[Avodah] Wommen's zimun

[Chana Luntz]

Bounced to Avodah instead, as I suspect this is too Torah heavy for the
moderators at Areivim.  If that is a problem for you, please let Micha
know.

RMW writes:
> 
> R' Chana Luntz:
> >> If it is poretz geder to go against a
> >>minhag, how could there ever be a minhag shtus, or a minhag taus?
> 
>   Before I answer, let me ask you the converse - if choosing to 
> abandon one shittah and follow another because it fits my political 
> agenda, is not Poretz Geder, and violation of Al Titosh, when IS it a 
> violation?

Well to answer that properly, one needs to work through the sources on
poretz geder.  It is rather difficult to do this on one leg, but the
proof text for poretz geder is Koheles 10:8 [v'poretz geder yishkanu
nachash] which Rashi explains there refers to a siyag shel Chachamim
l'avor al divreheim, which seems to be the way it is understood in the
gemora as well. And I note that the Ramban (in his hakdama to Sefer
Hamitzvos - chelek 1 (5)) understands that a violation of the lav of lo
tasur only occurs in relation to something that is d'orisa or halacha
miSinai in origin, but in relation to takanos and gezeros, one is not in
violation of the lav, albeit that there is misa b'yadei Shamayim based
on the concept of poretz geder (ie the death b'yadai shamayim is
encapsulated in the form of the nachash).  So unless you say that the
shitta adopted is that of a zaken mamre, prima facie I can't see how you
get to poretz geder no matter what motivates the change.  Agreed there
are some citations of the concept in the Shulchan Aruch which might
suggest a slightly wider definition, but those seem to be of the nature
of creating effectively a local and specific takana - which again would
draw it back to a violation of divrei Chachamim.


   
>   The answer is as follows. When there is a Minhag Shtus or Taus 
> involved, the minhag is being deemed 'incorrect,' and the person 
> deeming it such is saying 'everyone drop this minhag.' About such 
> minhagim, Rabeinu Tam wryly noted in Sefer Hayashar, the gematria of 
> Minhag is 'Gehinnom.' A good example would be your example, of the 
> minhag for married women to not cover their hair.
>   Whenever one has a minhag, and that minhag is not deemed a 
> minhag taus, one is not supposed to change his minhag merely 
> because rov achronim hold differently. 

The irony of this though, is that the minhag is not like this - at least
if you use the expansive definition of minhag that you are doing.
People go off to yeshiva and adopt the hanhagos of their various Roshei
Yeshiva.  The Roshei Yeshiva are recorded as frequently changing their
minhag, because of conviction out of the sources, or because of derech
eretz reasons, or for a whole host of other reasons.  

Nor would one expect it to be when one goes into the sources and roots
of minhag.  After all, much of the original discussion of minhag
revolves around one person going to live in a town with a different
minhag from the town he came with, and of course his responsibility in
that situation, if he moves permanently, is to change his minhag both
l'chumra and l'kula.  If he moves temporarily, he only changes it
l'chumra.  This idea that we hold onto the minhag that our particular
parents had in the old country is only really justifiable because we say
that the places we have moved to do not have a settled minhag.  

>   More specifically, when the Mishna Brerura picks an opinion based on

> 4 out of 6 achronim, he is only addressing those who do not know their

> minhag regarding this issue(unless he specifies that one of the 
> options is a taus) . This doesn't mean the Mishna Brurah was only 
> written for Baalei Teshuva.
> No one knows their minhag, offhand, regarding all the 
> thousands of halachachic minutiae to be found throughout the 
> shulchan aruch.

Well if you father and/or grandfather is around, why not try asking him?
- if he never did it, then if you hold, as you do that not doing
something is proof of a minhag not to do it (I think there could be
disagreements on this as well, but I think the Aruch HaShulchan says
something along those lines) then by definition you don't have the
minhag.  Even if they are not around, you could always try asking
somebody who came from the same town.  If they don't do it, and don't
recall anybody else doing it, that is pretty clear proof that you don't
have the minhag.  You don't need the Mishna Brura.

Of course, as mentioned, the minhag is not like this.  Whether it should
be like this (or even a weeny bit more like this) is a serious question.
Perhaps people ought to be spending more time quizzing their fathers and
grandfathers regarding every item of halachic minutiae they possibly can
instead of running off to the Mishna Brura.  In fact the Aruch
HaShulchan is noted as being far more in favour of preserving minhag
than the Mishna Brura, and one of the aspects of the shift to a greater
popularity of the Mishna Brura is that historical minhag seem even less
in favour than it once was.

> 
>   So, regarding women's zimmun, If a person has a specific minhag to 
> do it, it would be poretz geder to not do it. If a person does not 
> know their minhag, I see no problem with picking either the Gra or the

> Mishna Brurah's conclusion. But for a seminary to preech to all of 
> their students that the Gra is the correct opinion, and they should 
> all abandon their tradition of not doing it, is arguably, Poretz 
> Geder.

In which case, every seminary and yeshiva that I am aware of is poretz
geder.  Leaving aside everything else, they almost invariably these days
have a dress code that is not the ancestral minhag of most of their
student's parents.  The requirement that my three year old son wear
tzitzis is an example followed by almost all the day schools I know.
And there are many other instances of this (how about requiring the
student to only eat chalav yisroel when his family minhag is chalav
hacompanies?  To wear a black hat?  It does not stop.)

But specifically regarding choosing to abandon one shittah and follow
another because it fits a political agenda, I would note that the Bagatz
(Israeli Supreme Court) appears to agree with you, at least where the
economic and social impact on Israeli society is significant.  Whatever
you want to say, the minhag outside of Bnei Brak has been for the last
100 or so years to rely on the Heter Mechira.  Whereas Keren HaShviis,
which I gather is paying farmers who previously relied on the Heter
Mechira (one shita) to let the land lie fallow in accordance with other
shittos, would seem to have a different view about the permissibility of
enticing a switch (including with financial incentives).  And note of
course that the minhag of Egged and the many frum people using Egged
over the last 50 plus years was always to rely on those shitos which
allowed men and women to sit together on buses, so presumably setting up
and requiring mehadrin buses is poretz geder.  I suspect we may have a
ruling from the Bagatz to that effect soon as well.
                                                              
>  - Mike Wiesenberg

Regards

Chana