<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Arial, sans-serif" size="3">
<div>I came across the following footnote in a tshuva in Bmareh habzak-volume 5:5 (from Eretz Chemdah) in a question dated in 1999 concerning whether a minyan would say tachanun if a kallah was there but not the chatan. "Nashim tzeirot habaot lhitpallel
bkviut bminyan hen tofaah chadasha, sheyisoda brighshei kodesh vyirat shamayim. All kein yesh lchapes drachim al pi hahalacha loded et hakesher beinan lbein beit haknesset, chayei hakihila, limud torah vkiyum mitzvot. Ubvadai sheyesh lhizaher shelo lfgoa brigshei
kodesh eileh."<br>
<br>
I was struck on 2 accounts. The first being the difference between the read of women's motivations between this source and other contemporary authorities (dai lchakimah brimiza). The second that Rabbi Sperber in Minhagei Yisrael Volume 7:5 brings a number
of sources which seem to imply that women attending shul regularly as far back as the 1300's (and certainly in the 1800's) was not unheard of.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>KT<br>
Joel Rich</div>
<div> </div>
</font>
<br><br><table bgcolor=white style="color:black"><tr><td><br>THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE <br>
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL <br>
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, <br>
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is <br>
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us <br>
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. <br>
Thank you.<br>
</td></tr></table></body>
</html>