Q&A: Including Women in a Minyan
Including Women in a Minyan
Question
What is the Rabbi’s view on counting women for a minyan? Is there any real reason today that they should not be counted?
Answer
According to the law of the Talmud, a minyan is ten men. A question arises regarding a women’s minyan on its own, and regarding including them in a minyan together with men. If a separate women’s minyan is possible, then logically it would seem that they can also be included in a minyan with men. The claim that women do not join because they are a people unto themselves (the Rosh) seems strange and unreasonable to me.
However, regarding the inclusion itself, it is hard to permit it, since the matter contradicts the rule in the Talmud. One can suggest arguments that women today have a different status, and that even sounds very reasonable to me. But it seems to me that such a change, although possible in principle, requires broad consensus. Of course, with regard to the law of ten for public matters (such as in the laws of sanctifying God’s name), women are included as well, but regarding the recitation of matters of sanctity, it seems to me harder to permit.
All this applies only to things from which women are exempt. But regarding the Megillah, it seems obvious to me that they are included.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t have a sharp criterion. In public questions that have significant implications, and where I do not have certainty, it is reasonable to expect consensus as a condition for change.
See also here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%94
Including women in a minyan has practical significance when there is no minyan of men. In such a situation, doesn’t the prohibition or permission depend on one’s point of view? One who forbids including women is in practice lenient about prayer with a minyan, while one who permits and includes women is in practice stringent about prayer with a minyan. For example, not long ago we were standing with an improvised almost-minyan at Minchah close to sunset, when one of the group was in a year of mourning. Including women would have made it possible to pray with a minyan and say Kaddish, but the group chose to “be lenient” and pray individually.
Since we are in a state of doubt regarding what the Jewish law should be on this issue, what is more problematic: to pray individually when there is a legitimate minyan available (not including women when one could), or to say matters of sanctity when there is no minyan (including women even though they are not counted)?
Isn’t this similar to the dilemma you presented regarding accepting women as witnesses in your lecture on Jewish law, and the distinction you drew between literal plain meaning and interpretive plain meaning?
The discussion is not about which step is the stringent one and which is the lenient one. In that you are completely right. The question is whether there is a sufficient basis to change the existing Jewish law.
I’ll ask from another angle—after all, according to your view, rabbinic consensus today has only symbolic significance, since nowadays there is no binding authority. Beyond the fact that reaching broad rabbinic agreement for a change in Jewish law in general, and on a topic like this in particular, is an extreme fantasy even for artists like Tolkien and Rowling—the change, if it happens, will begin from below without rabbinic approval, as happens in most issues connected to the status of women in prayer. My question is: in your opinion, does the consideration of having prayer with a minyan, when there is no minyan of men, together with the reasoning you raised regarding the status of women today, constitute a valid and sufficient halakhic consideration to allow, locally, including women for the recitation of matters of sanctity? Or even in such a case must one pray individually?
As I wrote, I would not do it without broader agreement. If you think otherwise, then do as you understand. I don’t understand what here has not been answered.
As I recall, according to the law of the Talmud, and so agreed by many medieval authorities, a single woman can join nine men, like a slave.
Thank you. Could the Rabbi explain a bit about the need for broad consensus? Is this a formal criterion, like considerations of authority for example? (The logic in wanting broad agreement and checking with different kinds of people before making a major change is clear to me; I’m just wondering about the nature of the criterion.)