Add women to the ten to bless the grooms at the wedding

Rabbi Reizman’s article is very interesting (as always. Fascinating Jew). I have several comments and observations. Here I will just write one. Even those who believe that the blessing of the groom requires ten from the law of something holy, it is certainly plausible that he only means that they learn this as a kind of inference (it is true that this is a rabbinic law, but as a kind of Torah tikkun) from something holy, and not that it itself is something holy. It is very unlikely to see this as something holy, but rather that they learn from it that ten are required. We found something like this in the inference of the trees of the sukkah for a festival offering (Beitza 30: What is a festival to the Lord, and a sukkah to the Lord), that according to all the Rishonim and the Achronim (except the Rashba there), there is no holiness in the trees of the sukkah, but they learned from the festival offering that they are forbidden to use and enjoy. Although it seems that Kiddushin 6a should be rejected from the Gemara, which refers to Kiddushin as something related to sanctification or consecration (and compares the consecration of half a woman to the law of the woman’s leg rising. See Rabbi Gosman’s wonderful opening lesson in the Kiddushin booklets). According to this, perhaps there is a place to say that Kiddushin is something related to sanctification. But this does not seem to be the case, since it is clear that the comparison in the Gemara is to Kiddushin and not to marriage, and according to Paz, Kiddushin should have been in the tenth part of the principle of the law and not just the blessing of the groom (if at all). [In parentheses, I will add that every law concerning holiness is puzzling to me from the outset. In Shlomo, regarding a blessing, there is room to say that there is a prohibition against saying it in circumstances where there are not ten, because it is a blessing that is nullified. But in Kaddish and holiness, what prohibition is there on saying it in less than ten. And is there a prohibition against saying any sentences that are true in themselves, just for myself? And in particular, a Kaddish that has no source in the Shas and is a custom among the Ge’onim, and what is the prohibition against saying them in any case? And perhaps this is considered contempt for God, blessed be He, and the Tzla. But this is the accepted view and I will not go into it here, nor will I use it as a branch.] I would also add that, even regarding something that is actually sacred, I liked the division between the many and the public and it seems real. However, I wonder why women are not because of the public. Perhaps this was the situation in the past and today it has changed. This is a factual change in the status of women and there is no reason not to take it into account in halakha. The poskim today are very reluctant about this, but it seems pretty clear to me that it is mainly because they fear the winds of the times (reform), as Rabbi Reisman also hinted at at the end of his answer. Ultimately, if I were to summarize my comments, I think there is definitely room for leniency and inclusion of women (and perhaps that is called stricter rather than leniency). This is for several reasons (I did not include my doubts about anything in holiness at all): 1. If it is not a matter of sanctity for women to have a total of ten. 2. Even for methods that are sacred, perhaps this is only in relation to the source of the law and not its limits. 3. Even if it is truly a sacred thing, it seems that women today do so in general public. 4. Finally, the blessing of the groom is from the rabbis, and the rabbis doubt the word. Although it should be discussed differently here, since the doubt is that the blessing is for nothing (perhaps it is a blessing for nothing). But as mentioned, there is more than one doubt here. And finally, I would add that perhaps in such a difficult time, a welcome change will begin in the status of women that will also extend to ordinary situations (which is apparently the real fear of the jurists, and it seems that in their opinion this is a great reason to prohibit). I will only comment that you must assess the character of the crowd present there, so that riots do not start during the wedding. The hardship is not worth the damage. And I wrote it. May we all have only joy and good news for the individual and the collective.