[Avodah] Women Davening (was: [Areivim] Eating Seudah

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

<<The AhS discusses this (OC 89:1-...). Kedarko beqodesh when it's hard to
understand where the common practice came from, he tries figuring out whose
shitah (or combination of shitos) we must be holding like.>>

Bit puzzled why you quote OC89:1 and presumably OC89:2 without referring to
OC106:5-7.  

And I confess in OC106:7 he seemed to me to be expanding on the shita of the
Magen Avraham, rather than attributing it to the Rambam - although I agree
that AhS OC89:2 does read more like he holds this is indeed the shita of the
Rambam.

But holding that this is the shita of the Rambam is difficult, because in
Perush HaMishnayos L'Rambam Kiddushin perek 1 the Rambam writes:

"And positive mitzvot not dependent upon time ., and is it not known that
eating matza the night of Pesach, and joy on the festivals, and hakel, and
*prayer*, and reading the megilla, and the candles of Chanukah and the
candles of Shabbat, and Kiddush all of these are positive mitzvot dependent
upon time and every one of them are obligations for women like they are
obligations for men?"

Now one could say that the Rambam changed his mind between writing his
perush on the Mishna and writing the Mishna Torah, where he says in Hilchos
Tefilla perek 1 halacha 2:

"And therefore women and slaves are obligated in prayer because it is a
positive mitzvah which is not dependent upon time but rather the obligation
of this mitzvah is such that a person should seek grace and pray every day
and tell the praises of the Holy One blessed be he and after that ask for
his needs ..."

But clearly it is not ideal to say that, and, is not the more logical
explanation that the Rambam held (consistently) that women were obligated in
prayer from the Torah because it is not time bound, and as a consequence
from the rabbis even though then it is time bound, Noting in addition that
the Rambam says in perek 6 halacha 20  "Women, slaves and minors are
obligated in prayer.".  Given that katanim would seem to be only obligated
mishum chinuch, ie rabbinically, which suggests that this whole group is
talking about rabbinic obligations, thereby making it consisten with the
perush hamishnayos.

So at most one really ought to be saying that you could construct a shita
(which is probably not the Rambam's) that women are obligated from the Torah
in the way the Rambam obligates them from the Torah, but not obligated from
the Rabbis in the three daily prayers, and that is how I read the AhS in
OC106, although the language in OC89:2 is a bit more difficult.

<<According to the Rambam, the mitzvah to daven daily is a deOraisa (mitzvah
#5). (The Sifrei says so as well.) The Ramban holds that praying when in
distress is deOraisa, but daily prayer is miderabbanan. And this is the
position taken "bekhol haShulchan Arukh".>>

Agreed.

<<The AhS holds when the mishnah (Berakhos 3:1, on 17b) says that women are
peturos from Shema and Tefillin but are chayavos in Tefillah and Mezuzah, it
means only when davening in distress. Not the usual tefillas qavua.
Even according to the Rambam (Hil' Tefillah 1:2), the obligation on women
daily would not be 3 times a day nor any fixed siddur. Because that
derabbanan layer is shehazman gerama.>>

Where does the AhS say this?  Rather It seems to me that his conclusion in
OC 106:7 is as follows:

"And behold indeed according to Rashi women are obligated in three prayers a
day like men because according to him there is no distinction in rabbinic
mitzvot between dependent upon time and not dependent upon time and also
according to Tosfot so it is since according to them the Gemara explained
that even though it is a mitzvah dependent upon time in any event because
they need mercy the rabbis obligated them ...like men. .and according to
this it is difficult to justify that which our women are not careful in all
three tefilot according to the position of Rashi and Tosfot and the Rif and
the Rambam .."

<<So, a woman could say a couple of sentences of her own devise, or from a
Tehillim or from a Tekhines Buch, and be yotzeit. Say Modeh Ani? Make
berakhos? The only real risk of missing their chiyuv to daven or qabbalas ol
malkhus Shamayim ("Melekh Chai veQayam...", "... Melekh ha'olam...") is if
they say it without qavvanah.>>

This is the limud zechus of the Magen Avraham (as further expounded by Rav
Artscroll).  But what the Magen Avraham actually says (siman 106 si'if katan
2):

"A positive mitzvah:  So writes the Rambam as he holds that prayer is a
positive mitzvah from the Torah as it is written "and to serve with all your
hearts etc" but from the Torah it was enough once a day in any wording that
he wanted, and thus the custom of most women is that they do not pray
regularly because they say immediately in the morning close to washing [the
hands] some request and from the Torah it is enough [merely to do] this, and
it is possible that also the Sages did not obligated them more. But the
Ramban holds that prayer is from the rabbis and so is the opinion of the
majority of poskim ..."

The point being, to hold as you have set out above, you have to rely on a
minority opinion (that of the Rambam) that prayer is from the Torah AND you
have to ignore all the evidence that the Rambam himself held that women were
obligated in the rabbinic aspects of prayer, despite them being time bound,
and construct a scenario that "it is possible that the Sages did not
obligate them more".  And while that may be the position of Rav Artscroll,
it seems difficult to attribute it to the AhS.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana