- This topic has 18 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
What is the halachic reason(s) that
a) A woman may not be counted for a minyan
b) A woman may not lead a minyan
Note: This is a genuine question and I am not looking for answers that have rely on “tradition” or “culture.”
Thank you in advance for any help.
Tradition is a sufficient answer to your question. Even if there are more reasons, tradition alone suffices.
Peacemaker: Its funny how an answer like that (which I assume is supposed to buttress the practices in question) actually undermines the continuity of our traditions. When a practice is explained and justified as HALACHA, it is very difficult to justify a change in that practice, no matter how pressing the reasons for change may be. But when you go and say “tradition alone suffices” and claim the practice warrants no halachic justification, you open it up to change because minhag and tradition CAN be changed when there are pressing reasons for doing so. For example, if 90% of frum girls would be expected to go OTD because they are not counted for a minyan or allowed to daven for the tzibur, then if these restrictions were mere minhag, there may be some justification for a posek to allow a change in order to prevent the takala of 100s of young girls leaving the fold (eis laasos). If the practice is justified in halachic terms, however, it is much, much more difficult to justify any change, regardless of the consequences.
BS”D:
a) A woman may not be counted for a minyan
b) A woman may not lead a minyan
A minyan is needed for a Davar Shebikidusha, and requires 10 adult males. This is learned from the language of “Aidah” by the spies, of which there 10 spies that sinned, and they are called an Aidah.
From the Gemorah:
??”? ??? ?’ ???? ?? ??? ?”? ????? ???? ??? (????? ??) ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?’ ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? (????? ??) ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? (????? ??) ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????
There is a discussion why women do not count. Some approaches are: may not be part of an Aidah (as the spies were male(seeming the GRA in Hilchos Birchas HaMazon)), or they are not Mechuyav in Tefilas Shmonei Esrei (or other Devarim Shebikidusha), so they can’t count for the minyan needed.
One who does not count for the minyan can not lead it, as the purpose of leading is to be Yotze others in the minyan, of which the leader must be part.
“Tradition” is not the answer that the Rishonim & Achronim give.
Tradition is a sufficient answer to your question.
If you would have bothered to read the OP you would have seen that tradition is not a sufficient answer. Tradition by itself is never sufficiant, it needs to based on something else.
BTW, its worth noting that there are distinctions to be made between kedusha, kadish, and other parts of davening that require a minyan of MEN al pi halacha, and other parts of davening that do not, and the fact that men only lead those other parts is likely based in minhag and a vague sense of tznius (not clear cut halacha of tznius, but the feeling of what is and is not appropriate). This is why, in some ORTHODOX shuls, rabbonim have allowed so called “womens minyonim” to take place, where women daven together, with one of them leading the tefilos, but without saying anything that can’t be said without a halachic minyan. In those kehilos, the very real feminist pressures are such that such accommodation were necessary to avoid greater harms. – But the need for accommodation did not justify any changes in actual halacha.
So perhaps OP should reform the question:
Accepting that a minyan is defined halachicly as a body of 10 adult males, why can only certain parts of davening only be said with a minyan?
See the fourth perek of megilla in Bavli.
Your question assumes something to be true and then asks for the basis.
Seeing as everyone is all into proving things ad absurdum, what is the halachic source that tradition is never enough.
Well, I think you came across as more of a troll this way.
You have nothing to apologize for. I was simply commenting that if you were attempting to look less troll, I think you had the opposite effect.
As far as the substantive issue: Many things are “only” tradition, and yet have the force of halacha. I have no idea what the halacha and minhag is in this area, but I do know it is not what we do and not what we should be doing, and that anyone who wants to follow the people we should be following, doesn’t do it.
If you are looking for a halachic discussion of the issue, I have nothing to add.
Many people are looking for judaism on the internet, they have questions and really want to know.
The website comes up very high on google search.
‘Tradition’ only answers why we have to adhere to it. The OP’s question was effectively why such a tradition is in place.
Bar Shattya:
See, e.g., Kiddushin 38b-39a (discussing whether the din of orlah in chutz la’aretz originated as a custom or traditional practice, and concluding that if it did, there is room to mattir such produce); Sukkah 44a (discussing whether the use of aravos on Hoshana Rabah is a halacha enacted by the nevi’im or a custom, and if it is a custom, no brachah should be made when the aravos are beaten); Yerushalmi Megillah 1:5 (concluding that various customs instituted for Adar 1 do not have the force of binding halacha because they are simply a custom).
The point is not that custom is NEVER enough, but that the fact that something is just a custom, without more, May not be enough to justify the continued practice in the face of strong reasons to stop it.
ATG;
Answers are
a) They leave more often than children to the RR.
b) There is an Inyan of Tirche D’tzibure
If we were to let them lead, the prayers service would never end.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.