[Avodah] Do Women Need To Hear Eicha?

[Chana Luntz]

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
> : RZS writes:
> :> Af hein hayu be'otah pur`anut.  If there were a "chiyuv" on men then
> :> should logically apply to women too.
> 
> : This assumes that (a) the af hein b'oto hanes is a principle of logic
that
> : we can apply to circumstances other than those listed in the gemara and
(b)
> : that there exists a flipside principle of af hein hayu be'otah puranut.

And RMB replied:

> Or at least minhagically, women felt they ought to be there because
> women went through it to and lemaaseh, enough have been going to Eikhah to
> create such a minhag.
> 
> This isn't rabbinic legislation, where the logic is necessarily so
> rigorous, nor necessarily the cause as opposed to post-facto validation
> of existing practice.

I don't think that the whole discussion between RZS and myself makes any
sense if we are indeed (as he and I agree) talking about a minhag.  If the
minhag is that women go, then that is the minhag, and if they don't it is
not.  The problem identified with the psak halacha cited in the name of RMS
was (a) a statement that women are included in all the halachos of aveilut
on Tisha B'Av (which means that it is not just a matter of minhag, but
rabbinic obligation, the obligation to engage in aveilus on Tisha B'Av being
rabbinic) and (b) that therefore women ought to make a point of going to
Eicha or reading it at home for herself if she cannot go hear it, even
though nobody has ever heard of such a minhag (suggesting that indeed RMS
understood the obligation to hear Eicha to be rabbinic).  We were thus
debating the question of on what basis one could assert that women are
included in all the (rabbinic) mitzvos aseh of Tisha B'Av.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana