Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 065

Tuesday, September 9 2003

• Re: IVF
• Re: Women and kaddish
• Re: IVF
• RE: IVF
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Women and Kaddish
• RE:Women and kaddish
• Re: IVF
• Re: Women and Kaddish
• Re: Women and Kaddish
• RE: Women and Kaddish
• Re: IVF
• Re: IVF
• Re: IVF
• Women and Kaddish
• Re: Women and Kaddish

The Nishmat Avraham Even ha'Ezer 1 #1 gives a nice review on IVF by husband.
Those that prohibit: Divrei Malkiel IV 107, Mishpetei Uzziel II 19, Yaskil
Avdi V EH 10. Those that permit: Har Zvi (brought in Otzar haposkim 23:1 s"k
1 oht 17), Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in NOAM Volume 1 page 157, Sridei Eish
III 5. Those that permit provided 10 years have passed since the marriage
or when doctors have shown normal pregnancy is impossible: Tzitz Eliezer IX
51, Yabia Omer II EH 1, Maharsham III 268, Minchat Yitzchak I 3.

[BTW today at the hospital library, I came across a fascinating paper in one
of the ob/gyn journals how melatonin may prevent many of the problems of
infertility in a number of different ways (preventing adhesions, resetting
cycles, sperm motility].

Josh

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:46:09PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Micha implies that any issue that is controversial and might lead to a
: sliipery slope cannot (or better should not) be paskened by the LOR by
: only by community consensus.

Definitely "should not". There is no meaningful way to measure whose
gadol is greater, or even that a kl

: Of course this avoids the question of what constitutes a community.

I think RMS inadvertantly answers that question, below.

: May be a shul cannot decide to say hallel (with/without) a beracha on
: Yon ha_azmaut or YY because it will lead to other problems and one needs
: a community consensus.

Does it? Perhaps when this was an innovation, it could have. Now, it's
a sound mixture. One shul doesn't change the landscape.

...
: On a wider look I am very unhappy with slippery slide arguments. That is
: the basis of the "Hungarian" (sorry no slur to native Hunks on the list)
: attitude that nothing can ever change becaise it leads to a slippery
: slope.
: Maybe we should also be teaching our kids in yiddish and any school
: that disagrees has no right to do so because it is a community issue
: that might lead to a slippery slope.

I'm not giving a classical "slippery slope argument". Or, to put it
another way, the only way fears of slipper slope would lead to Hungarian
pisqa is if you have Hungarian poseqim.

But I'm not saying the slipperiness is sufficient reason to say "no".
Rather, that the ability to slide into halachic changes in other qehillos
means that it's up to a poseiq respected by both the shul in question and
those others qehillos to decide if it would. And if not, then the LOR
could and should have free rein.

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Question - what do we do with issues like in vitro fertilization where
: most poskim allow it but R. Elyashiv does not and some may even feel
: that there are issues of [issur -mi].
: This is an even more serious issue in other cases where clearly R. Moshe
: allowed cases that others clearly considered mamzerut.

Consensus is being still being formed, and might never be acheived. But at
least people capable of building that consensus intelligibly are involved.
Capable both in terms of ability at making a pesaq and in terms of having
people respect it.

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:16:38PM -0400, shinname@umdnj.edu wrote:
: Just the fact that some people think it affects the entire Jewish
: community doesn't make it so...

But if it could, shouldn't a poseiq and a maven on the communal sociology
decide if it really does?

:                                          ... how does saying kaddish
: in Teaneck affect the Jewish community in Boro Park??? ...

It will affect the complection of the debate in Riverdale, though.

Which brings me to defining "greater community". It's simply all those
likely to be impacted by the event. And deciding in advance that they
won't is itself a determination with halachic impact and should involve
a poseiq who can help build consensus across that group.

:                                  (parenthetically, the position of RYBS
: on the issue of WTGs (opposed to WTGs, pro kaddish) is quite revealing -
: even by the girsa of R Mayer Twersky about the strong opposition of RYBS,
: expressed to everyone who asked him, he never formulated a public message
: to the community about it - leaving it to the local mara d'atras, even
: though he was opposed to it)

Because RYBS believed the pesaq wouldn't have ripples beyond the 4 amos
of the asra. As I said, the sociolgical waters have unfortunately been
mudied. The greater MO community is splitting over these issues. I don't
think it would have if RYBS were still alive -- the community had only
one "the Rav" then. But today, one shul may very well serve as precedent,
as a new norm for someone looking to make larger changes.

/Should/ the sociology be such? No. But it is. So, unless the LOR could
change the social dynamic, he has to realize that he is talking about
something that will ripple beyond his shul.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 9/8/03  "Mishpachat Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il> 
writes [in] Avodah V11 #64:
ET:
>> In the shiur R Zilberstein rejected in the strongest of 
>> terms any use of IVF in any way or fashion. When some of 
>> the doctors who are also talmidei chachamim objected he 
>> brushed them off and said that R. Elyashiv objects to it 
>> and that it was not up for discussion 

RF:
> This is not true. Rav Eliyashiv most certainly DOES allow IVF and I
> heard the psak personally. I have no idea where the misconception that
> you heard came from 

I suspect that R' Zilberstein is confusing IVF [in vitro fertilization]
with AID [artificial insemination, donor sperm]. Setting him straight
would be a great public service.

Toby Katz 

> BTW I have heard this quite a few times from R. Zilberstein 
> and also heard from several other sources that R. Elyashiv 
> is opposed to IVF.

Well, since Rav Eliyashiv has told plenty of people that IVF is muttar
and they can go ahead with it, it would seem that he is not as opposed
as you might have heard.

It is possible that he does not feel that it is l'chatchila the best
way to have children but he has never assured it and continues to tell
people that it is muttar.

Since you are in contact with Rav Zilberstein, maybe you could ask him
to explain to you why Rav Eliyashiv mattirs IVF and tells people that
they may go ahead with it if he [Rav Zilberstein] has heard that he is
opposed to it and then report back to us what he says? I would be very
curious to hear what the answer is.

---Rena

> The Shach says the Taz ignored his predecessor the Rashba to make up an
> independent reason.

RJR:
> And why do we think that was. Was he unaware of the Rashba's reasoning
> or did he reject it?

seemingly unaware

RJR:
>> All in all Lmaaseh it's accepted but again it's not clear to me that
>> this is a ringing endorsement.

RJR:
> Do you think that it's possible that the Rashba was being mlamed zchut
> on a practice that he would not have suggested lchatchilah.

The Rema, at least according to the Shach, thinks that this Rashba,
face-value, is l'halacha l'maaseh l'chatchila.

kol tuv,
Shlomo

Gil Student wrote that women saying kaddish affects the entire community,
"Because, or if, it forwards the agenda of a particular group that is
wreaking havoc within the Orthodox community." But that is begging the
question somewhat. I, and many others, don't believe that the "group is
wreaking havoc within the Orthodox community."

He also compared women saying kaddish to taking down a mechitzah
with respect to its impact on the community. But there is an essential
difference; no respected Orthodox rabbi (or posek) ever said that taking
down a mechityzah is halachically permissible. Thus, if that act does
have an effect on the rest of the community, it is a problem. With women
and kaddish, however, there are many who say that it IS permissible
for a women to say kaddish. Therefore, if one believes it will have
an impact on the rest of the community (which I think is doubtful),
then that impact, from where I stand, is not problematic. Indeed, if
there is an impact, I think it's a beneficial one. But the bottom line
is: there is a dispute whether a women saying kaddish is permissible or
not, with well respected rabbis on each side. In such a case, the local
moreh deatra of each shul or community should decide what minhag his
(I almost said his or her) shul/community should follow.

I promise I won't interfere with what minhag R' Gil's shul follows
under the lead of its moreh deatra; I just wish the other side would
do likewise.

Joseph Kaplan

WRT to RTK post on kaddish:

1) We can add her father to the list of rabbanim who hold that kaddish
by a woman is permitted in shul.

2) There is another issue - whether, even if it is permitted, it should
be encouraged. Her father falls at least in the intermediate category -
there are some cases (the specific parameters, as RTK notes, are not
known) where it is actually encouraged rather than just permitted.

3) While he did not generally encourage women to say kaddish, she does
not cite any case where her father actually opposed them saying kaddish.

Given this, I am at a loss to understand her passionate opposition to
women saying kaddish. Clearly, her father does not have the technical
halachic opposition cited in the name of RHS, nor did he have the broad
based hashkafic opposition.

The interesting phenomenon (reflective of the haredi street) is that
she has a clear family tradition to be mattir, but is concerned that
her father would have become more machmir later on - and such hashash
is enough to generate her vehement opposition.

Related issue 
RJK wrote
>In what way does a woman saying kaddish, or women meeting in WTGs,
>impact on the broader haredi community (not their own)?

RGS
> Because, or if, it forwards the agenda of a particular group that is
> wreaking havoc within the Orthodox community.

The understanding of what group is wreaking havoc within the Orthodox
community is, of course, a matter of debate. One could make a reasonable
negative case (for the LW community) - the virulent disease of humra
of the week, social isolation, and concern only for one's own community
needs to be countered by being mattir what is muttar, to emphasize what is
(by LW standards) the true torah approach.

What is interesting again, for kaddish, that there is clear evidence that
the major poskim of American Jewry (excluding Hungarians and hasidim)
have all endorsed at least the permissibility of women saying kaddish,
yet the RW (who would be expected to follow their poskim) here dissents,
suggesting that the fundamental agenda is not truly related to torah
values.

Meir Shinnar

> In the shiur R Zilberstein rejected in the strongest of terms
> any use of IVF in any way or fashion. When some of the doctors
> who are also talmidei chachamim objected he brushed them off
> and said that R. Elyashiv objects to it and that it was not up for
> discussion and then it would not be allowed by him in any institution
> he controls .

Why? Especially in the instance where the husband is the donor, on what
basis do R Elyashiv and Zilberstein maintain it is forbidden?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Joseph Kaplan <jkaplan@tenzerlunin.com> wrote:
> With women
> and kaddish, however, there are many who say that it IS permissible
> for a women to say kaddish. Therefore, if one believes it will have
> an impact on the rest of the community (which I think is doubtful),
> then that impact, from where I stand, is not problematic. Indeed, if
> there is an impact, I think it's a beneficial one. 

Permissibility should not be a determining factor. There are many things
which are permissible which we do not do. It is permissible to walk
around with underwear on your head, too.

Even if you say that women saying Kaddish is permissible one has to ask
what the ultimate end is in women saying Kaddish. Is it indeed the case
that a woman saying kaddish builds up Zechyos for the Niftar? Or does it
not? Kaddish Yasom was established for that purpose because not everyone
could be a Shaliach Tzibur.

The purpose of the entire enterprise is gaining Zechuyos for the Nifter.

When a Shaliach Tzibur makes a Bracha and the entire Tzibur says
Amen... each of those Amens is designated by the Avel/Shatz to build
up a Zchus for the nifter. The idea is to thereby counteract and reduce
any punishment the nifter "earned" while alive. Shemona Esreh therefore
becomes quite a bonus in that regard becuase there are 18 brachos,
Kedusha and Modim D'rabbanan. Kaddish of course has several Amens and
a Yehe Shmeh Rabbah as well.

So once Kaddish was established as a vehicle for Zechuyos, Aveilim add
this to their duties as a Shatz. And for those who cannot be a Shatz, such
as those who have really bad voice ...or are tone deaf ...or cannot read
Hebrew well enough, (although unfortunately this doesn't stop some people)
they are left with at least a Kaddish to say and elicit Amens (Zechuyos).

So the question then becomes does a woman saying Kaddish, even
if permissible, elcit Zechuyos for the Nifter? Kaddish is a Davar
Sheb'kedusha requiring a Minyan. A Minyan is inapplicable to a Woman and
has no Halachic significance what-so-ever. Logic then dictates that a
woman saying Kaddish at a Minyan of men has no Halachic significance
either, therefore, Woman eliciting Amens (even if appropriate in
context of Kavod for the recital of Kaddish) MAY not have any Halachic
significance either.

I do not know the answer to this question, but my hunch is that since it
has not been established in Klal Israel as a Minhag for women who are in
Aveilus, it indeed does not have Halachic significance for its intended
purpose, i.e., building up Zechuyos for the Nifter. If, then there are
no Zechyos built up for the Nifter, why should a woman say Kaddish at
all? If the answer is that it makes her feel better, one has to ask why
does it make her feel better? Is this the point of Mitzvos? ...To make
one feel better?

Now it is certainly OK to feel good about doing Mitzvos, but if that is
the only reason... and the activity has no real other value one has to
question as to what the REAL motivation is.

I would at this point suggest the answer lies in one's adopted cultural
value system and not one generated by the Torah. I am led to this
conclusion because only a certain segment of all Orthodox Jewish women
will even consider saying Kaddish, a segment heavily influenced by
feminism, albeit perhaps only indirectly, even subliminally.

So this as in other such enterprises, such as WTGs, one has to understand
the underlying Halachic issues and carefully examine one's motives before
undertaking a practice which is so a radical departure from traditional
observance.

HM

Joseph Kaplan wrote:
>I promise I won't interfere with what minhag
>R' Gil's shul follows under the lead of its
>moreh deatra; I just wish the other side would
>do likewise.

I apologize if I implied that I would not. I did not mean to. Nor can
I find anywhere that I stated such or objected to the practice of women
saying kaddish.

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>by being mattir what is muttar, to emphasize what is (by LW
>standards) the true torah approach.

I quote C Rabbi Joel Roth, an embattled veteran of the rush to change
religion: "Not everything that can be done should be done."

Let's not have to learn the hard way like he did.

Gil Student

> Meir Shinnar wrote:
>>by being mattir what is muttar, to emphasize what is (by LW
>>standards) the true torah approach.

RGS
> I quote C Rabbi Joel Roth, an embattled veteran of the rush to change
> religion: "Not everything that can be done should be done."

> Let's not have to learn the hard way like he did.

There is also a halacha (not from Joel Roth) that kshem sheassur lehattir
et ha'assur, cach assur le'essor et hamuttar. Not that everything that
can be done should be done, but neither that everything that can be
assured should be. There should be a reason for assuring something.

There is a second issue - in Rav Daniel Sperber (a major gaon and talmid
chacham, and the casual disrespect shown by some on this list to him is
quite disturbing) tshuva on aliyot for women - (even though I disagree
with the conclusion), he argues forcefully that the issue of kavod
habriyot has legitimate halachic force that poskim should take into
account - and that factors today directly into tshuvot on the status
of women.

Meir Shinnar

R Zilberstein is probably the expert on halacha applications to medical
issues. He has been giving a shiur specifically to doctors for over
30 years about once a month and has over 300 typed teshuvot on various
issues.

Several doctors argued the point with him and he made VERY clear that
R. Elyashiv prohibited IVF in addition to other types of donor sperm.

When the audience argues that other poskim allow IVF his response was
that he follows R. Elyashiv and is aware that other poskin allow it but
that doesn't affect his psak. In fact the discussion got quite heated
but R. Zilberstein was firm that R. Elyashiv prohibited IVF also and
not just AID.

Again R. Zilberstein is a son-in-law of R. Elyashiv (though his first
wife - R. Elyashiv's daughter passed away several years ago) and is
quite close to R. Elyashiv who is always quoted as Mori ve_rabbi in the
shiur. He travels about once a month from Bnei Brak to Jerusalem with
a list a questions in a private auduence of about 1 hour. Since I have
heard this psak several times over the years from R. Zilberstein (and
have it in writing in his shiurim which are all typed before the shiur)
I doubt it is wrong.

I have also heard the same thing from the chief posek in the rabbinate who
gave a shiur on cloning. Afterwards i asked him about R. Elyashiv. His
response was that yes R. Elyashiv was very machmir but that he (this
rav) felt that R. Elyashiv would differentiate between IVF and cloning
and allow cloning even though he does not allow IVF for several reasons
among them possible donor sperm that might be added even if there is a
"hasgacha".

Eli Turkel

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:53:11AM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: R Zilberstein is probably the expert on halacha applications to medical
: issues....
: Several doctors argued the point with him and he made VERY clear that
: R. Elyashiv prohibited IVF in addition to other types of donor sperm.
...
: Again R. Zilberstein is a son-in-law of R. Elyashiv (though his first
: wife - R. Elyashiv's daughter passed away several years ago) and is
: quite close to R. Elyashiv...
: I have also heard the same thing from the chief posek in the rabbinate who
: gave a shiur on cloning. Afterwards i asked him about R. Elyashiv. His
: response was that yes R. Elyashiv was very machmir but that he (this
: rav) felt that R. Elyashiv would differentiate between IVF and cloning...

And yet someone on the list personally heard R' Elyashiv say otherwise.
Just as real of an eidus as your report on these two shiurim, but directly
from R' Elyashiv.

I think that until someone speaks to the rabbanim to get a resolution,
this conversation will go in circles.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org            to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org       man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Albert Schweitzer

In a message dated 9/9/03 , turkel@nianet.org writes:
> R Zilberstein is probably the expert on halacha applications
> to medical issues. ...
> Several doctors argued the point with him and he made VERY clear
> that R. Elyashiv prohibited IVF in addition to other types of
> donor sperm.

What does that mean, "in ADDITION to OTHER types of donor sperm"?

How many times and how many ways do I have to say that IVF does not
require the use of donor sperm???

> In fact the discussion got
> quite heated but R. Zilberstein was firm that R. Elyashiv prohibited
> IVF also and not just AID.
> 
> Again R. Zilberstein is a son-in-law of R. Elyashiv ...
>  He travels about once a month from Bnei Brak to
> Jerusalem with a list a questions in a private auduence of
> about 1 hour.

Time to ask the question one more time, and make it absolutely clear
that IVF does not require donor sperm.

> Since I have heard this psak several times over
> the years from R. Zilberstein (and have it in writing in his shiurim
> which are all typed before the shiur) I doubt it is wrong.

I'm certain that it IS wrong.

>  R. Elyashiv was very machmir .... he does not allow
> IVF for several reasons among them possible donor sperm that might
> be added even if there is a "hasgacha".

Well I would like to know what the other reasons are. If the only
reason to forbid IVF is the fear that donor sperm might be used, that
fear is very easily obviated: the husband himself can carry his donation
directly to the lab and watch what they do with it. Babies born from IVF
can be routinely given paternity tests; the requirement to do that could
be written into Israeli law. That should be enough to keep the clinic
personnel honest. It doesn't sound like R' Elyashiv is objecting to the
procedure of IVF itself at all! Unless there are indeed "other reasons"
but then I would like to know what they are.

Toby Katz 

Four comments with respect to R' Harry's response to my post about women
saying kaddish.

1. Comparing the permissibility of women saying kaddish to "walking
around with underwear on your head" is not only silly and insulting,
it is irrelevant. One is a serious halachic issue; the other is pure
nonsense. I doubt there are teshuvot discussing the permissibility of
"walking around with underwear on your head," or disputes between gedolim
on that issue as there are with respect to women saying kaddish.
 Let's deal with serious issues seriously.

2. The rest of R' Harry's post was serious and deserves a serious
response. R' Harry makes a halachic argument (based on a "hunch") that
women saying kaddish has no halachic significance. I'm not a halachist,
so I won't attempt to respond to the halachic argument. But I will note
that the gedolim who permit kaddish appear not to agree with R' Harry
(or his hunch). So if there is halachic support for this activity,
why does R' Harry seem to be so insistent that those who disagree with
him should not listen to their poskim or shul rabbis and follow his.
Again, as I responded to R' Gil: "I promise I won't interfere with the
minhag R' [Harry's] shul follows under the lead of its moreh deatra;
I just wish the other side would do likewise." And many women who say
kaddish take this approach. They are not looking for fights, and thus,
when they are not able to say kaddish in their shul and want to say
it in another shul, they usually check on the minhag of that shul and
do not make a rumpus or cause a fight. They respect other minhagim,
a respect that, unfortunately, is too often not reciprocated. =20

3. R' Harry sets up a strawman (or woman) in his argument that women
ay kaddish "to make [them] feel better." Who says? How does he know?
And how does he know what their "REAL motivation" is? Has he ever spoken
to a woman who has taken on the serious obligation of saying kaddish for
a parent for 11 months and yartzheits? If he has, have ANY of them ever
spoken about "feeling better." I HAVE spoken to numerous such women (and
I have lived with one for 33 years), and I have been told that feeling
better is NOT the reason. (Having to juggle a 6:30 am minyan with getting
ones children out to school does not usually make people feel better.) It
has to do with a sense of kibbud hamet and kibbud av vaeym; it has to
do with finding a Jewish way to mourn; it has to do with family and with
yiddishkeit and with dealing with the death of loved ones. R' Harry may
wish not to believe these women and rely on his own conclusion of some
"indirect [or] subliminal" influence, but I have no reason to doubt the
word of serious women who are shomrei torah u'mitzvot.

4. R' Harry says, with respect to women saying kaddish and WTG's, "one
has to understand the underlying Halachic issues and carefully examine
one's motives." Agreed. But what makes him so sure that they have not
done so. Again, I have spoken to numerous women involved in WTG's, and
many are as well versed in the halachic issues as I assume R' Harry is.
And they do examine their own motives; often examining and reexamining.
The implication that they have not done so, and that their real motives
(which R' Harry seems to know even if they don't) are improper ones,
is, I believe, casting aspersions on people who have a hezkat kashrut.

Joseph Kaplan

Joseph Kaplan <jkaplan@tenzerlunin.com> wrote:
> Four comments with respect to R' Harry's response to my post about
> women saying kaddish.

> 1.  Comparing the permissibility of women saying kaddish to
> "walking around with underwear on your head" is not only silly and
> insulting, it is irrelevant.  One is a serious halachic issue; the
> other is pure nonsense.  

First of all I would like to apologize for my "underwear" comment. It was
meant 1) as an exxageration and 2) to be humorous. As is often my way of
making a point, I try to utilize both 1) and 2) because it always seems
to make a stronger impression when I do. I certainly did not mean to say
that saying Kaddish is like wearing underwear on your head. I was only
taking the concept of permissiblity without purpose to an exxegerated
and humorous conclusion.

> 2.  The rest of R' Harry's post was serious and deserves a serious
> response.  R' Harry makes a halachic argument (based on a "hunch")
> that women saying kaddish has no halachic significance.  

Yes a hunch... but based on the logic of the parameters I set forth.

> I'm not a
> halachist, so I won't attempt to respond to the halachic argument. 
> But I will note that the gedolim who permit kaddish appear not to
> agree with R' Harry (or his hunch). 

Again, I am not arguing the permissiblity factor. For purposes of this
post I will stipulte to the permissiblity.

> So if there is halachic support
> for this activity, why does R' Harry seem to be so insistent that
> those who disagree with him should not listen to their poskim or
> shul rabbis and follow his. 

As I said, I am not arguing the permissibilty. I am saying that there
has to be halchic value beyond the "permissibility" factor.

> Again, as I responded to R' Gil: "I
> promise I won't interfere with the minhag R' [Harry's] shul follows
> under the lead of its moreh deatra; I just wish the other side
> would do likewise." 

I do not wish to interfere with anyone's Minhag. I am simply putting
forth an argument for the side that is against the practice. It is an
argument of principle, not practice. Those who wish to rely on Poskim
who permit it, Tov Aleihem Bracha.

> 3.  R' Harry sets up a strawman (or woman) in his argument that
> women ay kaddish "to make [them] feel better."  Who says?  How does
> he know?  

I don't know but as you later point out: 
> It has to do with a sense of kibbud hamet and kibbud av
> vaeym; it has to do with finding a Jewish way to mourn;

Saying Kaddish is none of the above. It is a "prayer" if you will...
for the exaltation of God's name. That it is used by Aveilim to build
up Zechuyos is incidental to its primary purpose.

I submit that the "sense of kibbud hamet and kibbud av vaeym" and
"finding a Jewish way to mourn" has more to do with one's own feelings
rather than it does with Halacha or the intent of those who proscribed
the Mourner's Kaddish.

> And how does he know what their "REAL motivation" is? 
> Has he ever spoken to a woman who has taken on the serious
> obligation of saying kaddish for a parent for 11 months and
> yartzheits?  If he has, have ANY of them ever spoken about "feeling
> better."  

No one should judge anothers motive. I'm am convinced that those women who
say Kaddish are sincere and want to show respect for their deceased loved
ones. But the mode of showing that devotion in the mourning proccess
is based on a misconception of the purpose of saying Kaddish. It is
more likely based on the perception that, "This is what one does when
mourning a loved one". It is a culturally developed sense of mourning
based on observing others, and it is certainly not masoretric.

> I HAVE spoken to numerous such women (and I have lived
> with one for 33 years), and I have been told that feeling better is
> NOT the reason.  (Having to juggle a 6:30 am minyan with getting
> ones children out to school does not usually make people feel
> better.) 

I wasn't talking about feeling better in the way you imply. I was talking
about feeling better about the mourning proccess. Your description
actually corroborates this... the idea being that the sacrifice an Avel
makes on his daily schedule to "make" the Minyanim and say the Kaddeshim
gives a mourner a sense of doing something concrete in paying respect
to a departed soul.

> R' Harry may wish not to believe these women and
> rely on his own conclusion of some "indirect [or] subliminal"
> influence, but I have no reason to doubt the word of serious women
> who are shomrei torah u'mitzvot.

As I said, I do not deny the sincerety of women who mourn their parents
by saying Kaddish. I'm sure the motives are exactly as you suggest... a
sincere desire to mourn a parent in a tangible way. But when the mourning
proccess is taken from the modality of men, I can only conclude that there
has been at least a subliminal feminist influence. Please understand
the meaning of the word subliminal. It means below the threshold of
recognition of what is influencing you.

> 4.  R' Harry says, with respect to women saying kaddish and WTG's,
> "one has to understand the underlying Halachic issues and carefully
> examine one's motives."  Agreed.  But what makes him so sure that
> they have not done so.  ...they do examine their own
> motives; often examining and reexamining.  

The Halachic portions about the permissiblity of women saying Kaddish
may well be justified. But is there an Halachic purpose for it? Do they
build up Zechuyos for the Nifter?

If yes, then why did not Chazal establish the practice for women, at
least B'Derech Reshus if not Chiuv? Why not give the opportunity for
them to do so if they so choose?

If not, then the only reason to do it is to actively participate in a
public mourning process which is another way of saying that a mourner
feels better about the mournig proccess if he says Kaddish.

Again I must point to the population base from where women who say
Kaddish are drawn. Most if not all of these women, I am convinced are
as sincere as could be. But they are virtually exclusively drawn from
the Left Wing of Modern Orthodoxy that is heavily influenced by feminist
philosophy. As a feminist myself, I never-the-less do not buy into the
social portion of the agenda as I do the economic. Women saying Kaddish
attacks the social barriers of traditional Orthodoxy and IMO can do much
harm if allowed to grow beyond its present boundaries.

HM

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


[ 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         ]