- This topic has 36 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
Everyone knows תפילה בציבור is more accepted than davening ביחידות does that even apply to women (I’m saying a woman davening in shul in the עזרת נשים during an established minyan or is כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה docheh and Hashem is by a woman’s תפילה to the same level as a מנין?
What else is the point that almost ever Shul in the world has the עזרת נשים ?
So why do most women if they go to shul is it only on shabbos and Yom tov? Do you think it’s because they have a family busy taking care of? There are many older women with all their children Boruch Hashem married that can go to daven with a minyan every day and answer all the chazzan that they can’t do davening privately at home.
They should go for Rosh Chadosh bentshem as it was given to women.
Women aren’t part of a minyan and don’t have the same chiyuv mitzvah to daven at all. It would seem that more people saying amen and davening for a purpose and not just going to shul for feminist reasons helps.
Women are certainly rewarded for davening in shul. See Sota 22a, where it is related that a certain widow would walk every day all the way to the synagogue of Rabbi Yochanan, although there was a shul in her neighbourhood. When Rabbi Yochanan queried her behaviour, she replied that she gets reward for the steps taken. Rabbi Yochanan accepted this point, and states in B.M. 107a, that the further the shul is from one’s house the more reward. Accordingly Magen Avraham (90,22) states that if there are two synagogues in one’s town, one should attend the further one. This important information we know only from that woman who attended shul every day.
Jude: It would be more compelling if you brought a S”A or Psak Halacha regarding women attending daily.
Its a good question
Although clearly not a chiyuv. what a zechus, Amen Yehey shemie rabba can destroy a bad gzar din, oopurtunity to say kedusha even a “simple” amen.
I understand when there are children at home, that is her primary tafkid but for the majority of her life often there is a shul close by instead of sitting around at home why not get extra easy zechusim.
It is very puzzling
Strangest of all, is when they are there. At a chausna or simcha there is often a minyan formed the women are there they can join answer amen etc , instead they hang around and shmooz yet it isnt even on the radar. I find this very strange
ubiq: Two minor points:
At a chasuna it’s usually difficult to have an area for a minyan where you can have a mechitza.
And, while it might involve less effort than taking care of multiple children, even after the children left the house the wife’s first obligation is to serve her husband. (That’s the reason she’s halachicly exempt from Kind Av V’Eim, while married, since she must serve her husband first.)
Coffee, it’s simple; we have a mesorah.
The sams gemara in sotah 22a contains an important yesod. It says that a person who is קרא ושנה, learned tanach and shas, but did not have a rebbe from whom he received a mesorah, is called an am haaretz. Says rav Hirsch, such a person might know halacha, but he won’t be able to tell when and how to apply various values in avodas Hashem and mussar.
This is why the mishnah says “lo am haaretz chosid” and not the seemingly more appropriate “lo am haaretz tzadik,” as a chosid is someone who goes beyond halacha, while a tzadik keeps the dinim; asks Rav Hirsch, why would a traditional am haaretz not he able to be a chosid – it should say tzadik! Since he doesn’t know halacha. Answers rav hirsch, we’re talking about the above.
That particular woman had zchusim, and in context, it was to show that not all women who daven a lot are immoral(a lot are, the gemara says, because they’re trying to hide their sinfulness).
But the gemara is not saying what a woman *should* do, just that she has more schar for walking, and that principle applies to a man as well, as codified in shu”a.
It’s not an ikkar for women to go to shul. They’re not going to be taken to task for it; most rebbetzin hardly ever go, especially by the litvishe. First things first; work on the basics of tznius in dreas, attitude and behavior, not being an azus panin, work on chessed, jealousy, lashon hora. A woman – and a man – have lifelong battles to work on before they begin taking on extras. Shul for a woman is like tikun chatzos for a man; great thing, but rather silly if he’s not able to keep the basics yet.
Also, re, rebbe yochanan – the literal reading of the gemara sounds like the almanah taught him the concept of schar pesios; i find that very hard to believe.
So i think pshat in the gemara is like this; rebbe yochanan said we learned yiras Hashem from the besulah who davened that men not stumble because of her(a lesson indeed for women today who walk around dressed to the 9s with makeup and long shaitels “for mysefl”), and the reception of schar from an almamah who went to a further -away shul to daven – rebbe yochanan was saying that of course a man would do that, but a woman, who is not obligated to go to shell, would go out of her way… that’s a new leason in kibul schar, in how a person should go to great lengths to receive schar.
Note how rebbe yochanan does not say we learned schar pesios from the almanah.
UJM
non of your minor points hold water
1) At a chasuna it’s usually difficult to have an area for a minyan where you can have a mechitza.
I’m not sure that an ad hoc minyan needs a mechitza, and even if want one EVERY chasuna Ive been to has had a mechitza, and even if for whatever reason that mechitza cant be used (band is noisy or something) ok so they dont daven stand quietly answer amen yehei shmei rabba
2) And, while it might involve less effort than taking care of multiple children, even after the children left the house the wife’s first obligation is to serve her husband. (That’s the reason she’s halachicly exempt from Kind Av V’Eim, while married, since she must serve her husband first.)
agree, I’m limiting my question to when she isnt engaged in prior commitments say Friday night the table is set, the food is warming why not go down the block to chap arein an amen yehei shmei rabba or 2
Many mnay noshim chashuvos davened with a minyan regularly
Most weel known was Rebbetzin Kanievsky
Also, Rebbetzin soloveitchik – wife of the Gramad daveneed with the minyan whenever it was formed in her house
Also Rebbetzin Knoffler from GG davenned with minyan 3 times a day.
Avira, your pshat in the Gemoro in Sotah, as well as the דיוק you bring to support it, is wrong. See Rashi there and to Bovo Metzio 107a s.v. רבי יוחנן לטעמיה. We see from the גמרא in בבא מציעא that שכר פסיעות is a novel concept, so much so that Rav didn’t hold of it. R’ Yochanan heard it from the אלמנה and accepted it.
Gedol, I don’t see anything in rashi there or the lashon of the gemara that goes against my diyuk. The fact that there’s a machlokes about it doesn’t mean that rebbe yochanan heard about it from the almana and changed his mind – all she did was ask “are there not schar pesios?” Rebbe yochanan could have just said no – he already knew the idea, which, how could he have not heard of it if it was a hotly debated topic in the beis medrash? Moreoever, it was such a common machlokes that even an old almana had heard of it! And she probably knew that rebbe yochanan was knowk for holding of it. Her story didn’t introduce him to the concept; again, he didn’t say he learned about it from her, rather he learned about kibul schar, the extent to which one should go for such things – that was the chidush that he was maskim to.
ubiq: Why would you say it doesn’t hold water? Shulchan Aruch paskens that a wife is exempt from Kibud Av V’Eim, which is not only a m’doraisa but is actually one of the Aseres Hadibros!, due to her obligations of serving her husband exempts her from her father and mother.
According to your line of thought, you should argue that she should still be chayiv in Kibud Av V’Eim when she isn’t serving her husband. Yet the Halacha is that she’s not.
(The husband’s obligations of Kibud Av V’Eim precedes his obligations to his wife.)
Avira, Rashi in Sotah says, וקיבול שכר מאלמנה שהיתה טורחת עצמה יותר מן הצורך כדי לקבל שכר כדמפרש ואזיל למדנו שיטריח אדם עצמו במצוה לקבל שכר יותר. He doesn’t say למדנו שתטריח אשה עצמה במצוה לקבל שכר יותר, but rather למדנו שיטריח אדם עצמו במצוה. According to your “pshat,” Rebbi Yochanan did not need to learn this concept with regard to men from the אלמנה, as he already knew that.
As for your questions, this was not a hotly debated topic in the בית המדרש, nor was it a well-known מחלוקת. The אלמנה came up with this סברא herself, and Rebbi Yochanan accepted it. He had not discussed it previously. And he could not have answered, “No,” as he realised she was right, and therefore accepted her סברא.
ujm
“Why would you say it doesn’t hold water?”for several reasons here a re a few:
1) I dont understand the connection to kibud av, because she is patur in kibud av she should forgo the oppurtunity to be mevatel potentially 70 year bad gzar din? Again. I’m not saying she is chayav to go. But if she isnt doing anything why doesnt she go? I dont get the kibud av connection
2) Even if patur generally women I know do mitzvos they are patur from sukkah, Lulav shofar . (With a beracha). So ok they are “patur” from saying amen yehi shemie rabba becasue of some hekish? gezeira shava? Mah matzinu? to kibud av, why not do it anyway
3) If her husband isnt makpid she is chayav in kibud av
4) It doesnt answer why single/divorced women dont generally goThe Kol Bo says that women are exempt from time dependent mitzvos as they are responsible to their husband’s which applies to davening with a minyan.
מטונך – rashi is much more meduyak like me. I didn’t say that we learn anything specific about women from the story, rather we see a new darga in kibul schar, and that’s exactly what Rashi says. He doesn’t say that we learn that there is schar pesios, rather that a person should be מטריח themselves.
And if it’s a machlokes discussed in the gemara, that means it was debated; the gemara’s discussions were between members of the yeshiva. The words the almana said were “הלא שכר פסיעות יש” – she used the same expression used in bava metzia, “yesh,” that was what it was known as, much like “yesh zikah” vs “ain zikah.” She took rebbe yochanans shitah further and applied it to herself, and that she should go further out of her way in order to get the most pesios and therefore the most schar. Her expression sounds more of a reminder than her saying something new.
I don’t know if Rav even argues on the entire concept, that there’s schar for every step; he might just hold that it’s not an inyan to go out of your way to make more steps, much like we don’t wear multiple tzitzis, even though each one is a mitzvah.
Rav held it’s a mayloh to have a shul closer to you, because despite the schar, it can add stress; all of the brochos mentioned there give a person menuchas hanefesh, and having to be matriach – even if there’s schar – isn’t a bracha, according to Rav.
Avira, you are contradicting yourself. Initially you said that even before R’ Yochanan met the אלמנה he knew that of course a man should do this; the אלמנה taught him that even a woman should do this. Now you’re saying, “we don’t learn anything specific about (sic) women from this story.”
The concept that a person should be מטריח themselves to get more שכר is גופא the concept of שכר פסיעות: the אלמנה was teaching him that the more you are טורח the more שכר you get.Rav and R’ Yochanan did not discuss personally every מחלוקת that they had: Rav lived in בבל and R’ Yochanan lived in Eretz Yisroel. They weren’t aware of all each other’s teachings, כדמוכח from בבא קמא קיז (the story with R’ Yochanan and Rav Kahana.) Indeed, R’ Abba, who was R’ Yochanan’s תלמיד, had to ask the תלמידים of Rav how Rav explained the פסוקים, because he didn’t know himself. That discussion is the source of the מחלוקת, as is obvious from the גמרא.
After the גמרא records the two פשטים of Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, the גמרא says רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר שכר פסיעות יש. This makes it very clear that the מחלוקת is based on Rebbi Yochanan holding that there is a concept of שכר פסיעות, and Rav holding that there isn’t.
Avirah, your sytem does not work in the rischa deoraysa of yeshiva. Kol Hakovod to coffee addict for bringing back intelligent discussions to the YWN CR! And thank you, mods, for letting these discussions through.
When someone asks a good question, you can’t just say “Mesorah”! You need to back up your point from a source in shas and poskim. His whole question is how did that mesorah develop? We have always had women in Klal Yisrael who were not watching children.
To say it is not an ikar for women is also not an answer. No one said it is an ikar. The question is if there is not such a high level of difficulty why is not more commonly done? For a man to daven vasikin is also not an ikar but we don’t say “man should not daven vasikin bec. his ikar is learning Torah”
Gedol, i never said that rebbe yochanan already knew of schar pesios to the extent that one should go out of their way to go to a further shul. What i said is that he already knew that when one walks to a mitzvah, he gets schar for the steps taken, and that this concept was neither new or disputed.
What he learned from the woman was that one should be matriach, go out of their way, for such schar, and that even a woman did so, so kal vechomer a man, who needs to go to shul.
My proof to this was the gemara’s lashon, which is very, very meduyak, as is Rashi’s. The discussion here is limud kibul schar, not the fundamental idea of getting schar for footsteps taken for a mitzvah.
I also proved from the almana’s expression that she was merely reminding rebbe yochanan of the concept – and her application of it.
Coffee – i don’t understand what you’re asking. I am saying a pshat in the gemara in sotah, and gedol is disagreeing; what would be a happy medium?
Rocky – i buttressed my statements with lots of sources. You’re being reductive. However when someone wants to prove a new idea not taught in the mesorah, the onus is on them, not the other way around. So “jude” stated a proof from a gemara in sotah which i addressed with learning it up the exact way i was taught to in yeshiva, by being medayak in the words of the gemara and rashi. You just don’t like my conclusions, because you want things to be more “egalitarian.”
I looked back on what i originally wrote and yes, i did change what i said originally – because after i saw the gemaros and rashis in question, it was clearer to me; sometimes something is so clear that you forget what you previously thought…so yes, it was a contradiction, and what i said last is what i think pshat is in the gemara.
I should add that שכר הליכה for shul is an open mishnah in avos (5:14), הולך ואינו עושה, שכר הליכה בידו, so it is clear that there is schar for the act of going to shul – the only machlokes is if there’s an inyan to be matriach one’s self for extra schar halicha, as i wrote above.
I don’t know what the exact gedorim are; the gemaa says that the almana had a shul “in her neighborhood,” but instead went to rebbe yochanans beis medrash.
Just for perspective, if walking/driving 18 minutes exempts one from davening b’tzibur altogether, i can’t imagine one must go far just for schar halicha.
Sam: Part of the reason why women don’t attend Shul on weekdays, is that the עזרת נשים usually doubles as a כולל. Even at שחרית, often men are davening there. Ben Gurion Airport has a synagogue with a section for women, but I have seen women prevented form entering because a man was there.
ujm: שלחן ערוך או”ח קו,א says נשים חייבות בתפלה. There is some discussion about whether they need to say שמונה עשרה etc. See M.B. that the consensus is that they should at least try, but all admit that they are not required to daven ערבית, הלל, ומוסף. So for what the do say, all the conditions apply, since nowhere does שולחן ערוך say “This detail is for men only”.
Of course those with small children are exempt: עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה applies to everyone.
Avira: The topic under discussion is “Women davening with a minyan”, not “Where does davening with a minyan come in relation to tznius, chesed, leshon hora, etc.”
I admit there is a problem of women gathering and mixing with men on Shabbos after Musaph. There are ways to avoid this, and a wise frum woman will. if necessary, they should avoid Friday nights and Musaph, since they are not required to daven then at all.Avira: Yes the mishna in Avos tells us שכר הליכה. The chiddush that the widow is telling us is that there is extra reward for walking the extra mile to a further shul, even if one could have gone to a nearer one and done the same מצוה.
Further, even if one is exempt from going further than a Mil, one is certainly performing a מצוה if one makes the effort to go.Yes, a wise woman understands the value of a minyan, but as she is wise, she might find other things to do at the same time. And osek b’mitzva surely patur min not hamtzva!
for example, a learnt woman would know that a temporary minyan at the chatuna does not require mechitza, but she also knows that the primary reason for coming to the wedding is to be mesameach chatan and kallah and, given that at current weddings men are machmir to not allow themselves near the kallah, women need to fully attend to that mitzvah – and also to the mitzva of reviewing potential shidduchim for their sons, as, again, sons are not allowed to do it themselves.
I’ve seen minyan not timed to yichud. As to ample time, you don’t hap the concept of mitzvos she ein lahem shiur. It is like saying you have ample time to learn, go throw out the garbage and go to work
I’ve seen minyan not timed to yichud. As to ample time, you don’t hap the concept of mitzvos she ein lahem shiur. It is like saying you have ample time to learn, go throw out the garbage and go to work
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.