Feminism

Do you care to comment on 80’s point, that it says “will”, not should?

I did not realize it was a point. I thought it was merely a correction.

The same pasuk says she shall desire her husband. Do you feel its okay if she neglects that part of the pasuk?

No — but not because of the pasuk, but because it is obviously detrimental to the marriage.

And more importantly than all that, I’ve cited that the ruling is actual halacha and the Torah ideal, not just a curse.

And yet, you’ve said above it’s okay for me to “violate” halacha by insisting that it not be that way. Obviously it’s not really halacha then, is it?

The Wolf

Regarding the analogy between a King and a husband, it was simply that both involve ruling

No… that’s the point you’re trying to make, so you can’t use that as the basis of the commonality.

The pasuk isn’t good enough for you?

The point was that my answer would be the same even absent the pasuk.

I have no idea what you are talking about in your last paragraph of your last post.

You said here that it’s a halacha that a husband must “rule” the marriage. You also stated earlier in this thread that it’s perfectly fine with the Torah if I *don’t* run my marriage that way.

Obviously it’s not a mandatory halacha.

The Wolf

Your language of “but not because of the pasuk” is far different than your claim now that “The point was that my answer would be the same even absent the pasuk.” Your original terminology clearly indicates your disregard if not contempt for the pasuk.

Fair enough criticism. Call it a poor choice of words on my part.

I said that I think you have the right to surrender your rights. That in no way shape or form indicates that “Obviously it’s not a mandatory halacha.”

If I can waive my rights, then it’s obviously not mandatory.

We have an explicit pasuk in the Torah that a man rules his wife. It is clear, unambiguous, and black and white in so many words. It is part of the Torah HaKedosha. Period.

We also have an explicit pasuk in the Torah that a woman gives birth in pain. It is clear, unambiguous, and black and white in so many words. It is part of the Torah HaKedosha. Period. And yet, if it were possible for a woman to give birth without pain (through technological means) you have not indicated that this would be a problem. Why? Why are the two different?

The Wolf

Wolf: I think we’ve exhausted this discussion. I will follow up your last comment as follows.

If I can waive my rights, then it’s obviously not mandatory.

You can also waive other rights you have in the Torah and halacha. i.e. If someone owes you money, you can forgive the debt, even though you are entitled under halacha to claim the money. This point doesn’t mean “it’s obviously not mandatory” under halacha that your debtor repay you (prior to your debt forgiveness.)

“Why are the two different?”

For one thing (amongst others), the Chachomim clearly stated that a husband ruling his wife is halacha l’maaisa. Secondly, this involves the rights of two parties (the husband and wife), whilst the child birth doesn’t involve abrogating another parties rights.

Kol Tuv

BTW, I still need to double-check the Mishna in Kesuvos, but I’ll accept your interpretation of it. That being said, I did NOT intend to say the Mishna includes even when she’s an UNMARRIED ADULT. If I was mistakenly understood as such (regardless of fault), I apologize.

Regarding the metzius discussion (which is entirely different than what we’ve been talking about in Bereishis), I still don’t agree with you. Neither do I currently feel adequately prepared to defend my position on it at the moment, but perhaps I’ll have an opportunity to explain it better after some discussion with Rebbeim. It is a deep concept.

GAW, thanks. I don’t have a problem with dissenting opinions, but appartently Kasha thinks they can all occur simultaneously.

BTW, I fully acknowledge my husband’s leadership when it comes to halchic rulings*. When it comes to things that aren’t halacha, we are equal.

(except for tuna fish – it makes me feel like I’m eating treif to eat Starkist so we only buy dagim, but he can eat tuna fish outside of the house whereas I would not)

clearheaded:

I really think this has been exhausted. We are being repetitive here. This has been all addressed. But for your elucidation, since you seem to be such a nice person, I will reiterate it one final time.

In addition, you keep on stating that it is an explicit posuk in the Torah that a wife is ruled by her husband.

Bereishis 3:16.

Maybe the meforshim expound on a certain posuk in the Torah. Which meforshim are you talking about?

Ramban on Bereishis 3:16

Likutim on the mishna in Kerisus

Torah Temima, Bereishis 3:16, note 22

Mishna Kerisos 6:9

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ishus 15:20

Kol Tuv, Zeits Gezunt, un ah Gutte Chodesh!

I really think this has been exhausted. We are being repetitive here. This has been all addressed.

Actually, you did not address CH’s question. To wit:

So what what is your point by bringing this Mishna? If your point was to prove that women are not eaual because they are under someone’s reshus, I proved you wrong.

The Wolf

in order to make your claim that they never stayed in the relationship just because they believe that “he still lobves me”.

Please show me where I made that claim.

Unfortunately YWN won’t let me post a few recent examples of politicians who threw their careers away on illogical decisions.

Please point me to evidence that feminism caused MORE abuse and not less.

Before feminism, women stayed in abusive marriages because they had no way out. They were beaten, the kids were beaten and everything stayed behind closed doors.

A cop who has a gun and is a sharpshooter can use it. You are also claiming that I said a 5’2″ 100 lb woman would make an excellent beat cop. I didn’t – I referenced being a detective, a job that requires critical thinking skills more than brawn.

I never said having brawn means you don’t have brains. I referenced one vs the other.

No more then you seem to be getting worked up over that fact that radical feminism is at odds with a Torah lifestyle such as putting the premium on motherhood and rasing the kids and not just paying some babysitter or “nanny” to do it.

Actually, I would love nothing more than to be a stay at home mother. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to. I’m just thankful for “radical feminism” that allows me a comparable salary to my male counterparts based on ability, not by gender.

Sure some women are promoted because they want a woman (or minority of some sort) promoted. But many competent, deserving women get promoted as well.

Neither Sarah Palin nor Hillary Clinton are great leaders in my mind. I can’t really point to a great male leader at this moment either. Sadly, I think we have no great secular leaders at this time.

Hashem made both men and women illogical, or neither would ever get married. Its like the gemorah states, that when the Anshei K’nesses HaGedolah tried to be Mivatel the Yetzer Hara of Arayos, the world stopped functioning, and even hens wouldn’t lay eggs.

Or as I like quoting, “Who ever said the human race is logical?”

Kasha: I suggested you leave the eilu V’eilu arguement aside, I’m glad you did. When you speak to your Rav/Rebbe and you get a complete explanation, I would love to hear what his opinion is (It is at the very least a Machlokes Rishonim, and a very large Hashkafic Machlokes today, which I have no interest in getting into, but would love to hear additional insight, as with this topic, there is never enough).

Hereorthere: Union rules and feminism are two different ideas. If you want to attack unions, I think most people would agree in many cases (with significant exceptions, such as coal mines, electric poles, and other hazardous jobs, but the UAW union or the teacher’s union is way overboard), but that is not related to equal work for equal pay, or other forms of discrimination (such as telling those who can work on saturday that they should not apply).

Talk about extrapolation, I never said anything about being angry.

I didn’t say you were angry. I merely said there was no cause.

Nonetheless, I apologize if it was taken that way.

The Wolf

Kasha thanks for your compliment and thank you for being accomodating and repeating your sources. The reason I asked you for the posuk and the meforshim is because you have not retreated in the face of very logical arguments and therefore I thought I missed something regarding your sources.

1. as I’ve mentioned before, there is no explicit posuk in the Torah stating that a man rules over his wife

2. we have chewed through a lot of the meforshim, whether it was the Rambam, Torah Temima and other meforshim where Wolf and I, who are are the same page regarding the subject of feminism, presented not only logical arguments but the reality as well.

For example; while the Rambam said that a man can divorce a woman if she doesn’ wash his feet, I have stressed that in these times no Rabbi would agree that a man should divorce his wife because of that reason. There are numerous such instances that halacha, while unchanging, is clearly applied differently than years ago.

I will bring a different example as well. According to halacha a man is allowed to have more than one wife. While cherem d’Rabbeinu Gershum was adopted it there never was an outright halacha ossuring a man from having multiple wives. In fact in Teiman, until very recently men had more than one wife. Why did that change? More specificly why did the Taimany adopt the practice of only marrying one wife if the cherem d’Rabbeini Gershem was never adopted as their minhag? Simply put, halacha does not change, but minhag hamokom changes the way we apply halacha. The accepted APPLICATION of halacha can change(not halacha itself, but the application of it)to a stricter or more lenient practice – that’s called minhugim. Sorry, but minhugim do exist and they can sometimes clearly clash with halacha. An example of such a case would be where some families eat a kasieos afikomin after chatzos which is clearly against halacha.

Kasha, while in theory your arguments are strong, it is not the reality.

??. ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????????? ?????? ???????? ?????:

16. To the woman He said, “I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you.”

Is this pasuk in the Torah explicit enough?

Mod80: Agreed. Hence I cited the aforementioned litany of meforshim including the Mishna, Ramban, Rambam, Torah Temima, etc.

Thank you for sharing that you generally share my position here. 🙂

I have NOT argued against our meforshim. Give me one instance where I did. I have merely stated WHY either a Rov will not accept someone’s excuse for divorcing his wife because she doesn’t wash his feet, I have explained why even though according to the Torah having more than one wife is allowed frum Jews have adopted a more stringent practice, and whatever other example I’ve used throughout this thread is what IS the practive of klal Yisroel in these times whether you like it or not. Just because my argument clashes wiyh YOUR position doesn’t mean

a. that my position in this case is not correct and

b. that even more importantly, chas vesholom I am arguing against the meforshim. It is incorrect and unfair to say that I did. I never said the meforshim are wrong or even that I don’t agree with their opinions. I HAVE SAID that the practical application of halacha has changed throughout the ages and if you do not agree then you ARE arguing against the metzius.

In fact the only person I have argued against is you, not chas vesholom our holy Rabbis. It is because you think that your position IS the mefarshim’s that you THINK I’ve argued against them. However I do not agree that YOUR stand IS the meforshim’s stand. And because of HOW KLAL YISROEL PRACTICES HALACHA your stand CANNOT BE CORRECT. AS I HAVE BROUGHT DOWN INSTANCES THAT ARE HALACHA THE WAY THE MAJORITY OF KLAL YISROEL PRACTICES. If I am wrong in any instance of how halacha is practiced today that I’ve bought down throughout this thread, whether it is about the slaves or anything wlse, please let me know.

I do need to make one correction when stating that there are people who have a minhug to eat the afikomin after chatzus. I meant to write that there are people who are not makpid to eat a afikomin before chatzos even though it clashes with halacha. Now whether you like it or not, a large number of Chassidim including my husband’s rebbe are not makpid to eat the afikomin before chatzos. They expound on the Haggadah untill way after chatzos and only then eat the afikomin.

Now last but not least. Ruling over one’s wife can mean in minhagim as the wife adopts the husbands minhagim after marriage. It does not explictly say in the Torah that the husband rules over his wife in every aspect.

clearheaded:

This conversation is clearly exhausted. You are speaking from a purely emotional standpoint, due to the feminist influence you’ve been exposed to. I know you claim not to be a feminist, but their philosphies and hashkofos have clearly rubbed off on you. (BTW, Wolf is admittedly clearly more receptive to feminism than even you.) I have not, nor will I, C”V consider you an apikorus, since you don’t know better and I see that you mean well, even though you have been led astray and off the reservation.

But essentially you HAVE in fact argued against the aforementioned meforshim I cited. It is apparent you haven’t read or studied or otherwise sought to understand exactly what these meforshim are saying. What you are stating is clearly at odds with how the halacha is explained there. I must assume this is not your intention, but as a matter of reality there is no other way to describe your comments other than being at odd with our heilige meforshim.

“However I do not agree that YOUR stand IS the meforshim’s stand.”

How can you “agree” or “disagree” with a stand on meforshim you never read?

“And because of HOW KLAL YISROEL PRACTICES HALACHA your stand CANNOT BE CORRECT. AS I HAVE BROUGHT DOWN INSTANCES THAT ARE HALACHA THE WAY THE MAJORITY OF KLAL YISROEL PRACTICES.”

Incorrect. It is possible the majority practices a certain halacha incorrectly. Judaism isn’t ruled by majority. Judaism isn’t a democracy. (This can be said without even addressing how in fact the majority act in the area under discussion.) If we went by how the majority ACTS, the Reform/Conservative actions would unfortunately constitute a majority. I’m sure even you would admit that it would be preposterous to go by how such a majority ACTS. Jews are imperfect – we know that and accept it – but Judaism is perfect, and unchangeable. We do not make over G-d in our own image.

Klal Yisroel does not practice halacha (in the parts of Klal Yisroel that faithfully practices halacha) differently than our holy meforshim I’ve quoted tell us to. Practical halacha on a m’doraisa does not ever deviate with the passage of time from the basic interpretation of the m’doraisa.

There is no more I can add to this conversation. Whatever you plan on responding will surely be the same repetitive and incorrect points you’ve made thus far. One day, I trust, you too will come to your proper Yiddishe senses, and the golus influence will have evaporated from you. Hopefully that will occur prior to the arrival of Moshiach; but better yet Moshiach will be here very shortly, Bimhera Byomeinu Amen.

Chazak V’Amatz

“Wolf: Chazal are not wrong. End of discussion; period.

Yes. That’s why I said “hypothetically.””

Even hypotehetically Chazal can never be wrong.

“When he wasn’t speaking “Mipi HaGevurah” he certainly was fallible. We know he made mistakes.”

All I know is that you have a lot of answering to do for claiming that Moshe Rabeinu made mistakes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I dont understand how youre not afraid to talk badly about Moshe or anyone else from Chazal.

“If you have a brain in your head, you know when chazal is exaggerating, and you don’t need confirmation. “

Chazal never exaggerate (except for the places where they say they are exagerating).

anon for this, thanks, I just saw your post. I didn’t realize it before. I will check it out.

I just knew that there is more to this posuk!