Volume 8 Number 5
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Birchat Hatora and Ahava Raba
[Shlomo H. Pick]
Women's Krias HaTorah
[Yosef Bechhofer]
Women's T'filah
[Anthony Fiorino]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 04:58:21 -0400
Subject: Birchat Hatora and Ahava Raba
[Just a word of introduction before this issue. I think that we need to
view the discussion as a discussion in learning about the issues
involved in Women's Tefilah Services. This is not a forum of P'sak, and
it is not appropriate in my opinion to challange any individual who is
following R' Weiss' psak here in this forum. In the best sense of the
word, I think we are engaging in a discussion of issues. I strongly
encourage people to keep that in mind as they choose the language of
thier discussion. I think that for the most part that has been followed.
Your friendly Moderator.]
> At my women's tefilah service, we follow the psak of Rabbi Avi
> Weiss, as follows:
> We do not recite "barchu".
> "Asher bachar banu" is not recited in psukei de-zimra [actually, in
> birchot ha-shachar - the blessings of the morning. psukei de-zimra
> begins with Baruch She-amar. Mod.]; if a woman
> is called to the Torah, she recites it before the Torah is read,
> otherwise she says it later. So, in practice, most of the women
> are saying it later.
> "Asher natan lanu" is recited after the portion is read.
>
> The halakhic analysis is contained in Rabbi Weiss' "Women at
> Prayer", pp. 80-83.
>
> The main point that seemed to concern the posters was that reciting
> Ahava Raba is Torah study, so how can one postpone "asher bachar
> banu" until after saying Ahava Raba?, so I will address that point.
>
> [More accurately, the concern that was raised is that the Gemarah states
> that if one did not say the beracha on Torah Study in the morning, and
> one has already said Shema with it's berachot, then one does not say the
> beracha on Torah Study because the blessing of Ahava Rabba acts as the
> beracha on Torah Study. R. Weiss' response below addresses that concern.
> Mod.]
>
> This is a quote from "Woman at Prayer":
> "Be'ur ha-Gra and Eliyahu Rabba (quoted in Mishnah Berurah to
> Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 47:17) state that the recitation of
> Keri'at Shma is a function of prayer and not of learning Torah.
> Mishnah Berurah (ibid. 47:15) points out that Ahavah Rabbah is
> meant to introduct the keriat shma as a prayer and not as Torah
> learning. It is best for women to wish to recite the blessing
> asher bahar at the Torah to omit the morning Torah blessings and
> recite Ahavah Rabbah with the intention of not fulfilling the
> obligation of reciting the Birkot haTorah. See Peri Megadim
> (quoted in Biur Halakhah to Shulkhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 47, s.v.
> poteret), who states that someone who recites Ahavah Rabbah without
> the intention of fulfilling his Torah blessing obligation is still
> obligated to recite the Torah blessings."
> The permission to recite "asher natan lanu" is that it may be
> recited by an individual after he or she learns from a Torah scroll
> (based on Masekhet Soferim 13:8). The reading of the Torah at a
> women's prayer group falls under the category of "learning Torah"
> (that is why we are allowed to do it in the first place at the
> women's tefilah).
I would like to address two points - although the Achoronim admittedly
say what R. Weiss quotes them as saying - but the Rishonim with the
Yerushalmi disagree - including the Rashi on the very first Mishna in
Shass where Rashi learns that the Kriyat Shma is a Kiyyum [fulfillment -
Mod.] of Talmud Tora - and the Tosophot in Moed Katan 9B S.V. KAN quotes
the Yerushalmi where the Chiyuv [obligation - Mod.] of Kriyat Shma is
Talmud Tora. There are many other Rishonim who also understood that the
Bracha of Ahava Rabba acts as a Birchat Tora although some require the
immediate study of Tora after Shmone Esrei - according to the Yerushalmi
one has already fulfilled it with the reciting of Shma. Hence as it a
grand machloket on a lechatchila level (to begin with way) I would not
tell my talmidim to postpone the reciting of Birchot Hatora.
The second point is the very reciting of Birchot Hatora by women. In the
Halichot Bat Yisrael he discusses the rational for women to make the
blessing especially as they are not obligated in the study of Tora for
Tora's sake. This would especially be a problem for Bnot Sepharad who
do not make a blessing on Mitvot Asei Shehazeman Grama - dependent upon
a time factor. One of the sources he brings is that Tora objectively
requires a bracha, i.e. in order to permit the study of Tora even if not
obligated from a subjective point of view still Tora study requires a
bracha in and for itself. The Rav ZT"L in a Yorzeit Drasha (Shiurim
Lezecher Ava Mari - Vol II the 1st one) said that Talmud Tora requires a
matir and I recall him saying that there is no Birchat Hamitzva on
Pesukei Dezimra (as opposed to Hallel where there is ) for the Mitva of
Pesukei Dezimra is one of Talmud Tora (before Tefilla) and hence the
Birchat Hatora is basically the Birchat Hamitzva for Pesukei Dezimra.
Accordingly, the women who wait for the reading of the Tora Scroll in
order to make their Birchot Hatora fall into the category of what the
Mishna in Avot Chapter V calls yotza secharam be-hefseidom - they lose
more than they gain - for all that Tora that those women had recited
until the reading of the Tora Scroll was done without a Birchat Hatora.
The GRA would not even allow one to meditate about Tora without a
Birchat Hatora. Once again - women who rely upon R. Weiss's Teshuva -
they have upon whom to rely (yesh lahem al me lesmoch) but the
lechatchila would certainly not be so especially in light of the
Rishonim and Yerushalmi as far as Ahava Rabba is concerned and as far as
Birchot Hatora are concerned, the GRA and the shitta [opinion/path -
Mod.] of Brisk (and I would add both branches in Israel and the USA)
would preclude the postponement of Birchot Hatora.
Bebirchot Hatora
Shlomo Pick
P.S. I am still hooked on to this address as of tomorrow - starting on
Sunday July 4th I am hooked up at the U of Htfd (PICK@HARTFORD) until
Rosh Chodesh Elul and in that midbar I am without seforim and the
Bar Ilan Responsa Project -oi vey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <YOSEF_BECHHOFER@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 01:31:13 -0400
Subject: Women's Krias HaTorah
In her recent posting Aliza Berger responds, in the name of Rabbi
Avi Weiss to one question which I posed which I feel was
insufficiently answered. Aliza came to explain why even though the
women had not yet made a Birkas HaTorah, they may nonetheless recite
*Krias Shma*, since it is a *Tefilla*, not Talmud Torah. I noted that
women that have not yet made a Birkas HaTorah may not listen to *Krias
HaTorah*, which is *definitely* Talmud Torah. This question still
stands. In addition, Aliza, in the name of Rabbi Weiss, based the
end bracha of "asher nossan lanu" on a Braisa in Mesechta Sofrim,
which states that this bracha may be made after any act of Talmud
Torah. I looked up the Mesechta Sofrim, and I fail to see such a
premise. As a matter of fact, it is quite clear that the braisa
refers to standard *Krias HaTorah* - as stated in the standard
commentary "Nachalas Yaakov" there. There is, however, a more basic
methodological flaw in the Halachic process here. The "Shvus
Yaakov" says that the Sifrei Halacha of the Major Poskim are our
Rabbeim, and anyone who paskins without attention to what they say -
*even if their psak is based on a talmudic source* - is guilty of
paskening in the presence of their Rebbe without consulting
them. the fact that such a practice is not mentioned in our Sifrei
HaPsak (if it is, I would be indebted for a citation),
compounded by contrary Minhag Yisroel for thousands of years adds to
the clear conclusion that the institution of such a bracha now is a
severe question of at least an unnecessary (bracha she'eina
tzricha)and perhaps a vain bracha (bracha l'batala).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 04:33:22 -0400
Subject: Women's T'filah
>From Aliza Berger, quoting from R. Avi Weiss' book. The emphasis is mine.
> It is best for women to [who] wish to recite the blessing asher bahar at
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the Torah to omit the morning Torah blessings and recite Ahavah Rabbah with
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the intention of not fulfilling the obligation of reciting the Birkot
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> haTorah. See Peri Megadim (quoted in Biur Halakhah to Shulkhan Aruch,
> ^^^^^^^
> Orah Hayyim 47, s.v. poteret), who states that someone who recites Ahavah
> Rabbah without the intention of fulfilling his Torah blessing obligation
> is still obligated to recite the Torah blessings."
>
> The permission to recite "asher natan lanu" is that it may be recited
> by an individual after he or she learns from a Torah scroll (based on
> Masekhet Soferim 13:8). The reading of the Torah at a women's prayer
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> group falls under the category of "learning Torah" (that is why we are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> allowed to do it in the first place at the women's tefilah)
Teima. We have a _huge_ contradiction here. R. Weiss makes the
following claim: by not reciting birkat hatorah in birkat hashachar and
by having "negative daat" when reciting "ahava raba," a person will
_not_ be yotzei birkat hatorah yet for the day. This seems reasonable,
and he brings the pri magadem as support that even neutral daat at ahava
raba is not good enough for being yotzei birkat hatorah.
So fine; we have a bunch of women who are davening, and who are not
yotzei birkat hatorah. IT IS FORBIDDEN FOR THESE WOMEN TO LEARN TORAH
UNTIL THEY MAKE THE BRACHOT. But they get to Torah reading, which is
Talmud Torah according to everyone _including R. Weiss_. So they are
all learning Torah without having made birkat hatorah. This is not
right.
On top of that, what about the other problems -- the woman who forgets
and says birkat hatorah, and then repeats it when she gets an "aliya,"
thus making a bracha l'vatala. Or those who hold that with neutral
daat, one is yotzei birkat hatorah with ahava raba (do people really
remember in the middle of davening to have negative daat for birkat
hatorah??). Or the women getting the second, third, etc. "aliyot" who
have responded "amen" to the first woman's bracha "asher bachar banu"
and are now yotzei birkat hatorah, and thus will be making a bracha
l'vatala when their turn comes. There are just too many areas for
problems here.
As far as I am concerned, women's prayer groups can not expect that
Orthodoxy take them seriously until they have resolved the halachic
problems they raise. And resolving a problem does not mean ignoring it.
As discussed here, and in R. Gedalia Schwartz's review of _Women at
Prayer_, there are serious halachic questions about both the recitation
of "asher bachar banu" and "asher natan lanu" in the context of women's
prayer groups, as well as an issue even with the removal of the sifrei
Torah from the aron. It doesn't further the cause of women's t'fila to
simply ignore these points -- in fact, from my perspective (as someone
who tries to be sympathetic to women's concerns), I find the
continuation of halachically questionable practices to be quite
disturbing. For me, it severely undercuts (read: eliminates) the
legitimacy of the whole enterprise.
Women's t'filah makes the claim to provide for the needs of women who
are committed to halacha but do not feel completely satisfied with the
traditional davening. I will ignore for the time being the valid, but
rather uninteresting response of, "So what;" ie, there is no
halachically valid state of being "dissatisfied" with davening. I'll
simply leave it at this -- the Rambam, in the Guide to the Perplexed,
expresses the idea that the halacha is not necessarily perfectly suited
to every individual in every time period -- sometimes, a din may not
feel comfortable, but it doesn't change the status of the din. A
trivial example, which will be expanded into a poor analogy: I may not
be "satisfied" with the culinary options available to me, but I am not
therefore entitled to violate even relatively minor kashrut laws. I
can't have ice cream after that chicken sandwhich, no matter how
"unsatisfied" I feel. Maybe the craving for women's t'filah is similar
to my craving for ice cream -- very real, very genuine. But "So what"
-- perhaps women's t'fila too is simply a craving which can not be
legitimately satisfied within halachic bounds. And just as I feel like
I am serving hakadosh baruch hu not for my own needs and purposes but
instead in a more lishma fashion by skipping the ice cream, perhaps
passing over a woman's prayer service can hold the same spiritual
meaning in terms of avodat Hashem.
But let's assume for the moment that this dissatisfaction with
traditional davening does have practical consequences -- that because of
the large return of non-religious Jews to yehadut, this is a "time of
need," and the temporary establishment of alternative prayer services is
indeed valid. Not a bad argument; witness all the non-standard
"beginner's minyanim" around. I will also ignore the argument that the
return of non-religious Jews by definition means an influx of non-Jewish
customs; many are opposed to women's t'fila simply on the grounds of
being opposed to the concept of feminism because of chukot akum. The
problem here is that we are talking about the further separation of
davening; is it valid to oppose mixed seating on the grounds of chukot
akum, and also oppose completely separate services on the same grounds?
Maybe it is; who knows. A stronger critique of this position is the
Rambam's shita on korbanot -- that they were a way of getting b'nei
yisrael out of idol worship and into avodat Hashem, using a method of
avoda which was familiar to them. Of course, it is not a great analogy,
since the korbanot are specified in the Torah, as opposed to women's
t'filah. Then again, the form of our t'filah was really defined by
chazal, so maybe the analogy holds after all. (Whew, all this even-
handedness is wearing me out!)
Getting back to the point -- again -- let's assume that this is a "time
of need" and the establishment of women's prayer groups is,
theoretically, valid. But then you've got to run your alternative
services correctly. Don't tell me that you are so committed to halacha,
but you are going to engage in talmud torah without making a bracha!!
This is nonsense. If you want to be seen as legitimate, you must be
legitimate. You must be accountable at the very least to the objective,
non-interpretable halachic standards written in the shulchan aruch. If
you want to tell me that issues like poresh min hatzibbur and kavod
sefer Torah are fuzzy issues, not so easy to determine objectively in
any given circumstance, and this is a time of need, and perhaps the need
right now outweighs those issues, fine -- I'll certainly hear out what
you've got to say. But birkat hatorah? It is, after all, a safek
d'oraita. This is most certainly _not_ a fuzzy issue. Treating it as
such is just wrong.
Well, I seem to have gotten a rather large load off my chest. Hope it
provokes thought and discussion, on both sides of this issue.
Eitan Fiorino
<fiorino@...>
After consulting the Mishha Brura, I would like to add a few comments
to my previous posting on women's t'filah.
In the shulchan Aruch (orach chaim, 47:1), the m'chaber begins the
discussion of birkat hatorah with the following statement: "The
blessings on Torah require great carefulness." The M.B. there writes
that most Rishonim consider birkat hatorah to be d'oeraita, and in fact,
if one doesn't remember if saying birkat hatorah, one should repeat
"asher bacher banu." (comment: The only other bracha that one is
permitted/required to repeat is birkat hamazon, since all other brachot
are d'rabbanan.)
> from R. Weiss' book: "See Peri Megadim (quoted in Biur Halakhah to Shulkhan
> Aruch, Orah Hayyim 47, s.v. poteret), who states that someone who recites
> Ahavah Rabbah without the intention of fulfilling his Torah blessing
> obligation is still obligated to recite the Torah blessings."
The M.B understands the m'chaber as indicating that one is yotzei birkat
hatorah even with neutral daat during ahava raba. Furthermore, the biur
halacha quoted by R. Weiss contains a machelochet regarding this very
issue, although R. Weiss neglects to mention the other side of this
dispute. Although R. Weiss does instruct women to have negative daat
during ahava raba, which I assume is a valid way of preventing them from
being yotzei birkat hatorah, this does not seem like a reliable
approach, since it is very easy to forget such a thing while one is busy
davening. Thus, those who do forget to have negative daat, may have in
fact been yotzei birkat hatorah.
One final point -- the original posting also made the point that kriat
shma and t'filah are not considered talmud Torah. But, the M.B. holds
that this is only true for kriat shma said b'zmana [in the proper time].
Once sof zman kriat shma [the end of the time for saying shma] passes,
the recitation of kriat shma during the seder t'filah is talmud Torah,
becuase it is not longer said in fulfillment of the mitzvah of shma.
(although the reward is greater than for talmud torah alone -- see the
first perek of brachot, where this is discussed.) So, in those places
that don't reach shma before the time for saying it ends, the women who
didn't say birkat hatorah and who had negative daat during ahava raba
don't even have to wait to get to kriat hatorah before they are
transgressing, they can begin that while saying shma. Another point
which occurs to me is that women have no chiuv to say shma, since it is
a time-bound commandment. Thus, it may be that for a woman, saying
shma, even in the seder t'filah, _always_ has the din of talmud torah,
even if said before sof zman kriat shma -- the very concept of "sof zman
kriat shma" does not apply to a woman. So if she is not saying shma to
fulfill the specific mitzvah, then we must consider it talmud torah.
I happen to know R. Weiss' shul (I'm friends with the asst. rabbi), and
they begin shabbat davening at 9:00 AM, and if sof zman kriat shma is
before 9:30, there is no way they make it before that time. I also know
that R. Weiss is extremely makpid about having one minyan -- members of
the shul have pushed for an early minyan numerous times, and he is
adamantly opposed and will not allow it, for the very reason of communal
unity. Yet he allows the women's t'filah. I'm sure he would draw a
distinction between these two situations, pointing to the need of the
day overriding his concern for unity, but I can't help but see it as a
contradiction. If the shul already had 2 or 3 minyanim, fine. This is
not meant to be a personal attack in any way, but as the posek for many
women's prayer groups, I feel that R. Weiss has no excuses for not
having his own house in (halachic) order -- it completely undermines his
quest for legitimacy.
Eitan Fiorino
<fiorino@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 8 Issue 5