[Avodah] Women Davening

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

<<But look again at 86:1, starting at "lefichach". RYME gives shitas
haRambam and that ends with:
    Therefore, women and slaves are obligated in Tefillah, because it is
    a mitzvas asei SHELO hazman gerama.
    But the chiyuv of this mitzvah is like this: that a person is
    mishchanein umispalel every day, and tells of the praises of HQBH,
    and then asks for all of his needs that he needs to in a baqashah
    in a techinah, and then gives praise and thanks to H' for the Good
    which He was mashpia on him. Each according to their potential
    (koach). Ad kan leshon haRambam.
The chiyuv tefillah that falls on women is freeform, "kol echad lefi
koch[ah]".>>

>From the Torah the Rambam's view is that the mitzvah is freeform (and
applies to both men and women as freeform), it is only Rabbinically that all
the rest was added in, the numbers of tefillot the times for the tefillot
etc.

<<I think this is a misunderstanding of the AhS's approach to pesaq.
To RYME, this is not a "limud zekhus".
At times he has limudei zekhus, and he labels them as such.
A lot more often, something else is in play -- he actually holds that
common practice is an indication of what shitah became law. This is why
so many associate his pesaqim with "mimeticism".>>

I agree with that when he comes out with a psak that matches the lenient
position that the people are doing.  But that is not the case here.  His
bottom line is to unequivocally makes women obligated in davening three
times a day. What he does in his full round up is to quote the Magen Avraham
and analysis it - but that doesn't mean he holds like it in any form or
fashion.  

<<Like here (106:7), where he offers "two teirutzim", and makes sure
to repeat them so you see there is an answer whether we hold like the
Rambam or the Levush. He does find the answer for Rashi or Tosafos's
shitah is logically a "dochaq", but "yeish leyasheiv" and "lehaRiv ve
haRambam *asi shapir*.
And so yes, unsurprisingly he reaches the same conclusion in OC 106:7
(in the closing parenthetic) as he already said in 89.>>

This is not how I read this at all.  According to me he says that the Magen
Avraham's position is astonishing that it is difficult to justify women only
davening once a day either to according to Rashi or Tosfot OR according to
the Rambam and the Rif.  And he has objections both parts of the Magen
Avraham.

What you seem to be saying is that he is agreeing with the Magen Avraham at
least on the first part, ie that according to the Rambam and the Rif women
are not obligated in davening more than once a day.

Now let me spell out to you what it seems to me was completely obvious to
the Aruch HaShulchan and why he felt he barely needed to state the obvious
(all he needed to say was that with women according to the Rif and the
Rambam the matter is not a question at all).  Think about what the Magen
Avraham is saying, stripped of its reference to davening.

A) There is a Torah positive mitzvah not dependent upon time - so women are
of course obligated.
B) there are, as there usually are with Torah mitzvot, loads of Rabbinic
mitzvot surrounding the Torah mitzvot.
C) Maybe those Rabbinic mitzvot mentioned in B) don't apply to women?

To give you an idea of the impact of this suggestion let's try it with some
other mitzvot:

(i) How about kashrut such as meat and milk: the Torah only prohibits
cooking meat with milk, eating cooked meat with milk, and benefit from
cooked meat with milk - and does not apply this to chicken.  Does that mean
that it is fine for women to cook and eat chicken with milk, or cold meat
with cold milk (ie not cooked) - because perhaps the Sages did not obligate
them more?

(ii) How about Shabbat - where women are obligated in the Torah positive
mitzvot of Shabbat because of shomur v' zochur.  Rav Moshe Feinstein did
some fancy footwork to enable women at home to be able to eat while waiting
for their husband to get home from kiddush.  But all of that is unnecessary.
Kiddush, at least on Shabbat morning, is d'rabbanan, and maybe the Chachamim
did not obligate them more, so it is fine for women to ignore kiddush as it
doesn't apply to them.  Roll this out to all the d'rabbanans of Shabbat!

(iii) How about Pesach: - can women ignore all the d'rabbanans surrounding
Pesach (including bedikat chametz because bitul works from the Torah)
because perhaps the Chachamim did not obligate them more?

And on and on.  It is pretty rare to have a mitzvah from the Torah that does
not come with many, many d'rabbanans.  But what the Magen Avraham has done
is sprung on us an idea that has absolutely no support in Shas anywhere that
maybe women are not included in the d'rabbanans surrounding mitzvot from the
Torah where they are unquestionably included.

Can you understand why this logic as applied to davening is given short
shrift in the Aruch HaShulchan and why he spends more time trying to discuss
the second part of the Magen Avraham, which discusses Rashi and Tosfos and
which he sees as containing much that is not necessary?  With his conclusion
that it is impossible to justify what our women do regardless of which shita
you adopt "b'dochek yesh l'heshiv ma shenashim shelanu anan z'hirut bekol
hagimel tefilot lishitat Rashi and 'Tosfot, AND according to the Rif  AND
the Rambam.  That is, he understands them as being totally aligned on this
one - however you go, you get to the same place, women are obligated.
Whether it is because both men and women are obligated from the Torah and
the d'rabbanans follow for both, or because both women and men are only
obligated rabbinically but the rabbis obligated them because they need
mercy. 

-Micha

Regards

Chana