Partnership Minyanim & Women and Torah Reading (Pt III) | Rabbi Anthony Manning | January 21st 2026

Everybody, lovely to see you all. Thank you for coming out on a cold day. >> Um, just to remind people please that you should turn off your phones and also that I'll be away for the next 3 weeks. Please God. Uh, I am going to be in uh England uh then in Canada uh in upstate New York which I hear is very nice this time of year. [snorts] Um and uh and then down into Philadelphia. So that is the plan. So hopefully you've got some amazing speakers lined up for the next three weeks and you'll have a great time. But please God, I'll be back a month today when it will be nearly Purim. Uh so we'll talk about that as we get there. Today we have the last installment. Uh before that, sorry, I will read out the uh dedications and sponsorships. So the um the program is sponsored this year. Um the Beid Rash program is sponsored for 2026. Ilu Nishmos, Daniel Ben, David and Liubat, Abram Strauss, Morai, Ben Mosha and Raiselbat, Yseph, Mayor Marcus and they they are the parents of Judy and Manaka Marcus. And also the shar for the year is my is sponsor Nishmo brand and Zelik Ben also for the Shalasa. So thank you for all of those. Now today is not only the third part of a series but it's actually I think a very interesting selfstanding shuru. Uh last week was very complicated or at least I thought it was um but this week less so and we are going to be dealing with the issue of hat. Now let us just recap for a moment and work out where we are in Shia one. In part one, we looked at the the hakah development of crea satura and we talked a little bit about what kind of an obligation it was. Is it an obligation on individuals? Is it an obligation on individuals to make a communal career satura slightly different? Is it an obligation on the community as a whole but not on any particular individual? And the answer to that question we said was yes. >> There are different opinions. Okay, it's all of there are all of those suggestions made and we looked at that in some detail. We looked at the issue of whether women are obligated in ka whatever the level of the nature of that obligation and the answer to that was probably no. Uh although there was a little wrinkle there the magnafra last week we got into the mechanics. What is going on when people stand up and get called up and read the Torah? [snorts] Is the the person making the braas covering the being Moz the person reading or vice versa? Are they being mostly individuals in the in the cahila? Is it again communal? We looked at that and again that was something of a complicated analysis and we concluded that the only combination that might work before we get on to is for a woman to be called up and read her own para which we don't tend to do these days or maybe for a man to be the balkora and for a woman to be called up but all of that that is somewhat um irrelevant. Because we need to then move on to the question, well the the source which we're going to see again in a minute said even if it works in theory in practice the rabbi said not to do this because of kavodore and we therefore you need to analyze today what is kavore very interesting topic we're going to look at all of the situations in the shas where it deals with that analysis there only four of them plus this one and we'll see maybe what is the reason behind it and is that reason still relevant because one of the arguments uments that's been made by uh Rabbi Dr. Sperber and others that want to support partnership in Yanimin is that whatever kavat was it's not relevant anymore times have changed women have different roles it's no longer a problem of kav or even if it is the community has the right to be is covered we can say yes other people do have a particular issue with this but we don't and therefore we're happy for women to get aliyah or which we won't have time to deal with today as uh Rabbi Sperba suggests even if there is a problem of cover which we'll analyze maybe covered habriots overrides that now we're not going to look at that today because we really need to revisit the issue of covered abriott a fascinating topic in and of itself and I hope to do that at some point maybe not the first year when I come back maybe yes depending on how we look at it and I think I'll be tempted to get into puring material by the time we get there but we need to look at coat again the idea that there are certain prohibitions which are set aside died because of personal embarrassment. Embarrassment of people in difficult situations and and Rabbi Spurber suggests that for women who are not able to be called up that is a an affront that is an insult or maybe insults too strong but that is offensive to them as a group and therefore that caviat overrides cavodor. We're not going to deal with that today. and also the major hashkafic issues involved in all of these and as a lady wrote raised with you just now women's only Torah readings which has a lot of hashkafa background we also don't have time to deal with now but we will please God ble we will get to all of that there's lots to talk about who gets to make these decisions who gets to decide that we change the nature of shul in such a significant way even if we came to the conclusion that yes it works who gets to make that all uh and we'll have to talk about that but again not quite today. Let's get into number one says the source. This is the third time we've seen it now, but it's worth starting with Shiva says the Gomorrah, everyone uh counts in principle to the seven alias on Shabas, even a child is even a woman, but the rabbis said a woman should not read from the Torah because don't forget at this time whoever was called up was also the reader. sibore. Let's assume there's no difference between covered hatsore and covered sib the frias rabbis frimmer deal with that in their extensive footnotes. Remember that 90,000word uh essay which I assume most people have read by now uh that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago uh if not then uh then what is retirement for if not to read 90,000word articles but I appreciate a lot of people here still working. So uh we saw that before. What does it mean? Women are are not don't read because of and what does it mean? Is that a strange way to say something? Why didn't they just say assur? The rabbis have a word for prohibited. They didn't use it here. So the first thing we need to talk about is the argument uh which is suggested that is a recommendation but it's not a prohibition. This is one of the things that Rabbi Spurver suggests even using the words it's a kind of passnished that's his words originally which is very weak meaning there's nothing really wrong with it passed he was held uh he was he was sort of pushed on that point and I brought you on the second page here in the footnote he pulled back on that and he said okay you're right maybe it's a bit more thanish but it's a debate as to whether it is prohibited or not so in most cases does mean it's prohibited Have a look at number two. It comes up a number of times. This is to do with shhatness. Now shnas wool and linen. You know that you're not allowed to put a woolen in a piece of clothing on or put a sheet on top of you with wool and linen. But are you allowed to sit on something which is material which is made from shhaters says the Gmorra. The apostic says don't put shers on top of you. Okay, says the but you are allowed to put it underneath you. However, the rabbi said came. Okay, you'll say they they did says there but they said maybe you'll be sitting on it but it'll maybe curl around you go around your legs and then before you look around you will be having shhatness on you. Um and therefore here They said to do this and we don't do this. It's prohibited. The brings down even if you have 10 levels of mattresses one on top of the other and the very bottom one is hashhatas in it then you're not allowed to sit on it. There is of course a famous story like all these stories did it happen this way I don't know but of [snorts] the stipul of Jakob Kieski who was set up on a date with the sister of the Kazon ish and he knew he'd have to take a very long train ride in order to get there. So he stayed up all night learning the night before because he reckoned he wouldn't be able to learn the next day and he said it's fine. I'll sleep on the train and I'll get learn the night before etc. When he got on the train he looked at the seats and he was worried that actually there might be shacklers in the seats. Exactly how he knew there will be shacklers in the seats. That's a bit of the story that I didn't quite get but maybe he knew maybe seen it before. Maybe he had rules. I don't know. But he didn't sit down the entire journey because he wouldn't sit on the seat because of this hala. He stood up the entire journey. He was completely exhausted. He met the Kazan's sister and he fell fast asleep at the date. Okay. Um but she married him anyway. So all's well that ends well. But here we see means you're not allowed to do it. Okay. You'll say to me, but there it does say and therefore maybe that's why it is prohibited. But here's another case. Look at number three. When do you have to say when the night comes in? When you start to have mar that's when you say but the rabbi said you should do before you eat maybe you'll get you'll drink you know some wine at the suda you'll fall asleep you'll miss your keer whatever you will be confused get the vid in early do we do that >> absolutely says that is what you have to do you say vidi before and then you go into and you say more and more and more. So we absolutely do this and there could be many more examples that I could bring you. Generally speaking means it's something that you have to do. It's not a recommendation but occasionally it is. Number four, what about a judge in a basin making a judgment about an item whether it is permitted or prohibited? Says the uh the Gomorrah here. A judge makes a judgment or aid come to a court case and they give testimony about something which is permitted and there's a ruling that is permitted. Are they allowed to go then later and buy it for themselves or do we suspect ah there's funny business going on. They say it's okay, it's kosher and then they buy it for themselves. Maybe they said he was kosher because they wanted to get a hold of it. So no, we don't distrust them. If the judge made a judgment, if the Aiden made a gave testimony, we trust them. They're allowed to buy the thing afterwards. But the rabbi said, "Stay away from anything that is bad and anything that smells bad. It's not a good idea for the judge to be seen with this item that he gave a ruling on." Now, that's advice. Maybe good advice, maybe strong advice, but it's not binding. It's not. So there you see you does mean in this particular case that it's recommended rather than prohibited. So you can make the case and Rabbi Spurber says well maybe this is also one of the recommendations and not one of the prohibitions. There there's a problem with that because there's another sources of topha that says it straight. We haven't seen this yet. Look at number five. all account for the seven alias. So far so good. Sounds exactly the same. But then it just says, "But you may not call up a woman to read in public." Didn't say didn't even mention. It just says you can't do it. And when the Rambam brings it down, he doesn't bring this that and the other. number says in number six, a woman may not read in public. So, so I think it's something of a far-fetched case to say that here means just and I brought you the wording in the in the in the footnote there. You can see Rabbi Sperber's kind of retraction of that and said that it may be actually that uh it is a little bit stronger than he made out. So that's the first thing that I wanted to talk about in another argument that's been raised is that well maybe this is like a historical sort of progression. Maybe originally the beginning of the source women used to go up to read from the Torah but then at a later stage the rabbis turned around and said we don't think this is okay anymore because of coet. Now it's a difficult argument to make because there is not a shred of evidence for it. There's no historical evidence. There's no there's no textual evidence that this is well it used to be but then it changed to that because often that does happen but it's very clear that there used to be a case and then they said you can't do that anymore. Here it sounds much more like it's this is very important meaning you should not call a woman up maybe if you did then there's the original position but it doesn't sound like it's a historical issue. Yes sir. >> Yes. It's a double-edged sword. >> Why is that? >> Because it could have been the other way around. It may have been also once upon a time as as time went on. So, they just gave it as a recommendation. >> Well, well, that ah it could have been prohibited to start with. What do you know? Because the beginning, the first statement is everybody counts. But then the rabbi said it sounds much more like it used to be mut but then it wasn't. But actually all of the understand this as being have a look please in number seven. Look at the top of page three and we'll see some of these bie evid cases which is very interesting. the roak on the ramam the mass rather on the ram brings down and says no it's it's not this is not a case of it used to be and then it was the rabbi the the the ram he says just writes it as prohibited in if that's the case he doesn't even want to take account of avid it's just it's just it's like your food is tra there's no evin did admit to a level of bed evidence and there are four cases very interesting cases which are brought down. This is not a historical precedent but these are cases where there is indeed a room to say that a woman could get called upv. So the first one we mentioned already and even Rab Vagios brings this down which is that they called a woman up by mistake gelbaser okay said some of the say that if a woman was called up by mistake she can continue to take the aliyah she shouldn't have been called up because you don't do that because of but now you have it's very negative for someone to receive an aliyah and then declined it we saw that with rebika last week remember when the students said rebi how can you not go up. They called you up to read. It's a schooler for a long life. God forbid someone will have a short life if they decline. He said, "I didn't prepare the laning." So that's a good excuse. Here the woman was called up. Maybe she can go up. And as I said, Ra brings that down as a bddy ever situation. Here are three other ones. What about a schul which is only kohanim? Okay. You have a community where every single member there is a Cohen family. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cohen, Mr. pagan Mr. Con. Okay, so the Ma Ram of Rottenberg has a tuber and says, "What do you do?" So the first, who' you call up, Cohen? >> Cohen. >> Anyone? Okay, they're all Cohen. You call up Cohen. Who' you call up Ley? There is no Ley. What do you do if there's no Ley? [snorts] >> Yam Cohen being comy. He gets the second Aliyah, says the Marram, but you can't call him up again. There's no such thing as having three alias. So you can't call the same guy up for the third time. to call another Cohen is a problem because it's an implication that the first Cohen didn't have yikas and therefore maybe we've realized that you know you didn't count and therefore it's an insult to call up a third cohen says the maram of rottenberg who gets alias 3 4 5 6 and seven the women the women get called up for the alias 3 4 5 6 and 7 because there is no other choice because the zilz the the the insult for the cohenas overrides the This is the situation. So that's interesting. I've never seen it happen in practice probably because the shuk rules against it. Shukarov says no the shuk actually follows the rashbah where he says in a town where everybody is a cohen no one's going to get upset that you don't think he's a cohen. And therefore this is an exception to the rule. What do you do in that situation? Pas you call up Cohen for number one and then a different Cohen and a different Cohen and a different Cohen and a different Cohen and a different Cohen and nobody's worried about the fact that oh you implying because no one's implying this is a sound of com everybody knows everybody's but it's interesting the mam does allow that as av um another some post can bring down let's say that there aren't uh seven there's no balora and there aren't seven men that can read there are only three people that can read and what's going to be so uh for their own alias. So some post games say if there aren't seven men that can read then you call up whatever men you can and the rest of them you call up women but that's very unlikely scenario honestly um but it's I suppose it could happen as a buddy of it the the last one Raviakov of Emden who can always be guaranteed to come up with some interesting you know uh out ofthe-box ideas he says I think there's a situation where a new mother had a baby and the father is out of town or unavailable and they need to call him up for a misha for the new baby and he's not there and if they don't call them up now then they'll forget about it and it's very important that they get a Misha why exactly it's so important I didn't read the whole cha inside he says you call up the mother the mother's not father's not available but yeah you call up the mother and she can have the mishabarak for the newborn baby but he says which he sometimes says but this is a little bit out of the box and therefore I'm not prepared to rule this way unless my colleagues support me and he which they didn't and and uh and he also says, "I'm only prepared to allow this even if they support me in a private minion, not in Shul." And we're going to raise this as a question. What is the relevance of a private minion? Can you get away with things in a private minion in your home that you can't get away with in the shul? We're going to see that at the very end. So there are four interesting um but they don't none of them really help our partnership minion case because you're setting up a to do these things as opposed to and by the way and this is very important what if you do something which is permitted but you did it does that work meaning if I drop milk into my chicken soup and it's a tiny drop less than the 60th then it's okay what if I did that on purpose knowing that it would be okay but he okay so then there's as well but there are many situations according to many I brought you in the footnote the is and others if you are naughty and you do something knowing that that's only really allowed then it doesn't even work is for people who made a mistake we all make mistakes it's not for people who want to try and cheat the system so it's interesting you could say even if you say well it's okay for women to get called up. Well, this is not buddy or is it? And that's the next thing we need to say because one of the things that people claim is that our whole generation is buddy. We are now in a situation where the the doesn't fit with the way that women feel and therefore that is called avid. Um and we have a principle a a time of pressing need is like a and in a you can actually do something which would normally only be permitted and the the proponents of the partnership in give a few examples they say well didn't we have a that women don't come to shul when they are in need we talked about this but the said but on rashash the narim they can come because it'll be so upsetting for women if you tell them they can't come to schul on. So you see a was overridden by the fact that women really would feel bad. So the answer to that is no. It was never a there's no that women car it was a min women had a min not to come to sh. So you're not overriding a prohibition. You're just saying well the min doesn't apply in yam kip and rashana because it's important that the women are there. So that's not such a great example. Another example which is very interesting is the Seday Aish's famous chuva about men and women singing together just to bring you into the loop on this. We could spend a whole session on this. This is a landmark Jew in the 19 I think it was 60s. He was asked about a youth group, a kind of NCSY type predecess. I think it was a group in France where you had young men and young women trying to get more involved in Judaism and outreach kind of movement early days and the boys and the girls all sang smeirus together on Shabas and someone asked is this permitted or is this not permitted and you can read the cha and he goes back and forth well it's not maybe this maybe that maybe this maybe that and in the end he says we have to press the kind of but button and say we have to rely on all of the these you know, two voices can't be heard and it's shabasmirus. And he puts together a bunch of quite weakarim to come out with absack and say altogether you can do it. >> So people want to say ah you see when you really need to do something the rabbis can find a way. you end up with blue greenberg's famous statement uh which he then retracted and said I didn't really mean it that way but okay which is where there's a rabbitic will there's a hakic way which is not true rather Aaron Lifenstein who was not known for his uh you know harsh comments about anyone for that matter was very strongly against this and said it's not true because there areim there are bonafide ah heretarium but they're all weak but you put them all together and you and you add kiraov into the mix uh and you end up with something which is uh which is allowed Okay, I hear that it's a little bit closer than the women coming to schulash or and this is the strongest in theory the allowed bakov. Now, if you can do that, you can do a lot of things because it says very clearly in the you are not meant to teach Torah to women, including certainly not Gomorra, but even hum are not meant to teach Torah to women. And brings that down. And Shares set up a system of schools in Eastern Europe. She didn't ask a shila before she did it. She asked a shila after she did it. But she got support beforehand from the Belerian, from others. And then she maybe it was the gay rabbi I can't remember. But later on when people were writers were becoming more successful in in the 20s early 30s people were writing to the saying like what is this? This woman has set up a school system against the bakov can we send our daughters there yes or no? And the wrote a very famous piece and said yes because times have changed and we're not going to follow this anymore. Uh we must teach our women Torah. in fact mitzvah which is it's a flip. It's not just like a [laughter] it's no mitzvah to have women's Torah teaching even though the says no. So they say look that's a very good example of where we made a major change and the answer is yes that is a very good example but here's the important piece. It was the that said it. There are shifts in the if you like the the the masul of Masora that we see where it shifts from one path to another path. We say let's rely on minority opinions. Let's make changes for different reasons. I believe that is possible but and we'll talk about this another time. The people that can make those calls are the senior postgame of the generation. people like the who take responsibility for the authenticity of their own generation, they can make those calls. And I I think that if one of the senior leaders of any significant Orthodox community in the world said, you know something, it's time for partnership. Let's let's let's bring it on. We need it. Okay, then that's a different conversation. But that has not happened. And even [clears throat] great, you know, minds like Rabbi Spurbas and others, they're not the leaders of the generation. In fact, in he in in one of his own essays, he starts his essay by saying, "I'm not a global postk. I'm not someone who makes policy for the Jewish people." But I think this is permitted. I think he's every right to say that. He's not one of those people and therefore you can't bring in the uh the time and say, "Well, it's all the same." It's not the same. Leaving aside the fact that we said in the first share that even Rabbi Spurber himself is sometimes left by the wayside with minanim that want to do their own thing without asking anybody anything. And therefore it's important to say that you need to be the right person says again you know you can't make the whole generation into a shadak generation but there are considerations I wanted to bring you this source in number eight this is a very important source am raioce raiosi says saki aba elza raiosi from one of the tanim famous tal he says I heard from father alza who's father alza abba was one of the ways that they referred to senior it's become a little bit Christian sounding to call people father you know father this and father that but that used to be us he says it once happened we had a we had a a calf of a schlam that a family it was like a family brought this to the to the mikdashim and they took it into the nashim to the women and the women did even the women are not obligated in says Not because women are obligated in but we needed to keep the women happy. We needed to get relaxed. There were fibles going on. The women, oh what's going on? This is our why aren't we doing? The men are doing and they allowed that. There's a one-off. Now when you look into the case, they didn't do real. They did a kind of mini whatever they did. But uh it is important that we do take this seriously. We don't just dismiss these things. And like I said at the first year when I quoted Rabbi Billet uh we don't dismiss the people who want this and say ah this is uh you know conservative or reform. God forbid these are orthodox people who want to take account of uh issues like this. We want we don't want to upset whole parts of the Jewish people especially the women. No no one wants to upset the women and therefore we do take that seriously. That doesn't mean you can do anything but it does mean you have to see what you can do very quickly. Yeah. >> What's that? >> In all this. >> What about this? >> Okay. So, I'm not I don't think said ever said anything about partnership in was a teacher. Women have been Torah teachers for for the last 150 years. She was a senior teacher. She never she never made out that she was a Rav or a POK or anything like that. She was a she was a woman with enormous kus that wanted to teach the Jewish people. She kind of invented the first open university without even really meaning it. The people were sending in were sending out questions. People were sending in answers and she was marking them etc etc. Now let's let's have a look at the other Talmudic presidents for what is the reason for because unless we know the reason we can't ask the question well does it still apply? Maybe it just doesn't apply today and therefore let's leave it aside. So let's have a look. So again, this is very just very interesting in and of itself. What are the cases? The first case is can a community read the Torah from a single scroll meaning back in the day they used to have migillas of braces like in your house you might have a braces a vayikra etc that you use for your own personal learning. So let's say the schul doesn't have a safer Torah. So they say it's okay so we're we're learning pashes by let's someone bring a and we'll learn it from there. It's a kosher mcgilla for schmos. Can they do that then? So look at number nine and both said we may not read from ash doesn't here mean a bookish here means a single scroll it's not covered for the why so the ram says because they look like an impoverished community it's neb they can't afford a safer a Torah, but they can afford a safer Torah, but they just don't have one. But they they looking as though they're a neb community. It's not covered siba for the community. Maybe even if they are poor, but okay. So they won't have laning, but they they won't just, you know, uh project themselves to the wider community as a as a neb community. The rushi uh brings an interesting source and the ravy gives a slightly different reason. Look at number 10. Very interesting. Okay, I don't know how to pronounce his name exactly. This fellow arachinus sanbar a place all where he burned their safer Torah. He was an anti-semite non-Jew. He came he burned the sh down. He burned the safer Torah. They didn't have anything. They sent to shilon and rebas can we read with now could be like a scroll of or it could be apostle say for Torah we have apostle safer Torah in the back that we can use can we use that because we have nothing else and it's not their fault and he said to them nosuras I can't say it's prohibited I can't say it's actually prohibited cuz you know What what can you do? It's good that you should have a sense of and that will bring you to buy to save up to have a fundraiser to buy a new safer Torah. Meaning he gives a very interesting answer. He says that I don't have a problem in theory with you doing it because it's not your fault, but you'll become lazy and you won't do it. And that's the reason you'll say, "Ah, it's fine. What do we need to spend $50,000 on a new safer Torah? We got a header to use this one. We'll just stick with this one. Look what the Rava says. The problem of cover is not that they're reading from apostle. Oh, but it's an insult. It's insulting for this. is inappropriate that they don't have a proper safer Torah and even though there's nothing they can do now we don't let them do it because they might get lazy and they might say it's okay so in that case is that we don't want to allow a community to to settle for a second best yeah we we don't need a full safeter we need apostle we can happy with apostle safer Torah now what what's going on with women's aliyah. So I you can't compare a woman's aliyah to a second best safer Torah. But men are and women are not. There's no question about that or there's very little question about that. We saw that last week. And therefore you're going to end up with a minion where the men say, you know something, let let the women let the women do it. The women might be better at it. The women might be keener to do it. Who wants to prepare the laning, right? You know, you if you're if you've ever been a gabby, you'll know getting guys to volunteer to do the laning is one of the hardest things. You open it up to the women. I bet you'll have lots of takers and I bet they'll be very keen and I bet they'll be great at it. >> Do it better than the men. >> I don't doubt it for I don't doubt it for a second. I don't doubt it for a second. And then you're going to have a situation where the men are going to say, "Who needs men anymore?" Like the women, they do a great job. They do a fantastic job. And the answer is, whoa, you've given the whole mitzvah over to a group of people who are wonderful people, but they're they're not they don't have a and then you've left it to them. That that was that covered. >> Why does it say in the first sentence that you read today? >> What do you mean >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. >> Correct. Correct. We talked about that. We're on the covered civil side now. We That might not work anymore at all because of all the Bur situation from last week. Well, still what we need to deal with is the is the covered civil situation. Let's do another case. Look, >> what's that? >> What exactly did they do in that case when said >> they didn't have they didn't have laning? They said, "Okay, so you can't have laning." >> Coet can actually. >> Yes. Yes. Correct. Correct. They said, "Betty, Betty, you should not have laning." And everybody says, "Well, well, we can't. What are we going to do? We don't have laning every week." And they all says, "Well, you'll have a fundraiser. You'll raise get a sofa Torah. You'll get it. You you'll sort it out." because not having laming will give them a sense of well we got to get this done get dealt with next case page number five a now this is very interesting what's a says number 11 a kid can read from the Torah okay um how does this work one second a cotton a child can read from the safet but a someone with torn clothes tattered clothes Maybe short trousers, shorts, short pants. They can do certain things in the shar. They can be the can they can do some of the dabing. They can do some of the cannot read from the Torah. Okay, why not? Because it's cover. It's a covert issue. Have a look. Number 12 says the Gmorilla. So um so okay a cotton can read from the Torah. A can't read from the Torah. So cotton poor. What about a cotton who's got short pants? Let's call it short pants. Maybe maybe that's okay. Why would that be okay? Because it it's still the case. A kid wearing short trousers, short pants is different from a grown-up wearing short pants. Yeah, may maybe that's okay. Amale he said with Orum, okay, maybe it's a problem. Um because what about what about a naked person? Can a person with no clothes on read from the Torah? No, of course not. My time alone, why can't a naked person read from the Torah? because of here also meaning it's not the fact that he's a kid and kids get away with that it's okay it's not so bad for a kid to have short pants it's not the same as a grown-up it just the very fact that we have someone with short trousers there we're not going to allow that now it's interesting Rashi suggests um maybe it's an issue of error and we're going to get to that in a minute and the the elephant in the room of course is Kalisha. Why have we not even mentioned Kalisha? We're going to we're going to talk about that in a minute. Okay. Maybe the suggestion was if a man stands up and and has very little clothing on there's a problem of error. But if a a kid does maybe it's not and Rashi says no that's not the end the answer in the end. The answer is anyone. It's nothing to do specifically with erva but error could have been an issue as well. But even without the error there's a problem of covert ca. You can't have someone with short trousers dabing from the armor. That's another example. um keeping the community waiting. We've all been there, right? Someone gets out the wrong safer Torah and it's we're reading para's bow and the safer Torah is invarim. So we all sit there while they you know roll the safer Torah says the Gmorra. Another thing they had then is they had sometimes they didn't have an Aaron Kesh and they'd set up the Aaron Kesish and hang the curtain on and take the curtain off every time they did the laning. So they bring the Torah from someone else and the Gaba would set up the the the uh the kesh. No, you can't do that in the to wait there in they do it before. set up the the shore before, take it all down afterwards, but don't do it while everybody's sitting there and waiting. And similarly, they can't roll the Torah. Number 14, but we don't roll a safer Torah in in public. Again, we get out a second safer to a third safer Torah. So again, let's put this into our situation. How does this relate? What is the reason for cover here? People are going to get angry. People are going to get annoyed. It's inconvenient. It's inconvenient. We don't want to delay. Does how how does this relate to us? It doesn't seem to have exactly a direct parallel with us. So in fact, when they come to the issue of women and covert cib, there are three reasons given. Three specific reasons given why there might be an issue of covert sib for a woman's aliyah. Let's look at these reasons now. The first one is because it's a disgrace on the men that the men aren't able to do it. Okay. Number 15. This is benching. A kid can bench for his father. And can bench for his master and a woman can bench for her husband. Here we are again. The rabbi said a curse comes on a man whose wife and son have to bench for him. Meaning this is assuming by the way that women have the same obligation in which is not totally straightforward but the rit says he explains what's going on here. Number 16 according to the view the women have an obligation then it's a straightforward uh teaching but we're talking about an adult child and he ate enough to bench for his father and then the women the children are bore the problem is the guy is a is an ignoramus then he can listen to his wife bench in theory because don't we asking if one of them is an ignoramus and one of them is able to do it okay and the bor listens and that's why the rabbi said this husband is a terrible disgrace he didn't learn and he's an ignoram meaning she begs for him what's wrong with him? Why can't why can't he do it? Now, what happens if he's not an ignorantness? If he can bench, but he just says, you know something, I'd like my wife to bench. Does this whole reason go away? Maybe it goes the whole thing goes away. And I brought you the gaiman here in number 17 who says, we haven't got time to read it in uh you know uh inside. He says, but you see from this the problem is when the guy is ignorant. He should have learned he should have gone to school. But if the guy can bench and his wife he just prefers to give it to his wife to bench maybe that's not a problem. So again you can see what's the problem of a woman's aliyah that the men aren't able to do it. Okay. So that would be the men aren't able to do it. We see this with migill number 18. You see with women that they're obligated in mill then in theory they can be the men. Here we see it's not this is part of that curse. Again, even if the men can do it, but certainly if the men can't do it, there's a problem here. Uh and this is linked many of the they link it to the issue of the Torah reading. And this is the reason why uh we have this cover issue for women's Torah reading according to many post Ravilency to women. He said people shouldn't say that the no one that the men don't know what they're doing. Maybe even if the men do know what they're doing, but they ask the women, people will say, well, you know why? Do you know why they have a women's alias in the sh? The men may count that they're feminists, but it's really just because they're ignorant. The men don't know anything and the women are clever. Okay, that's the cover that that's the Rabbi Henin Rabbi Henin says this very clearly when Rab Henin deals with the issue of he says the issue is look at number 20 what is the issue of with women reading it's not just that the men look foolish because they can't It's the men will want to live it. Leave it to the women. You see what I just said and they'll just become lazy. He knows men and he knows women. He says that's the point. When once you allow the women to do it, the men will just pull out. They go to the kdish club. They'll set up the kdish. The men will have it like the women will be laning and the men will be setting up the kdish. >> Okay. Kdish on shabas is different. It's private. It's in her it's home. She has the same etc. So that's one view. >> A second view, right? A second view is which Rafin definitely disagrees with. It's nothing to do with the mah. It's nothing to do with it looks terrible. The men are giving it to the women. They're not interested. They're lazy or they're ignorant. It's sne. Now once you start talking about everybody starts twitching first of all okay but let's let's just look what he says says number 21 if you're going to call anyone up it's better to call up an than to call up an isa why the woman has a bigger problem okay certainly if you don't need her why is there a woman in the Ezra Israel. We'll see where that comes from soon, but that doesn't apply to an Evan. He's a man. What's going on with the Ezus Israel? In the Bikes, they had an Ezra nshim which was mixed men and women. Wasn't just women on sukus. They built a balcony where they just had the women. But the rest of the year, anyone could be in the Ezra nshim. Then they had an es which was men only and women if they needed to be there for specific corban reasons. A woman had to do a snoffer. She had to do a wave the offering. Uh and Zer had to come in. Someone had to come in. A soda had to come in. But normally speaking, if you had a woman in the Israel, the Gomorrah says is why is there a woman here? Meaning there's a woman on the men's side of the appropriate and there's a problem of and that's how understood it. Look at number 22 says he says it explicitly. It's a problem of sne and you have a you have a woman standing in the middle and all the men looking at her. And by the way, I even brought you uh one of the joer um uh who was it that I brought you here? Um >> I can't remember exactly. I put it down on one of them. um who was he was saying that it makes sense that the issue if there is an issue would be a sneous issue because at the end of the day you have all these men sit standing and looking at the women and thinking about the women and it can end up in a negative place looking I brought you Rabbi Mosha Miselman number 23 covert sib reflects a sexual reality not a legal difference between men and women again focused on the sneaka Rasha says number 24 of hersela she must speak It's bad enough that men have to compromise their meaning for a man to be sent to stage either which is important actually in a very very nice source. I should have put that in my book actually. He says that are we going to ask women to do that as well? We're going to ask a woman to take center stage as well. It is even worse if there's no men who can read. We're going to now ask a woman that she's going to read. This is not correct. We're pressuring women. Interesting how he says it. We're pressuring women to to compromise their because we're not able to do it. Okay. in he he puts the two reasons together. The men are ignorant and even worse they're pressuring the women to compromise their problem once you race. It's very subjective. It's very subjective. You say a woman woman's going to be a chief executive of a company. What about the answer is well yes women are chief executives of many companies and prime ministers uh and leading public figures in many other areas. So maybe you'll turn around and say well it sneers is the problem sne has changed maybe the issue that the men will be lazy that hasn't changed but the sne could you could argue has changed and therefore many people have rejected this outright both classic and modern I brought you here number 26 he says perish the problem is the men look ignorant it's nothing to do with preachers Prius is the opposite of sne because if he was prus the garra would have said we don't call a woman to read because of pritzut the garamar is not scared to say that and he doesn't say that and therefore many people rahenin also very strongly resists that you can't just pull out the sneer card every time you don't want a woman to do something oh it's not sua okay there are situations of sneers which are very important but many mfort have rejected that and then there's the k isha you know the elephants in the room or maybe the primadana in the room you know the woman singing in the room the kbo in number 27 says the reason that women don't lane migill for men even though they have the same which takes away the issue of like for the for the for laning when the men have a different to the women but with migill they have the same he says because it's kisha you can't have a woman standing up and singing in the middle of the shul and he says at the end it's very interesting Why not? So he says if you look in the underlying part of 27 don't women light candles and presumably they sing the braha you know people actually it's funny even today people like to sing the on their more than they sing other interesting why is that okay that's not the same because you don't have to have the men and the women together you can put the women the men somewhere else when the women are lighting kaneka candles. Okay, Ashkanazi women lighting kanaka candles. He has a problem with mixing. Has a problem with the men and the women being together. This is an error of the issue and it's not just an issue of singing alone. It's an issue of mixing of crossing lines. Look at number 28. Very interesting source. We've seen this before but a long time ago. So Ravnakman Rav was the on the bin. He was the dian and Rav Yehuda was called up to the to the bastin to have a case in front of him. to look at this source was called to appear in the basin before and they were friends. They were friends but is the dying. So at the end of the case when they'd sorted out the caseman says to Rauda shall I give your you know good wishes to my wife and uh he says no you shouldn't said to him did say Isha call is why is it called isha there's no women speaking never mind singing it's just Rav saying, "I'm going to give your wishes to my wife." So, Rafman doesn't understand what's going on. He goes, "You know what? Do you mean you you don't want men and women connecting maybe through a says no? You never ask how a woman's doing." So, like in disbelief, what's going on? He says, "Even through a husband." Meaning, it's clear what's going on here. Ravuda feels that K is not just about women singing. It's about inappropriate mixing in his view. And Rafman is saying, "What? I'm her husband. I'm going to give her your you your regards to her. What's the problem?" Says to him, "No, you can't do that." You never give regards to woman ever. At this point, the wife intervenes. Okay. Yala is listening to all of this. Shalisu, his wife sends him a message. Shaggy, just let him go home. She says the law in the sha kashar amarat is making you look like an idiot. Time for time for him to go home. Which is very interesting about yala. If you want to read an interesting book on Yaltta and other women in the Gomorrah, you should read Gila Fine's book, The Mad Woman in the Rabbi's Attic, uh which is a fascinating analysis of eight Talmudic uh women, one of whom is Yala, who often has a lot to say about things. But you see, K is not just a problem of women singing. It's a mixing issue. Look at number 29. says you can't have an unmarried man teaching in a seminary for women. He might think inappropriately about the women or she might think inappropriately about the teacher. That happens as well and it will be why it beha inappropriate mixing. He's saying no one's singing in the classroom. Okay. Father and husband can teach wife daughter no problem. So there are some that want to say that the problem of covert is either because the woman's singing or even if she's saying the laning you might I mean I've heard some people singing laning I wouldn't even call that singing on any level. Okay it's not even tuneful. So you could tell well it's not kisha. No maybe it's a problem because it's inappropriate mixing. They've crossed the mita etc etc. There are others that reject this. Rahin says, "No, no, no, no, no. McGill is different. McGillilla is an issue of Kalisha because there has to be a beautiful tune for the McGiller and everyone's listening to her sing. And with McGill, he says that's the original origins of this. Everybody's a bit tipsy. Everybody's in a funny mood. Everybody's dancing and singing. McGill is the problem." He says, "This is not going to be a problem for women with creator. I need to just finish because otherwise we're not going to get finished." Okay. So, what's the reason for cover? either because the men are lazy or because there's a sneez issue or because there's a problem of kisha either with the singing or just with the mixing. Is it different today? So I brought you a few interesting um thoughts on this. So it may be different today but in a negative way. We have a balora today which makes it even harder. The balora doesn't make it easier for the women to have a leas. It makes it more difficult for the reasons that we said last week. So you can't bring the balora as a reason why it's different today. What about social realities? So normally speaking we don't change mitzvah dabon because we think the reasons have gone away or because the social situation has changed. Occasionally we do whether it's absolutely clear what the reason was and it's absolutely clear that the reason no longer applies. One good example is the snakes and the and the liquids. Says the garamari. You're not allowed to leave liquids open because a snake might during the day a snake might come in when you're half for half an hour, drink from the liquid and leave its venom and it'll be poisonous and you might die from drinking it. Says the we don't worry about this today. We just don't have the snakes. It just doesn't apply to us. As far as the concerned, it's a very clear mitzvah. Ra says doesn't apply today. But that's few and far between. There aren't that many cases where we say the reason is so clear and the situation is so different that it's gone away. And I think the making that argument for cover for laning is very tricky. First of all, it's not clear that the reason has gone away. It's not clear that everything is so different today that we'll change the sne that we'll change the kisha that will change the fact that men are lazy and will let the women do it. It's not so clear that things have changed completely and therefore it's a stretch. It's a bit of a fetch to say that oh obviously the reasons are going to change because uh especially if this is a clear we don't just set aside clear because we think that the reasons have changed and I brought you here actually I'll read it out in the footnote here from Rabbi Wida he says even though um rabbitic enactments may reflect or have been impelled by concerns no longer in evidence those enactments remain hakally binding absent communal custom to the contrary evidence that's held case law that the probation applied only when the uh animating concerns of the enactment were present or if the formulation of the prohibition itself implies limitations. None of these conditions is present in the case of the enactment against aliot for women. Irrespective of how we might interpret the concern of kadib or how we might assess his contemporary relevance according to traditional principles of hakic decision-m the rabbitic decision against calling women to the Torah remains in force. Okay. So you can't just say that the situation has changed. We have to change. It's a little bit more complicated than that. What about another suggestion? Well, maybe we can do this in in in the house. We saw already raakob emden said maybe if you're having a private minion, maybe you can do things which are not the same as you would do in shul difficult because if you look on the top of page nine, we're on the last page. He says number 30 le says the whenever you have 10 men together it's called it for all things. Now he's talking about McGill and Esther and maybe this 10 is not necessarily 10 men. This could be 10 women because you don't need a minion for me Esther. But uh the Torah seems to say no. Although others said maybe and there were situations and I brought you a lesserk known pic number 31. They said it could be that if he was a private minion with just family then you could give a one a Leah because there's no problem with Sneas. She's just with her family etc. his name Cibur and actually Ra Abasha Rabenion Abash Shaaul suggested this and said that there could be maybe a family chevra as minion on shabas maybe you could give one of the women an aliyah which is very interesting rase said no way no way that's not happening you can't do that but I did bring you ra ab shahul there who maybe you would not have expected that would have said that however However, none of this helps me with a partnership minion because this is not a private minion in someone's home anymore. It's a minion in a shaw. It's a public minion all invited and therefore these things uh don't necessarily apply. And the last point I put there, can the congregation wave its own covert? Um it not so straightforward. It may not be its to wave. Some people can wave their cover. For example, a parent is encouraged to wave their cover and say no, it's okay. A Rav is allowed to but discouraged from waving his cover. Uh a king is not allowed to wave his cover. Where does a sib come? There's lots of different uh lots of different cases. But in those cases we said before of a the pa but let's say the the the community says I don't care if the guy davening or laning is wearing tattered clothes or I don't care if you appoint a 13year-old to Daven. He's got a lovely voice. It's not so clear that you can do that. You have to have a a grown man sav you know who can understand the importance of the yam and if you look in the it's not clear that they can be can wave that kabad for those other issues. So to here so look we've had a very complicated three-part series what I didn't do on your sheet but I did do subsequently and I will put online is a page of conclusions okay drawing it all together but let me just leave you with what we haven't covered. We have not covered the issue of kov abrius and we have not covered the very important hashkafik issues as to even if you can should you and who can decide and we have to look at those but not for now uh I'm going to take a break for 3 weeks well it's not going to be a break I'm going to be driving around America and Canada uh but you're going to get a break from me uh and uh and you're going to have some wonderful uh shirim and I'll be back please God a month from