Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah?

areivimzehlazeh: maybe the place to looks for the engagements is on onlysimchas or by the simhos on the home page!!!

freezer rule? enlighten me please…although I can extrapolate the true meaning of this I want to be sure….and how long do they have to thaw?

Famous joke, perhaps a nit shein:

Q- What’s the difference between a goseis and a Lakewood guy?

A- the goseis goes from life support to the freezer, while the Lakewood guy goes from the freezer to life support!

kiruvwife: that is correct!!!

Jothar: i’ve heard that one, it’s really funny!!!

A. Nuran, huh? Our Torah is eternal. Feminism doesn’t fit into Yiddishkeit.

A Nuran, it is applaudable that you treat your spouse with respect, and you should treat other Yidden with the same respect when they quote Torah sources and not be angered at your fellow Jew when they quote a Torah source you fail to understand or like. Ad hominems never work.

It could be the girl is doing it because she thinks that’s what the guys want.

The passuk in Bereishis says, according to the meforshim, that man and woman were originally created as one entity and then separated. Each is a half of a whole. Man has chochma yeseira, woman has bina yeseira. Tough to say any half is inferior to the other. while the man is supposed to be the dominant role, That doesn’t imply actual inferiority. A Mamzer talmid chochom is better than a kohen gadol am haaretz, even though the Kohen Gadol gets more kavod and is viewed on a higher level. A Yisroel has the same “olam haba” potential as a Kohen. A Beinoni can earn the same olam haba as an ilui, even though the ilui gets more kavod, better shidduchim, and better positions. Olam haba has nothing to do with the roles of olam hazeh.

Listening now to the “off-the-cuff” lecture from Rav Nosson Kaminetzky.

The wife of Rav Aharon Kotler ZT”L used to learn gemara.

Joseph, the famous Artscroll biography on Reb Yaakov Keminetzky ZT”L by jonathan Rosenblum came for the most part from the research of Reb Nosson Kaminetsky. I do not know how he’s viewed by the “oilam goilam”, but I do know that Rav Shmuel Kaminetky Shlit”a has his brother’s book freely available for perusal in his house. I see Rav shmuel Kaminetzky Shlit”a in the Yated all the time, and to get your picture in the Yated center pages you need to be a recognized gadol, a Rebbe, or a gvir. The hakdama to the 8th volume of igros moshe mentions that Reb Moshe Feinstein’s great grandmother attended a gemara shiur with the Tzemach Tzedek. She sat in the back. Reb Itzele Volozhin’s daughter was well-learned, as the Torah Temimah writes in his Mekor Baruch. Last time I checked, all yeshivish mesoras went back to Volozhin. Finally, RNK has a source from an eyewitness that Rav Aharon Kotler’s wife learned gemara. No matter how he’s viewed, it’s not an opinion- it’s an eyewitness account.

It is clear that the accepted psak for generations was that teaching them Torah is like teaching them tiflus. It is clear from the Chofetz chaim that something has changed, although he does not say to teach them gemara. It is also clear that yechidos learned gemara (1st wife of Netziv, grandmother of Reb Moshe Feinstein ZT”L, wife of Reb Aharon kotler ZT”L. Nobody in the velt (except Rav YB Soloveitchik) mattirs directly teaching women gemara, except out of town as part of a joint class. But the best seminaries in Israel for the top girls live on the edge here. They’re not learning Reb Chaims but they are learning heavy intellectual machshava material (Rambans, Maharals, Michtav Me’eliyahu, etc) which can be considered Torah SheBaal Peh.

I assume the same Reb Moshe by women’s Tzitzis would apply here as well- if it’s done lesheim shamayim, it’s ok for yechidos. If it’s done for rebellion, then it’s Torah Lekanter and is an aveirah chamurah.

According to many shitos in Hilchos shechita, nashim daatan kalos just means that they get squeamish.

True story from a friend of mine who now runs his own place- one year a yeshiva was learning Yevamos. The wife of an avreich asked him to explain what he’s learning. He starts explaining the cases in yevamos he was learning. Every case in Yevamos had a high tragic body count, and soon his wife started crying. This guy couldn’t believe it, and told my friend about it. My friend started laughing, assuming his wife was tougher than that. So he comes home and tells his wife the story, laughing at the squeamishness of the first guy’s wife. Soon enough, his wife’s crying too, and my friend says “Never mind”.

An interesting article based on Rav Elyashiv Shlit”a on what changed with women learning. This “skirts” the issue, but it does explain things very well.

After Moshe warned Paroh about Makas Arbeh, Paroh says (Bo 10:11), “Lichu Na HaGvarim V’Ivdu Es Hashem”, let the men folk go and serve Hashem, while the women and children remain behind. Rav Elyashiv says (Divrei Agada) that Paroh knew that if the women remain tied into the culture of Mitzrayim, the men can do all the avodah they want. As soon as they come back they will follow the women, and all will be lost.

He brings a Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 17:7) that drives home the point. The Medrash speaks of a childless couple who were both very pious people. They decided that since they were not producing any servants of Hashem, it is best that they divorce and each marry someone else, hopefully producing children. The man married a wicked lady and he himself became a Rasha. The woman married a wicked man but he became a tzaddik.

There was conference of Rabbonim after the Russian revolution, says Rav Elyashiv, where there was a proposal raised to create a curriculum for girls education. Many Rabbonim protested based on the words of Chazal who say not to teach your daughters torah. Rav Eliezer Rabinowitz from Minsk stood up and asked, how can you teach torah to someone who wants to convert if he is not yet Jewish? The obvious answer is that unless you teach him he cannot start becoming Jewish. Similarly with the girls. When there were vibrant Jewish homes they did not need to learn torah but times had changed and without torah they had no chance, and they would drag the boys down as well.

It is clear from here that the girls lead the way. However, don’t forget them because the future of our wonderful sons hang in the balance. What exactly they should be learning is a subject of great debate, and obviously the goal is Yiras Shamayim and not lomdus. Because when they come back from shteiging in Yeshiva there needs to be a special girl waiting for them or else… The girls are the hope and future of Klal Yisroel.

___________________________________

Based on this, I can answer my own question, actually. the machshava they learn may be full of torah sheba’al peh, but the goal is yiras shamayim not lomdus, and this gives them an intellectual outlet AND gives them yiras shomayim.

Is Rav Nosson considered part of the Chareidi world or the YU world? YU has their own liberalized shittos, as classes teaching women Gemorah. (Which has no source prior to Rav Yosef B. Soloveitchek.)

I have no idea what the halachic source is – I am wondering if maybe its because of the voluntary nature of these classes? I went to Stern for a year and most girls did not take gemara classes – only those that really wanted to, did.

If you teach girls gemara in elementary or high school, that could be tiflus because you are forcing it on some girls who have no interest.

What does seem to be clear is that the difference between the seminaries and Rav Soloveitchik is more degree than essence. The metzius changed, and women need to be taught torah to keep them frum. The only question is how far the need to teach women extends. I don’t pasken like Rav Soloveitchik, but the difference between his views on it and the views of the top seminaries in Eretz Yisroel are not as wiidely divergent as I first thought.

I’m referring to the elite seminaries in Israel, where the brightest of the bright frum girls go. They’re not shteiging over takfu cohen, but a lot of the machshava quotes heavily from Torah shebaal peh, including Gemara and zohar. Gemara is the line that most of them don’t cross over, but it’s almost semantics considering how far they’re going with Torah Shebaal Peh. The dividing line given in shulchan aruch (pre-Chofetz Chaim) is Torah shebiksav vs. torah shebaal peh. The chofetz chaim allowed torah shebiksav, dinim and mussar. The line, however, gets blurred with these seminaries. There is more to torah shebaal peh than just gemara. If I recall correctly, those who are makpid on learning torah shebiksav at night are allowed to learn Ramban and Rashi because they’re torah shebaal peh. Furthermore, my wife learned Maharal in seminary. I’ll check up the Igros tonight, along with the original likutei halachos if I can hunt it down. Again, I’m not advocating teaching gemara to girls, although if they want to learn it on their own, then halacha clearly allows it.

I had a quick hour last night to go to the beis midrash, so I had to make it quick. I had to pay a babysitter just to get away to the beis midrash- “meimeinu bekesef shasinu”. I think I got it clear though.

There is an argument in Sotah is women should be taught Torah or not. The poskim follow the view that they should not. There is a split made between Torah shebiksav and Torah shebaal peh. According to the most common reading, torah shebaal peh is tiflus, Torah shebiksav is not but shouldn’t be taught anyway. The Prisha in the Tur says that a woman is allowed to decide on her own to learn, because it shows she’s extraordinary. The Taz proves from the gemara in chagiga 3a about hakhel, the men “lilmod” and the women “lishmoa”, that women can learn the pashut pshat in mikra but shoudl not delve too deeply into the havana, because that is torah shebaal peh. The likutei halachos by sotah 21a says that nowadays, women need to learn to keep them frum, since the shtetl days of reinforced frumkeit are gone. He says tanach, mussar, pirkei avos. Reb Moshe clearly says no mishnayos except pirkei avos, and kol shekein no gemara.

That said, women are allowed to learn on their own. The wife of Reb Isser Zalman Meltzer was known to have been a big lamdanis, and helped her husband write his seforim. it thus makes sense that his daughter, Rebbetzin Kotler, would be the same way.

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin in Moznaim Lemishpat siman 42 (disclaimer- I didn’t have enough time to hunt this down myself) allows Torah shebaal peh but just the maskanah, not shakla vetarya.

Bottom line: Women are allowed to learn on their own. According to most poskim, men shouldn’t teach them Torah shebaal Peh. the Taz makes it clear that deep havana in mikra is torah shebaal Peh, which makes Rambans the same thing as Gemara. While they aren’t teaching gemara, they clearly are teaching the girls torah shebaal peh- tiflus. The only heter I hear for seminaries is that of Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, which I didn’t read yet.

But I assume most men don’t want a chavrusa, as it challenges their self-worth.

Thanks, Ames.

I give props to Joseph- his good sources help inspire me to find other good sources- a true “kinas sofrim tarbeh chochma”.It’s kinas sofrim, but not lekanter. Joseph has a big cheilek in my nightly Limud Torah, and helps me get emes by challenging my opinions. In other words, he’s my chavrusa, not my enemy, even though we’re usually arguing. There are times that I will argue on him just for the sake of playing Satan’s advocate, in order to achieve ravcha shmaatza, even if my real views may be different. Groyse shkoyach, Joseph!

Ames, arguing is EXACTLY how Torah shebaal peh is meant to be done. Enough “vahev basufah”. Back to the arguing!

I hunted down tonight a shearim metzuyanim behalacha, one of the best sefarim for bekiyus and “reid” on a topic. It was one of my best friends while learning chullin for semicha in my pre-balabos days.

He quotes a Shu”t Maharshal siman 29 that his grandmother used to teach big rabbanim and gedolim from behind a curtain for many years. I don’t think we’re arguing about this, but good to know nevertheless

In Sefer Chassidim 313, he defines tiflus as “omek talmud”, “taamei mitzvos”, and “sodei torah”. This does shtim with the Taz. It looks like from the likutei halachos that only one level was permitted, ie the lower level of torah shebiksav. Torah shebaal peh was not permitted except for mussar. Based on everything, the following would be assur even today to teach women unless we mattir even torah shebaal peh based on “eis laasos”:

1. Mishnayos and Gemara (Sefer Chassidim, Reb Moshe ZT”L);

2. Ramban on Chumash (Taz, sefer Chassidim);

3. Maharal, since “sodei torah” ( sefer Chassidim)

Seminaries avoid #1 like the plague. #2 and #3 are widespread among all seminaries, despite the fact that they’re torah shebaal peh. Clearly they have a heter, since they get the daughters of the best rabbonim. So clearly they have a heter for Torah Shebaal Peh.

Jothar, want to try to answer labochur? labochur, it seems to me you’re understanding is correct. That is being said without me having the benefit to look at it inside (being I’ll be busy for a bit now.)

labochur, Rav Shach is based on the Prisha on the Tur in siman 246, which, as far as I understand, nobody argues on. The shearim metzuyanim behalacha brings down many examples of learned women, as does the Torah temimah in his Mekor Baruch.

Do you mean Ramban as in mikraos gedolos? In general BY high schools learn all the meforshim inside (I don’t mean every single one on every single pasuk) a mikraos gedolos. I did, in my out of town, not as academic as it is now, BY 30 years ago.

Bingo?

30 years ago, in BY, a very chashuve mechanaches, whose husband was a very chashuve mashgiach,regularly spent 2 weeks with a senior high class on a seminal Ramban about the makkos. I never realized how controversial Rebbetzin X was…

Because depth= torah shebaal peh. And if that’s muttar, then gemara is as well. If Gemara isn’t muttar, then Rambans shouldn’t be as well.

Jothar, does that mean Rashi too? I don’t see why not.

Isn’t there a qualitative difference between gemara and these other examples of Torah she’beal peh? When most people think of ameilus b’Torah, v’hagisa bo, etc., they think of gemara. I invite someone who gets what I’m saying to clarify this qualitative difference. One important angle is the mindset and hachana necessary to truly learn gemara well.

Something else: I just read a fascinating article in an old Mishpacha about R. Y. Y. Reinman (aka Avner Gold) who talks about learning gemara with Amiel Hirsch. Hirsch was exhiliarated by their learning session, yet found it not much more than an intellectual pursuit. R. Reinman, of course, “got it.” There is a soul connection in learning gemara that I know that I as a woman (and as the woman I am) can’t get. (At least I appreciate it ;-)I need the l’maaseh, and as many loose ends tied up as possible. I understand that men get so much more, and something very different out of it, and joyfully facilitate my husband’s and sons’ learning.

I had a friend who taught in Skver and she herself was able to use whatever she needed to prepare but she couldn’t bring in texts with those mefarshim.

Jothar, tell me if I got this clear. Men could only teach them maskanos. The whole gemara and other chumash meforshim like Ramban can only be taught by women or men out of town. Also, when R’ Moshe paskined no mishnayos, was that only for men to teach it or for them to learn by themselves also?

Joseph, the Aruch HaShulchan says before quoting the Gemara, that “Even though they recieve a reward: (quote from Sotah 20a, followed by Sotah 21b, which is the phrase about “one who teaches his daughter Torah (shebaal peh) it is as if he is teaching her matters of transgression,) connotating that it is surely unadvised for one to teach his daughter Gemara, but if one’s daughter learns Gemara, she still gets a reward. The Aruch HaShulchan says that “Because their minds are ??, and they find in the Torah meaningless matters, because their minds are inadequate (for Torah study, even though they get a reward). But like most poskim, the Aruch HaShulchan rules that one’s daughter can learn Torah Shebichsav. In the Tur it says the opposite of what the Shulchan Oruch says, that Torah shebaal peh is not tiflus, and Torah shebichsav is. The Birkei Yosef notes that it is most probably a printer’s error.

I looked in the Shach and the Taz, and they both say that one’s daughter should not learn Torah shebaal peh, the Taz in the beginning noting the same observation of the Birkei Yosef, the printer’s error in the Tur, and that the Tur intended to say the same thing as the Shulchan Oruch, of course intending to say as well, like the Birkei Yosef, that he is with the Shulchan Oruch in this case. The Taz also notes that Lechatchila one’s daughter can learn Torah shebichsav, because the king would read Sefer Devorim to every Jew,, including women and children, and not only the men. The Shach on ???:? says nothing but an explanation of “One who is commanded and does is greater than one who is not commanded and does,” thus also deciding like the Shulchan Aruch and the Tur.

The Birkei Yosef notes that in the Machloikes with R’ Eliezer and Ben Azzai in Sotah 21b that if one is obligated to teach his daughter Torah shebaal peh, that we pasken like R’ Eliezer, and so for anyone who says that Ben Azzai says te opposite, we pasken like R’ Eliezer due to the opinions of R’ Yehoshua and R’ Elazar ben Azariah, if I understood the Birkei Yosef correctly.

The Rambam says on the matter: ????? ????? ???? ?:?? A woman who learns Torah, she has a reward, but not as big as a man’s, due to the fact that she was not commanded to. The one who is not commanded and does, his reward is not as big as the one who is commanded and does. Even though she gets a reward, our Chachamim commanded that one should not teach her. So we can see that the Rambam is of the opinion that it is an issur to not teach one’s daughter Torah shebaal peh, as consistent with his idea, that is stricter than other posikm’s, that lechatchila one should not even teach one’s daughter Torah shebichsav, but bedieved it is not like teaching tiflus.

The Shulchan Oruch HaRav quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin, that a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, because it says to your sons, not to your daughters, in ????? ?:?. Later he quotes the Rambam in what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. It seems like a contradiction, but in reality the unobligation is for Torah shebichsav, and the quote from the Rambam is for Torah shebaal peh. So, basically the Sulchan Oruch HaRav says that Lechatchila one can teach Torah shebichsav, but holds by the strict opinion of the Rambam that it is an issur to teach Torah shebaal peh. however, still the Shulchan Oruch HaRav says women need to learn Hilchos Nidah, Tvilah, and other things that apply for women.

The Bach says the lechatchila teaching a woman Torah shebichsav is OK, because if she dosen’t know Torah, how would she know how to fulfill all the mitzvos? Also, the Bach says that a woman can learn by hearing, but can not teach by stating, asserting. Hearing is merely at the time of its command (she can hear a command or public reading, but not learn on her own, like the public reading of Sefer Devorim. But a woman should still learn the things that women need to learn, and so she should say Birchos HaTorah every day.

The Rema says that a woman should learn the things applying to a woman, and she is not obligated to teach her son Torah (presumably both shebichsav and shebaal peh). But if she does help her son or husband so they can dwell in Torah part of their reward is given to them. This last sentence of the Rema can either refer to a Yissachar- Zevulun relationship, one works, and other learns, benefit divided, or when she helps: for example answering a question or learning together. The Rema also says not OBLIGATED. Not obligated, means you don’t have to do it, but you can. A woman will still get reward for learning even though she is not commanded, as R’ Chanina says: “The one who is commanded and does his reward is greater than the one who is not commanded and does.”

The Beis Yosef says on the Tur: With reference to this it is taught: If her merits suspend her (from dying from frinking the waters) (Sotah 20a). It is said in the Gemara (Sotah 21a) If you say, the merits of Torah, she is not commanded and does! The explanation of Rashi on this is that she is not commanded and does, and so her reward is less than one who is not commanded and does. And what is written (to support this)? One who does something without being commanded, his reward is not like the one who is commanded and does. (This all implies that even if a woman learns Torah she gets a merit, but not big enough to save from death, as the Gemara says: “A merit can save for 1, 2, or 3 years.”

Last of all, what is the context of R’ Eliezer’s machloikes with Ben Azzai? Ben Azzai says: One is obligated to teach his daughter Torah: in regard to what? In regard to her merits from the learning saving her from immediately dying from Mei Sotah, suspending her death for 1, 2, or 3 years. R’ Eliezer only says it is folly, in regard to it is worthless. It will not save her. According to Rashi’s interpretation of promiscuity, it advocates promiscuity, for she can do any immoral acts and not die for a couple more years.

*This is all according to my understanding of the text.

I’m having trouble finding anything in the Hebrewbooksonline website, but I did find this Malbim which can be read to allow anything:

?????

????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????

??? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ???. ???? ?”? ??’ ?????

??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??”? ??? ??? ?? ??

???? ???? ?.? ????? ?????? ???????, ???? ???

???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??”? ???

?:?:??? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????????

??,???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ????

??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????, ????’

???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????,