Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 79

Wed, 07 May 2014

• 1. Re: Hakhel Email Community Awareness Bulletin - Improving Our Kavod for Others (D&E-H Bannett)
• 2. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Tosafos - Bava Kama 59b/60a (Sholom Simon)
• 4. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Is there one halachic truth? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (menucha)
• 8. Re: Is there one halachic truth? (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Is there one halachic truth? (Micha Berger)
• 10. help with 2 sugyot (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] 5 iyar, chu'l (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for minors (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)

Re:<<The fact that everyone says Lag Ba Omer indicates to me 
that one should count with a Beis!
>>

I hope your "everyone" was not meant to exclude some people 
from 'Am Yisrael.  I have heard some s'faradim say lag 
la-omer and have seen it in writing. Lag Ba-omer is 
definitely the more popular usage - but not universal.

As to the counting: The Gr"a and most of nusach Ashkenaz use 
Ba-omer. The The Teimanim used a bet, but say ba-umra as 
they count in Aramac.  Most  others say La-0mer.

Who? Me?  I say Ba-omer because that's the way I was brought 
up. I'm stubborn and continue saying it my way despite the 
fact that the shul I have been davening in for over sixty 
years says La-omer.



_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

 

From: "Heather Luntz" _Heat...@kolsassoon.org.uk_ 
(mailto:Heat...@kolsassoon.org.uk) 


>> No 1 is of course important. It is obvious that there needs  to be 
caution in
taking on a mitzvah that places heavy demands upon one's  time.   
...Tephillin is certainly in that category 

...I would note, however, that going to shul is far worse in this  regard. 
The
amount of time spent by my husband in shul, compared with myself,  is huge,
...So were the time argument to be a valid one, then according to  this 
Aruch HaShulchan
we should protest every time a woman goes to shul 
...Certainly those women - many of them elderly or single -  who go  every 
single
day and often more than once - must need be heavily censured, as  this is
something that mothers with children do not have the luxury of doing 




>This is why (the AhS continues) the Rama says  there is more concern for
>meichzei keyhara for a woman to wear them.  ...
 

Now if, as I suspect, the Aruch HaShulchan was never faced with  the
phenomenon of women going to shul regularly on weekdays - should not he  
also
argue that this is not the minhag? This gets into the whole question of  lo
raynu yesh raya by minhag ...<<


Good Shabbas

Chana




>>>>
 
a. The Vilna Gaon famously wrote a letter to his wife and daughters asking  
them /never/ to go to shul.
 
b. In the recent biography of R'n Kanievsky a'h I read (to my  surprise) 
that she went to shul every day for Shacharis, Mincha AND  Maariv.
 
c. I myself regret that I got out of the habit of going to shul on Shabbos  
when my kids were little, and as a result my daughters (now grown) almost  
never go to shul.  I now go for Rosh Chodesh bentshing and rarely any other  
time.  Shabbos morning at home by myself reading the parsha with a cup of  
coffee is the most heavenly peaceful time of the week for me but I confess 
that  my davening is minimalist.
 
These data points add up to I don't know what, but I must add that a mother 
 taking care of her small children is a tremendous mitzva and fulfillment 
of a  woman's main mission in life.  Yet it is also something that applies 
only  for a limited time in a woman's life.  The idea that elderly women  
shouldn't go to shul because young women have to take care of small children  
seems a non sequitur to me.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
..
=============


-------------------------------------------------------------------



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140505/d0a86cb8/attachment-0001.htm>

 

My son's gemara shiur sees a stira between the last Tosafos on Bava
Kama 59b (which seems to say, "and don't think an answer is xyz", and
the first Tosafos on 60a (which seems to assume xyz is the answer).


The maggid shiur was stumped, too. He offered a (very) small prize to
anyone who could bring a resolution, and the bochurim are allowed to ask
anybody they want. 

I'm not good enough in reading Tosafos to jump into
a sugya I know nothing about, so I'm no help here. 

Anyone up for an
interesting puzzle? ;-) 

- Sholom 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140505/57fdc922/attachment-0001.htm>

The idea that young women shouldn't go to shul because there are young 
children is a non-sequitur to me. Have hubby go to the early minyan 
(assuming that there is one) and he can take care of the kinder later in 
the morning. At least make sure that she has time for part of shul.

Ben

On 5/5/2014 7:51 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> The idea that elderly women shouldn't go to shul because young women 
> have to take care of small children seems a non sequitur to me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140505/4bcb5a18/attachment-0001.htm>

BTWm the ezras nashim today is miles ahead of what the Gra was worried
about his wife participating in. Women who couldn't follow the davening in
the siddur would end up spending the time comparing outfits and speaking
rechilus and LH. The Gra warns that for a woman who couldn't afford what
the other women had, it was an invitation for jealousy.

We can be cynical and say the same is true of shul today, but the truth
is that with universal education for girls, the level of engagement with
services today is incomparably better.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 20th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   play in maintaining relationships?

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:26:54PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: Well, this is probably my last Y-mi-ism... Nidah 2:7, vilna 9a.
...
: But what do you make of this? Doesn't this Y-mi indicate (if not prove)
: that the point of pesaq is to rule based on legal authority, rather than
: to determine halakhah as a pre-existing absolute truth?

Along simimlar lines, AhS 32:41. If a child is asked about tzuras ha'os
and gives one answer, and another child then gives another answer, the
first child's impression wins the day. Because chazal gave the first
child ne'emanus, and therefore it's as authortiative as two. (Which is
true for all cases of eid echad ne'eman.) But if two subsequent children
say different than the firs, nir'ah we follow them. And if many children
were asked, we follow rov. If there are 50-50, safeiq lechumrah.

What I find notable is that in the case of 1 vs 1, we are given a
technical answer about ne'emanus. We aren't told to go find a tie-breaker,
or that we have a safeiq lechumerah.

Again procedural rules for determining the metzi'us are chosen over
the more effective rule for deciding fact.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 20th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   play in maintaining relationships?

> On 5/5/2014 7:51 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>> The idea that elderly women shouldn't go to shul because young women 
>> have to take care of small children seems a non sequitur to me.

Ben Waxman wrote:
> The idea that young women shouldn't go to shul because there are young 
> children is a non-sequitur to me. Have hubby go to the early minyan 
> (assuming that there is one) and he can take care of the kinder later 
> in the morning. At least make sure that she has time for part of shul.

Women (whether they have children or not) are exempt from tefilla 
betzibur, and a woman can decide at appropriate parts of her life not to 
attend to shul, for many different reasons.

Each woman can judge for herself whether the GRA's concern about 
kin'a, devarim betelim and lashon hara applies to her.  I personally do 
not believe it has to do with a woman's familiarity with the siddur.
Once we are talking  about non sequiturs, the one that bothers me is 
healthy women who are not pregnant or nursing not fasting because they 
were/will be pregnant.

menucha

On 5/5/2014 6:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Along simimlar lines, AhS 32:41. If a child is asked about tzuras ha'os
> and gives one answer, and another child then gives another answer, the
> first child's impression wins the day. Because chazal gave the first
> child ne'emanus, and therefore it's as authortiative as two....

> Again procedural rules for determining the metzi'us are chosen over
> the more effective rule for deciding fact.

Again, we are given a legal method of determining the law.  Not the 
reality.  If there were an objective way to know what the letter was, 
that's what we'd use.  There isn't.  So we take a step back to the 
perception of a child.

There is absolutely nothing that supports the contention that we don't 
prefer an objective truth to a legal determination in the absence of such.

Lisa

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:08:37PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: There is absolutely nothing that supports the contention that we
: don't prefer an objective truth to a legal determination in the
: absence of such.

Isn't a survey of how people see the letter the most accurate way we
have to know how the letter looks to most people?

And then, we use a child, because they know letters, but will not have
presumptions based on context suggesting what they ought to be seeing.
(Again, that's in the AhS, in an earlier se'if.)

But writing this reply made me shift my position.

In our case there is no doubt about the objective truth. We know exactly
what the shape of the letter is, and how far down the leg goes. What we
are trying to determine is entirely existential -- what is the more
reasonable or common subjective assessment of the ink in question --
does it qualify as a yud or as a vav?

We could have made the issue objective: the shiur of a leg of a vav is
at least 1 or 1.5 kumulsim (think the width of the head's side-stroke)
beyond the bottom of the head, and any shape where the leg is less than
that shiur is a yud. But we didn't.

So I do have to back off my original claim: it's not an issue of relying
of halakhah-specific rules of eidus over determination of fact, it's not
even an issue of fact.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 21st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             factor in harmony?

<<> It's called loyalty. It's called not wanting to hurt the regular
> guy's feelings. I don't get why that's difficult to understand.

That's not harm to *you*.  It's harm to the other guy.>>

Tovas Hanaah is indeed harm to me. I have the right to choose who does work
for me.
First the regular gardener may leave if he doesnt get a regular job.
Perhaps also the
regular gardener does somethings for free simply because he has a nice job.
Also perhaps the regular gardener is my brother/

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140506/8a4dc11b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Areivim, Shifra Goldmeier wrote:
> And regarding hallel - if the entire country of Israel (the religious
> parts of it), can say Hallel with a bracha in shul on the first night of
> Pesach, as per the minhag eretz yisrael which most people here seem to
> follow, than why is saying hallel, even with a bracha, not justified for
> Yom Haatzmaut (by, day at least, if not also by night)?

Because saying hallel on Pesach night is a mitzvah, actually a chiyuv,
while saying it on 5 Iyar, or 6 Iyar, or whenever is not.   This chiyuv
should be fulfilled at home at the seder, but then we have a problem with
the bracha, so for lack of alternative we do it first in a less-than-ideal
way with a bracha, and then we do it again the proper way but without one.

In early Iyar, though, there is no chiyuv, no mitzvah, no proper minhag
instituted by those with authority to invent new minhagim that at least
Ashkenazim can say a bracha for, there's nothing.  And we do not have the
right to say hallel "stam"; "kol ha'omer halel bechol yom" is not a good
thing.  Saying it as tillim is fine, but saying it as hallel is not allowed
even without a bracha, let alone with one (which, apart from any issue of
bracha levatalah, or she'eina tzricha, constitutes a clear statement that
one is in fact saying the prakim as hallel).

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

In her most recent and lengthy critiques (April 11th and 19th, 2014)
of our Tradition paper, Chana Luntz raises three points which we would
like to respond to.

(1) The first point relates to section VIA which deals with "The Function
of the Ba'al Keri'ah," in particular as understood by the Maharil and
Rosh. Based on an extensive list of poskim (see note 173) we suggested
that originally, the task of each oleh was to read his Torah portion aloud
to the community from the sefer Torah. With the innovation of a ba'al
keri'ah, the task of the oleh has effectively been bifurcated: firstly,
to read the selected Torah reading from the Torah scroll; and secondly,
to have that selection read aloud for all the community to hear. Both
subtasks must be fulfilled together for the attendant berakhot to be
valid. According to the school of Maharil, the ba'al keri'ah can carry out
both functions for the oleh via shelihut or shome'a ke-oneh. By contrast,
Rosh's school views the first component, namely, the obligation to read
from the parchment, as the oleh's personal task alone, which cannot be
fulfilled via the actions of anyone else. After all, if the oleh does not
even read, argues Rosh, how can he make a berakha? Only with regards to
fulfilling the second part of his obligation, i.e., to have the weekly
portion recited aloud to the community, can the oleh be assisted by the
ba'al keri'ah.

In her various critiques, Ms. Luntz has missed the critical point in our
analysis [based on the poskim in note 173]. We most definitely do not
accept her statement: "that the brachot are said on the quiet reading
by the oleh, and not on the public reading by the ba'al koreh, and it is
that and only that which makes those brachot valid." Rather, we maintain
that even according to the Rosh, the oleh requires that the ba'al keri'ah
assist him in fulfilling the second task, i.e., to have the weekly portion
recited aloud to the community. Otherwise, the berakhot of the oleh are
levatala. This is because the berakhot were established for a public
Torah reading, and there is nothing public in the actions of oleh; all
he does is read quietly. Which is why he is dependant on the reading of
the ba'al keri'a -- which is transferred to the oleh via shome'a ke-oneh.

That is why, in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of poskim we
cite -- who allow a Suma to receive an aliyya, and forbid a minor to be
a ba'al korei -- Chana is incorrect when she writes:

"But RAF/RDF's argument is that shomea k'oneh is the only mechanism that
works for kriyas hatorah when you have a ba'al koreh/oleh split. Hence,
they argue, there is a problem of bracha l'vatala with partnership
minyanim. If shomea k'oneh were not the only mechanism that worked,
there would be no bracha l'vatala problem with women being called up
despite there being a ba'al koreh (who might be a man), so long as that
woman followed the Rosh and read along quietly and did not rely on shomea
k'oneh. Similarly there would be no problem if a man was called up even
though a woman was layning, so long as he too followed the Rosh and read
along quietly and did not rely on shomea k'oneh."

She err's (in our humble opinion, as stated above) because even according
to the Rosh the oleh requires shome'ah ke-oneh from the ba'al keri'ah
to be yotsei the second task of reading for the tsibbur aloud.

Ms. Luntz assumes a different analysis: according to Rosh the oleh
has only one task to accomplish, namely to read along with the ba'al
keri'a. Doing so is sufficient to prevent a berakha le-vatala. As far
as the task of reading aloud to the congregation, that anyone else
(the ba'al keri'a) present can do -- not necessarily the oleh. As
we discuss in note 181, this analysis has been proposed by R. Joseph
B. Soloveitchik. We have recently found two additional scholars who
suggest a similar analysis: R. Yudel Rosenberg, Resp. Yehavveh Da'at,
O.H., sec. 2, Hakira 3, Ra'aya 4 (end); R. Hayyim Dov Altuski, Hiddushei
Batra, Megilla, ha-Masbir be-Keri'at ha-Torah, sec. 445; R. Hayyim Dov
Altuski, Hiddushei Batra, ha-Masbir be-Massekhet Pesahim, Hagah be-Mishna
Berura, sec. 141, s.v. "Be'ur Halakha". R. Ovadiah Yosef (cited in note
181) and former Sefardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Ma'ale Adumim Chief
Rabbi Mordechai Nagari (personal communication to Dov I. Frimer, March
31, 2014) have also invoked this analysis, but only under dire she'at
ha-dehak situations. In the 3rd paragraph of note 181 in our article we
suggest 6 reasons why this analysis is problematic.

(2) In the text at note 172 of the paper we write that R. Soloveitchik
maintains that, while we advise olim le-khattehila to read along quietly
following Rosh (cited in Shulhan Arukh 141:2), in practice, we rule
like Maharil. Three pieces of evidence for this can be adduced. (1)
Firstly, it is a widespread custom, both amongst Ashkenazim and Sefaradim
(contrary to the ruling of Shulhan Arkh, O.H., sec. 139, no. 3) to call
to the Torah the blind, untrained, and illiterate, who clearly cannot or
will not read along from the scroll. (2) In addition, R. Soloveitchik
and others note that if one is called to the Torah while he is in the
midst of birkhot keri'at shema, the halakhic consensus is to accept the
aliyya and recite the blessings, but not to read along with the ba'al
keri'ah, again relying on Maharil. (3) Finally, R. Moshe Soloveitchik
ruled that for Parashat Zakhor, the oleh should not read along with
the ba'al keri'ah as required by Rosh. Rather, he should fulfill his
obligations according to Maharil with the reading of the reader via
shomei'a ke-oneh along with the rest of the community.

Chana Luntz cites by contrast the Mishna Berura, Be'ur Halakha, sec. 141,
s.v. "le-Vatala" who argues that despite the general custom of giving an
aliyya to a suma -- the law actually follows Rosh. The leniently ruling
according to Maharil is reserved for the dire case of one who is blind
or doesn't know how to read. See also: Sha'ar haTsiyyun, sec. 139, no.6.

However, the Mishna Berura in Be'ur Halakha, clearly acknowledges that
Turei Zahav (Taz), O.H., sec. 141, no. 3 and Peri Hadash, O.H., sec. 141,
no. 3, do not agree with his understanding, citing support for the Maharil
from the Jerusalem Talmud. The fact is that those like Rav Soloveitchik's
who have ruled like Maharil le-khatehilla represent the consensus of
leading poskim. See, inter alia : R. Benjamin Aaron Solnik, Resp. Masat
Binyamin, sec. 62; R. Hayyim Benbenisti, Shyarei Kenesset ha-Gedola
O.H.. sec. 141, no. 1; Rabbi Moshe ben Avraham of Przemy??l, Mateh Moshe,
sec. 244; R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach, Mekor Hayyim, O.H., sec. 139, no. 2,
n. 2; Be'ur haGra, O.H., sec. 139, no. 2, s.v. "u-Maharil;" R. Joshua
Heschel Babad, Sefer Yehoshua -- Pesakim u-Ketavim, end of sec. 192;
R. Isaac Judah Jehiel of Komarna, Shulhan ha-Tahor, sec. 139, no. 1
and sec. 141, no. 2. See also several additional sources (based in part
on the Zohar) cited in Piskei Teshuvot, II, sec. 141, no. 2, n. 5. To
this list we should add those who maintain that shome'ah ke-oneh from
the ba'al keri'a to the oleh is fully effective, but may not permit a
suma to receive an aliyya because a ba'al keri'a cannot effect for the
oleh, what the oleh couldn't do for himself (kol ha-ra'ui le-bila...);
see: R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach, Mekor Hayyim, O.H., sec. 139, no. 2,
n. 2; R. Joseph Teomim, Peri Megadim, O.H., sec. 141, Mishbetsot Zahav,
no. 3 R. Aharon Levin, Birkat Aharon, ma'amar 53, no.1. In this regards,
see also R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yehaveh Da'at, sec. IV, note 2, mid-page 56
who makes this very point. In addition, R. David Luria, Resp. Radal,
sec. 3, no. 4, indicates that already in the 19th Century nearly all
olim did not read along with the ba'al korei, relying on the Maharil --
contrary to Rosh. Most importantly, Arukh ha-Shulhan, sec. 141, no. 5
writes only that it is "preferable" to follow Rosh, clearly suggesting
that the basic law is according to Maharil; see also Arukh ha-Shulhan,
sec. 139, no. 3 at end.

In a conversation with R. Dov. I. Frimer and R. M. Zev Frimer, R. Aharon
Lichtenstein (21 Nissan 5772; April 13, 2012) confirmed that the accepted
pesak halakha is completely in accordance with the view of Maharil --
bein le-kula u-vein le-humra.

The fact that we hold like Maharil does not contravene the fact that in
practice, we are mahmir le-khatehilla like Rosh. Reading along quietly
does not contravene being yotsei by shome'ah ke-oneh. The attempt to
be yotsei le-khol ha-dei'ot is common practice in halakha -- certainly
for Briskers!

(3) We turn now to our analysis in Section VIB of our paper which
discusses women and minors as ba'alei keri'a. We noted that minors have
a minimal obligation at most in keriat ha-Torah, while women have none.
Hence, shome'a ke-oneh is not operative and they cannot read for others
as ba'alei keri'a. [They may, nevertheless, read for themselves -- kevod
ha-tsibbur and other issues aside.] Ms. Luntz challenged our analysis
based on the fact that there are isolated Sefardic communities in which
minors do serve as ba'alei keri'a. See also R. Moses Malkah, Resp. Mikveh
Mayyim, VI, O.H., sec. 11; R. Ovadya Hadaya, Resp. Yaskil Avdi, VIII,
sec. 36 -- who record that this was the custom in several communities
in the diaspora, though not in Israel. The underlying motivation and
reason for these leniencies -- as clearly stated in these responsa --
was the need to educate the next generation in the skills of keri'at
ha-Torah. This argument of hinukh is clealy not applicable to the case
of women.

Three basic halakhic arguments are given for this leniency. The first
is the claim that it is impossible that a woman or a minor could read
for herself or himself, but not serve as ba'alei keri'ah to read for
others. Note 178 in the paper reviews scholars in this school. However,
the overwhelming majority reject this approach. When one reads for
oneself there is no need for shome'a ke-oneh, which is not the case
when one reads for others as a ba'al korei. Since minors have a minimal
obligation at most in keriat ha-Torah, while women have none, they cannot
read for others as ba'alei keri'a.

The second rationale is that of R. Israel Jacob Algazi and R. Joseph
Te'omim (see n. 184) who posit that because of hinnukh a minor is
rabbinically obligated in keri'at ha-Torah. Although he is a trei
de-rabbanan, they maintain that he can, nevertheless, assist a had
de-rabbanan. This position has, however, been roundly rejected by the
overwhelming majority of poskim. [This hinnukh argument is inapplicable
to women.]

The final rationale is that it is possible that according to the Rosh,
for the berakha of the oleh not be for naught, it may be sufficient
that the oleh read along quietly -- see n. 181, parags. 2 and 4 and our
discussion above.

We have interviewed many leading Sefardic poskim in Israel, and they
have confirmed that the phenomenon of minors serving as ba'alei keri'a
is extremely rare in Israel, but it is nevertheless known. As a rule,
the leading Sefardic poskim have come out against this phenomenon
quite forcefully. Thus, R. Ovadya Hadaya, (whose parents were from
the Aleppo Syrian community and whose father was the Av Bet haDin in
Aleppo), in Resp. Yaskil Avdi, VII, sec. 5, rules stringently based
on various reasons. Interestingly, in Resp. Yaskil Avdi, VIII, O.H.,
sec. 36, R. Hadaya was specifically asked about the custom practiced
in huts la-arets to permit minors to read for the community. R. Hadaya
strictly forbids this practice.

In our previous post of March 24th we have already cited the the
dozens of Sefardic Poskim who forbid minors from serving as ba'alei
keri'a. Subsequent to that post (on March 31), Dov spoke with former
Sefardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, who indicated that though the Sefardic
Rabbinate opposes minors as ba'alei keri'a, they do sometimes condone
it be-she'at ha-dehak, for the reasons cited above. Because of these
reasons, the scholars of this school are not concerned with berakha
le-vatala considerations. R. Ovadiah Yosef, infra, end of n. 181 and
Ma'ale Adumim Chief Rabbi Mordechai Nagari, personal communication, March
30, 2014, also invoked these reasons be-she'at ha-dehak. Nevertheless,
this practice is certainly forbidden in normative cases.

In light of the overwhelming consensus of posekim -- including Sefardic
authorities -- as outlined above, it seems halakhically inappropriate
and highly questionable to invoke a generally rejected practice regarding
minors to justify partnership minyanim.

Finally, even Ms. Lunz's would need to acknowledge that her analysis --
even if it were correct -- would apply, pursuant to the Rosh, only to
those women who know Hebrew sufficiently well to read along with the
Ba'al Koreh -- and in fact careful to do so. However, those women who
would be neglectful of reading along, or whose Hebrew is too weak to
allow them to read along, or who are blind, would be proscribed from
receiving aliyot, even according to Ms. Lunz suggestion. This is as
opposed to men who could always rely on shome'ah ke-oneh of the Maharil;
see above Resp. Radal. The practical and pragmatic implications of such
a result are clearly daunting.

All this, of course, is independent of our discussion of kevod ha-tsibbur.

Yiyasher Koah and Kol Tuv Aryeh and Dov Frimer

--


(office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il

Prof. Dov I. Frimer Frimer Gellman & Co., Advocates Jerusalem 91481 Israel


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 79
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)