Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 071

Wednesday, December 4 2002

• Re: women and chanukiyot
• RE: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: levels of obligation
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• RE: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• RE: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• Re: women and chanukiyot
• RE: women and chanukiyot

On 4 Dec 2002 at 8:15, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>>                                        How can she make motzi for
>> her husband? And what on earth does her name being on the lease have
>> to do with anything? Besides, a woman who owns a house is called a
>> ba'alat habayit, not a ba'al habayit. A ba'al habayit is always
>> male. 

> The S"A only has the abbrev. BAH"B.  It doesn't spell out baal or
> baalat. In which case I feel free to use either one.  

Based on whose psak? You're doing something that flies against three 
thousand years of mesora!

> And if being on the lease, and running the household, don't make her a
> baalat habayit (and the woman runs the family in pretty much every
> Jewish family I know), then I don't know what the term means unless it
> means something other than what it says.  

It doesn't make her in charge of the house. Aderaba - the financial
obligations in most marriages are entirely the husband's except for the
rare situation where she has waived the support obligation in return
for being able to keep her own earnings (which otherwise halachically
belong to the husband).

> Look, I've mentioned this to some enlightened PC MO (to use some
> posters' terminology) rabbis, and even (I think) one or two who
> aren't, who haven't complained.

You asked a shaila or you told them that you were doing this and they
shrugged with resignation? I'd be curious to hear what O Rabbis (M or
otherwise) pasken that this is halachically acceptable.

-- Carl

On 4 Dec 2002 at 14:59, Mishpachat Freedenberg wrote:
> Women are only able to motzei other women or children under bar mitzva
> age with kiddush or motzi, the way I learned it.

That's how I learned it too (and some women won't even make Kiddush for
themselves at all - although my wife and daughters do when they are not
around when I make Kiddush or when I am not around when they want to eat).

-- Carl

RCS: 
> How can she be motzi you with ha'Motzi (assuming that she is making 
> the bracha for you as well as for herself)? 

> (Note - I am not disagreeing with what you wrote about the Chanuka 
> candles. I'm asking about ha'Motzi specifically because it's Birchos 
> Ha'Neheneen and the whole idea of the head of the household being 
> motzi those at his table with Kiddush and Motzi is a special heter).

And you think that a man is more the head of his household than a woman?
What kind of Jewish marriage do you live in?

If I can be motzi her because of areivus (where I have davened already,
and she hasn't, so my chiyuv in kiddush is only derabanan while hers is
still d'oraita), why can't she be motzi me in lechem, where there's no
difference in obligation?

Looking at OH 167, everything is in lashon zachar - I wouldn't think
that women make motzi at all, so either they do, and they are included
in the precedence rules, or they don't.

On 4 Dec 2002 at 8:09, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> If I can be motzi her because of areivus (where I have davened
> already, and she hasn't, so my chiyuv in kiddush is only derabanan
> while hers is still d'oraita), why can't she be motzi me in lechem,
> where there's no difference in obligation?

Um - actually, I learned a general rule that anyone with a lesser degree
of obligation can not be motzi someone who is carrying a greater level
of obligation.
Therefore, a woman has to either daven Friday night or at LEAST say Good
Shabbos, to be yotzei the de'oraysa chiyuv, otherwise she has a problem
being yotzei with the kiddush of her husband who at that point is only
under a derabbanan obligation himself.

--adina 

R'n A. Sherer wrote: 
> Um - actually, I learned a general rule that anyone with a lesser 
> degree of obligation can not be motzi someone who is carrying a 
> greater level of obligation. 
> Therefore, a woman has to either daven Friday night  or at LEAST say 
> Good Shabbos, to be yotzei the de'oraysa chiyuv, otherwise she has a 
> problem being yotzei with the kiddush of her husband who at that 
> point is only under a derabbanan obligation himself. 

Yes, exactly that point was made by R' Mayer Twersky when we were
learning Brochos at Lincoln Square, and he said that areivus allows men
to overcome that d'oraita/d'rabbanan barrier - areivus allows party A to
do something for the benefit of party B. A similar idea applies by the
accepting-a-gift trick on Friday afternoon, so you can bring the bottle
of wine over to your friend's house for lunch on Saturday.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: Um - actually, I learned a general rule that anyone with a lesser 
: degree of obligation can not be motzi someone who is carrying a 
: greater level of obligation. 

Who has a lesser obligation in making a berakhah before eating bread?

-mi

On 4 Dec 2002 at 15:08, Micha Berger wrote:
> Who has a lesser obligation in making a berakhah before eating bread?

I was only addressing the kiddush aspect, explaining why (according 
to the lesser/greater rule) all participants in Friday night kiddush 
should have davened or something similar, to be sure that a person 
with a derabanan obligation is not trying to be motzi a deoraysa 
person.

--adina

On 4 Dec 2002 at 8:10, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> If I can be motzi her because of areivus (where I have davened
> already, and she hasn't, so my chiyuv in kiddush is only derabanan
> while hers is still d'oraita), why can't she be motzi me in lechem,
> where there's no difference in obligation?

For starters because you're supposed to do one or more of several
eitzos in order to avoid the situation where she is d'oraysa and you
are d'Rabbanan. Such as:

1. She should daven Ma'ariv on Friday night.
2. You should have in mind specifically NOT to fulfill your d'oraysa
Kiddush obligation in Ma'ariv.
3. You should say "Good Shabbos" to her - and have her respond in kind -
before you make Kiddush.

IIRC there's a lengthy Sha'agas Aryeh that deals with this issue.

> Looking at OH 167, everything is in lashon zachar - I wouldn't think
> that women make motzi at all, so either they do, and they are included
> in the precedence rules, or they don't.

In general, you cannot be motzi someone in Birchos Ha'Neheneen.
There's a special heter for Kiddush (agav the requirement for Kdushas 
HaYom) and Motzi (at a Shabbos meal where lechem mishna is required 
at least l'chatchila). But the Gemara says horrible things about a 
man whose wife makes brachos for him whether or not they are Birchos 
ha'Neheneen (cf. Bentching, Bikurim).

-- Carl

>>                            Could anyone explain to me why a wife would 
>> think that it's such a big deal to light Chanukah candles instead of 
>> being yotzei on her husband's bracha?

> Because she likes it (is it a sin to enjoy a mitzva act)?

It's certainly not a sin to enjoy the performance of a mitzva, but that
doesn't mean that all mitzvot should be done by all people at all times.
I really love the birkat kohenim and my husband is a cohein, so he gets
to say it every day in shul. Now, blessing Am Yisrael is certainly a
mitzva and I enjoy doing mitzvot, so by the above logic I should be able
to go up with him to do the bracha, no? Well, okay, that's a public sort
of mitzva, so what about wearing tzitzis? I do certainly enjoy doing
mitzvot so why shouldn't I wear tzitzis or a tallis or tfillin? Does
enjoying mitzvot mean that we are doing them only because we enjoy them
and if we didn't enjoy them we wouldn't do them? This is the Reform
requirement for mitzvot - whatever you enjoy doing or is meaningful to
you personally you do, and whatever not, not. We on this list, who are
not Reform, are supposed to be doing mitzvot because they are a tzav,
a commandment, and not because of whether we get enjoyment from them
or not. It is not about us and what we like to do, it is about serving
Hashem and what He requires in this endeavor.

> In my wife's case, her parents didn't light a menorah.  She 
> started doing so on her own, while living in her parents' 
> house.  So she should stop?

Well, what if your wife started making kiddush on her own at her
parent's house; now that she is married, should you be making kiddush
for her or should she continue making it for herself at the table in
front of you? There are a number of things that a married woman is
privileged to have her husband do for her that she did for herself when
she was single. This is not a bad thing at all. If that is your minhag,
fine. If it is your minhag that every person in the household lights,
fine. But it should not be an issue of thinking that saying a bracha is
any better or more important halachically than saying amen to your bracha.

> Ner Ish Ubeito.  You've got to have people associated with 
> each menorah, if you're doing more than one.  If you only 
> have it associated with the men, when women are perfectly 
> permitted to do so, then it sends the message that you think 
> the women of your household are less of a person than the 
> halacha itself does.

> Why would anyone want to do that?

Why would you think that a woman is less of a person in your household
because you honor her by lighting for her? Does the fact that your wife
lights Shabbos candles for you make you less of a person? Of course not.

You know, a king and queen have servants to do things for them; their
very importance requires that they not do everything themselves. They are
the rulers, but others carry out things in their name. Their children
are princes and princesses and likewise have others to do things for
them. We are the princes and princesses of Hashem as well as making up
a part of Knesses Yisrael and it is a very special thing that other Jews
can bring bracha and mitzva credit to us by including us in their actions,
such as Birkat Cohenim or kiddush.

---Rena

Ms. Hpachat Freedenberg:
> It's certainly not a sin to enjoy the performance of a mitzva, but that
> doesn't mean that all mitzvot should be done by all people at all times.
> I really love the birkat kohenim and my husband is a cohein, so he gets
> to say it every day in shul. Now, blessing Am Yisrael is certainly a
> mitzva and I enjoy doing mitzvot, so by the above logic I should be able
> to go up with him to do the bracha, no? Well, okay, that's a public sort

No. Women are not allowed to duchen. Women aren't, by definition,
kohanim, and being a kohen is a prerequisite to the mitzva of duchening.
So it's not comparable.

> of mitzva, so what about wearing tzitzis? I do certainly enjoy doing
> mitzvot so why shouldn't I wear tzitzis or a tallis or tfillin? Does

Why not? There's no halacha against it. People might think you have
yuhara, so you might start out doing so in private, but aside from that,
there's no issur on it. For tefillin there's a "mecho'oh", but that's
not a ban, and furthermore, it may be based on heretical literature
(viz. R' Daniel Sperber's talk at the EDAH conference last year).

> enjoying mitzvot mean that we are doing them only because we enjoy them
> and if we didn't enjoy them we wouldn't do them? This is the Reform
> requirement for mitzvot - whatever you enjoy doing or is meaningful to
> you personally you do, and whatever not, not. We on this list, who are
> not Reform, are supposed to be doing mitzvot because they are a tzav, a
> commandment, and not because of whether we get enjoyment from them or
> not. It is not about us and what we like to do, it is about serving
> Hashem and what He requires in this endeavor. 

I'm not talking about things which are universally regarded as obligatory
on one class of people, or universally regarded as forbidden to a
class of people. I'm talking about things where there is a range of
opinion, such as tzitzis, tefillin (your cases) or nerot Chanukah (the
original case). While we're at it, how about adding women's mezuman?
Things which are not assur to women, things for which women get s'char
for doing, things which they may enjoy doing.

Not all of halacha is black and white, issur and chov. There are also
mutar, machmir, meikel, mochin beyadan, yesh s'char, etc.

>>In my wife's case, her parents didn't light a menorah.  She 
>>started doing so on her own, while living in her parents' 
>>house.  So she should stop?

> Well, what if your wife started making kiddush on her own at her
> parent's house; now that she is married, should you be making kiddush
> for her or should she continue making it for herself at the table in
> front of you? There are a number of things that a married woman is
> privileged to have her husband do for her that she did for herself when
> she was single. This is not a bad thing at all. If that is your minhag,
> fine. If it is your minhag that every person in the household lights,
> fine. But it should not be an issue of thinking that saying a bracha is
> any better or more important halachically than saying amen to your
> bracha. 

Sometimes we switch around and she says kiddush.  So?

I'm not saying "my way or the highway", I'm saying my way is one way,
your way is another, who are you to tell me my way is bad/wrong/assur?

>>Ner Ish Ubeito.  You've got to have people associated with 
>>each menorah, if you're doing more than one.  If you only 
>>have it associated with the men, when women are perfectly 
>>permitted to do so, then it sends the message that you think 
>>the women of your household are less of a person than the 
>>halacha itself does.

>>Why would anyone want to do that?

> Why would you think that a woman is less of a person in your household
> because you honor her by lighting for her? Does the fact that your wife
> lights Shabbos candles for you make you less of a person? Of course not.

Because (as RCS mentioned) the Gemara says nasty things about a man
who can't make brachot for himself, and thus has to have his wife say
them for him. In other words, the party which can't do on its own is a
lesser party. Why should I put my wife in that lesser position, when
she can light on her own, when she can get s'char mitzva for lighting
on her own, when she can get nachat ruach for lighting on her own?

> You know, a king and queen have servants to do things for them; their
> very importance requires that they not do everything themselves. They
> are the rulers, but others carry out things in their name. Their

Because the king has power of life and death over them. Not out of any
innate honor for them, but out of fear of them.

> children are princes and princesses and likewise have others to do
> things for them. We are the princes and princesses of Hashem as well as
> making up a part of Knesses Yisrael and it is a very special thing that
> other Jews can bring bracha and mitzva credit to us by including us in
> their actions, such as Birkat Cohenim or kiddush. 

But the kohanim are not doing the duchen FOR you, they are doing it
TO you. It's not apposite. "Levarech et amo yisra'el bashalom" - the
people are the OBJECT of the bracha-flow, and the kohanim are channeling
that flow from Hashem to the am. Kiddush has its own rules. But nerot
Chanukah - "I'm doing it for you, which implies that you can't do it
for yourself."

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On 4 Dec 2002 at 10:48, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> No.  Women are not allowed to duchen.  Women aren't, by definition,
> kohanim, and being a kohen is a prerequisite to the mitzva of
> duchening. So it's not comparable.

Women by definition cannot be motzi men with brachos generally and with
birchos ha'neheneen in particular. In fact, no one can be motzi anyone
with birchos ha'neheneen except for Kiddush and Motzi....

...
> I'm not talking about things which are universally regarded as
> obligatory on one class of people, or universally regarded as
> forbidden to a class of people.  I'm talking about things where there
> is a range of opinion, such as tzitzis, tefillin (your cases) 

Name me an accepted posek in the last 500 years who said that women SHOULD
(not can - should) wear tzitzis or tefillin.

> or nerot
> Chanukah (the original case).  While we're at it, how about adding
> women's mezuman?  Things which are not assur to women, things for
> which women get s'char for doing, things which they may enjoy doing.

Tosfos in the beginning of Shlosha She'Achlu specifically sanctions
women's mezuman (may even make it obligatory - it's been a while since
I saw it inside). But not in front of men....

>> Well, what if your wife started making kiddush on her own at her
>> parent's house; now that she is married, should you be making
>> kiddush for her or should she continue making it for herself at the
>> table in front of you? ...

> Sometimes we switch around and she says kiddush.  So?

And which posek permitted that? 

> I'm not saying "my way or the highway", I'm saying my way is one way,
> your way is another, who are you to tell me my way is bad/wrong/assur?

Because not every way is halachically correct (whether or not it's
assur). You cannot just throw mesorah aside because you don't like it
or because you like another way better. That's what lo tasur is about.

>> Why would you think that a woman is less of a person in your
>> household because you honor her by lighting for her? Does the fact
>> that your wife lights Shabbos candles for you make you less of a
>> person? Of course not.

> Because (as RCS mentioned) the Gemara says nasty things about a man
> who can't make brachot for himself, and thus has to have his wife say
> them for him.  In other words, the party which can't do on its own is
> a lesser party.  

No. The Gemara only says tavo me'era on a man who needs his wife to say
brachos for him. Not the other way around.

Why should I put my wife in that lesser position,
> when she can light on her own, when she can get s'char mitzva for
> lighting on her own, when she can get nachat ruach for lighting on her
> own?

Because according to most poskim (and keep in mind that in my house the
women do light) having her husband light for her does not put a woman into
a "lesser" position. The idea that it does is what Rebbetzin Katz would
call the influence of "feminism." The idea that any time a woman doesn't
do the exact same thing that a man does, it puts her in a lesser position.

>> children are princes and princesses and likewise have others to do
>> things for them. We are the princes and princesses of Hashem as well
>> as making up a part of Knesses Yisrael and it is a very special
>> thing that other Jews can bring bracha and mitzva credit to us by
>> including us in their actions, such as Birkat Cohenim or kiddush. 

> But the kohanim are not doing the duchen FOR you, they are doing it TO
> you. It's not apposite.  

That's not correct. They are doing it for you and for themselves.
There's an Aruch LaNer at the end of Yevamos (IIRC) about the concept of
how a person needs all of the 613 mitzvos, each of which strengthens one
of the aivarim or gidim in his body. But obviously, it is highly unlikely
(impossible) that one person fulfills all 613 mitzvos. So we have to
share in the schar of others in order to strengthen certain parts of our
body. When a Kohain bentches us or eats his matanos, he isn't doing it
for himself only - he's also doing it for us. That's what the Gemara
means when it explains the pasuk "v'achlu osom asher kupar bahem;"
that we get a kapara from them eating.

> "Levarech et amo yisra'el bashalom" - the
> people are the OBJECT of the bracha-flow, and the kohanim are
> channeling that flow from Hashem to the am.  

But that doesn't mean the Kohanim are doing it to you....

> Kiddush has its own
> rules.  But nerot Chanukah - "I'm doing it for you, which implies that
> you can't do it for yourself."

No such implication whatsoever. Making such an implication is putting 
a westernized gloss on the halacha. 

-- Carl

RCS: 
> Women by definition cannot be motzi men with brachos generally and 
> with birchos ha'neheneen in particular. In fact, no one can be motzi 
> anyone with birchos ha'neheneen except for Kiddush and Motzi....

Source?  You've said this two or three times.  Yet Micha, Meir Shinnar
and I all seem to have heard differently...

...
> Name me an accepted posek in the last 500 years who said that women 
> SHOULD (not can - should) wear tzitzis or tefillin. 

Do you only do things that poskim say you SHOULD do? Do you refrain from
things where there isn't a SHOULD? Is there nothing optional in Torah,
which depends on personal preference, in your worldview?

We all SHOULD be learning all day, but we don't.

That wasn't the question, by the way - I was talking about things which
are optional, things about which there is a range of opinion. Tzitzis,
women's mezuman, nerot chanukah - all have no issur on them.

...
> Tosfos in the beginning of Shlosha She'Achlu specifically sanctions 
> women's mezuman (may even make it obligatory - it's been a while 
> since I saw it inside). But not in front of men.... 

Yes. Indeed. So? It's something which is either obligatory or optional.
So what's the problem? You yourself say that the women in your family
light their own chanukiyot.

...
>> Sometimes we switch around and she says kiddush.  So?

> And which posek permitted that? 

The ones which say that she has a higher level of obligation. Or an
equal level of obligation.

Remember, one of the arguments against women as shlichei tzibur, or
women as kor'ot megillah for mixed groups, is about levels of obligation.

Inherent in that argument is that people of equal level of obligation
can motzi one another in brachot/tefillah. Certainly a woman can motzi
a man in benching.

...
>> I'm not saying "my way or the highway", I'm saying my way is one way,
>> your way is another, who are you to tell me my way is bad/wrong/assur?

> Because not every way is halachically correct (whether or not it's 
> assur). You cannot just throw mesorah aside because you don't like it 
> or because you like another way better. That's what lo tasur is 
> about. 

That which is not assur is mutar. One is called to account in the Next
World for that which was mutar to one, and one did not take advantage
of it. Kadeish atzm'cha b'mutar lach is a recipe for asceticism,
or a requirement to follow the rabbis when they forbid something, not
a requirement for all to come up with their own personal chumras and
impose them on others.

>> Because (as RCS mentioned) the Gemara says nasty things about a man
>> who can't make brachot for himself, and thus has to have his wife say
>> them for him.  In other words, the party which can't do on its own is
>> a lesser party.  

> No. The Gemara only says tavo me'era on a man who needs his wife to 
> say brachos for him. Not the other way around. 

NEEDS his wife to, not WANTS his wife to. IOW, it's a polemic against
men who don't take the trouble to learn the most basic of mitzvot, the
most basic of prayers - brachos on food. Doesn't sound like a ban on
having one's wife be motzi one with a bracha. As RMFeldman pointed out,
it's a befeirush SA that a woman can motzi her husband on neirot Chanukah,
as did R'n Katz from KSA (even if she interpreted it differently).

...
> Because according to most poskim (and keep in mind that in my house 
> the women do light) having her husband light for her does not put a 
> woman into a "lesser" position. The idea that it does is what 
> Rebbetzin Katz would call the influence of "feminism." The idea that 
> any time a woman doesn't do the exact same thing that a man does, it 
> puts her in a lesser position. 

And a Maimonidean would say that anyplace where Tosfos interjects Minhag
Ashkenaz, it's a western influence from Xianity and Xian lands, and thus
forbidden. But we don't hold that way. The whole mode of argument in
the Gemara is Socratic method - in other words, our whole Torah is based
on Hellenistic methodology.

Just because it's external doesn't mean it's ipso facto wrong.

> That's not correct. They are doing it for you and for themselves. 
> There's an Aruch LaNer at the end of Yevamos (IIRC) about the concept 
> of how a person needs all of the 613 mitzvos, each of which 
> strengthens one of the aivarim or gidim in his body...
>        . So we have to share in the schar of others in order to 
> strengthen certain parts of our body. When a Kohain bentches us or 
> eats his matanos, he isn't doing it for himself only - he's also 
> doing it for us. That's what the Gemara means when it explains the 
> pasuk "v'achlu osom asher kupar bahem;" that we get a kapara from 
> them eating. 

That's still not doing it FOR you. They can't do it FOR you, because
YOU CAN'T DO IT YOURSELF, THEREFORE YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO IT.
In fact, you or I, as a zar, are forbidden to do it. So they are doing
it TO you, not FOR you - they are not fulfilling YOUR obli- gation,
they are fulfilling their own obligation to make the bracha.

It's a subject-object difference.

> "Levarech et amo yisra'el bashalom" - the
>> people are the OBJECT of the bracha-flow, and the kohanim are
>> channeling that flow from Hashem to the am.  

> But that doesn't mean the Kohanim are doing it to you....

Yes it does. They are metzuvin to barech ET amo yisrael. ET indicates
the object of the verb BARECH, and who does BARECH? Those who are
metzuvin to do so.

> Kiddush has its own
>> rules.  But nerot Chanukah - "I'm doing it for you, which implies that
>> you can't do it for yourself."

> No such implication whatsoever. Making such an implication is putting 
> a westernized gloss on the halacha. 

So is selling crucifixes because Xianity is not true Avoda Zara. Doesn't
make westernized glosses on halacha necessarily outside the baalpark.

> We on this list, who are not Reform, are supposed to be doing
> mitzvot because they are a tzav, a commandment, and not because
> of whether we get enjoyment from them or not. It is not about us
> and what we like to do, it is about serving Hashem and what He
> requires in this endeavor. 

And in the same vein, it's not about what we're used to doing or what
comes naturally to us. So much of this discussion revolves around the
fact that in certain circles it is uncommon for women to do certain
(seemingly) 'male-oriented' activities (kiddush, candle-lighting, zimun,
etc.). While it's perfectly understandable that a woman feel uncomfortable
about doing something which she's not used to, it doesn't mean that it's
halachically problematic. In fact, very often her gut ambivalence may
be going directly contrary to what the halacha says.

So often the complaint is heard against certain people that 'they're only
doing it because they want to be like the men' or that 'they only do it
when they enjoy it' and that those considerations shouldn't be overriding
halacha. Well, in other circles, they DON'T do certain things because
'they want to be like the women' or because 'they're uncomfortable about
doing it'. Such considerations are even less valid than the first ones.

Avi Burstein

Jon Baker wrote:
>Yes, exactly that point was made by R' Mayer Twersky when we
>were learning Brochos at Lincoln Square, and he said that areivus
>allows men to overcome that d'oraita/d'rabbanan barrier - areivus
>allows party A to do something for the benefit of party B. A similar
>idea applies by the accepting-a-gift trick on Friday afternoon, so
>you can bring the bottle of wine over to your friend's house for lunch
>on Saturday.

I think you might be mistaken or RMT was only speaking philosophically
rather than halachically, as he tends to do when teaching ba'alebatim.
Being motzi someone in a berachah is because of arvus. Accepting a
gift for someone is because of zachin le-adam she-lo be-fanav.
Only philosophically are the two connect.

In the case of a woman's name being on a lease, I don't think that
it makes the apartment halachically hers -- mah she-kansa ishah kanah
ba'alah. But I don't think it is relevant anyway. If the woman of the
house makes ha-motzi for eveyone at the table, I think it is fairly clear
that she is doing so as "the woman of the house" and has the same status
as when "the man of the house" says ha-motzi. This past Shabbos my son
ate lunch at a friend's house whose father is on an extremely strict
diet (I don't know the details) and his wife said kiddush and ha-motzi.
Black hat, fairly good Chareidi pedigree, davens in a kollel,...

Gil Student

IIRC, a Rav here in Baltimore replied that "ishto k'gufo" has real
meaning and therefore he was not in favor of married women lighting

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com]
>> Look, I've mentioned this to some enlightened PC MO (to use some
>> posters' terminology) rabbis, and even (I think) one or two who
>> aren't, who haven't complained.

> You asked a shaila or you told them that you were doing this and they 
> shrugged with resignation? I'd be curious to hear what O Rabbis (M or 
> otherwise) pasken that this is halachically acceptable. 

I have no idea as to how rabbonim pasken, but I will tell you that this
arrangement is quite common among couples who attend the Harvard Hillel,
and I have the impression that it's also common on the Upper West Side.
Anyone have the email address of the O rabbi of the Harvard Hillel (if
it's the same one as was there a couple of years ago, he's definitely
a talmid chacham)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]