Centrist Orthodoxy, and the English Language

How is the concept of mesorah harmed by saying that minhagim were influenced by bigotry towards women?

Furthermore, if by bigotry you mean sexism (as opposed to misogyny) then they are correct. Many halachos are sexist (e.g. a woman cannot be an Eid for many matters). As long as that doesn’t mean that the halachos are invalid, how does it damage the mesorah.

I don’t know or care what “bigotry” or “sexist” means, but if someone were to say or even imply that any halachos or mesorah or minhagim are wrong or bad or mistaken or ought to be modified, they are violating numerous issurim.

So Popa, I googled the article to which you referred. On the side there was a link to somthing written by “Rabba Sara Hurwitz.” Interesting to see what she writes about herself.

“And so, on a daily basis, I try to do it all. I function as a rabbi in a large Modern Orthodox synagogue in New York . . . .”

I don’t see anything wrong with him having his own personal drash on the shelo asani isha bracha. And accusing some other Orthodox Jews of sexism for throwing chairs at women or whatever, well you can quibble with that but I wouldn’t say it’s beyond the pale.

I do find it odd that he didn’t mention the original non-sexist interpretation, found in the tosefta (written before the Gemara!) — that we thank G-d for making us men because we have more mitzvos we are obligated in and we should be thankful for that. Even if a woman could easily accomplish more mitzvos and maasim tovim than a man despite being obligated in fewer mitzvos — think, for example, of all the countless acts of chesed involved in raising children, not to mention the caring-oriented professions women tend to gravitate towards — the fact is men are obligated in a larger number of mitzvos. Instead of seeing this is a burden we should see it as something to be thankful for.

This is a very ancient, non-sexist and convincing rationale for the bracha (as well as for the other shelo asani brachas). Not mentioning it is misleading because it suggests some kind of crude sexism motivated the bracha.

yytz, the Gemara says this, too. That is the reason for the Bracha.

Zdad, do you know this boogy-monster, Pruzbul, personaly? Why didn’t you mention, say, Bittul Chametz or Get Mekushar?

“I don’t know or care what “bigotry” or “sexist” means, but if someone were to say or even imply that any halachos or mesorah or minhagim are wrong or bad or mistaken or ought to be modified, they are violating numerous issurim.”

Once again, you need to separate out minhagim. There exists such a thing as a “minhag shtus” or a minhag that once had a proper basis but no longer. Even in halacha things can be modified if the circumstances change or the accepted psak changes.

Saying a minhag is wrong is not assur. Even saying that a common psak is wrong is not assur, so long as your are making a halachic argument.

“I reject your ambiguity because it is clear that he is tapping into allegations of bigotry by noting that chazal were male.”

Under my reading he is tapping into the modern perception of things being sexist when they are said by men (because only women can ever be objective). In other words, it isn’t that he believes Chazal were sexist (at least not in the bigot sense), but that he understands that they are perceived as such, partially because they are men.

HaLeivi,

Bittul Chametz is d’oraisa.

yytz,

Maybe we are using the word “sexist” differently. If all one means by the term is “discrimination based on gender” then the Halacha is certainly sexist. The very fact that women have fewer mitzvos is itself a discrimination based on gender and therefore sexist.

Mevazeh talmid chochom.

That is an awfully harsh charge to throw at the Torah Temimma I quoted earlier.

Mevazeh talmid chochom.

That is an awfully harsh charge to throw at the Torah Temimma I quoted earlier.

The Torah Temimah was not mevazeh Chaza”l.

There’s a huge difference between saying Chaza”l said something and being mevatel daas to it (holding it’s right), and saying Chaza”l held something, but we know better (but we’ll follow the resulting laws anyhow). The T”T didn’t say that according to this pshat, R’ Meir was wrong.

If you think what the Torah Temimah attributes to R’ Meir can’t be correct, take it up with the Torah Temimah for that, not for his lack of hisbatlus to Chaza”l. (I t should be noted that the Torah Temimah was quite controversial, and his opinions are not necessarily accepted as mainstream.)

DY: I won’t disagree with the “controversial” point (which he certainly was, as a businessman, post Kesef Mishna that everyone is Somech on :-), besides for writing the banned My Uncle the Netziv), but I’m not sure what you mean by the middle paragraph. Are you saying that R’ Meir was Mesaken due to his experiences and internal biases? Are you saying that is what the TT is saying? Or are you saying that R’ Meir’s experiences were indicative of the correct Halacha?

Please elaborate.

DY: So you go with option 3. (meaning that R’ Meir was correct as his life experiences showed him that women are inferior, and as such he was mesaken the Brocha to thank the Ribbono Shel Olam for not making him inferior).

IMHO, I agree that is the Pshat in the T”T. It does mean though that Chazal (specifically R’ Meir) were biased against women, but correctly so according to the T”T (which was my original point to PBA).

Popa,

I suspect that YCT will say that they are also getting their values from Chazal, but that those values are in conflict with some minhagim we have because of changes in the society around us.

So to go back to women’s aliyos, let’s assume their interpretations of “kavod hatzibur” are correct (and I am not sure it is) that the lack of kavod was because it was considered inappropriate for a women to be an a “men’s section” or because it was insulting to men that they “needed” a women to read the Torah for them. On the other hand, because of the mores at the time, women would not be insulted by such a minhag.

Chazal may have been ambivalent to whether or not men should be offended about this. But they held that if men are so offended then women should not get aliyos because Kriyas HaTorah should not be a source of strife and b’zayon. (I realize that this is rank speculation, this is just a hypothetical).

If the main point is that Kriyas HaTorah should not be a source of b’zayon, then today, where men will not find this inappropriate and where a baal koreh reads everything anyway and where it is women who are embarrassed, offended and insulted by not getting aliyos, then the kavod hatzibbur falls away or would mandate that women should get aliyos.

I think you mean they are calling Chazal “Bigoted” as a slur, and “we know better”?

I don’t like the way you phrased it, but the T”T might explain himself somewhere along those lines.

We both know that the Torah does not believe in “equality”; we were in agreement in a discussion regarding hilchos tzeddakah. The Torah affords different status to Kohanim. Need I bring more examples? I wouldn’t use the word bigoted for any of those either.

I get my morality and values from chazal. I don’t tell chazal what their morality and values should have been.

Having said that, the T”T’s pshat is not mainstream at all, as has been noted.

Rationalfrummie, this is not the place to address Chaza”l “vs.” science issues, but even some who feel Chaza”l’s statements aren’t scientifically accurate wouldn’r question Chazal’s value system. If you do that, you might as well be a Karaite.

Sam, if the only issue were kavod hatzibbur, I understand that it might change based in the standards of the tzibbur. (I think that’s just a rationalization, though).

My issue is with saying that Chazal’s inherent value system is wrong. That’s kefirah.

I think that saying that Chazal made Dinim based on the value system of their times and that those value systems have changed isn’t K’firah.

They’re not saying that. They’re saying that Chaza’l agreed with that value system, but were wrong. Just look at rationalfrummie’s post. He’s comparing it to what he thinks are objective scientific mistakes (ch’v) made by Chaza’l.

GAW, I think we need to define “bias”. Inequality is a given. The question is whether inequality is based on pure logic, or personal bias (negius). I think you’re defining bias as an opinion based on personal experience. I trust R’ Meir’s finely tuned Torah mind to incorporate his experience into his value system to come to a Torah true worldview. It’s not based on negius; he would have come to the same conclusion had he observed it in someone else. Call it a “bias ne’eman”. This is how I think the T’T might explain himself.

YCT are accusing Chaza’l of considering women unequal not because of an actual Torah truth, but because they were men, and did so to inflate their egos. Even taking out that last part about egos, it would cast light on Chaza’l in such a way that we couldn’t trust them for anything. Not only is this bizui T’C, it’s kefirah.

Lol popa you have a knack for distortion. I specifically capitalized that these areas are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from objective Daas Moshe and Torah mi Sinai. You should learn to read

Rationalfrummie,

When you say “Hellenistic ideals of women and their role greatly influenced this halachic sphere. Just like science, when these ideas are abandoned or rejected, we have to rethink if those still apply today.”

Do you mean that Chazal made takanos to correct problem in society at that time, but those problems no longer exist today?

Or do you mean that Chazal themselves held these hellenistic ideals to be good?

Unlike science “ideals” cannot be empirically disproven. There is no objective way to show (outside of Torah) that modern society’s values are any “better” than those of Greece 2000 years ago, or, Sodom, 3600 years ago.

DY: so I guess you believe the earth is flat, and the world is geocentric. Have you burned any black cats to see demons lately? Tell me how that worked out for you.

Ben: I think chazal agreed with them. And irrespective of good or bad, they simply don’t govern modern life today anymore, perhaps that means they are wrong, I don’t know.