Talk:Minyan/Archive 1

Recent "NPOV" edits
Jayjg reverted a number of my edits, for reasons I don't entirely understand. Rather than get into a revert war, I am posting the edits here for discussion. Dreyfus 02:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph ends in a comma.
 * Good point. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I changed "synagogues" to "communities", since many circumstances requiring a minyan take place outside of synagogues, e.g. saying "eloheinu" in birkat hamazon, saying kaddish at a cemetery.
 * Is a group of people at a gravesite or saying birkat hamazon a "community"? Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, but they probably adhere to some sort of community norm about how to count a minyan. Dreyfus 03:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably? Synagogues are where formal policy is executed. Anyway, what do you think of the current version, I've added "prayer gatherings". Jayjg 03:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and thanks for clarifying the other points. Dreyfus 21:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-Orthodox minyanim include women and men, not only women.
 * As is obvious from the context. The paragraphs discusses the traditional definition of a minyan, which was men only.  It then notes that non-Orthodox minyans include women as well.  Saying men and women is redundant, all minyanim include men. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, to split a few hairs here, there is a traditional minority opinion that women may form a separate minyan for Zimmun &#8212; which would by definition not include any men... :-) -- Olve 00:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is for counting three women to the zimmun, but under that opinion, ten or more women wouldn't say "eloheinu". I don't think there is any opinion under which 10 women (exclusively women) count toward anything. Dreyfus 01:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What about 10 women counting toward a minyan for purposes of e.g. (1) Megillat Ester; (2) Birchat Hagomel; (3) Public Martyrdom --Shirahadasha 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article says that minyan relates to (D'varim SheB'Kedusha "Holy utterances") in that sense women are definitely not included. In terms of minyan of wittiness being a public not a private event, I think I remember that there might be those that include women.  If can quote sources (preferably reshomin) include it. But you should make clear that they are two (at least) meanings to minyan (ie (1) Megillat Ester; (2) Birchat Hagomel; (3) Public Martyrdom are not D'varim SheB'Kedusha) Jon513 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the main context in which the concept of minyan is applies, but it is not the only one, and the article also mentions other contexts in which the concept of minyan is used and to which the concept relates. Surely you're not suggesting removing mention of these other contexts. As Frimmer's article points out, the term 'minyan' is used in a number of contexts, in some of which women are counted, in others not. --Shirahadasha 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that if you can source these claims well (reshomin and achromin and responsa) then include it in a way that that shows how there are two concepts of minyan in the orthodox judasim. Jon513 16:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that we have a dispute. I'm not claiming that these other contexts (Birkhat HaGomel and so forth) are D'varim SheBa'Kedusha; I'm only saying that the concept of minyan nonetheless applies to them; D'varim ShBe'Kedusha isn't the only context to which 'minyan' refers. Do you disagree with this? And isn't the Frimmer article with its list of contexts and discussion of sources for each context an acceptable source? --Shirahadasha 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For Rishonim permitting ten women to say Zimmun beShem, see hamMeiri (Berachot 47a), Sefer hammeorot (Berachot 45b), Shilté haggibborim (Berachot 7:2, citing haRosh)... :) -- Olve 05:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * [Under "Changes in non-Orthodox forms of Judaism"] "Since that the time practice..." doesn't appear to be a grammatical sentence.
 * Good point. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "(though Orthodox Jews do not accept their validity)" -- isn't this obvious? Is this not sufficiently clear from the section heading that says "non-Orthodox forms of Judaism"?  Is it also necessary to say "though Muslims do not accept their validity"?  Maybe prefacing "Rabbinical Assembly" with "the Conservative movement's" would be enough to get the point across.
 * It may be obvious to you, but I doubt it is obvious to the casual reader. The paragraph outlines non-halakhic responses, then halakhic responses, noting that the Orthodox do not view these as truly halakhic. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "do not see themselves as bound by halakha" and "thus they disregard the traditional prohibition of counting women as part of a minyan" -- this phrasing isn't appropriate if the article is written from a neutral POV (rather than an Orthodox POV). The Orthodox position on the issue is already laid out very clearly in the section "Laws", citing the Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Berurah, etc.  It is clear that the liberal positions are incompatible with that position, and it is only fair to also show the liberal perspectives in their own language.  It would be equally inappropriate to write "Orthodox rabbis do not see themselves as bound by egalitarianism, thus they disregard the Reform prohibition of excluding women from a minyan."  The primary reason that Orthodox minyanim include only men is because the halakhic sources require this, and the primary reason that Reform minyanim include men and women is because gender equality requires this; the fact that both are at the same time rejecting other positions should go without saying.
 * The Reform position of not seeing themselves bound by halakha came long before the current position on egalitarianism; it would be disingenuous to conflate the two. The Reform position is as a result of both those imperatives, and the current wording presents the Reform position in their own language.  The counter-example (Orthodox rabbis do not see themselves as bound by egalitarianism, thus they disregard the Reform prohibition of excluding women from a minyan) is not reasonable, since Orthodoxy never was "bound by egalitarianism", whereas the primary split from tradition by Reform was its insistence that it was not bound by halakha. It is a curiousity that the Reform movement feels minyanim are required at all, I wonder if all Reform temples hold to this requirement. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also "most Conservative Jewish synagogues" -- here's one source:  "According to movement officials, however, only about 10% of Conservative congregations still maintain a complete ban on women leading services or receiving Torah honors, while another 20% still uphold some restrictions. The proportion of egalitarian to non-egalitarian congregations has flipped during the past two decades, with two-thirds now providing equal ritual opportunities to both men and women." Dreyfus 02:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good find. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hauptman's analysis
I have not yet included any of the following points in this article. However, it should be noted that Professor Hauptman's work is considered authoritative by many non-Orthodox Jews, and is widely ciruclated and read by modern Orthodox Jewish women. Her halakhic analysis of classical rabbinic texts has been used in several Orthodox gatherings. While I assume that most Orthodox Jews would disagree with parts of her analysis, her point of view is now considered pretty mainstream outside of Orthodoxy. (That is not to say that she is the only mainstream non-Orthodox point of view.)

The Mishna and Talmud nowhere exclude women from participating in the modern day form of minyan. In fact, "in all four cases where the Talmud or its commentators allude to gender and minyan, opportunities for minyan participation are extended to women" [Hauptman]. In Judaism Fall 1993 v42(4) Judith Hauptman, professor of Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:


 * R. Joshua b. Levi (BT Megillah 4a) obligates women to read or hear a reading of the megillah, just like men, it follows, according to some authorities, that women may count in the minyan for reading the megillah, and even read it for men.
 * The Mishnah (Megillah 4:3, Megillah 23b) states that no fewer than ten must gather to read the Torah in public. A tannaitic source [cited on that page]...says that women may be called to read from the Torah in public, and that, in fact, everyone, even a child, is qualified to read. Can there by any doubt, in these circumstances, that women count in the required minyan?
 * According to some authorities, women's obligation to recite Grace is Biblical, and a woman can therefore recite Grace for a man. It would also seem to follow that she could then count in the quorum of three for zimmun and the quorum of ten for zimmun in God's name. In fact, R. Judah Hacohen (Mainz, c. 1050) and other authorities rule that a woman may count in a men's zimmun.
 * If a Jew is asked to violate a commandment of Torah in a public setting, or else die, he must choose death. A public setting is defined as the presence of a minyan of ten Jews (asarah b'nei adam). According to some recent authorities, women are counted in the minyan for kiddush hashem because they, like men, are obligated by this mizvah. Again, the principle at work here is that people who are similarly obligated join together to form a minyan.
 * ...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan is obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer.
 * If a Jew is asked to violate a commandment of Torah in a public setting, or else die, he must choose death. A public setting is defined as the presence of a minyan of ten Jews (asarah b'nei adam). According to some recent authorities, women are counted in the minyan for kiddush hashem because they, like men, are obligated by this mizvah. Again, the principle at work here is that people who are similarly obligated join together to form a minyan.
 * ...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan is obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer.
 * ...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan is obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer.
 * ...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan is obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer.

Hauptman's analysis is superficial, and fails to recognize that there are different kinds of minyanim, and that women definitely count in some, may count in others, and definitely do not count in others. I think a full explanation of them is beyond the scope of this article, but I recommend this work to you for a better understanding:. It's by Aryeh Frimer, and written as a pre-cursor to the article you've referred to many times regarding women's prayer groups. Jayjg 19:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, again you are attacking statements that no one has made. Contrary to your claims, Professor Hauptman never said that all minyanim are the same; she in fact says the exact opposite. You have a tendency to do this, and you need to take the time to read the text more carefully. RK


 * I read the article you link to. The article does not state that the Mishna rules that ten men are needed to constiute a minyan. Rather, it only talks about ten people, without limiting them to being men. That is precisely the point. No code of Jewish law before the 16th century has this limitation. Now, I understand that this may be uncomfortable to some people, but we cannot rewrite history. RK 15:00, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the Rishonim (early medieval rabbis) do not allow ten women to constitute a woman's minyan. However, as Professor Hauptman has proven (and no one has ever shown otherwise) there is no explicit source among rishonim that limits a minyan to an all-male group. This does allow for women to be part of a minyan that also includes men. I understand that Orthodox rabbis today usually assume that such total prohibitions exist, but the problem for them is that they simply do not. The only tosafot on this topic does not ban women counting in a minyan at all; rather, it only bans an all-women minyan. The Tosafot on this issue does not address the issue of a mixed men and women prayer quorum. Now, I would agree with you that according to Orthodox understandings of halakha, women are prohibited from counting in a minyan, and I never claimed otherwise. I am merely pointing out that what Orthodoxy bases itself on did not actually exists as a formal law until relatively recently. You need to stop deleting the historical context of this subject. All Wikipedia articles on all facets of religion have such historical discussions; you cannot deem this "irrelevant" and delete it. RK 15:21, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Understanding the Mishnaic idiom is critical to understanding why and how it uses language. I again recomment Frimer's article for an understanding of the different types of minyanim, and their various restrictions (some types of minyan allowing women to be counted, some not).  Historical context is good, but it must be accuate as well.  Please bring major changes to the Talk: page for discussion first before entering them, particularly on this topic. Jayjg 16:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, again, you are rebutting a charge that Professor hauptman is not making. Stop these straw-man attacks. RK


 * Also, stop repeatedly reverting this article to remove historical discussions about how these laws evolved. RK 17:12, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't rebutted any charges of Hauptman. Historical discussions are only worthwhile if they are factually accurate. Jayjg 17:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I won't get into this pointless debate, Jay. I have no intention of debating about whether Professor Hauptman is right or wrong. You can believe whatever you like. When you get your Ph.D. in rabbinics and Talmud, and also semicha (rabbinic ordination), you can rebut her on equal ground all you like. RK 02:21, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not debating whether or not Hauptman is right or wrong (as my previous comment made clear), your comments are incomprehensible. Jayjg 04:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You are simply lying. You debated her above, and then a few minutes later, you debated her points below! Stop playing games. RK


 * Please review the time stamps on the edits, and note in which thread the discussion occur. Each thread is a separate discussion.  In this thread I made the comments above first; then, in response to your insistence on discussing Hauptman's arguments, I relented and discussed them below in a different thread.  Jayjg 15:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I do not follow you. Professor Hauptman writes that there are different kinds of minyanim, and that women definitely count in some, may count in others, and may not in others. You rebut her by claiming "Hauptman's analysis is superficial, and fails to recognize that there are different kinds of minyanim, and that women definitely count in some, may count in others" Huh? You thus totally agree with her claim on this point, and yet simultaneously argue that she is factually inaccurate. How can you say such a thing? This makes no sense to me. RK

JFW, how do you see his? Do you see Hauptman's above quote as denying that different kinds of minyanim exist? Perhaps Jay is disagreeing with her conclusion that women may count in a minyan, but that is a separate issue, and one that Jay did not mention. Issue (A) is whether or not there is one kind of minyan, each with its own qualifications. Issue (B) is whether or not women may count in one or more of these minyanim, which is a separate issue. Issue (C) would be, based on these mishnayot, can we pasken that women may count in the minyan in which the main prayer services are being held (saying the Shemoneh Esrah, etc.) RK

I have only been talking about issue (A), which Jay agrees with, and yet which he simultaneously is disagreeing with. I don't follow this at all. Please note that I have said nothing in the article about Hauptman's analysis; I understand that this is not accepted by any Orthodox authorities, and that there are some Conservative authorities (e.g. Joel Roth) who disagree. If this view is mentioned in the article, it would only be presented as a Conservative viewpoint. RK 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Since you insist on discussing Hauptman's arguments, the problem with them is that they do not recognize the fact that there are different types of minyanim, and that under halakha women are counted in some, and not counted in others. Rather, Hauptman assumes that all minyanim are the same, and that because women can be counted in some, they can therefore be counted in all.  If you believe that Hauptman distinguishes between different types of minyanim, please present her taxonomy. Jayjg 04:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Stop lying. I said the exact opposite, that I will not discuss or debate Hauptman's point of view with you. Further, stop lying about Professor Hauptman's paper; she says the exact opposite of what you claim. Your repeated lies about me and her only further diminish your credibility. RK


 * I can only repeat, "if you believe that Hauptman distinguishes between different types of minyanim, please present her taxonomy." Jayjg 15:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of "belief". She states this explicitly, and some of her explicit quotes on this subject are on this very page. You are simply making false claims about her explicit statements. I cannot imagne why other than some sort of personal anger towards her. In any case, the issue of whether her conclusion is correct is a totally separate issue, and I will not use the Talk page to debate the issue. Debate her elsewhere. RK 16:02, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * We are currently discussing whether (as you insist is the case) Hauptman stated that there were different kinds of minyanum, in which women had different statuses, not whether her conclusions were correct. Hauptman states Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer.  Exactly where does she state that a minyan to read the megillah, or die for kiddush hashem, or a minyan for prayer, are different kinds of minyanim, with different status for women?  In fact, she says the opposite, that these are all the same, and therefore women can be counted in all of them.  If she anywhere says that a minyan for megillah is halachically different than a minyan for prayer, please quote it, rather than continually accusing me of lying or making false claims, or using ad hominem arguments to attribute emotion on my part towards her. Jayjg 16:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In any event, this has nothing to do with the dispute we are having on the article page itself. Regarding that, as I have stated a number of times before, please bring the text you wish to insert to this Talk: page so that we can discuss it here first, rather than in one liners in the Edit Summary box. Jayjg 04:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not read Prof. Hauptman's work, so I cannot contribute to the discussion about what she is actually saying in general. However, it is a fact that there is a mahloqet, including within Orthodoxy, whether minyanim are all the same or of different categories in halakha &#8212; and there are important authorities holding the view that all minyanim come under the same category as well as important halakhic authorities that hold the view that minyanim differ in nature regarding degree of obligation, their degree of public nature, their modesty considerations, etc. Other Orthodox authorities hold the view that minyanim are all the same in this respect and that women should not be counted in any minyan. All that being said, I will provide my analysis of the quote that Jayjg provides from her work. This quote seems to suggest that she 1) views the different types of minyanim as different, and 2) views the diverse arguments as backing up her conclusion that women should be included in all these categories. That is not substantially different in terms of logic from other opinions which hold that there are different types of minyanim, and that for differing reasons, women should not count in any of them. I agree with Jayjg that ad hominem arguments are bad. Please excuse me for observing that the escalation seems not to be entirely one-sided... :] -- Olve 01:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a four month old debate, and RK has since been banned from Wikipedia. Any escalation has long since subsided. Jayjg 05:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox/Conservative
I'm not sure why the addition about where Orthodox and Conservative minyanim can coexist is relevant. I know of at least one place where Orthodox minyanim meet in Conservative synagogues - not in commmunity centers. chaitov 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The previous wording gave the impression that it was common, whereas in reality it is quite uncommon, as the movements generally do not co-operate to that extent. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. chaitov 05:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati

 * Someone added a huge section, consisting mainly of original research, about a halakhic technicality used by some modern orthodox groups to allow women to participate in a minyan. The number of groups worldwide must be <50, making this a completely fringe phenomenon that serves only to show how easily people are willing to bend halakhah for political purposes.
 * If this needs to be covered at all, a short section of 2-3 lines should do. The removed material is in the history. JFW | T@lk  00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps its own article, but not here. It is not a minyan, per se, it is a minyan-like gathering. Its own article with a link here under "See also" seems most appropriate. Avi 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "…serves only to show how easily people are willing to bend halakhah for political purposes."

To be as NPOV as possible, devil's advocate would claim they are not bending halakha, but coming to their own agreement within its structure. My personal opinion is that this has some semblance of Naval B'rshus HaTorah Avi 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Its own article? It would become a POV fork. Actually, reinterpreting the Gemara by totally ignoring the poskim is something more than what you are suggesting. JFW | T@lk  00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * JFW, as much as I agree with the impropriety and distortion of halakha that this phenomenon creates; this is wikipedia, not MTJ, and this is not a forum for halakhic disputes. The phenomenon exists, as do other phenomena that people find distasteful. I agree that at this point it may be fringe; Google only finds one website, Tehila.org, last I checked. But the fact that this may be a perversion of halakha does not invalidate it from having an entry, per se, IMO. Avi 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However, I still believe that it does not belong on this page, but on its own page. Avi 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The NPOV of WP does not mean that every last conceivable point must be raised, only that of the majority and significant minority. See relevant policy page  NPOV#Undue weight, where Jimbo Wales is quoted as stating: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ...". Remember this is just a general encyclopedia (allbeit very good with breadth & depth). David Ruben Talk 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, it should not be included.Avi 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Pinchas & Chabad links
It's been pretty evident for some time now that User:PinchasC views Wikipedia as just another huge cyber-billboard to plaster as many links to Chabad-related sites no matter where and when, just the more the merrier (from his perspective). He has been called upon to stop this a number of times, but persists in justifying himself. Note to Pinchas: Maybe you may have noticed that other editors are getting just a little too tired of this habit of yours and they're not enjoying seeing all those Chabad links get peppered onto pages, so please slooooooow dooooooown sooooooon. Thanks. IZAK 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You will notice that other Jewish sites like aish which are about the same size as chabad.org have links on all Judaism related pages, and for a good reason, they (chabad and aish) are the two largest sites on the internet that have Jewish content. and following WP:EL under "What should be linked to" it says "4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. 5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.", for this reason they are there, I am not the only editor that has added the chabad links, and there were plenty of them around before I started editing here. About your comment that I view wikipedia "as just another huge cyber-billboard" is outrageous as it is pretty evident from the more than 4,000 edits and numerous projects I am involved in on wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pinchas: There is more to Jewish life, in reality as well as in cyberspace, than Chabad and Aish. They are both "attention-seeking" organizations that like to "toot their horns" for PR ends. That they have used millions of donated dollars to create wonderful websites is good and well, but they should not be allowed to have their links give the impression on Wikipedia that they are in any way shape size or form the "spokes-persons" for (Orthodox} Judaism in cybespace -- because they are not, and enough Jewish editors on Wikipedia know that, and therefore do not appreciate seeing multiple links to either Chabad or Aish sites on every Wikipedia article relating to Judaism. There are lots of other good choices available and we all know it. Kindly do not create noisy and verbose "smoke-screens" to detract from the complaints against you as stated above by a number of well-intentioned editors who mean you nor Chabad no harm, but wish that the Chabad-posters kindly tone down their "in your face" approach of link-encroachment which starts to take on the appearance of a "missionary" creeping annexation, to which the response will be "delete on sight". So let's avoid that kind of situation by everyone, please. IZAK 08:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What there is no List of Chabad.org links, Feh! ems 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)