaps because pregnancy and the change in
appearance of a woman resulting from childbirth are such visible
phenomena, it was considered especially important to give public
thanks.

In addition, it seems to me that when women recite birkat hagomel they
are also fulfilling R. Abahu’s midrash “Bless G-d in mak’heilot,
haShem from the makor of Israel.” The Gemara in Ketuvot 7 b explained
that makor refers to matters of procreation. The most salient
manifestation of a man’s involvement in procreation is his taking a
wife, and therefore the Sages instituted birkat chatanim. For women,
on the other hand, the most salient manifestation of procreation is
childbirth, and therefore when women recite birkat hagomel after
childbirth they fulfill not only Psalm 107:22, “They will praise Him
in k’hal am,” but also Psalm 68:17, “Bless G-d… from the makor of
Israel.”

For support for this proposal, note that in Psalm 68 the preceding
verse refers to both men and women, while there is no explicit mention
of women in Psalm 107. Psalm 68 also entails a more binding obligation
to praise G-d than does 107, in that the first employs the imperative
barchu while the second uses only the future/past descriptive
veyismechu… yoru… veyeromemuhu. This fits in with the Halachah that
ten men are indispensable for birkat chatanim and if they were not
present the blessings have to be repeated in full, see Otzar Haposkim
62:4:18:3, while if birkat hagomel was recited without ten men present
it is repeated without shem and malchut.

The third custom is for women to recite birkat hagomel after all
dangers, just as men do. This was Knesset haGedolah’s opinion and it
was endorsed by Birkei Yosef and Kaf haChayim, and many achronim wrote
that this is the preferable custom. However, few women do so, because
of the difficulty in gathering ten men each time.

Here your question comes in, whether women can recite birkat hagomel
with shem and malchut before other women. There is a disagreement as
to whether birkat hagomel recited without the presence of ten men is
valid. According to Raeh, Tur, and sefer Ohel Moed, birkat hagomel
without ten men present is valid bedi’eved, and it is likely that the
circumstances of women who find it difficult or immodest to assemble
ten men can be considered bedi’eved. However, according to R. Yonah,
R. Yerucham, and Meiri, birkat hagomel without ten men present is
invalid even bedi’eved. Since the rishonim disagree, the blessing
should not be recited, following the principle safek berachot
kehakeil.

Accordingly, no proof can be brought from Knesset haGedolah who wrote
that a woman should recite birkat hagomel “before a man, or before
other women,” for he held that bedi’eved the blessing is valid without
ten men. But since we rule that the issue is a safek, the blessing
should not be recited, as Kaf haChayim wrote in paragraph 3.

That notwithstanding, see Sdei Chemed, Aseifat Dinim, Ma’arecht
Berachot 2:12 in the name of Petach haDvir, who cited several
arguments why birkat hagomel should be recited even in the case of a
safek, and rejected them on the grounds that they are all under
dispute and, therefore, shev v’al ta’aseh adif. However, in 1:18:3 he
brought an additional argument that when a blessing is itself the
mitzvah, such as the blessing on the new moon, and the person is
clearly obligated to recite it and the safek is only whether in his
particular circumstances the blessing is valid — in such a case he
recites the blessing. Sdei Chemed did not cite anyone who disagreed
with this, and birkat hagomel is also such a case. Accordingly,
Knesset haGedolah’s ruling is correct in spite of the disagreement
among the rishonim. Since in his view women are clearly obligated in
birkat hagomel and the disagreement is only about the validity of the
blessing made without the presence of ten men, women may recite it
nonetheless. 

You may further object that this applies only according to Knesset
haGedolah, who holds that women are definitely obligated in birkat
hagomel. But Mishnah Beruruah and other achronim cite his opinion only
as a possibility and not as conclusive Halachah, not to mention what I
have suggested about women’s birkat hagomel being wholly voluntary.
Therefore, women would still be at risk of making a blessing in vain
if they recite birkat hagomel without the presence of ten men.

This is not so, however. Ten men are required only when there is an
obligation to say birkat hagomel, but not when it is voluntary. See
the Gemara in Berachot:

R. Yehuda took ill and was recuperating. R. Chanan Bagta’ah and other
rabbis came to visit him. They said to him, “Blessed be [He] who
returned you to us and not to dust.” He replied, “You have freed me
from [the obligation] to give thanks.”

The Gemara proceeded to ask how R. Yehuda was able to fulfill his
obligation to give thanks through a blessing made without the presence
of ten men. It did not ask how R. Chanan and the others were permitted
to recite the blessing without ten in the first place. R. Yonah
explained, “it appears that they can say it even without [the presence
of] ten, even though the person who was sick does not fulfill his
obligation thereby.” See Bnei Banim, vol. 2, no. 15, where I argued
that the prohibition of altering the language of birkat hagomel
similarly applies only to one obligated to recite it, and not to one
reciting it voluntarily.

This same R. Yonah is the bearer of the view that birkat hagomel
requires ten men even bedi’eved. The results are the same no matter
from what direction one approaches the question: according to Tur, ten
men are only required lechat’chilah, while according to R. Yonah who
requires ten even bedi’eved, this applies only to those obligated to
recite birkat hagomel but not to women who recite it voluntarily. And
if birkat hagomel is obligatory for women, it is likely that safek
berachot lehakeil does not apply when the blessing is itself the
mitzvah.

Therefore, women who wish to recite birkat hagomel in the presence of
other women after illness or air travel etc. have sufficient grounds
to do so, in my opinion. However, following childbirth they should
continue to recite it in the synagogue in places where this is the
custom.

------- End of forwarded message -------
Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]