Monday, March 12, 2007

Awkward Minyan Situations

This post was inspired by a (friends-locked) post on another blog; I actually do want to know the answers to the questions, if anyone has any insight.

Has anyone ever been to a minyan in one of the following (or similar) situations?

A 10+10 minyan* where there were 10 men present, fewer than 10 women present, and:

What was done?0

Does anyone know of any halachic defense that has ever been put forward for a group to daven as if a minyan were not present** in either of these situations?

An egalitarian minyan that followed the Golinkin or Wald teshuvot as their theory of egalitarianism, and a woman who followed the Roth teshuva and did not consider herself obligated was the tenth adult Jew in the room in time for a part of the service that required a minyan***? Same questions.

By the way, the "minyan check" method proposed by BZ does not make some of these types of situations any less awkward if the person who has to say kaddish is one who thinks there's a minyan in the room.

[Update: Clarified what one of the questions means.]


* A "10+10 minyan" means one where it is agreed upon that the group waits for 10 men and 10 women before proceeding with davening as if there were a minyan. Note the confusing use of the word "minyan" to mean both "prayer community" and "quorum" in the same sentence.

0 I do actually have one answer from the other post, and, it was that the 10+10 minyan davened as if no minyan were present. What I found most interesting was that it was phrased in terms of the "halacha" of the community. (Posted by hotshot2000 as a comment to the private post and reposted here (thanks!), see comments.).

** To the best of my knowledge, everyone in the room agrees that the requirement of a quorum for prayer is satisfied by the 10 men. In both of these cases, halacha contradicts the 10+10 principle.

*** The not-obligated Roth teshuva adherent would not consider the room to have a minyan in it. The Golinkin/Wald teshuva-(only)-adherents may have no choice other than to consider her obligated. Does anyone know if any such group exists?

Labels: , , , ,


Comments:
well I've been at MT when they've met at TBS, but AFAICT when it came time for kaddish they either had >10+>10 or had > 10 women and < 10 men. I don't recall them ever having someone saying kaddish who would have been fine with an egal minyan who was unable to say kaddish. At least in Cambridge there seems to be more women interested in being in these spaces then men (go figure) avoiding this particular issue.
I wouldn't be surprised if they waited in the morning to get 10/10. since in general it always happens, but that's not true with Friday night
 
I don't know whether this was the same instance in the private post, but here's one instance when this situation happened (except for the part about having to say kaddish).

BTW, I didn't propose the minyan check method; I only reported it to the blogosphere.
 
Usage issue -- I meant the verb "to propose" in the sense of "to offer for consideration," not "to design."
 
I don't recall them ever having someone saying kaddish who would have been fine with an egal minyan who was unable to say kaddish
That would be a different situation from the 10+10 one I asked. Not everyone in the room would agree that a minyan is present according to halacha.

but here's one instance when this situation happened
Thanks for the link. (It's not the same one, but it adds to the tally)

except for the part about having to say kaddish
The idea behind adding in the kaddish was to add yet another reason that one would want to say that there is a minyan in the room, namely, someone's personal obligation that may not come around for another year.
 
As a female who follows the Roth Tshuvah and who davened in the koach minyan at my college nearly every Shabbat in college, I regulary found myself counting in other people's minyanim while not having a minyan of my own.

As you can guess, college minyanim are very often precisely a minyan - with no wiggle room for people who don't count - especially in the morning.

My sister, who follows the same tshuvah and who was overlapped with me at school asked Rabbi Roth what we should do - because one of her friends noted that he had a minyan and was thus obligated to do the minyan stuff - and we were preventing him from doing so by not letting them count us.

Rabbi Roth answered that as long as - I think it is 7? - people consider it a minyan and are therefore responding, that those people had a minyan - but that my sister and I did not - so we were not supposed to respond to minyan stuff.

But it put me in the interesting position of simultaneously not counting in a minyan and rather frequently helping to make one.
 
taylweaver --

I'm curious... Did your college minyan actually know what their theory of egalitarianism was, or was there just an assumption that all women count by default?

Incidentally, I have been in an egal minyan where a woman who did not consider herself Roth-obligated was the the tenth, the minyan would not proceed as if it had a minyan. But, that minyan accepts the Roth teshuva as one of its official opinions.

Rabbi Roth answered that as long as - I think it is 7? - people consider it a minyan and are therefore responding, that those people had a minyan - but that my sister and I did not - so we were not supposed to respond to minyan stuff.
That's a very interesting psak halacha. It kind of blows a hole in the "minyan = consent to a minyan" theory. I would be interested in seeing how he got there. (I *think* I understand how he got to that only 7 have to be part of the minyan. It's similar to how a minyan decides whether to do fast day stuff on a public fast day, or whether to proceed if part of the minyan has already davened. On first thought, it's actually quite analogous from the perspective of the alternative theory of egalitarianism!)
 
I am not sure if my college minyan had a specific theory that they followed beyond "we are egal" - but, this being Hillel, I think we started out with an assumption of pluralism - that is, we would only count people who wanted to be counted - until one of the students asked my sister that question.

As for the 7 (or whatever number) responding, it probably relates back to the halakhot on what you do if you have a minyan but one guy is asleep or another person is still davening the silent amidah, etc. There is a minimum number of people who need to be answering.

That is, the shaliach tzibbur has to answer two questions:

a) are there 10 people in the room who I count in a minyan?

If yes:
b) Are enough members of the minyan going to answer if I do the stuff that requires a minyan?

If yes: do the minyan stuff.
If no: sorry, out of luck.

I guess it also means that Rabbi Roth was also taking a very Conservative (as in the movement) approach to halakha - acknowleding that there is more than one accepted way to count a minyan, and that each way you count will have different halakhic ramifications.

You should note, though, that I may not be accurately representing his tshuvah - I am citing it second-hand as it was my sister who e-mailed him, and I have not seen the actual text of the response, only heard it second-hand. You should also note that when I say tshuvah, I do not mean it in the sense of published paper, but instead in the classical sense of someone asked him a she'elah (my sister) and he wrote back with a tshuvah. (Of course, the fact that it occurred via e-mail is an interesting twist on the idea...)
 
I'm the one cited by elf's dh, but since I'm too tired to compose something fresh, but want in on the discussion, allow me to respond with two on-topic anecdote (the one referred to) and a slightly less on-topic halakhic idea:

I've been involved in a weekday 10+10, and when we had 10m+9f we did not daven as a tzibbur. Yes, some people stopped coming, but more people (especially women) said how meaningful it felt that their presence really mattered. I also encountered this situation on a particularly rainy Shemini Atzeret morning at a minyan in Studentville, and while a few people said "what do we do if [we get 10m+9f]" the people with cool heads said: "I don't get it, what's the shayla? Our halakhic commitment is 10m+10f. That's what it's about." The problem of "everyone knows there's a minyan" can only be gotten around by changing the expectation, which will require a multi-pronged approach, including the textual and the sociological.

(Now, I may be mis-citing the use of the word "halakhic". But the thrust was not "oh well, there's halakha and then there's our silly policy" but more of a "this serious policy _is_ our halakha.")

In terms of articulating that commitment halakhically, you're right that no such paper has yet been written. I think such an ariculation will rely on a communal neder [vow], and the two problems to be overcome are (a) matneh al mah she-katuv ba-torah [making a condition against something written in the Torah; the trick will be to see if this applies to derabbanans as well; an advantage is that worse comes to worse (not davening when potentially a minyan is present) the violation will only be shev ve-al ta`aseh] and (b) whether there is such a thing as a communal neder that does not bind the individuals in that community (in order to avoid binding individuals to only being able to daven in 10+10 settings). This would potentially have de-oraita force.

Oh, and in response to taylweaver's: "Of course, the fact that it occurred via e-mail is an interesting twist on the idea..." there are two really cute volumes of teshuvot published in Israel called "Reshu"t haYahid" and "Reshu"t haRabbim" that are culled from web and email correspondence, and feature many pertinent contemporary questions.
 
taylweaver --
I guess it also means that Rabbi Roth was also taking a very Conservative (as in the movement) approach to halakha
Or, alternatively, a very traditional approach to halacha. The idea of have multiple opinions, all of which may be followed, but each of which presents a different set of assumptions, was not invented by the Conservative movement.

hotshot2000 ---
Thanks for reposting here.

This would potentially have de-oraita force.
Or, at least the same d'rabbanan force as a gezeira?

What I find fascinating is that the 10+10 minyanim (or, at least the Shira Chadasha-style ones) pride themselves on adherence to "Orthodox" (or is it "orthodox"?) halacha. What seems to be happening, though, is that they are developing their practical halacha in a similar way to how the Conservative movement introduced egalitarianism, where they shored up the practice first, and then dealt with the theory.

That's not to say that there's anything inherently wrong with that (it's a topic for another discussion); it's just sociologically interesting.
 
I agree that it's interesting -- but there is some precedent for that as well, see M. Rosh Hashana 4:1, one my favoritist mishnayot ever.

I'm talking about introducing a neder, which is a de'oraita institution and has de'oraita force. It's stronger than a gezeira, although one of the issues to research is whether a neder can be `oker (or modify) a derabbanan.
 
Unless there's something additional I'm missing, M RH 4:1 appears to me to be referring to a takanat rabbanim. I'm not sure what the force is that it's overriding; It's either minhag hamakom or another d'rabbanan. Also note that it's increasing the obligations, not decreasing them (which is the general trend of takkanot, with the possible exception of within the Conservative movement).

I think the more important bit about the neder philosophy is the meaning of a "communal neder." As far as I can tell (from, admittedly, very little data), the meaning is usually something along the lines of "the community of individuals accepted X upon themselves, so now X is in force."
 
Whoops, wrong reference. It's actually a baraita on B. Rosh Hashanah 29b:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ראש השנה דף כט עמוד ב

תנו רבנן: פעם אחת חל ראש השנה להיות בשבת, [והיו כל הערים מתכנסין]. אמר להם רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לבני בתירה: נתקע. - אמרו לו: נדון. - אמר להם: נתקע ואחר כך נדון. לאחר שתקעו אמרו לו: נדון! - אמר להם: כבר נשמעה קרן ביבנה, ואין משיבין לאחר מעשה.

One of my favorite pieces of gemara, and a strong support for the precedent-setting nature of ma`aseh.

Regarding neder, yes, that's why it'll require research. One avenue is to explore the Rambam's explanation for why the Talmud is binding; I believe he bases it on equating communal practice with a shevuah, presumably meaning that not every individual took it on, but rov of them did. But yes, that's still binding on some individuals. It would therefore be useful to explore the nature of communal obligations as well, and how they derive force, such as keriat ha-torah.
 
One of my favorite pieces of gemara, and a strong support for the precedent-setting nature of ma`aseh.
It is a pretty cool beraita! (I'm still not sure what force the maaseh is overriding - minhag or rabbinic law).
 
Golinkin/Wald teshuva-(only)-adherents may have no choice other than to consider her obligated

Obligated in what? What does obligation (in anything) have to do with counting in a minyon?

Hotshot2000-- interesting idea about a communal neder with regard to the 10+10 idea. (b), about not binding the individuals in oher contexts, does definitely seem to be a problem. But what is the problem with (a) מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה? Is there really any rule, even derabbonon, that ten men in a room, who have not yet davvened, must conduct a public prayer service in that room? If so, ten Jewish men who wake up in a room in (say) a youth hotel at 7:00 AM must be forbidden from leaving and going to davven in various shuls, and I don't think that that's the case.
 
Obligated in what?
In the specific tefillah for which they are counting in the minyan. The theory of the teshuva is that, in order to count for a minyan, someone has to be free, adult, and obligated in that which he/she is counting for. עיין שם

Incidentally, according to the way I would read the teshuva, there would be no problem whatsoever for the woman who did not want to count in a minyan -- she's simply following a different, equally valid, opinion. But, it looks like there *may* be a problem for everyone else. It's just not addressed as far as I can tell.

If so, ten Jewish men who wake up in a room in (say) a youth hotel at 7:00 AM must be forbidden from leaving and going to davven in various shuls, and I don't think that that's the case.
Why? What I would suggest is that if N minyan-counters were in a room and davening at the same time, they would have to appoint a shat"z, say barchu, kaddish, read the Torah, do birkat kohanim, etc. (incidentally, only some of these may be actual *obligations* of the community; the rest may be minhagim in the case that a shat"z was appointed), But, nothing would obligate them to start davening at that particular moment other than each one's individual obligation to daven.
 
PS/correction/restatement of last comment -- the requirement of accepting upon yourself obligations for counting in a minyan is from (my understanding of) the Roth teshuva (which I don't have access to).

Golinkin (not sure specifically about Wald) does not require obligation for counting in a minyan (but does for serving as shaliach tzibbur), only that the person be free and adult.

So, really, there's a conflation of two theories in that one sentence. Either way, the same "problem" exists. We have a woman who doesn't count herself in a minyan, and a congregation which holds that they should count her in a minyan [even though she is not required to count herself!].
 
So, really, there's a conflation of two theories in that one sentence.

That was my point.

Anyway, I tend to think about "counting in the minyon" as a matter of status, not obligation. (Otherwise, why would the consensus of pôsekim be that women are obligated to davven, but don't count in the minyon.) I once asked Rabbi Roth whence he got this idea about obligation, and he said that he got it from the line in the שולחן ערוך about עשרה זכרים בני חורין המחוייבין בדבר. Alas, I don't understand whence R. Qaro derived this idea. I really should do my homework, and look it up in the Beis Yôseif.
 
But, back to you, the whole point of the question was all about the intersection point of the two theories of egalitarianism. :-)

I think taylweaver addressed how one can work through that particular issue.
 
Obligated in what?
In the specific tefillah for which they are counting in the minyan.


What does it mean to be "obligated" in (e.g.) chatzi kaddish?
 
To return to the original (10+10) question: To the best of my knowledge that situation has not actually occurred at DCM. However, there has of course been discussion about such an eventuality. The particular community is large enough that whenever shacharit is reached and there is a situation such as you mentioned, it has been possible to wait a bit longer and have a full 10+10 minyan. However, it seems generally agreed upon that were it to become clear that 10+10 would not be reached, the Minyan would proceed as without any minyan (as in the other examples cited). The feeling is that this would be the only way to maintain the integrity of the experiment.
 
mg --
Alas, I don't understand whence R. Qaro derived this idea.
It looks like he's getting it from the idea that a woman is similar in standing to a slave, that is, non-free (BY OH 58 as quoted by Wald; I haven't looked it up in the original.) It also seems to be based on the common minhag not to count women in a minyan.

bz--
What does it mean to be "obligated" in (e.g.) chatzi kaddish?

According to Golinkin-type logic (not obligation-based for minyan), counting in a minyan for chatzi kaddish means being included in the "edah" (=congregation) that is capable of "kedushat hashem," the purpose of the kaddish.

I hope to get a copy of Roth's teshuva soon. But, if accepting obligations in tefillot (=tefillah b'zman 3x/day) really is what's important according to him, then, I'd assume it's the reciprocal ability to make someone else fulfill their obligation to kedushat hashem via the kaddish by responding Amen/Yhei shmei rabba to the person as a shaliach tzibbur, *or* to be part of the community involved in whatever the communal obligation is to say chatzi kaddish at a specific time.

Wald brings up that there could be two separate obligations: "tefillah" and "tefillah b'tzibbur." And, according to that, in order to help others fulfil their obligation of tefillah b'tzibbur (that is - by being part of the congregation), you have to be obligated in that mitzvah. (This is not the primary logic he follows; All that Wald says about the reciprocal obligation issues is that he doesn't think they matter for minyan).
 
sb--
The feeling is that this would be the only way to maintain the integrity of the experiment.
In the DCM case, did anyone feel it necessary to find a theoretical grounding for that practice?
 
Elf's DH -

In the DCM case, did anyone feel it necessary to find a theoretical grounding for that practice?

The theoretical grounding question goes back to why the original decision was reached to create a 10-and-10 minyan. The founders of the Minyan, who came from both Ortho and Conservative backgrounds, wanted to create a community where they could daven together with spirit, serious learning, etc. They wanted it to be both fully traditional and fully egalitarian as much as possible. To this end, they engaged in text study; the sources you are already familiar with, I'm sure. The conclusion was that while women's participation in and leadership of davening was permissible, a Minyan was clearly defined halachicly as requiring 10 men. Wanting to fulfill this obligation, but also give women an equal role and allow them to be counted, the Minyan opted for the 10-and-10 rule. It is openly acknowledged that 10-and-10 was a compromise on two levels: (1) theoretical grounding: to keep the halachic requirement while counting women, and (2) functional grounding: to allow this group of people to daven together.

Now, for your specific question as to theoretical grounding for not davening as if there is a minyan when there are 10 men present, I'm not sure (though I can ask around).

You expressed concern with hotshot2000's explanation that "this serious policy _is_ our halakha." My guess is that at DCM while the 10-and-10 decision emerges from an understanding of halacha (as outlined above), what people would say in such a situation is most probably, "this serious policy is our minhag."
 
sb--
a Minyan was clearly defined halachicly as requiring 10 men
For a fully argued-out non-egalitarian Orthodox perspective on women in minyan (read: why not), see this article from Tradition in 1988. Note, that from the author's perspective the major issues are:
* adulthood
* freedom (which may be an issue for Shira Chadasha style 10+10, but not DCM)
* obligation (which is dismissed as an issue by DCM style 10+10)
* kavod hatzibbur/modesty (which is dismissed by both Shira Chadasha and DCM style 10+10 up to separate seating).
* minhag (all 10+10's effectively invented their own, with the practical difference being the subject of this post's question)

but also give women an equal role and allow them to be counted
Sociologically, I'm not sure why this makes women any happier. As described, the possible function of men is to make a minyan (positive), and the function of women ends up being potentially hindering an existing minyan (negative).
 
"Sociologically, I'm not sure why this makes women any happier."

That wasn't the experience at the 10+10 I was at, viz. "but more people (especially women) said how meaningful it felt that their presence really mattered."

The way you phrased it (hindering an existing minyan) it is negative, but why not look at it as "necessary for forming the minyan"? From a 10-centric perspective, of course it will look as you describe, but the point is that 10+10 is a new definition of what it means to have a community (that I believe can be halakhically-supported), that men and women must join together in partnership to form that community.
 
That wasn't the experience at the 10+10 I was at, viz. "but more people (especially women) said how meaningful it felt that their presence really mattered."

I didn't say that it doesn't work -- it clearly does, otherwise 10+10 wouldn't be so popular. My question is: why?

The way you phrased it (hindering an existing minyan) it is negative, but why not look at it as "necessary for forming the minyan"?
The phrasing is intentional, because it's the only way I can make any sense of the 10+10 theory, as presented to me. sb said, that for the DCM case (and presumably any other 10+10):
1. a Minyan was clearly defined halachicly as requiring 10 men*
and that it
2. give[s] women an equal role and allow[s] them to be counted
Therefore, the function of the 10 men is to make a halachic minyan. DCM (et al?) did not redefine a halachic minyan as 10+10! The function of the 10 women is to make a halachic minyan daven as a tzibbur, despite their not being counted in the tzibbur itself. The only way to make any sense of that is to say that the womens' effect is a negative one by their absence, while the mens' effect is a positive one by their presence.

that men and women must join together in partnership to form that community
Interesting choice of words (or is it intentional?). A halachic community (edah/"congregation"/"public"/tzibbur) , is the same as a "minyan." See above.

Incidentally, if the halachic "minyan" concept were actually redefined as 10+10, this would not be a theoretical issue. But, I would suspect that its theoretical standing would have to be stronger than a simple compromise.

* By the way, I'm having a good deal of trouble figuring out DCM's operational theory in particular. I don't see how you can work the halacha to allow women to be shlichot tzibbur for all parts of the service and still not find a way to count them in a minyan. SC-style 10+10 still has theoretical-grounding issues, but they can pretty much agree with all non-egal halachic positions except kavod hatzibbur and some "modesty" strictures and still be fairly consistent.
 
In celebration of the 20th anniversery of admitting women to rabbinical school at JTS, JTS has had the Roth Tshuva online. I don't see an obvious link off the JTS homepage anymore but the tshuva is available at http://www.jtsa.edu/rabbinical/women/roth.pdf

It is also linked to in the wikipedia biography of Rabbi Roth.

In terms of the 10+10 question I'm impressed minyanim have been willing to procede without a minyan. I've always encouraged any minyan I've been involved in to not have the 10+10 rule exactly because of this problem. I don't think I would be comfortable not davening with a minyan even though there are 10 men present, of course I don't think I could halakhikally require the minyan to procede since I don't always ensure I daven with a minyan.

Incidentally I have been to numerous liberal orthodox minyanim with 10 men and less than 10 women so it is a very real possibility, even if it hasn't occured in DC yet.
 
Avi, thanks for the link! It's amazing what parts of the "hidden Internet" get linked to by Wikipedia. (I say that as I proverbially smack myself for not thinking of it myself). So much so that the amount of Jewish material available online but not easily searchable is a potential topic for a future post.
 
everything here is up in the air!
some clarifications, I think, are in order:
1. THe Roth teshuva wants women to become "men" in their obligations - not just tefilla, but all obligations which are time-bound (tefillin, tzitzit, shofar, omer, etc. etc.)
2. The GOlinkin teshuva says that women are already obligated and they can say they're not till they're blue in the face.
3. i.e. when a golinkin minyan has a Roth "woman" (i.e. one who has not decided to become a "man") - they have no choice: she is obligated in tefilla (though not in tefillin, shofar, etc), and God is in the room.

About the 10+10 - it seems silly. if the women want to matter, then they should want the minyan to be a traditional ten-person minyan and for them to really count. Becuase if we really are serious about the 10+10 "rule" it could come to weird situations like army minyanim that have to import women, or women's groups that have to cart around ten men. Or just mincha at the airport.
If you want to count, fight to count, but don't have two of everything and say that counts. That's sort of like separate but equal.
 
The GOlinkin teshuva says that women are already obligated and they can say they're not till they're blue in the face.
Well, not exactly. It has an escape clause, but it appears to me that it only applies to an individual, not an entire group that accepts the logic of the teshuva. See p72 (PDF p15), bullet point 2. What he's saying is that women can choose not to accept his logic, and they'll have other psak on which to rely, but that he thinks the other psak is wrong.

she is obligated in tefilla (though not in tefillin, shofar, etc), and God is in the room
I would still claim that the situation is awkward, because she would not want to be counted in a minyan. One might think that she would want to leave the room and leave the group without a minyan. That is, until taylweaver's answer forwarding us R. Roth's response to her sister.

About the 10+10 - it seems silly
For the record, I don't think any 10+10 group seriously believes that their minhag applies to all other minyanim in all other situations.
 
"My question is: why?"

Let me try out what seems to me the obvious answer and await your feedback: It balances two competing needs, namely (a) the desire for women's presence or lack thereof to have measurable consequences on the tzibbur and (b) maintain the stricture of the Shulhan Arukh that a minyan is _minimally_ composed of 10 adult free men.

I will grant your point regarding the way sb phrased DCM's policy. That's why I don't think that such phrasing does justice to the potential of the practice, precisely as you state: "if the halachic "minyan" concept were actually redefined as 10+10, this would not be a theoretical issue."

"I don't see how you can work the halacha to allow women to be shlichot tzibbur for all parts of the service and still not find a way to count them in a minyan."

Simple -- the two issues are decidedly distinct. There are sometimes when someone cannot form the quorum but can recite the formula on their behalf (e.g., women reciting sheva berakhot requires a male minyan -- see Wolowelsky's book on women; 3 women forming a zimmun with one man present if that man can lead the zimmun [according to those who hold by non-egalitarian zimmun practices]). One (such as myself) can follow Rabinowitz on the sha"tz issue (following the Magen Avraham who says that the sha"tz today is not being motzee anyone + the Arukh HaShulhan who thinks that the only way a sha"tz can be motzi somebody is if they understand each word being said by the sha"tz + that the sha"tz can only be motzi non-bekiim and that nowadays with siddurim with are all considered bekiim) and ignoring devarim shebikedusha as impediments, and still hold that the Sh"A is recording a gezera on the gender composition.
 
"1. THe Roth teshuva wants women to become "men" in their obligations - not just tefilla, but all obligations which are time-bound (tefillin, tzitzit, shofar, omer, etc. etc.)"

That's just to become rabbis -- for minyan/sha"tz, he thinks self-obligation in tefillah is enough.
 
Simple -- the two issues are decidedly distinct . . . and still hold that the Sh"A is recording a gezera on the gender composition.
That seems to go against the plain meaning of the Beit Yosef on Tur OH 55 (p72, ד"ה וכתוב במרדכי; note correction in reference from comment above -- my scan of the Wald teshuva seems to have turned the נה=55 into נח=58). The primary assumption is that the minyan is made up of men only (to the extent that the Tur specifies who is an adult by the growth of facial hair.). But, the two contributing reasons to the Sh"A's ruling are: (1) a woman has the same status as a slave and (2) it is not the practice to count a woman in a minyan. Note that, if you agree with reason 1, it could cause problems with having women lead davening; That is why I don't think they are distinct from the perspective of this aspect of the argument. Reason 2 does not sound like a takkanah to me. It sounds descriptive of common practice. The link is to a 1550 scanned edition of the Tur/Beit Yosef from the Jewish National and University Library (a great resource!).

I'll respond to the remainder later.
 
^ On second thought, those hairs as a sign of puberty are probably not facial.
 
For the record, I don't think any 10+10 group seriously believes that their minhag applies to all other minyanim in all other situations.
Then it makes no sense at all. If you think a minhag has validity and is important (and one would assume making women part of the community is), then you should want it to be that way everywhere. You would try to find a "tenth woman" for your shiva, at the airport, etc. etc. If not, then its a "feel good" thing, which is nice, but not nice enough to say to the person saying kaddish (male or female): "well, we all know there's a minyan, but we won't let you say kaddish for your mother who died last week anyway". If you're serious enough about 10+10 for it to supersede communal obligations ("kvod habriot", perhaps), then you should be serious enough about it to do it everywhere. even at the airport.
 
hotshot2000 --
the desire for women's presence or lack thereof to have measurable consequences on the tzibbur (emph added)
It works for that purpose, but I still don't see how the effect of the womens' presence is positive. If non-egal women (and, let's face it, some egal women) are happy with their position in the community being "prevention of a negative effect" (as opposed to "contributing to a positive effect") then, the "why" is explained. An alternative is that they just want to be counted for something, but don't care what it is.

maintain the stricture of the Shulhan Arukh that a minyan is _minimally_ composed of 10 adult free men.
Minimally, yes, but 10m+[1m|1f|1katan|1slave] still makes a minyan. I still don't see how you can make 11 adult free men not a minyan.

dafkesher --
Then it makes no sense at all
Accepting that there are multiple valid opinions that operate in different places is a valid approach to halacha. If a 10+10 existed at an airport, they would insist on a 10+10. If a conventional minyan existed at an airport, they would not.

then its a "feel good" thing, which is nice, but ...
BINGO!
 
I don't see the connection between that Bet Yosef and our issue. The line "בכל דוכתא אשה שוה לעבד" has a halakhic meaning in this context (i.e., that the _laws_ that apply to slaves apply to women, and therefore we can reason that R. Simha's position was based on R. Tam's position about עבד), and not necessarily a social meaning, although it may have that as well. But so what -- maybe a slave can serve as sha"tz too according to my/Rabinowitz's sevara (but maybe not, because social standing might kick in and we have other places where slaves are acknowledged to be a lower status than women, like the sugya in Berakhot about the "shelo asani x" berakhot where it says zil tefei regarding shelo asani eved, according to Rashi). My point is simply that regardless of how broadly you interpret the analogy, you can still distinguish between sha"tz and minyan. (Regarding the second point, I was using gezera in the colloquial/rabbinic sense to try to halakhically categorize the Sh"A's claim.)

Regarding the 10+10 issue, I feel like we're going in circles. I think that may be because you "still don't see how you can make 11 adult free men not a minyan." Yes, by that way of thinking, of course you're right that the 10 "extra" women are preventative. The point I'm trying to make is that I think you can theoretically ground an added stringency, and I have tried to suggest (in an extremely cursory manner) a way in this might happen. Would you still claim, theoretically accepting that there might be a way to halakhically ground modifying the minyan requirement, that this would still be a matter of women's presence being preventative as opposed to positive? If yes, I'd like to hear why; if not, then it seems our debate is over whether there might exist such an efficacious halakhic argument. NB that I join you in criticizing DCM and SH for not having formulated a halakhic grounding for this practice, for the reason you have stated amongst others.
 
"If you think a minhag has validity and is important (and one would assume making women part of the community is), then you should want it to be that way everywhere."

That makes no sense at all. Many Ashkenazim feel their minhag of not eating kitniyot on Pesah "has validity and is important" but have no desire to force this on Sepharadim.

I think a cogent moral/sociological argument can be made for 10+10 in a large communal setting (say, a fixed synagogue or minyan), but for not requiring it in ad hoc settings.

"then its a "feel good" thing"

Nahat ruah is a valid halakhic principle (see: Sifra Vayikra Dibbura de-Nedava 2:2; b. Hagiga 17b; y. Shekalim 3:3; y. Gittin 4:8; etc.), and one which potentially overrides prohibitions. Whether it can impose strictures on others is a good question.
 
But so what -- maybe a slave can serve as sha"tz too according to my/Rabinowitz's sevara
The social and halachic contexts are somewhat interlinked here -- does it reintroduce a kavod hatzibbur issue? However, I am really intending to use the slave equivalence in a purely halachic sense.

Everything I know of Rabinowitz's teshuva is from excerpts in Fine's history paper*. But, you might be able to change the theory of what a sha"tz does, say a 'sha"tz is not a sha"tz,' and get around that problem. I really haven't given that theory much thought. I would be interested to know if DCM (the only minyan known to me to have this particular theoretical issue) actually follows Rabinowitz's logic on sha"tz but not on minyan. I haven't thought of a practical difference yet between Rabinowitz's sha"tz theory and the others on which to base a test. :-)

It still feels like a lot of extremely selective halachic fundamentalism, but to each his own.

Would you still claim, ... that this would still be a matter of women's presence being preventative as opposed to positive?
If the 10+10 principle were well-grounded, *and* the grounding were designed such that the womens' presence was positive, not negative, I don't think there would be an equivalent theoretical issue. I also think that grounding the practice might eliminate the problem introduced in my original question. So far, no such argument has been presented. And, as of now, I stand by my statement about how the 10+10 theory functions with respect to the counting of women.

* A history paper was approved by a vote of the CJLS with 15 votes, and 2 abstentions. I still find that fact a bit entertaining.
 
"It still feels like a lot of extremely selective halachic fundamentalism, but to each his own."

Not sure what you mean by this critique -- would you mind elaborating?

(BTW, if your kashya is to the notion that the "sha"tz is not a sha"tz", then you don't have a problem with Rabinowitz, but a problem with the Magen Avraham to SA OH 53 #20 s.v. Afilu yahid: "ונ"ל דדוקא בזמניהם שהיה הש"ץ מוציא הרבים י"ח בתפלתו אז היה יחיד יכול לעכב דאין נעשה שלוחו בע"ב משא"כ עתה שכלם בקיאין רק הש"ץ הוא לפיוטים אע"פ שאומר קדיש וברכו אין כ"כ קפידא")

Do you think my theoretical halakhic grounding for 10+10 (a communal neder) solves the problem or not? How so?

"A history paper was approved by a vote of the CJLS with 15 votes, and 2 abstentions. I still find that fact a bit entertaining."

It wasn't _just_ a history paper . . . it was also a sociology paper! :-P

But seriously, Fine's paper did have a halakhic point: it argued that Roth people need not inspect any woman's self-obligational bona fides because they have accepted the lie that they are equally obligated in davening (that is, this is a lie according to Roth's assumptions that women are not automatically obligated in tefillah), and that having that misperception = self-obligation. Not knowing R. Fine, I can't speak to whether this was an exercise with personal import to him (i.e., he found Roth convincing enough to need to halakhically justify to himself why he could serve in the unfettered egalitarian environment of the C movement) or simply sophistry. As you can tell from my tone, I don't buy the argument.
 
Not sure what you mean by this critique -- would you mind elaborating?
I think you misread the objection. It's not to the *idea*. It's that the idea represents a clear change in the role/status/obligations of the sha"tz from what was accepted before a major societal change -- the printing press and the wide availability of siddurim (and translations!). The position makes sense.

It seems a bit strange to me that another sweeping societal change couldn't overturn the requirements for minyan.

Both original positions are based on known logic and previous minhag.

Do you think my theoretical halakhic grounding for 10+10 (a communal neder) solves the problem or not? How so?

I think that you already articulated some of the issues that would have to be addressed: (1) the concept of a communal neder that's nonbinding on the community's individuals exists. (1a) Who takes and who is obligated in a communal neder? (1b) Is using the concept of neder* really a good idea? (1c) How does such a concept work for a transient community?

* The other issues presented are somewhat similar to those of accepting new minhagim.

(2) That such a communal neder could overturn other individual and/or communal obligations (some of which are d'rabbanan positive mitzvot - eg, Torah reading, some of which are brought on by minhag - eg, Mourner's Kaddish). [As something of an aside, you referred to 10+10 as a stringency. It's a bit more complicated than that, because it has the function of removing obligation in addition to making certain outcomes harder]. (2a) The answers to 1a and 1c are important for this one too.

I'm not saying that I have a real opinion on it yet, only that these would be my first thoughts.

Incidentally, a look at Wikipedia introduced me to one neutral term that is used for Shira Chadasha-style 10+10's -- "partnership minyan."
 
Does Shira Chadasha require 10 men and 10 women? I know Darkhei Noam does not.
 
Does Shira Chadasha require 10 men and 10 women?
Caveat: I've never been there.
All of the documentation I can find on the Internet says, yes, it's a 10+10.
Also, all the Ortho-style 10+10's that I know of model themselves on SC.
 
Yes, I've been there, and it does.
I also know of another minyan in the neighborhood that counts women for the 10 between 09:00 and 09:15. davening starts at 09:45.
 
"I also know of another minyan in the neighborhood that counts women for the 10 between 09:00 and 09:15. davening starts at 09:45."

Is that an offensive joke on their part or is there something I'm missing?
 
is there something I'm missing?
Maybe the early kiddush that takes place between 9:00 and 9:15, but only in the presence of an egalitarian minyan? :-)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link