- This topic has 176 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Okay, this thread’s gone way off tangent. To get it back to the original discussion, let’s repost what got lost in the shuffle here.
From ?????? ????? ????? by Rav Shlomo Volbe ??”?
Talmid Chochom vs. Talmida Chachama
Girls nowadays attend elementary school, high school and usually seminary too. They learn a lot Tanach, halacha and hashkafa.
“Sometimes, however,” says Rav Shlomo Volbe, “when a girl gets married, she discovers (to her disappointment and surprise) that her husband, who she was told was a talmid chochom isn’t as knowledgeable as she is in those areas.”
“She should know” continues Rav Volbe, “that no matter how much she knows, she will never reach her husband’s ankles in his knowledge and understanding of Torah. There is no comparison to anything she knows to the knowledge that a Ben Torah acquires in yeshiva; not in scope nor in depth.”
Matan1, where do you see that in the Rambam?
Also, it’s been a lot longer than a couple of hundred years that poskim either argue with the Rambam or say that he would agree in a different era. See Kesef Mishnah on the Rambam.
It is beyond me how people use the Rambam against kollel when that Rambam is clearly not halachah l’maaseh.
In Shmitah V’yovel 13:13 the Rambam writes:
??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?”?
????? ??????? ???? ?? ?”? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???”? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????. ??? ??? ?”? ???? ?”? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????: ???? ????? ??????: ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??????
But in the halacha right before, he writes:
???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?”? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????. ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?”? ????. ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????
Clearly, the Rambam is talking about those who teach Torah, not learn Torah.
Joseph, allow me one more post, and then I will b’n not stray off topic anymore.
I respect your opinions, and your right to them. However,
A) The fact the the Oxford Dictionary does not contain the etymology of some obscure words is irrelevant to any of our discussion. We see the terms “ortho-” and “orthodox” used many times in various languages, such as orthopedist, orthodontist, “orthodoxie” in French, related words in other Euroean languages, “orthodox” as the word referring to standard/normal, “orthodox” as referring to a sect of christianity, and lehavdil orthodox referring to frum judaism. I am unaware of any argument amongst historians as to the origins and definitions of these words. Therefore, to say that reform or any other position disagreeing with orthodox judaism would use the term “orthodox” as reffering to frum judaism, is implausible as I see it.
B) Now, the term “chareidi” is the way that many more right wing jews refer to themselves. It is accepted to be taken from “chareid l’dvar hashem” – trembling at the word of hashem, to perform His will properly. If you ask me, that sounds like a nice label; and I don’t see, again, why anyone who disagreed with chareidim or wasn’t part of their klal would coin this extremely complementive term. Once it’s in use, it is in use by all, except certain news sources who like to call them “ultra-orthodox”, which to me and Rabbi Lamm sounds perjorative (Seventy Faces: Articles of Faith, KTAV Publishing House, 2001, p. 1. “…I prefer the Hebrew term Haredi because it is not pejorative and is the one used by the Haredim to identify themselves”); but who would coin this term if they were not trying to complement and raise up this form of judaism as the best.
Now on your previous post:
C) The “cavemen” quote was taken out of context and misused. This may have been unintentional, but if you actually know of what Rabbi Lamm said, it’s quite clear as to what he means. Could he have been more careful? Yes. Was he calling bnei torah cavemen? Absolutely not.
D) I agree that BMG is yeshiva and not a business, because regardless of its techinical status, its mission statement is that of a yeshiva. The same goes for YU, regardless of its slightly different philosophy of what a yeshiva should teach, so it appears we are now in agreement
E) When Avi Weiss taught at YU (I apologize for not knowing this occured; it was at Stern actually) he was not (at least known as) “Avi Weiss” in all of his neo-conservative glory we see him today.
F) Last: charedi judaism is absolutely a movement and a label (as much as MO is). Members feel a pride in doing the things mostly exclusive to them, such as wearing white shirts, black hats and jackets. They would not be caught dead mistaken for MO. They need a clear dissociation from MO jews; not just because they don’t agree with them, but because they need to preserve the individuality of their movement. This (and vice-versa for MO jews) has kept us from achdus all these years
PS: I like your response that you are simply “a Jew” and would concur for myself.
IEHB: Thank you for the conversation. You misunderstood. This has nothing to do with the OED. That was a sidepoint. And really it is meaningless what the etymology of Orthodox means. It was probably applied to us by the non-Orthodox as an offshoot of the Orthodox Christian use of the term. But the historically non-disputed fact is that Orthodox was applied to us by the non-Orthodox.
From Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Religion Allied to Progress, in JMW. p. 198:
“It was not the ‘Orthodox’ Jews who introduced the word ‘orthodoxy’ into Jewish discussion. It was the modern ‘progressive’ Jews who first applied this name to ‘old’, ‘backward’ Jews as a derogatory term. This name was at first resented by ‘old’ Jews. And rightly so. ‘Orthodox’ Judaism does not know any varieties of Judaism. It conceives Judaism as one and indivisible. It does not know a Mosaic, prophetic and rabbinic Judaism, nor Orthodox and Liberal Judaism. It only knows Judaism and non-Judaism. It does not know Orthodox and Liberal Jews. It does indeed know conscientious and indifferent Jews, good Jews, bad Jews or baptised Jews; all, nevertheless, Jews with a mission which they cannot cast off. They are only distinguished accordingly as they fulfil or reject their mission.”
Yes, nowadays you’ll find Orthodox and Chareidi Jews describing themselves with these silly and counterproductive terms. But it was not Orthodox or Chareidi Jews who gave themselves these terms. The term Chareidi may have not been intended derogatorily (who knows what their intent was) but probably they just applied the term from the Eidah Chareidus to the virtually the entire Orthodox world other than MO and RZ.
Regardless of any apologetics, the way Dr. Rabbi Lamm used the term cavemen in conjunction with Bnei Torah was malevolent despite a sophisticated explanation of how he “really” meant it all innocuously. He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
YU is more than a Beis Medrash. (In fact only RIETS is a B”M.) It is also a secular college. BMG is not.
Avi Weiss was long known as a left-wing liberal radical, long before the 90s and early 2000s when he was still teaching at YU. He only left YU because he started his own competing YCT. He didn’t suddenly get all radical in the week he quit YU and started YCT. And why is the RCA still allowing him to be a rabbinic member?
RABBI Lamm. Mods please! Show some kavod!
Look at Joe’s post–is that better?
Thanks!
Joseph, does the fact that YU is both a college and a yeshiva change it from being those things into a “business”?
Ok then, so probably “modern orthodox” was used by chareidim to describe those they saw as acting too modernish.
I don’t know why the RCA accepts him, and I can’t speak for them. That still doesn’t mean they actually approve of his actions
Joseph:
1) In the thread that you linked about Modern Orthodoxy, in which you claim to have cited R’ Soloveitchik as support for your contentions, you took R’ Soloveitchik’s words out of context, making it seem as if he was making a certain point. For anyone who read that thread, I urge you to read R’ Soloveitchik’s address(es) in the original. I’ll give you a hint: all the ellipses in Joseph’s post do not appear in the original. Now, Joseph, I can’t necessarily blame you for the miscontextualization, since the frumteens moderator is the one who put in the ellipses, but at least you should know for next time to be wary of quoting someone who heavily uses ellipses. Furthermore, it should be clear that what you “cite” from R’ Soloveitchik should not be the sole informer of his position, based on the simple fact that in his other writings he expresses a different position, and the vast majority of his talmidim do not agree with the way you portrayed his position. If you are interested, a good place to start would be “Revisionism and the Rav” which will point you to a few sources in R’ Soloveitchik’s writings.
2) The whole “cavemen” thing is a complete misquote. R’ Lamm did not equate benei Torah with cavemen, nor did he even use the word “cavemen”. I would quote what he actually said except that the relevant part is about five pages long. However, the address has been published in several places; you can find it on googlebooks in “Seventy Faces: Articles of Faith, Volume 1” if you so desire to see what he actually said. Again, I don’t fault you for the misquote since you are just quoting others who have propagated the misquote; however, I would reiterate that you should be more careful when you quote people who have an obvious agenda (e.g. frumteens moderator). As we have seen recently, you have attempted to delegitimize R’ Kook via misquoting R’ Kook; you have attempted to deligitimize Modern Orthodoxy via misquoting R’ Soloveitchik; and you have attempted to delegitimize R’ Lamm via misquoting R’ Lamm.
3) You wrote:
Regardless of any apologetics, the way Dr. Rabbi Lamm used the term cavemen in conjunction with Bnei Torah was malevolent despite a sophisticated explanation of how he “really” meant it all innocuously. He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
Aside from the fact that (as I pointed out in #2) there wasn’t anything to explain away, I wonder if you would say the same thing about people who may have referred to other people as “Amalek” and after causing a whole stir, explained what they meant.
4) Getting back on topic, you are going to have to provide an explanation for the quote from R’ Wolbe.
PAA:
1) Please specify which quotations you think are out of context. Just as you indicate you can’t quote five pages of RNL’s speech, I’m sure you can understand why five pages from RJBS’ book wasn’t quoted and ellipses were used to indicate where the relevant quotes continued elsewhere. I don’t believe it was taken out of context. If RJBS contradicted his own opinion in other writings (“in his other writings he expresses a different position”), you still can’t take someone to task for quoting him with his own precise words. I’m sure talmidim don’t agree with how the position was portrayed there; the exact point was to disagree with them.
2) I read the entire cave speech a few years ago. It repeatedly refers to living in the cave experience. (Using Rashbi as an analogy.) I pulled it up again now in google books but the second page (p. 164) is blocked due to copyright issues. The entire point throughout that speech was to compare the Bnei Torah (in the yeshiva world) to living in caves whereas in YU they don’t live in caves but in the “real world”. Even if the term was “cave experience” rather than “cavemen”.
3) Are you referring to Rav Elchonon hy’d calling zionists amaleikim or Rav Shteinman shlit”a calling Lapid Amalek? Either way, there’s nothing to explain away. They stand by it.
4) The quote from Rav Volbe was straightforward. The wives were very worried that their husband didn’t know as much Torah as herself – and Rav Volbe reassured them not to worry as their husband’s Torah is far more in both scope and depth than their own.
What Rav Wolbe was saying depends on the circumstance. As he says, quoted above, “her husband, who she was told was a talmid chochom (knows much more than she)”. The husband only knows more than the wife if he’s a talmid chochom, even she went to BY. But if she went to BY and he’s some random guy (kama Akiva ika beshuk), then that’s a different story.
If he’s some random guy that didn’t go to yeshiva, nu. But if he went to yeshiva and she went to beis yaakov, Rav Volbe said “There is no comparison to anything she knows to the knowledge that a Ben Torah acquires in yeshiva”.
Oh, and by the way, we’re still waiting to find out which se’if in Shulchan Aruch it is that Rav Soloveitchik said didn’t apply nowadays.
Is that a trick question? I didn’t see anyone claim that. If you’re demanding I give a guess answer to your gotcha, I would say S”A YD 246:6.
Joseph:
1) I am not talking about a failure to quote five pages. I am talking about using an ellipsis to cut out half of a sentence which provides context to what R’ Soloveitchik was saying. I only read the first couple of paragraphs of your post – I stopped reading once I saw how long it was and that in just the first couple of paragraphs there were misquotes. Look at the quote that you obviously felt was the most important one (seeing as you bolded it) and then look back at the original and see the part of the sentence that you left out.
My point in mentioning R’ Soloveitchik’s other writings and his talmidim’s views was that they are clues to keep in mind when reading this speech. You took one source as if it was the first and last word on R’ Soloveitchik’s worldview. Any of his talmidim (actually there may be one or two who will deny this) can tell you that R’ Soloveitchik’s worldview was very complicated, probably more so than any other rabbinic leader. Now, R’ Soloveitchik may have contradicted himself at times. If there is indeed a contradiction, I would like to know by what means you determined that this is the authoritative source. On the other hand, it is eminently possible that there is no contradiction, and the quote has to be taken in context.
2) I suspect that you might have misunderstood the speech. All he said was that the “benei torah” (he didn’t use that term either) believe in isolating themselves from the world and the secular culture while YU believes in engaging with the world and culture. He compared it to R’ Shimon Bar Yochai in the cave and out of the cave. I’m not sure what would be insulting about that, especially since you cited R’ Soloveitchik as agreeing that one should avoid the secular culture as much as possible. Moreover, if it was insulting then by extension the Gemara must have been insulting to R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. The connotation (and perhaps even the denotation) of “cavemen” is a primitive, backwards, almost subhuman culture. This is not at all what R’ Lamm said; in fact in that very speech he advocated for the “cave experience” albeit to a lesser extent than in “benei torah” circles. I honestly don’t see how someone can read the speech and interpret it in an insulting manner, unless the reader feels that disagreement is insulting. Now, I will admit that I was not present when the speech was given, and as such it is possible that R’ Lamm used tone/hand gestures/facial expressions which put an entirely different meaning into his words, or it is possible that the published version is inaccurate; however, I doubt that you were there either. If you want to make such an argument the burden of proof is certainly on you.
3) I am not referring to R’ Elchanan nor to R’ Shteinman. I did specifically not mention any names but if you press me for details I will oblige. (Obviously, the moderators can feel free to edit this part if they deem it inappropriate.) I am referring to R’ Shalom Cohen’s remarks about ????? ?????? and Amalek, and the subsequent apology/clarification. And perhaps I am also referring to R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks and subsequent retraction/clarification. Note: I am not castigating either of them for what they said or what they clarified; I am simply wondering if you would say the same thing that you said about R’ Lamm’s comments.
4) The quote from R’ Wolbe is far from straightforward. If he was discussing a situation where the girl learned more Torah and knows more Torah than the boy and he says she still does not come up to his ankles, then you will have to clarify how that makes any sense. If he was discussing a situation where the girl learned less Torah and knows less Torah then the boy then the statement is meaningless. If he was saying that the girl might know Hilchos Shabbos better than the boy but the boy knows Bava Kamma better than the girl since girls learn Hilchos Shabbos while boys learn Bava Kamma, then it’s very pashut and R’ Wolbe isn’t adding anything and it has no relevance to this thread. If he was saying that it’s impossible for a girl to learn more Torah and know more Torah than a yeshiva guy, then again you would have to explain how it makes sense, particularly considering the Sefer Hachinuch (152) who says:
????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????
And the Minchas Chinuch (78) who says:
?”? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??’ ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ?”? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???’ ?? ????’ ??”?
which clearly indicate that it is possible for a woman to exceed a man in Torah knowledge.
1) I’ll again ask you to please provide some samples of quotations made that you feel was taken out of context, as well as the original context it should have been made in and how you think that changes the meaning. I don’t believe any where taken out of context.
2) The context was insulting. He referred to YU being in the “real world” whereas the yeshiva world was not but rather in the cave. Just excluding them from the “real world” (a verbatim quote) itself is insulting. He directly implied that Bnei Torah should be told “go back to your cave!” for attempting to “impose the discipline of the cave on the “real world”.
3) RSC didn’t apologize or retract. He may have clarified his initial remarks were only applicable to less people than the media reports indicated. In context his initial remarks should have been self-understood to only apply to those he clarified they only applied to, but that limitation didn’t fit the media narrative reporting the initial remarks. Did RNL ever clarify he didn’t intend to refer to Bnei Torah as cave people?
4) Rav Volbe was discussing the real world situation how boys and girls are schooled in Limudei Kodesh. Nothing about extraordinarily gifted boys or extraordinarily gifted girls. The general rule applicable to the vast majority of yeshiva educated boys is that they are head and shoulders above the vast majority of beis yaakov educated girls in Torah. Rav Volbe was not in habit of relating “meaningless” points.
Related to this topic:
Aruch Hashulchan
We have never taught women from a book, nor have we ever heard people actually do so. Rather every mother teaches her daughter well-known rules women should know.
Sefer Hachasidim
One should teach his daughters practical law – not because there is a requirement for them to learn, but so that they should know the laws. Once they know the laws, there is no need for them to learn any more.
Torah Temimah (R. Boruch Epstein)
Girls do not have the intellectual stability and are, therefore, unable to make profound inquries with a sharp mind and appreciate the depth of the Torah. It is possible thay by using their own minds, they will transgress the Torah.
Tur (Yoreh Deah 246:15)
Most women’s minds are not geared toward being taught, but if she had begun to study properly herself, not making Torah into foolishness, she is no longer like most women and she is rewarded…
Moderators: I apologize for the length of the post, but it is probably only a tenth of the length of Joseph’s post in the Modern Orthodoxy thread.
(Disclaimer: Please do not impute any negativity into my tone. The nature of the written word is such that in a debate the tone may seem strident even when it is not. I am not trying to be mean or sarcastic or disrespectful to anyone, including Joseph, R’ Wolbe, R’ Cohen, and R’ Kaplan; I am just making a few points.)
1) Here is a contrast:
Joseph said:
[but]
R’ Soloveitchik said:
The bolded parts are the parts you left out (except for “of” which was simply that you wrote “for” instead which was probably an honest mistake). As you can see, and it is even more clear from the rest of the context which would take too long to type up, R’ Soloveitchik was contrasting life in Canaan with life outside of Canaan, and applying it to contemporary times. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that the quote that you emphasized appears between dashes, as an explanation of Canaan. What R’ Soloveitchik was saying was that IN CANAAN we could be separate and as long as we can remain in the era of being in Canaan, where it is feasible to remain separate, so much the better. But once we are forced out of that era, which R’ Soloveitchik applies to us in modern times, it is no longer feasible to remain separate.
2) I truly do not understand how you are interpreting R’ Lamm’s speech. First of all, when he mentioned the “real world” he had not yet even brought up YU or other yeshivos. He was simply making a point based on the Gemara, explaining what he thinks is the proper approach to life. When he brings up YU, he says that it is an enclave as opposed to a cave, but that the “cave experience” is necessary to a certain extent and that’s why they advocate taking off time to study Torah uninhibited in Israel. The only point where he brings in other yeshivos is when he says:
Our commitment to and celebration of Torah lishmah is no less than that of any other advanced yeshiva; but unlike others, our confrontation with modernity is more nuanced, more subtle, and more balanced. We neither accept it uncritically nor reject it unthinkingly. We believe, as the Rav taught us, that Torah can be lived and implemented in every time and circumstance, and that includes modernity and post-modernity. We stand firmly in the world of Halakha, but we shall not turn our backs on the world of Madda – of culture and science. We shall ever heed the Voice that bids us “leave the cave!” That dialectic between the Cave and the World is the source of our glory – as well as of our dilemmas, our tensions, and our perplexing inconsistencies. Our commitment is to Torah, to this community of Modern/Centrist Orthodox Jews, and to this ideology. And it is a commitment, not a compromise or concession.
There is nothing remotely insulting there. All he says is that YU’s mission statement is to engage the world and that he understands this to be what the Gemara is advocating. The “cave” is clearly not derogatory; it is just not the ideal in R’ Lamm’s view. This is obvious from the fact that he says that YU believes in utilizing the cave for a certain amount of time, and moreover, as I pointed out already, you may as well accuse him of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai if you understand the cave to be derogatory – better yet, you should accuse the Gemara of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. I really think that the only way to impute nefarious intentions into this speech is if that is your goal from the outset.
3) I’m not sure why you are bringing in the media. You can watch the video yourself and see what he said. I transcribed the beginning of it:
???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?-? ????? ??’ ?????. ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???. ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ???? ?-?-?: ??? ???? ?????
(There was an unclear, one-word-sentence between “?????” and “??”, and perhaps I was off by a letter here and there, but nothing that affected the thrust of the paragraph.)
As you can see, he clearly stated that God’s throne will not be complete while Amalek still exists. He then directly equated kippa seruga with Amalek and said that God’s throne will not be complete until there are no longer kippot serugot. I’m not sure how you expect people to interpret that. Keep in mind what you said about R’ Lamm:
He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
Now apply it to R’ Cohen. Whereas by R’ Lamm, you go out of your way to read malice into his words based on context and juxtaposition (which I anyway showed to be flawed), by R’ Cohen where he explicitly said the derogatory comments outright, you have no problem. Now if you think that it’s okay because R’ Cohen’s position was correct and R’ Lamm’s was incorrect, I am fine with that. But then you can’t complain when the other side, thinking they are correct, engage in the same behavior (which they in fact didn’t).
Also, you didn’t even respond to the case of R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks.
4) If that’s what R’ Wolbe meant then there was no need to take him away from his learning to say it. You could quote Patur Aval Assur as saying the same thing. In effect what the quote means is that if one person spends years and years learning Torah for the entire day and someone else spends a couple of years learning Torah for part of the day, the first person will generally know more Torah. A davar pashut and completely irrelevant to this thread.
R’ Wolbe’s comments are in a context that there was at one point a major potential rift in many marriages that the girls felt that even though the boys spent all day learning in Yeshivah that the girls knew more because they knew Halachos Pesukos while the boys learned Lomdus. R’ Wolbe wasn’t making a statement in Metzius. He was telling girls not to think their husbands are Amaratzim even though it sometimes feels like they know more than their husbands.
This sounds a bit more than saying they’re not amaratzim: “She should know that no matter how much she knows, she will never reach her husband’s ankles in his knowledge and understanding of Torah.”
PAA:
The unquoted point about Cannan wasn’t necessary to give the quote its proper context – that R. Solovitchik agrees that we are better off without all the new culture and technology. We know that he thinks it is necessary today, but the quote was only showing he agrees it would be better if it weren’t necessary.
Chacham Ovadia Yosef said a week after Rav Cohen’s remarks that he was only referring to the seruga leadership like Bennett and R. Druckman (who were promoting forcibly drafting the Bnei Torah), not to the seruga klal. Regarding Rav Kaplan, he said his hyperbolic remarks about the government ministers trying to draft the Bnei Torah were said in humor.
What do you make of the above quotes from the Tur, the Sefer Hachasidim, the Aruch Hashulchan and the Torah Temimah?
Joseph:
The part about Canaan was very relevant to the context. You were trying to demonstrate that even R’ Soloveitchik held that we should stay away from the world as much as possible. But what he actually said was that in Canaan it is advantageous to stay away from the world, and as long as we are in Canaan, so much the better. But now we are not in Canaan anymore. So the quote doesn’t really prove anything. It would be almost akin to castigating someone for engaging in ????? ????? ????? ?????? by telling him that the Gemara says ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????.
Chacham Ovadia Yosef said a week after Rav Cohen’s remarks that he was only referring to the seruga leadership like Bennett and R. Druckman (who were promoting forcibly drafting the Bnei Torah), not to the seruga klal. Regarding Rav Kaplan, he said his hyperbolic remarks about the government ministers trying to draft the Bnei Torah were said in humor.
That’s precisely my point. R’ Cohen and R’ Kaplan explicitly stated inflammatory remarks which were later clarified. You have no problem that they weren’t careful when speaking, that they didn’t think that someone might actually assume that they meant what they said and be insulted. Yet you fault R’ Lamm for not being careful to not say something which people might be able to misconstrue as insulting if they completely distort his words.
Regarding the sefarim you quoted, I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, so I will hold off until you explain what you are bringing them for.
Sam2:
You are essentially saying what I said earlier:
If he was saying that the girl might know Hilchos Shabbos better than the boy but the boy knows Bava Kamma better than the girl since girls learn Hilchos Shabbos while boys learn Bava Kamma, then it’s very pashut and R’ Wolbe isn’t adding anything and it has no relevance to this thread.
I don’t see what the chiddush is. If a woman with a BA in psychology would complain to me that she married a guy who has a PhD in Mathematics, thinking he was such an Academic Scholar, but now she is disappointed that she knows more psychology than him, I would tell her that a PhD in Mathematics doesn’t cover Psychology; no need to worry, he is still more of a scholar than you. I wouldn’t need to refer her to R’ Wolbe to address her issue. Now, I’m not faulting R’ Wolbe for saying what he said – he is absolutely correct. I’m just pointing out that there was no need to seek out someone of his caliber to address a pretty simple issue, and additionally it has no relevance to this thread.
What does have relevance to this thread, btw, and what makes the other things irrelevant – and how did you get to judge relevance to the thread and decide all the things you’ve posted are relevant? You seem to keep repeating that line when things are cited that don’t fit the line of thought that you’re pursuing. Rav Volbe was simply addressing the mistaken concerns some wives expressed that their husband wasn’t far more knowledgeable than themselves on Torah matters. I think this point has been beaten to death here already. Rav Volbe made a point, v’zeh hu. His point wouldn’t have been cited and recorded in the kuntres if it weren’t relevant then and relevant now to the intended audience.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the other points. I think we’re (both of us) at the stage of repetition with them.
As far as the Tur, the Sefer Hachasidim, the Aruch Hashulchan and the Torah Temimah, I thought they are at least as relevant to the discussion as the items you’ve cited such from MiPninei HaRav, R. Rakeffet, the Riaz, etc. And to that I was wondering your input to what I brought from them.
What does have relevance to this thread, btw, and what makes the other things irrelevant – and how did you get to judge relevance to the thread and decide all the things you’ve posted are relevant? You seem to keep repeating that line when things are cited that don’t fit the line of thought that you’re pursuing.
The only thing that I said was irrelevant in this thread was the quote from R’ Wolbe. I don’t claim to be the Supreme Arbiter of relevance. But if the topic under discussion is whether women can/can’t/should/shouldn’t learn Gemara, then other things are irrelevant. I don’t necessarily mind if someone wants to have a discussion other than the one at hand; I am simply noting that it is a different discussion.
Rav Volbe was simply addressing the mistaken concerns some wives expressed that their husband wasn’t far more knowledgeable than themselves on Torah matters. I think this point has been beaten to death here already. Rav Volbe made a point, v’zeh hu. His point wouldn’t have been cited and recorded in the kuntres if it weren’t relevant then and relevant now to the intended audience.
I never said his point wasn’t relevant. I said that it’s not relevant to this particular discussion. My other point was that R’ Wolbe didn’t say any chiddush. If the woman had confronted her husband directly, he could have told her that in yeshiva they don’t learn the same things as in seminary, so she might know more than him about something that she learned and he didn’t. That’s not a chiddush, it’s not controversial, and it has nothing to do with women learning Gemara.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the other points. I think we’re (both of us) at the stage of repetition with them.
What aspect of what I said do you disagree with?
As far as the Tur, the Sefer Hachasidim, the Aruch Hashulchan and the Torah Temimah, I thought they are at least as relevant to the discussion as the items you’ve cited such from MiPninei HaRav, R. Rakeffet, the Riaz, etc. And to that I was wondering your input to what I brought from them.
The relevance of the quotes that I brought is that they demonstrate that there is Rabbinic support to rely on for women to learn Gemara. Bringing sources that are against women learning Gemara just means that there are sources against it. No one ever suggested otherwise. Additionally, the primary argument advanced by those in favor of women’s Gemara is that the metzius is not the same as it was in the past. Thus, sources against women’s Gemara from the past, do not necessarily prove anything about the present. (Again, this is not to say that there aren’t modern day sources against it as well; it is to say that one can claim that the earlier sources would agree that nowadays it’s different.
Mods: Do you have any tools to search for a deleted thread? I had posted a thread years ago where the OP was an English translation of Igros Moshe YD 3:86. It was still up and available for years but is gone now, likely in error (can’t imagine any other reason.) Some keywords in the OP were Igros Moshe YD 3:86 Pirkei Avos. Can you work some magic to bring it back to life?
Can you give me a hint of which screen name it may have been under? 🙂
PAA: Rav Moshe says in Igros Moshe YD 3:86 that girls are not permitted to learn Torah Shebalpeh, including not Mishnayis or Gemorah, except they may learn Pirkei Avos. The VaYoel Moshe Maimer Lashon HaKodesh 33 (p. 436) says girls can’t even learn Rashi since it is Torah Shebalpeh. These are a couple of examples of contemporary sources. Rav Moshe apparently held Rashi on Chumash is still categorized as the simple pshat on Torah Shebksav.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st=&pgnum=332&hilite=
P.S. I believe there’s a concerted effort to post your comments hours after they’ve been submitted/timestamped so that it can be easily missed under the hope that’ll occur and you will get the last word. You could just tell me you want the last word and I’d be happy to oblige. 😉
B”H my memory is good but not that good. 😉
It may have been 3:87 instead of 3:86. Other keywords I think were girls beis yaakov.
Edit: I found it.
I thought I made an OP from it earlier as well, but perhaps not?
PAA: Rav Moshe says in Igros Moshe YD 3:86 that girls are not permitted to learn Torah Shebalpeh, including not Mishnayis or Gemorah, except they may learn Pirkei Avos. The VaYoel Moshe Maimer Lashon HaKodesh 33 (p. 436) says girls can’t even learn Rashi since it is Torah Shebalpeh. These are a couple of examples of contemporary sources. Rav Moshe apparently held Rashi on Chumash is still categorized as the simple pshat on Torah Shebksav.
I am well aware that many contemporary poskim are against women’s Gemara. I never claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that there is Rabbinic support for it, and that the earlier sources that were against it might have reevaluated in contemporary times. Obviously R’ Moshe and the Satmar Rav didn’t feel that way. But no one ever claimed they did. There is a machlokes. My purpose in quoting various sources is to dispel the impression that those in favor of women’s Gemara are just deviant Jews with nothing to rely on. (As an aside, R’ Moshe is discussing a case where the faculty wanted to teach girls. That does not necessarily have the same status as girls deciding to learn themselves. I’m not claiming that R’ Moshe would necessarily be mechalek, but you can see the sources I quoted earlier for such a chiluk.)
P.S. I believe there’s a concerted effort to post your comments hours after they’ve been submitted/timestamped so that it can be easily missed under the hope that’ll occur and you will get the last word.
I don’t believe I have any control over how long it takes the moderators to approve my posts. I would be more than happy if they went up sooner. If you are suggesting that there is a moderators conspiracy to make sure I get the last word, you can take that up with them.
They tend to be long, and although I only speak for myself, I do not usually have time to read through it, although I do usually get to it eventually. -100
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.