<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>RMB writes:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>AFAIK, one can make sound arguments both ways, actually.<br><br>>H/T RGS, who pointed me to the Rama OC 38:3 and AhS 38:5.<br><br>>The Rama says "ve'im hanashim rotzin lehachmir al atzman, mochin beyadam",<br>>citing the Kol Bo. The MA ("mochin") and the MB (s"q 12) say this is<br>>because of guf naqi, but the Rama himself gives no explanation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The MA and the MB say what they say because the Kol Bo brings this as the reason. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Sefer Kol Bo Siman 21<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rabbi Meir writes women are exempt from tephillin because it is a mitzvah aseh shehazman grama that behold they are not worn on Shabbas and Yom Tov and if they want to lay them we do not listen the them since they do not know how to guard themselves in cleanliness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>The MA adds that guf naqi here is an issue because they are not mechuyavos.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One does wonder though whether the Rema had access to the Orachos Chaim, which is the more detailed (and I believe regarded as later) version of the Kol Bo, where R’ Aharon<b> </b>(ben Ya’akov ha-Cohen of Narbonne, although some say of Lunel) adds to this:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Orchos Chaim Hilchos tephillin siman 3<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rabbi Meir writes women are exempt from tephillin and if they come to wear them we do not listen to them because they do not know how to guard themselves with cleanliness. And there is a question to me from that which is in Eruvin perek Hamotzi that Michal Bas Shaul wore tephilin and the Chachamim did not protest. And the Rashba permitted to them all mitzvos aseh and they bless on them from this ma’aseh, and she would not have done it without the will of the Chachamim and since she laid [tephillin] for sure she blessed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The Beis Yosef, does quote this Orchos Chaim, but only the question, not the reference to the Rashba (which would seem to suggest that he might have only had a partial version, as it is not like him to pass up on a quote of the Rashba), and then writes:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Beis Yosef Orech Chaim siman 33<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>3 Women and slaves are exempt: </b>Mishna perek mi shemeto (Brachos 20a) and the gemora brings the reason that it is because it is a mitzvah aseh shehazman grama and all mitzvos aseh shehazman grama women are exempt. And the Rosh writes in hilchos tephillin (siman 29) that even though we hold like Rabbi Akiva who says (Eruvin 96) night is a time for tephillin in any event Shabbas and Yom Tov are not a time for tephillin. The Kol Bo writes (siman 21) in the name of Rabbi Meir that if the women want to lay tephillin we do not listen to them because they do not know to guard themselves with cleanliness. And in the book Orech Chaim (hilchos tephillin siman 3) he questions on him [Rabbi Meir] from that which it says at the beginning of perek hamotzei tephillin (there) that Michal bas Kushi (explanation bas Shaul) laid tephillin and the Chachamim did not protest. And to me it seems that the reason of Rabbi Meir is like that which is written in Tosphos (d”h Michal) that there is a pesikta (Ravati perek 22) that the Chachamim did protest, and their explanation of the reason is because tephillin need a guf naki and women are not particular to be careful and Rabbi Meir wants to be concerned for the words of the pesikta.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>The pesikta in question reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Pesikta Rabati Piska 22<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Women from where: and they shall teach them to their sons (Devarim 11:19) and not their daughters, all who are chayav in talmud torah are chayav in tephillin and women who are not chayav in talmud torah are not chayav in tephillin. [And it was taught] behold Michal Bas Kushi laid tephillin and the wife of Yona went up aliyos l’regel and the Chachamim did not protest, R’ Hezkia in the name of Rabbi Abohu said the wife of Rabbi Yona and Michal bas Kusi the Chachamim protested.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As you can see, this pesikta contradicts the position in the gemora Bavli that the reason for women’s exemption from tephillin is because it is a mitzvah aseh shehazman grama (and presumably holds like the alternative view that actually tephillin are not a mitzvah aseh she hazman grama but hence linked to Torah). The gemora in Eruvin 96b that brings a partial reference to this only brings the view that the Chachamim did not protest, so one can assume that this is yet another contradiction between our gemora and the pesikta. And indeed that is how Tosphos understands it in the cited Tosphos. They only refer to this pesikta to explain the view of Rabbi Yehuda, that women are not permitted in general to do mitzvos aseh shehazman grama. Rashi had explained Rabbi Yehuda’s position as being because to do so would be ba’al tosif, but Tosphos rejects this as a possibility, because of the nature of ba’al tosif, so they needed to find other reasons why Rabbi Yehuda in general did not permit women to perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama – and so what they came up with was a list: shofar because of the shvus d’rabbanan, aliya l’regel because it looks like chullin b’azarah, smicha because of avodah with kodshim, and tephillin because of guf naki. And indeed, the Ra’avid who in fact poskens like Rabbi Yehuda that women may *<b>not</b>* perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama indeed holds that all of these are forbidden but “<span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>the sitting in the sukkah and the taking of the lulav itself we permit as there is not here kilkul and not zilzul of the mitzvoth” (</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The Ra’avid at the beginning of Torat Cohanim (Vayikra) 2:2) – ie both those who posken like Rabbi Yehuda (like the Ra’avid) and those who poskened like Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon (nashim somchin reshus) understood this to be an explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s position that ain bnos yisrael somchos.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The only really odd thing about Rabbi Meir’s position is that the Kol Bo brings him elsewhere as saying:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Kol Bo Siman 22<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>And Rabbi Meir writes that we do not protest if they [women] wrap themselves [in tzitzis] and bless on them even though they are a mitzvah aseh shehazman grama that behold their time is not at night.<span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But it is possible that Rabbi Meir held like the Ra’avid – who only prohibited women from techeles in tzitzis [presumably when there is shatnez) but not all together, but it is difficult to understand the basis on which he appears to allow a bracha – which is usually only allowed by those who follow Rabbanu Tam’s understanding as well as following Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon. (note by the way the Kol Bo himself says that women should not say a bracha on shofar, lulav and sukkah).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As you can see, the Beis Yosef assumes that Rabbi Meir must be choshesh for the pesikta, but it is hard to understand how anybody could be choshesh for a pesikta that contradicts our gemora in a number of ways, and yet not choshesh for an explicit mishna which forbids women blowing shofar on Rosh Hashana (and therefore, as a consequence, forbids any blowing that is just for women, and via which no man fulfils his obligation). And yet that is the halacha that we follow today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To further understand the question, we need to have an investigation of the nature of guf naki and tephillin, in strict halachic terms. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The Shulchan Aruch rules in the siman above the one dealing with women and tephillin:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim hilchos tephillin siman 38 si’if 2<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>One to whom it is clear that he is not able to pray without passing wind, it is better that the time of tephilla should pass than that he should pray without a guf naki (and see above in siman 80) and if he sees that he is able to keep himself with a guf naki at the time of krias shema, he should put on tephillin between ahava and krias shema [and bless]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is quoting a teshuva of the Rosh, which also appears in siman 80 is as follows:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim Hilchos Krias Shema siman 80 si’if 1<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>One to whom it is clear that he is not able to prevent himself from passing wind until he finishes krias shema and tephilla, it is better that there should pass the time of krias shema and tephilla and he should not pray, that that he should pray without a guf naki, and if the time passed for tephilla, he is an onus and he can pray mincha twice. And if he sees that he is able to prevent himself at the time of krias shema he should put on tephillin between ahava and krias shema <i>Rema and bless on them</i> <i>(Tur)</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Now while the Gra has a different view, and argues with the Shulchan Aruch, what you can see from here is that it is not just tephillin that need a guf naki, but tephilla and krias shema. So from this we would seem to have an answer to the famous question of the Magen Avraham in <span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>siman 106 si’if 2 and others, why if women are obligated in tephilla (as would seem the majority position of the Rishonim, that they are obligated rabbinically) why do “our women” not daven, except perhaps to say some request in the morning after washing. Straightforward answer based on this Shulchan Aruch, maybe they are choshesh for this Shulchan Aruch and for not having a guf naki, and hence are holding back from davening. And certainly for krias shema, which is a mitzvah aseh shehazman grama, and hence from which women are patur, it would seem that if a woman is not permitted to lay tephillin because of guf naki, the same must be true for reciting krias shema.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Of course, it is critical that any discussion of guf naki takes into account a key teshuva of the Rema who was asked regarding somebody who was constantly passing urine, but in the course of that he discusses the case where he had some sickness which also made him pass wind constantly:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Shut of the Rema Siman 98</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>...since behold the Rosh did not say except that it is better that the time of tephilla passes but he did not say that there was an issur in the matter, rather that it is better that he wait until after when there is a fix to return and to pray twice. However one who is regular in this and if he does not pray he will be exempt from tephilla completely for sure it is permitted for him to pray without a guf naki, because an issur rabbanan does not come and push aside a chiyuv d’orisa or tephilla that is a mitzvah d’rabbim and thus it is permitted to him to interrupt between ahava and krias shema in order that he recite krias shema and he pray...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Quite a bit more can be found in the various teshuvos relating to the question as to whether a man can put on tephillin in hospital when he has a catheter (see eg Tzitz Eliezer chelek 8 siman 1). Bottom line though, it does seem that the Rema’s position that guf naki itself is no more than a d’rabbanan would seem to be a dominant view, and hence in the case of a man, should not push aside tephilla d’rabbim or tephillin or krias shema. However, tephilla may be obligatory on women, but tephilla d’rabbim would seem not to be, so if the concern is guf naki, then logic would seem to suggest that women should not daven.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Another interesting thing about the whole question of guf naki, is that (leaving aside the catheter and shilshul case, where the flow may be constant), we are dealing here with a safek. In the case of a medical condition, one has to say that the percentage chance is sufficiently close to 100 that it is not deemed a safek but a vadai. And presumably it is not unreasonable to say that as the day, the probability that a person will at all times have a fully guf naki and will never feel the need to pass wind diminishes to zero even for a normal reasonably healthy person and again approaches a vadi, but for the short time of shachris, there is at most in a normal person a safek. Which would seem, on the basis of the Rema, to be a safek d’rabbanan. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Back to women and guf naki, I would just note that it seems to me likely, however, that Rabbi Meir’s view about women not being able to maintain a guf naki might actually, even if we are talking about wind, have a certain medically justification. It appears to be that, even today (and I will put this as delicately as I can, given the indelicate nature of the subject), (a) relations can cause increases in wind in many women; and (b) the process of childbirth and the damage it does to eg the pelvic floor can lead to difficulties in controlling wind production. In medieval societies, we know women were married off very young, and were generally having children as teenagers when their bodies were not yet fully developed, and in the absence of modern medicine, it may well have been that observations that most women were not able to maintain a guf naki may have been medically justified. It also should be noted, in relation to Michal be Shaul that she did not did not have a child until the day of her death (Shmuel II 6:24) – so it may be that she did not fall into the category of high risk non guf naki women, and so would, vis a vis the average woman in the times of Rabbi Meir, have been an exception.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>>Tir'u baTov!<br>>-Micha<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>>I didn't read it yet, but RGS posted his survey of the subject at<br>><a href="http://www.torahmusings.com/2006/11/why-no-tefillin" target="_blank">http://www.torahmusings.com/2006/11/why-no-tefillin</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Surprisingly historical take for RGS - seems to suggest that guf naki was a post fact rationalisation for the fact that most men were not wearing tephillin at all, and could barely be persuaded to put them on for shachris. If true (and it is not a very halachic view, in the sense that halacha cares about what the sources say, not the outside historical reasons that may or may not have driven these sources ), it would seem to weaken the yehora argument. If in a certain time period most men aren't doing something they are obligated to do, then the yehora arguement for a woman who does it is much stronger during that time period, something that would seem to fall away if every tom dick and harry were doing it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>>-Micha<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chana<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>