Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Ladies First – Is it respectful or not?
- This topic has 271 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by Lilmod Ulelamaid.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 6, 2016 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm #1178442Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant
Besalel: “lilmod: yes and no. the shulchan aruch covers what shoe should be put on first and other minute details but never asks you to put your brain and common sense away. quite the opposite is true.”
That contradicts nothing that I said. In fact it supports it. (so we have the yes – where is the no?)
September 6, 2016 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm #1178443Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantHealth: “What’s a good point? And what Eidus?”
ditto.
September 6, 2016 9:46 pm at 9:46 pm #1178444☕️coffee addictParticipantI still don’t see how going first and holding open a door any different than holding a door while she goes first
It’s just as menchlich to do it that way
September 6, 2016 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #1178445Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantCA- not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying what I’ve been saying the whole time – that he can hold open the door without walking behind her and that way he can solve the problem of being both tznius and menchlich?
I think Joseph’s point is that “who says it’s more mentchlich for a man to open the door for a woman in the first place? Why shouldn’t it be the other way?”
September 7, 2016 12:18 am at 12:18 am #1178446☕️coffee addictParticipantLilmod,
This is where I said it myself (not sure who said it first but it doesn’t matter) I actually said it in reply to you!
Rav Frand also added that Rav Dovid (I’m not sure who that is, but the guys present probably know) would tell bochurim when they were dating to hold open the door for the girl even though this would entail walking behind her. (although personally, I don’t see why this has to be the case. Why can’t she walk through the doorway and then move to the side?, but in any case, that seemed to be his assumption)
Or why can’t he go first and hold it open for her
September 7, 2016 1:01 am at 1:01 am #1178447Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantCA – I thought you were saying the same thing as me. I meant that they would walk together until the door, and then he would open the door for her but stand to the side so he is not behind her when she walks through the doorway, then she can stand to the side after she gets through the doorway, so he can catch up to her w/o walking behind her.
September 7, 2016 2:16 am at 2:16 am #1178448JosephParticipantSeveral times I asked for a logical explanation why anyone might think that it is more appropriate that the guy specifically open the door for the girl rather than the girl specifically open the door for the guy. After much kvetching and handwringing, being unable to give a logical explanation, we were offered a tongue-twister of trying to squeeze out of Keddushin 2B that since the norm is men try to woo women in marriage rather than vice versa, therefore it bridges that men should open the door for her. That’s quite a stretch but that was the best that anyone came up with.
But I have much better evidence that the woman should open the door for the man than what was offered for the other way. We learn in halacha (Rambam Hilchos Ishus 15:20) that “Our Sages have commanded that the woman honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king. She should orient her activities according to that which he desires and stay away from that which he hates.” Rambam also lists the various obligations wives have for their husband (pours his drinks, washes his hands, makes the bed and serves him). Rashi in Menachos 43b (during the discussion of shelo asani isha) goes so far in comparison to say that “the wife is also a slave to her husband as a slave is to his master.”
Clearly as a wife must treat and fear her husband as her King and ruler and do everything he desires and serve him, should be doing the very minimal serving of opening the door for him.
September 7, 2016 2:51 am at 2:51 am #1178449Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph – we weren’t talking about husbands and wives (not that I agree that wives should open doors for husbands, but I’m just pointing out that we weren’t even talking about that).
Anyhow, I did bring you a proof – I pointed out that common custom is important in halacha.
Regarding the Rambam, he lists obligations of a wife to a husband but doesn’t mention opening the door for her. And he also talks about the husband’s obligations to his wife, so you can say that she should open the door for him.
And how many wives do you knwo who wash their husband’s hands?
September 7, 2016 3:06 am at 3:06 am #1178450Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantor pour their drinks for that matter? I think the reason why we don’t have to do those things today is because they are not common custom.
So the source that you are bringing is actually a proof that we DO take common custom into account.
September 7, 2016 3:16 am at 3:16 am #1178451JosephParticipantYou’re again conflating gentile customs with Jews. You are relating non-Jewish customs (if it is even a custom by them, as you claim), not Jewish ones.
The Rambam says, in general, that a wife “serves him” and that Chazal command that she “honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king.” Also see the Rashi I quoted above.
September 7, 2016 3:32 am at 3:32 am #1178452Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantThe truth is that in a non-dating situation, either one can hold the door open for the other, but the problem is that the man is always supposed to be in front since he is not allowed to walk behind his wife, so he ends up being the one to hold the door open for her.
Personally, whenever I am going through a door and see a man behind me, I always want to hold open the door for them (rather than close it on them), but I am always concerned that they won’t think it’s tznius and would rather I didn’t.
September 7, 2016 3:33 am at 3:33 am #1178453Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph, I already proved that Jews take goyish customs into account, and you never responded to that post.
September 7, 2016 3:39 am at 3:39 am #1178454JosephParticipantthe problem is that the man is always supposed to be in front since he is not allowed to walk behind his wife, so he ends up being the one to hold the door open for her.
Not if the door is pulled out to open. If he goes in first then she will be holding the door open for him.
September 7, 2016 3:44 am at 3:44 am #1178455JosephParticipantor pour their drinks for that matter?
In most families I know the wife serves the food and drinks as well as makes the beds.
September 7, 2016 3:49 am at 3:49 am #1178456JosephParticipantThe goyim also have a custom of men shaking women’s hands when offered. And the goyish custom is for women to dress not tznius when making a party. We don’t follow their customs as a rule, even if it doesn’t violate a specific halacha. And when it does violate halacha, such as walking behind women, we surely don’t pick up gentile customs.
September 7, 2016 3:52 am at 3:52 am #1178457JosephParticipantNone of your proofs to support the position of men specifically opening the door for women or for women to go before men are as strong as the proofs I brought above from Chazal, Rashi and Rambam (citing Chazal) l’halacha to support the opposite notion.
September 7, 2016 4:37 am at 4:37 am #1178458Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph: “or pour their drinks for that matter?
In most families I know the wife serves the food and drinks as well as makes the beds.”
Serving drinks is not the same as pouring drinks. I have never seen a wife pour her husband’s drinks for him.
September 7, 2016 4:41 am at 4:41 am #1178459Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph: “None of your proofs to support the position of men specifically opening the door for women or for women to go before men are as strong as the proofs I brought above from Chazal, Rashi and Rambam (citing Chazal) l’halacha to support the opposite notion.”
Joseph, they support the notion that we do care about common custom. The sources you brought do not say that women should open the door for men, and to the best of my knowledge that has never been the Jewish custom.
The question is: “What is the Jewish custom and what do the Gedolim do?”
I have never noticed that it is a Jewish custom for women to davka open the door for men, although, I am not sure that the opposite is so wide spread either. But it is certainly much more common for men to open the door for women.
September 7, 2016 4:45 am at 4:45 am #1178460Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph: “the problem is that the man is always supposed to be in front since he is not allowed to walk behind his wife, so he ends up being the one to hold the door open for her.
Not if the door is pulled out to open. If he goes in first then she will be holding the door open for him.”
I don’t get what you mean. If he is in front of her, she can’t open the door for him. In any case, I always feel like it would be untznius for me to stand there holding open the door for a man, and I always feel like they are not comfortable with the idea either.
September 7, 2016 4:46 am at 4:46 am #1178461Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph: “The goyim also have a custom of men shaking women’s hands when offered. And the goyish custom is for women to dress not tznius when making a party. We don’t follow their customs as a rule, even if it doesn’t violate a specific halacha. And when it does violate halacha, such as walking behind women, we surely don’t pick up gentile customs.”
I brought proofs that we do (when it doesn’t violate halacha). And what is your point in bringing in examples of cases where it does violate halacha?
September 7, 2016 4:49 am at 4:49 am #1178462JosephParticipant??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???. ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????:
How do you interpret treating him as a king and ruler?
September 7, 2016 4:53 am at 4:53 am #1178463Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph, DY wrote in the other thread: “He also writes, ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? [?? ????? ????? ??
“?? ??????] ??? ??? ?????? ??????,
You never responded to that point. That is clear proof that Rav Shlomo Zalman Zatsal held that we do care about common courtesy.
September 7, 2016 4:56 am at 4:56 am #1178464Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantThere are also halachos about how a husband should treat his wife! When you bring sources like this w/o the other sources about how a husband should treat his wife, it presents a twisted perspective on Judaism to the outside world (even if that was not your intention).
I would translate eved as servant since slave has different connotations nowadays.
September 7, 2016 4:57 am at 4:57 am #1178465JosephParticipantRav Shlomo Zalman began his letter writing it for a “bshas hadchak”.
Nowhere does your proof show we adopt goyish customs. Including the pizza example. It is based on Jewish behavior not gentile behavior.
And walking behind women is a violation of halacha.
September 7, 2016 5:08 am at 5:08 am #1178466Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???. ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????:
How do you interpret treating him as a king and ruler?
My above posts were written before this was posted, so that were not davka said in response to this although they could have been.
1. Like I said, there are halachos about how a husband needs to treat his wife as well.
2. The Rambam explains what it means: ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????
not opening doors.
September 7, 2016 5:09 am at 5:09 am #1178467Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantIn terms of the Rashi you brought, l’maaseh the halacha is that women do say “shelo asani aved”.
September 7, 2016 5:20 am at 5:20 am #1178468Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantokay, I just looked up the Rambam, and the halacha BEFORE this one is: “And so the Chachamim commanded that a man should honor his wife more than himself and love her like himself, and if he has money, he should increase (what he gives her) according to his means, and he should not place upon her extra fear and his speech to her should be pleasant and he shouldn’t be sad or tempermental”
So maybe opening doors is the way he shows her honor and love.
September 7, 2016 6:42 am at 6:42 am #1178470Person1MemberJoseph it’s clear to me that the rambam didn’t c”v mean to say that a wife should treat her husband like a master in her. -actions-. Do you think he was trying to fix men up with lifelong slaves? That makes me shudder!
What he meant was that this is the way that a wife should treat her husband in her heart! That she should respect and admire him to such extent that he’ll be a like a king in her eyes.
If a wife feel that way towards her husband in her heart, I’d imagine serving him drinks might be one way she’d express that feeling.
But if a wife is -required- to serve her husband drinks, and is not doing so as a result of her admiration of him, the only thing she’ll be thinking is “I’d like to spill this on his head”. And that’s the only thing you might achieve from asking woman to serve drinks and open doors.
September 7, 2016 11:40 am at 11:40 am #1178471WolfishMusingsParticipantServing drinks is not the same as pouring drinks. I have never seen a wife pour her husband’s drinks for him.
Eees and I pour drinks for each other all the time.
We also hold the door open for each other all the time.
????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???
We definitely don’t do this. Our marriage is one of equals, not master and servant or boss and underling and certainly not king and subject.
If you want to say that this makes our marriage not a “Torah marriage,” then fine, that’s your opinion, but after 25 years, we’re not changing.
The Wolf
September 7, 2016 1:14 pm at 1:14 pm #1178472gavra_at_workParticipantJoe:
1: That is only once they are married.
2: The same Rambam says (as LuL points out)
??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ?????? ?????; ??? ?? ?? ????, ???? ?????? ??? ?????. ??? ???? ???? ???? ????; ????? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ???? ??? ??? ????.
Simply put, they should both offer. He should still be Mechabed her more than she him (Yoser), so he ends up holding the door.
September 7, 2016 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm #1178476Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantGAW: Thank you for bringing the Rambam. I don’t know how to type in hebrew on this computer, so I had to rely on my on-the-spot translation.
September 7, 2016 5:01 pm at 5:01 pm #1178477Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantWolf, it sounds to me like you have a very Torahdik marriage! And I don’t think it’s a contradiction to the Rambam either.
Joseph, The problem with quoting this Rambam without any explanation (and w/o quoting the Halacha beforehand regarding the husband’s obligations to his wife) is that it’s the type of thing that can be very easily misunderstood and give a very wrong impression of the Torah view of marriage.
There are enough people out there who already misunderstand these things. If you are really anti-feminism, you should be careful how you quote and apply things like this, since it feeds feminism.
September 7, 2016 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #1178478Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantPerson1: “Joseph it’s clear to me that the rambam didn’t c”v mean to say that a wife should treat her husband like a master in her. -actions-. Do you think he was trying to fix men up with lifelong slaves? That makes me shudder!
What he meant was that this is the way that a wife should treat her husband in her heart! That she should respect and admire him to such extent that he’ll be a like a king in her eyes.
If a wife feel that way towards her husband in her heart, I’d imagine serving him drinks might be one way she’d express that feeling.
But if a wife is -required- to serve her husband drinks, and is not doing so as a result of her admiration of him, the only thing she’ll be thinking is “I’d like to spill this on his head”. And that’s the only thing you might achieve from asking woman to serve drinks and open doors.”
Person1, well-said!
I think that there is a reason why the husband’s obligations to his wife are brought first. If he shows her love and respect, she will WANT to treat him like a king, and they will have a beautiful marriage! Maybe you are right, Joseph, and that will include opening doors for him if that’s so important to him, but it has to come from her and not from him. If he focuses on the first halacha (his obligations to her), then she will want to fulfill her obligations to him.
If it’s really important to him that she open doors for him, maybe she should open the door for him, but it has to come from her, and that will only happen if he is focused on his obligations to her and not his to her. There is a reason why Rav Arush gave such a strict warning to men not to read the women’s book!!! (much stricter than the warning to women not to read the men’s book)
September 7, 2016 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #1178479JosephParticipantI brought a ton of sources that proved my position in a very strong way. So strong, in fact, that the mods in their infinite wisdom decided it was too strong for print. (Probably for the same reason you [lilmod]
The problem today is that many people feel we need to water down and hush-hush Torah sources on gender relations due to the Western world changes in recent decades on this topic. I disagree with this kind of hush-hushing of Torah sources (as well as disagree with replacing Torah described relationships with modern Western type relationships).
Your assumption that anyone here feels a need to water down and hush-hush Torah sources is wrong and offensive. Your inability to see the whole picture should not be mistaken for the conclusions you contrive through your own short sightedness. When I read your posts as they come in I am often left wondering, “What is his point?” and the answer to that question often drives the decision to approve or not approve.
September 7, 2016 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1178480JosephParticipantRav Avigdor Miller (Awake My Glory): There cannot be two kings. The marriage relationship is two-fold. 1) The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition, the home is disordered. “Arrogance is unbecoming a woman” – Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache. 2) The second, but equally essential foundation: a man must always demonstrate respect for his wife. This is “the way of Jewish men that… honor and support their wives in truth” as stated in the Jewish marriage contract. “He honors her more than his own body” – Yevamos 62B, Bava Metzia 59A. He is the Captain, but she is the First Mate whose counsel is respected. She cannot be made a doormat, she need not beg for money, she deserves some assistance in the house chores, and the husband sides with her against his kin. He must express frequent appreciation and give words of encouragement, and he should remember his wife from time to time with gifts, big or little. Husband and wife should always say “Please” and “Thank You” and never forget to be always polite to each other.
September 7, 2016 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #1178481JosephParticipantlilmod: “maybe she should open the door for him, but it has to come from her, and that will only happen if he is focused on his obligations to her and not his to her.”
Rambam: “????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???”
September 7, 2016 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #1178482gavra_at_workParticipantGAW: Thank you for bringing the Rambam. I don’t know how to type in hebrew on this computer, so I had to rely on my on-the-spot translation.
Copy and paste from Mechon Mamre.
Now you can do it as well 🙂
September 7, 2016 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm #1178483Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantGAW: thanks. good to know.
September 7, 2016 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #1178484JosephParticipantMod in bold, I disagree with you. Is it okay to disagree with a mod? 😉
I would submit that, in fact, you’re being short-sighted in finding it problematic to approve the earlier posts. Even if you failed to understand the point, it wasn’t necessary to censor the sources.
[Now buckling my seat-belt for impact.]
I did not fail to understand the point
September 7, 2016 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #1178485JosephParticipantYou wrote: “I am often left wondering, “What is his point?””
I was not implying that I had no answer
September 7, 2016 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1178486JosephParticipantSeptember 7, 2016 8:49 pm at 8:49 pm #1178487gavra_at_workParticipantJoseph – I see Rabbi Miller as saying exactly what I said earlier.
The husband is in charge, but he is mechuyav to defer to his wife. That is why the husband always gets the last words:
“Yes Dear”.
September 7, 2016 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #1178488JosephParticipantThe husband is in charge, but he is mechuyav to defer to his wife.
That doesn’t conform to Rav Miller’s “There cannot be two kings… The wife is submissive… There can be no harmony when there are two commanders…”
September 7, 2016 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #1178489Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph: “Mod in bold, I disagree with you. Is it okay to disagree with a mod? 😉
I would submit that, in fact, you’re being short-sighted in finding it problematic to approve the earlier posts. Even if you failed to understand the point, it wasn’t necessary to censor the sources.
[Now buckling my seat-belt for impact.]
I did not fail to understand the point”
I think that I may agree with Joseph on this. Obviously, I can’t say for sure, since I didn’t see the censored posts, but I do find it hard to see why you would censor his posts if he was simply bringing sources.
You have stated that you don’t censor posts based on your own hashkafas; yet it SOUNDS like that may be what you did here.
September 7, 2016 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1178490Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph: “lilmod: “maybe she should open the door for him, but it has to come from her, and that will only happen if he is focused on his obligations to her and not his to her.”
Rambam: “????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???””
I fail to see the “stira” here. It sounds to me that the Rambam is saying the same thing that I am saying – that it has to come from her. ????? ???? ???? ???? – The Rambam says that she is supposed to be in awe of him, not that he is supposed to place the awe on her.
If he is the kind of person that he is supposed to be and fulfills his obligation to her, then she is much more likely to be in awe of him etc.
September 7, 2016 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #1178491Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantJoseph, I see no indication from the quote from Rav Avigdor Miller that the wife should be the one to open the door for her husband AS OPPOSED to the other. It sounds like they should both respect each other and open doors for each other (as one of the posters stated that he does. Wolf? GAW? I forgot who it was).
September 7, 2016 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #1178492Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantI am copying and pasting my post from another thread (how to stop my wife spending) here since I think it is very relevant to this topic:
I think Person1’s point may have been that once you are involved in an argument (chas v’shalom), the best way to resolve it might not be for the husband to start pointing out all of the halachos to his wife and holding them over her head.
Both of your points are valid and important to keep in mind. On the one hand, the Shulchan Aruch must guide all of our actions, but at the same time, when dealing with relationships, one must also keep in mind that the main issue is the relationship itself and the individuals involved, and not necessarily the “dinei mamanos” involved. Obviously, the Torah is our Guide in all respects and it Guides us in the Middos and sensitivity needed to deal with relationship issues as well.
September 7, 2016 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm #1178493WolfishMusingsParticipantRav Avigdor Miller (Awake My Glory): There cannot be two kings. The marriage relationship is two-fold. 1) The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition, the home is disordered.
I do not find this to be true.
First of all, I find it strange that anyone would compare a marriage to a military formation. Of course, in the military there must be one person in charge. But a marriage is not a military brigade, nor is it a kingdom to be ruled. It’s a partnership – and like all partnerships, it has to be run according to the personalities and skills of the partners. If the partnership works with one dominant person and one submissive — then all the more power to them. But saying that it is impossible to work with two people who have equal say in the affairs of the marriage is downright wrong, as there are plenty of people today who have marriages where they work together — not as king and servant or master and servant.
“Arrogance is unbecoming a woman” – Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache.
I find arrogance to be offensive on anyone — man or woman. I certainly don’t find it to be an “ornament.”
The Wolf
September 7, 2016 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm #1178494WolfishMusingsParticipantI find arrogance to be offensive on anyone — man or woman. I certainly don’t find it to be an “ornament.”
My apologies. I clearly missed the word “not” in the original quote from Rabbi Miller.
The Wolf
September 7, 2016 11:56 pm at 11:56 pm #1178495Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant“”Arrogance is unbecoming a woman” – Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache.
I find arrogance to be offensive on anyone — man or woman. I certainly don’t find it to be an “ornament.” “
Wolf, he wrote that it is NOT an ornament for a man. He IS saying that it is bad for ANYONE to be arrogant (but that it is more problematic when women are arrogant).
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Ladies First – Is it respectful or not?’ is closed to new replies.