Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

From Eruvin to Women Saying Kaddish. Eruvin 72a

At first glance, there is no obvious connection between five groups that resided in a traklin (large room) and women saying kaddish. The sugya in Eruvin 72 though, provides a great window to peer into the laboratory of psak halacha, to determine the basic principles that stand at the nucleus of the halacha, and to trace how these principles evolved to places the tanaaim and amoraim couldn鈥檛 have imagined.

The Mishna focuses on a case study of five groups that find themselves in one space 鈥 but are separated from one another. Bet Shammai posits that each group requires their own eruv, while Bet Hillel suggests that one eruv is sufficient. The Mishna continues by suggesting that Bet Hillel fundamentally agrees with Bet Shammai that if the diverse groups are in separate rooms (or floors) then indeed, they require an eruv to carry between them.

The Gemara addresses the complexity of determining what qualifies as a separation. Would A mesifas (made up of small wood beams) be a sufficient barrier? What about a wall less than ten tefachim or walls that don鈥檛 reach the ceiling?

The various possibilities in the gemara climax in a terse statement 鈥渢he law is like Rabbi Yehuda Hasabar (the keen one).鈥 This is to say that if the walls go to the celling, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that each group must contribute to the eruv. Only in lesser mechitzot does bet Hillel rule that the connection between the groups binds them sufficiently to absolve them from making an eruv.
How can this be applied to the question of a woman saying kaddish? The transition from the Talmudic discussion to its modern application happens in two stages. The first is the determination that people who stand together, even with a partition between them, is a law not only relevant to eruv but to areas of 鈥渕inyan鈥 as well. The glosses of Rabbenu Peretz (France, 13th century) one finds the following statement: 鈥渋f the walls do not reach the roof, we only require one eruv鈥 And we can rely on this for having ten in a minyan, such that the partitions that stand around the bima do not constitute a mechitza.鈥 (Sefer Mitzvot Katan, 282:5)

The second stage appears in the contemporary response of Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin (Bnei Banim 2:7). He argues that a women鈥檚 section and a men鈥檚 section of a synagogue may in fact constitute one 鈥渟pace鈥 for the community worshipping inside it.
In his argument to permit women to say kaddish from 鈥渢he other side of the mechitza,鈥 Rabbi Henkin argues that despite the fact that there is a partition, the tzibbur is still a unit. Rabbi Henkin probes the various connections between the sugya in eruvin and the idea of a minyan, but concludes with a statement relevant to the spirit of the halacha.
鈥淓ven the men鈥檚 kaddish 鈥 if said when unable to see the chazzan, is questionable. For anyone who says kaddish is functionally a shaliach tzibbur鈥 Were it not for the kaddish, many would not teach their sons to pray, and they wouldn鈥檛 come to the synagogue鈥 And for this reason alone, there is no reason to push away the young women who want to say kaddish, for this brings them closer to Judaism.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

转谞讬讛 专讙讘

转谞讬讛 专讙讘 讘讜讙专转 讛诪讻讜谉 诇讟讜注谞讜转 专讘谞讬讜转 (讟讜"专 诪讜住诪讻转) 讜讘讬转 诪讜专砖讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐, 讻讜转讘转 讚讜拽讟讜专讟 讘转讻谞讬转 诇诇讬诪讜讚讬 诪讙讚专 讘谞讜砖讗 讛诇讻讜转 爪谞讬注讜转 讜讻讬谞讜谉 讝讛讜转谉 砖诇 谞砖讬诐 讗讜专转讜讚讜拽住讬讜转. 诇讬诪讚讛 转谞"讱 讜讙诪专讗 讘讘讬转 讛住驻专 驻诇讱 讜砖讬诪砖讛 讻专诪"讬转 讘诪讚专砖转 讛讘谞讜转 讘注讬谉 讛谞爪讬"讘.
Scroll To Top