RJR writes:
<<As I understood the story the rabbi told her to do this as a first step
I would assume she understood it as part of a mitzvah process>>
I assume she probably did. But while we can have an interesting discussion
about whether the rabbi, whose halachic knowledge dwarfed hers, was engaging
in a form of geneivas da'as, and when this kind of geneivas da'as might be
acceptable, and with what motivation (I think a discussion of Chagiga 16b
would be the place to start, if we are discussing women, and perhaps Shabbat
31a - the person who came to Hillel seeking conversion on condition that he
will become the kohen gadol, might be another), I am not sure that the woman
with talis without tzitzis sheds much light on the zoom minyan question.
That said, Chagiga 16b itself might provide some useful pointers to the zoom
minyan question, if one can extrapolate from nachas ruach d'nashim, to
nachas ruach of people more generally.
The gemora in Chagiga 16b states:
"Rabbi Yosi said Abba Elazar told me that "once we had a calf of an
offering, and we brought it to the women's courtyard and the women leant on
it", not because leaning is obligatory for women but in order to give
"nachas ruach" [a good feeling] to the women. And if you would think that
one requires leaning with all one's strength because of nachas ruach for
women would we [allow them to do] work with offerings? Rather, derive from
this that we do not need [leaning] with all one's strength - No, I can say
to that we do need [leaning] with all one's strength [for men], but they
said to them [the women] float your hands [i.e. they told the women not to
lean with all their strength, even though that is what the men were doing]
- if so, it was not because of [real] leaning by the women [that they took
the calf to the courtyard]. [Rather] let him [Rabbi Abba Elazar], explain
that they [the women] did not lean at all. Rav Ami said, one and another
thing, one that they did not lean [properly] at all [merely floated their
hands] and further, it was done to give nachasruach [a good feeling] to the
women."
Now the understanding of Tosfos (see Chullin 85a) is:
- leaning with all one's strength is forbidden d'orisa (but the chiyuv of
leaning on korbanos required for men pushes aside that prohibition, aseh
doche lo ta'aseh). For women therefore full leaning is prohibited.
- merely floating one's hands is forbidden rabbinically (as it looks like
one is working with korbanos, even though one isn't). For the sake of
nachas ruach d'nashim a rabbinic prohibition can be pushed aside.
Hence women can do something that (i) is not even an actual mitzvah
(floating of hands is not the leaning that is required for the mitzvah);
(ii) violates a rabbinic prohibition - in order to give them nachas ruach.
If one wanted to extend this to people feeling upset because they could not
say kaddish for their parents, one might say that because of the nachas
ruach that this gives them, we can push aside a rabbinic prohibition (not
saying kaddish except when there are ten), even though saying kaddish in a
zoom minyan does not really, Halachically, fulfil any actual mitzvah. Noting
that if you hold that seeing is enough to constitute a minyan, then maybe
you could hold that seeing over zoom counts too (even though most poskim
have rejected electronic seeing or hearing as being Halachically
meaningful), and that by combining these two factors, you might say that in
a sh'as hadchak situation, such kaddish is permitted. (noting further that
the mourner's kaddish, itself, is just a minhag - and one that it would seem
likely arose because katanim cannot take the amud - ie it is already a way
of giving comfort to vulnerable mourners without access to other halachic
mechanisms).
That does however require an extension of a concept that in the gemora only
appears to be applied to women.
Note btw that the Ra'avid in the Toras Kohanim (Vayikra 2:2), has a
different understanding of Rabbi Yosi in Chagiga 16b, understanding the
situation to be as follows:
- leaning with all one's strength is forbidden d'orisa (but the chiyuv of
leaning on one's korbanos required for men pushes aside that prohibition as
does the permissibility of women fulfilling this mitzvah, aseh doche lo
ta'aseh).
- merely floating one's hands is forbidden rabbinically (as it looks like
one is working with korbanos, even though one isn't). There was a common
situation where women felt they had a connection to the korban, and should
have been allowed to lean on it, but where in fact there was not the
necessary connection, namely when they were married women and the korban was
brought by their husband. In such a case, because the woman in question did
not own the korban, she could not lean on it Halachically, not because women
could not lean on korbanos according to Rabbi Yosi, but because she wasn't
the real owner of the korban. But since women felt they were a partner in
their husband's korban, they wanted to lean, and for that the chachamim
allowed them to float their hands (ie violate rabbinically) for the sake of
nachas ruach d'nashim.
And Rav Moshe (Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 3 siman 94) has yet another
explanation:
- leaning with all one's strength is forbidden d'orisa (but the chiyuv of
leaning on korbanos required for men pushes aside that prohibition, aseh
doche lo ta'aseh). However this is a special mitzvah where the ownership of
the korban (ie by a male or female) changes the essential nature of the
korban itself (different to all other mitzvos aseh), so that a woman's
korban is one where the cheftza does not require leaning, and hence there is
no aseh to push aside the lo ta'aseh. This he contrasts to the other
mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, where Rav Moshe holds there is a genuine
underlying mitzvah being performed if it is done optionally by women.
- merely floating one's hands is forbidden rabbinically (as it looks like
one is working with korbanos, even though one isn't). For the sake of
nachas ruach d'nashim a rabbinic prohibition can be pushed aside allowing
floating of the hands over these korbanos that do not in fact require
leaning.
In any event, the relevance to zoom minyanim is whether one can take the
Talmudic concept of nachas ruach and apply it beyond women to, say, avelim
in our current circumstances. But that is a separate question to the one
raised above. As I have written before, it does seem to me that the gemora
in Chagiga is a serious challenge to the underlying assumptions of the
"woman wearing a tallis without tzitzis" story, but that is independent of
any question of zoom minyanim.
Joel rich
Regards
Chana