DaMoshe, thanks for referring this good summary of the sugya. These issues seem to be critical:
– Rav Aharon Soloveitchik – Torah Temima (Devarim 11:19) -Teshuvot Maayan Ganim: Chazal only prohibited coercing women to study Torah. If, however, they choose to learn Torah, then they deserve full support of the community.
AAQ: so not just not considering this an offense, but community support?! Kollel Ezras Nashim?
– Rav Meyer Twersky – R Soloveitchik: A father’s obligation of Chinuch relates equally to sons and daughters (see, for example, Yoma 82a). The prohibition of teaching the Oral Law to women relates to optional study. If ever circumstances dictate that study of the Oral Law is necessary to provide a firm foundation for faith, such study becomes obligatory and obviously lies beyond the pale of any prohibition.
AAQ: so it is the same social reason that Chofetz Chaim and Gerer Rebbe used to approve BY (despite opposition at the time) – surely if in 1920 the discussion was about Jewish women being able to read Hebrew v. going to gymnasiums, the level should be different when we talking about women who are doing graduate studies.
– Rav Lichtenstein and Rav Henkin argue that women who study secular studies at the highest level should also study Torah at the highest levels including the study of Gemara.
And also I do not see a discussion of what “Gemora” means here: learning reasons for mitzvos v. doing daf yomi. If we all are so tied into the tzuras hadaf that we do not see the difference between the two, we have bigger problems.