- This topic has 151 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There seems to be an idea in Judaism that a woman’s main accomplishment is through others, namely, her husband and children. Not that her other achievements are worthless, but that her ULTIMATE purpose and role is to aid her husband in learning Torah and raise her children, so that they, too, are learned in Torah and ehrlich. An anecdote that comes to mind is a famous circulating quote of Rav Aharon Kotler: “Even if a woman knows all of Shas, it means nothing. It is her husband’s learning that counts.” (his biography I think?)
It seems hard to comprehend that ANYONE’S accomplishment is mainly through others. Women or not women. While we acknowledge the centrality and significance of a wife and children in a man’s life, we don’t seem to hinge all of the man’s worth on how he has succeeded with his wife and children. But why do we do this for women? Is there something about women that makes vicarious accomplishement a simple fact of life? Is it because of innate abilities or lack thereof? Please prove what you say.
Please do not senselessly start anti-feminist bashing. I am looking to hear what other people think about this matter.
It’s because of kol kevudah bas melech pnima.
The woman is not the one with her name up in lights.
That modesty is her accomplishment.
Lo tov heyos ha’odom levado; e’eseh lo eizer
Popa points out that its a pasuk. So unless anyone posts a reason contesting this, I’d imagine all subsequent posts would be dedicated to understanding this, as opposed to contesting this. No such luck.
golfer – that may be, but it doesn’t address the point. Question was not about accomplishments being made public, but about being supportive in nature.
000646 –
I’ll be dan your last paragraph l’kaf zchus, and assume I may drink your wine. Although I’m not altogether convinced.
I cannot do the same with the previous paragraph, which demonstrates gross misunderstanding of halacha. Would you care to give an example of a halacha which 1) is based on the inferior intelligence of women, and 2) has been deemed by latter-day poskim to have changed ?
Your notion about R’ Aron, besides being quite irrelevant (‘blindly supporting husbands’ equals ‘your learning is unimportant’ ?!), is too silly to dignify a response.
Logician: We don’t Pasken “Kol K’vudah”. It’s a Machlokes Tanaim whether it has Nafka Minah L’ma’aseh and we seem to Pasken that it doesn’t.
Also, not that I’m defending 00646’s statements, but B’dikas Chametz comes to mind.
I didn’t say anything about kol kivoda.
So help me out – there its a question of nemanus, which is not b’yada because its a tirchah and women are (gasp!) atzlaniyus. Whatever that means. Since its derabanan we believe her, but preferable she should not be assigned.
What does that have to do with intelligence, and what halacha changed ?
Yiddishkeit puts a strong emphasis on the women being the ikeres habayis and wife and mother are the primary roles women play in a Jewish home. A women naturally isn’t feministic (making herself equal and masculine-for lack of better word).
The feminist movement has corrupted women into think they should be manly.
There are different roles and each serve the purpose of completing and both genders need each other to continue
Logician: See the Aruch Hashulchan there.
YT – you are simply pointing out what their supportive role is (and perhaps alluding to its being necessary). The OP is looking to understand the concept that one’s role could be defined as purely supportive.
There you go again, assuming everyone else is also a Talmid Chochom 🙂
I’ll take a look.
By nature women are “motherly” My 3 year old runs to feed her baby doll it’s bottle while I’m feeding the baby. It’s a natural instinct. Mothers role isn’t only supportive, it’s active, rewarding, fulfilling and keeps you constantly on your toes. How is being supportive negative?
Ah yes, I have seen it.
But that addresses a reality, not an assumption of intelligence or inherent trustworthiness. If the situation is such that today they clearly are makpid, then they can be bodek. And be believed, because now you have b’yado, I imagine. So its purely a practical question, and if the halacha is based on the facts which may change – no big deal. ‘Halacha’ isn’t adapting to new understandings. He was claiming that certain assumptions were once made (read: which are now understood to be false), based on social understanding, not circumstantial fact.
Of course lets not forget that the Mishne Brurah observed the same, and did not change the psak.
Sam – Question: when the gemara says that they’re beieved cuz its derabanan, does that also mean that they can be bodek ? Why should it – they’re atzlanius so they can’t, but even though that takes away the b’yado, they believed her ?
The Piskei teshuvos equates the Aruch Hashulchan with R’ Moshe Shternbuch. Which isn’t so. R’ M.S. just says that the fact is that the women have cleaned well, and so the bedika doesn’t involve cleaning – hence not a tirchah.
Edited
?”? ?? ??’ ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????.
????? ?”?
Absolutely right. Good job. But gosh somethings gotta be done about it!
Logician: I thought Popa had quoted Kol Kevuda, not Lo Tov. My bad.
It is a Machlokes Achronim whether psychological assumptions made by the Gemara can change. The Ritva clearly says it by “Ein Isha Meizes Paneha Bifnei Ba’alah Lomar Geirashtani” (I might have the precise phraseology off). R’ Schachter quotes R’ Soloveitchik as pointing out that there are psychological assumptions that are built into the Briah and those that are based off what the Gemara observed from those around them. R’ Soloveitchik held that those built into the Briah (his example was Tav L’meisan, if I recall correctly) cannot change and that it is K’firah (because it denies Dinim D’Oraisa) to say they can. But those observable can change, as the Ritva said. Presumably, Nashim Atzlaniyos is the latter but I can’t prove that.
My issue with the whole situation comes when hard-line assumptions trump common sense. I find it inconceivable that every single women’s job in life is to support her husband’s and childrens’ Talmud Torah. That might be what is true of the vast majority, but even they have their own Chiyuvim. There have been women in history who have clearly done important things on a national (or even local scale) and staying home and making their children learn would have been a tremendous waste for them.
My example often is Nechama Leibowitz (Sarah Schnierer is equally effective). Because of her classes and tests that she toiled over every week, she taught thousands of people how to teach. She has a tremendous amount of Zchuyos for the amount of Torah she was Marbitz. R”L, it wasn’t her place in life to have children. Should we say that she has no Schar for Talmud Torah because she couldn’t help her children learn? Of course not. She earned everything on her own and the world owes her because of that.
So yes, the main point for most women is to be behind the scenes and take care of a family. I do not think, however, that should preclude communal responsibilities if they are able. Ad’raba, if a woman is able to help out the community then she is obligated to because she is depriving Klal Yisrael by not doing the best of her ability.
DY: If I recall correctly that Gemara does have some context, no?
A woman’s role is to find out what her role is.
I often feel that nursery teachers get very left out – we are setting very young children on the right path to Torah, why should Beis Yaakov teachers be any more heroic? Please don’t forget about us!
I was assuming that distinction to be true, and perhaps the machlokes M.B. and A.H. to be in which category to put nashim atzlanius.
I don’t think your position is at odds with the original quote from R’ Aron. I think its clear that he was stressing the primary role of women as being supportive. That certainly doesn’t address a women who’s circumstances are different, such as not having children r”l as you mentioned, and I don’t think it precludes there being individuals who have the ability to fill certain communal needs.
“Even if a woman knows all of Shas, it means nothing. It is her husband’s learning that counts.” (his biography I think?)
Women are not Chayiv in Limud Hatorah, so them “knowing” Shas is not their point. This has nothing to do with “Kol Kevodah”, intelligence or the ability to drink tea. Knowing Shach/Taz on the other hand is a Mitzva D’oraysah even for women.
That being said, the Rambam holds women get Schar for Limud HaTorah, so I imagine the statement of “means nothing” was only hyperbole, as she certainly gets schar.
Rambam Talmud Torah 1:16
???? ????? ????, ?? ?? ???; ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????, ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????. ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???, ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????: ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ??????, ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ????.
To the OP: I don’t think anyone is saying the women only deserve schar for being in a supportive role. If it did, then their actions would not matter for good or evil, and that would be Kefirah.
bais yakov maidel: Women gain the reward for Torah learning through their husband and children. Doesn’t apply to other accomplishments.
I believe the story regarding R’ Ahron goes like this: A man who taught in a girl’s high school told R’ Ahron that some of his students are very learned. Does he have to give additional kovod to these girls. He answered, even if she knows every rambam (or whatever) etc, doesn’t make her a talmid chochom. And therefore, he doesn’t have to give additional kovod (like standing up for her).
According to the book “Halichos Bas Yisrael”, one must give additional kovod for the wife of a talmid chochom. It also states that there are those who say one must stand up for a learned women as well.
A woman’s role is not only to support others. For one thing, woman must fulfill many mitzvos that have nothing to do with supporting others (brachos, tefilah, taharat hamispachah, studying enough Torah to be able to be observant herself, etc.).
Hundreds of years ago in Eastern Europe, many Yiddish books of prayers and supplications and so on were printed for women (some written by rabbis, others by women). We learn from this that a woman’s spirituality itself is a valuable thing (not just a tool for someone else’s growth).
Rav S.R. Hirsch’s granddaughter was the first female professor of medicine in Germany. He also encouraged the general intellectual development of women.
Even the Lubavitcher Rebbe said that there is nothing wrong with a woman pursuing a career, though he said that this take place after the children are grown. Women tend to enter nurturing professions, but not exclusively, and to be sure there have been frum women scientists who have contributed important scientific advancements to the world. (I know of one, for example, that discovered a gene involved in a deadly childhood disease, which can allow for screening).
Everyone has their own special mission in life. Many contemporary rabbis have said that we should pay attention to what mitzvos most challenge us, or most interest us, or what ever else that we are drawn to, and consider how accomplishing these things may be part of our mission in life.
This is no different for men and women. For sure, women tend to have raising children and performing many acts of gemilus chasadim as part of their mission, and men have studying Torah and public davening as part of their mission. But that is not all. The Torah does not demand conformity among all men or among all women. Every has to find their own way of serving Hashem, in additional to fulfilling the minimum requirements of their place in life.
Logician,
1.)You probably can’t drink my wine
2.) Two examples would be women learning Gemara or being a witness in court, there are many more. You probably know what the Rambam says about woman and how he talks about them, don’t play dumb I went to Yeshiva as well!
3.) You know what “Atzlanayos” means saying “whatever that means” does not change the fact that it is a statement on the inferiority of women.
Gavra, a woman’s actions definitely matter, and she is judged according to the goodness or (ch”v) evil in her actions. A woman is obligated to observe many mitzvos; she has a chiyuv tefilla, she is obligated to observe the 6 mitzvos t’midiyos, she must observe the laws of Shabbos, kashrus etc. But she is rewarded for taking part in Talmud Torah through her supportive role. (Thank you DY for quoting the Gemara in Brachos.) Her actions in this supportive role- taking her children to Yeshiva, waiting for her husband etc , do matter and help her earn s’char. I don’t see any kefirah here.
As long as people are qouting the Gemora in brochos about “Nashim B’mai Zachyun”, I thought I would just add in that Rashi over there explains that the question was “why are women zoche to a greater chelek then men.
Which makes sense since in Judaisim the enabler is often times granted mote schar then the actual doesr i.e someone who collects Tzedak get’s more schar then the giver.
Well, if you went to Yeshiva the following should be clear.
A statement of Chazal of such a nature will often be questioned by the meforshim and explained in a manner different enough from the superficial meaning to warrant what I wrote. While this statement clearly has practical ramifications relating to laziness, I’m confident in my assumption that I can easily find a mareh makom explaining it in a way which would make it far more ‘palatable’ for you.
2)I have no issue with a statement of Chazal which says a common character deficiency of women. There are plenty about men, and plenty of praiseworthy ones about both genders too. This has nothing to do with either one being intrinsically inferior. As they have different natures, it only makes sense that they have different flaws, with different ramifications.
3)You may not understand the Rambam or Gemara, but it says nothing, in those cases, of being dumb or untrustworthy. Nor am I aware of the Halacha having changed
And so its not at all “vicarious”.
golfer – sure, and if a man does the same (carpools to yeshiva, helps his sons & sons in law learn, etc.), it helps him earn schar as well. If a woman learns, she gets schar as well. No shaychus to being specifically in a supportive role vs. an individual role.
men and women were created with different tafkidim in this world. Our modern society has flipped those roles and that’s why we no longer value the system the way it was meant to be.
A woman’s nature is to be tzanuah, to care for the home, for the children, to act in a supportive way. A man’s nature is to be out in the world, to do, to work, to deal with the outside world. There was a wonderful (goyish) you tube fifties video that was used in public schools in the fifties and it made so much sense when it was presented this way. Its basic premise was this, everyone in this household has a responsibility, when one becomes lax and fails to fulfill their responsiblity, the household doesn t function as it should. for eg. mother’s job was to clean and cook and do laundry, Brother’s job was to do his homework, and his chores, ie take out the garbage etc. Sister’s job was to help with dinner, prepare salad, set the table etc. and father’s job was to go to work and bring home the paycheck, when anyone of these jobs was not filled properly no one in the house could function. it makes perfect sense.
When you view it as a role or a tafkid, then its not a burden, or un appreciated title. Its what Hashem put you on this Earth to accomplish. Only one of those jobs is Ezer Knegdo. that doesnt define you as a woman, its just one of your many tafkidim. One of the reasons WOmen of the Wall don’t have a leg to stand on, is that the job of a jewish woman, is not to learn all of shas. or daven with a talis and tfillin. thats not what G-d requires of you. Your accomplishments are yours and yours alone, they are achieved when you do the Ratzon Hashem. They may sometimes reflect in the outside world by the accomplisments of your sons and husband, but in the world where they count, they are her accomplishments.
I assume when the Gadols book referred to a woman learning shas as being worthless what he meant to say is that its irelevant to her. its like teh olympic speed skater going to the olympics but competing in curling, it may be an added bonus to win at curling, but if he is a speed skater, and is trained as such, he would be better served by competing in the speed skating competitition.
bais yaakov maidel – hear the rav pincus shiur about the jewish woman VERY KDAI….either way, he describes in a few of his shiurim that while a man’s growth is like a tree growing outside, a woman’s growth is like the roots in the “amkus” (depth) she reaches, but that it can’t be seen because it’s underground.
Another point, the gr”a says in even shleima that a person’s tafkid in this world (and as far as I know he wasn’t differentiating men and women) is to fix his/her middos and that is why a person was sent down to this world.
I am a kollel wife and strongly feel from experience and life trying many paths in ruchniyus, that for your neshama to feel whole you MUST do stuff for your PERSONAL growth, whether its shiurim or things that fill you as a person etc etc – even when you’re a parent and wife. For sure your accomplishments as a wife and mother are HUGE parts of your life, and a huge (even main) focus in life, but working on ourselves, as our own avoda, is paramount (which being a parent and a wife for sure helps raise that from like level 3 of avodas hamiddos to level 20! with no sleep, much more stress etc etc!)
There definitely are chazals that say a women gets techiyas hameisim only through her supporting her husband’s and sons’ torah, because it can only be acquired through the mitzvah of talmud torah and that’s how women access that schar, but that is only one (albiet important) aspect of a woman’s avoda.
Rabbi Tatz and Rabbi Gottleib both have highly intellectual and thorough tapes on the roles of men and women. They are worth getting and listening to because they explain many things being discussed here. One of the things I would say after listening to those tapes over and over (I kept forgetting to bring new tapes to the car) was that the role of women that people here are calling supportive, I think is more about inspiration. The women don’t just support, as in, “Gosh honey, you are really wonderful. I am so impressed with you. Here, have a bowl of meatballs”, but rather they are the source of inspiration. They validate the good decisions and guide the indecision. They help their men (husbands and sons) stay on the right path and they urge them forward. They discourage them from giving up when they fall. It is much deeper than support, and it is no less crucial for the existence of a family unit.
In response to both op as well as this comment,
“There definitely are chazals that say a women gets techiyas hameisim only through her supporting her husband’s and sons’ torah, because it can only be acquired through the mitzvah of talmud torah and that’s how women access that schar, but that is only one (albiet important) aspect of a woman’s avoda.”
It can’t be that the purpose of a woman is a vicarious existence depending on her husband and sons bec a) we are not required to get married and b) we are not required to have kids.
This used to bother me too until I realized that modern day Judaism is not what it was in the times of the bhmk. Women had more of a role and men didn’t use ‘kol kvuda bas melech pnima’ as an excuse to shove women into the shadows. Much of the feminist resentment comes from the fact that the general society (including non Jews) views women as tools and objects created for male entertainment and convenience.
Also op, the quote needs context. Who was he saying it to and why was he saying it? Perhaps he was trying to motivate a bochur to learn better.
“until I realized…”
Your ‘realizations’ cannot be meaningful to others here unless you back it up. What role in bhmk have we taken away from women ? The ability to give a korban ?!
Interjection, where did you get the idea that women are viewed as tools created for male entertainment? Certainly not in the Jewish world. Look at all the meforshim discussing Chava’s creation. And look around you at our frum society today. I don’t see it and I’m curious where you get that idea. A woman and a man joined by kiddushin do have obligations to each other; in fact the man has a clear obligation to make sure his wife is entertained. I’m not comfortable commenting on non-Jewish society, but as a Jewish woman I’ve never been made to feel like an object or a tool.
Yiddishe Tam “By nature women are “motherly” My 3 year old runs to feed her baby doll it’s bottle while I’m feeding the baby. It’s a natural instinct.”
My son did this at 2 years old as well. Only he attempted to nurse the baby. Kids mimic what they see – that has nothing to do with gender.
If you are waiting for someone else to fulfill your spiritual coffers, you have missed many opportunities to do ratzon Hashem.
Syag l’chochma: Well, why is it not my husband’s role to inspire me in MY endeavors, both personal and professional? Be a source of inspiration or comfort for the me so I can accomplish things.
Nobody said he can’t or won’t. Different people have different intrinsic roles. That speaks to what makes up their essence and what their natural strengths are. Ya know how you can have a friend who REALLY knows you and is REALLY great at helping you work things thru? Well if that friend was out of reach for a bit, and you had to work things thru with a different friend, nobody is saying that second friend won’t be able to do an amazing job for you, but there are differences between a good friend, and a friend who understands you thoroughly even before you explain things.
This is how I understand roles. There are different character traits in different people, and there are different core strenghts and abilities in different people. And just because women were created with a certain essence, that does not mean that each individual woman is tapped into that. Rabbi Tatz said there are feminine traits and strengths but they can be in a man or a woman.
For instance (example for illustration) – if it is accepted that empathy is more of a feminine trait than you may find more women in empathetic jobs/vocations/positions. But should a woman find herself not to be such a person, she may choose, for herself, quite a different job. And a man who finds himself to be highly empathetic may find himself among many women in a nurses station or special ed school. But that does not change the reality that empathy is a feminine trait possessed more deeply by women.
Does that clarify? I don’t believe I could ever do it as they do, they each speak an hour.
I am sorry you heard them to be saying that. They really said nothing of the sort. I don’t know if you went in with a preconceived expectations or if it is just a sensitive issue for you. I do wish you peace, however, because it is very difficult not to have answers.
Syag l’chochma: Well, why is it not my husband’s role to inspire me in MY endeavors, both personal and professional? Be a source of inspiration or comfort for the me so I can accomplish things.
The entire premise of that question is faulty.
Hashem created this world, with certain roles that different people have to fill, and then created those people. We were placed on this world to fulfill the tafkid which He created us for. The words of the Torah help us to understand the roles that men and women were created for.
You are looking at it backwards, though. You see yourself as being entitled to your life and existence, and that your role is being imposed upon you. It’s the reverse; you have a role to fill, and Hashem gave you the completely unearned gift of a life, in order to serve Him, and thereby earn reward, by fullfilling that tafkid.
Would a Yisroel be correct to question why he wasn’t created with the tafkid of a Kohen? Would a tree be correct to question why it wasn’t created as a human being?
And yes, the feminist movement, despite some worthy accomplishments, such as equal pay for equal work, was created to define men:s and women’s roles differently. Despite the fact that the Torah world has taken some advantage of the situation by tapping into women’s ability to earn money in order to allow for the men to learn more, it’s hard not to see the negative social impact.
Can one argue that the family unit has remained as strong as it once was? I think not; clearly it has greatly suffered with women’s roles being redefined in a more masculine way.
I would add that the wording of your question is also wrong, because it sounds like you’re not considering a woman who fills the role of supporting her family to have accomplished anything, which is absolutely incorrect, and possibly very insulting to the n’shei chayil who do so.
And yes, the feminist movement, despite some worthy accomplishments, such as equal pay for equal work, was created to define men:s and women’s roles differently. Despite the fact that the Torah world has taken some advantage of the situation by tapping into women’s ability to earn money in order to allow for the men to learn more, it’s hard not to see the negative social impact.
Lishitasi, this IS the problem. You can’t have the woman bringing home the beef and still be telling her that her “role” is to support a husband in Kollel. In homes where the husband is the main (or equal) supporter of the family, the roles of the husband and wife are more clearly defined as per how Hashem created us.
men and women were created with different tafkidim in this world. Our modern society has flipped those roles and that’s why we no longer value the system the way it was meant to be.
Modern Society = “When you marry a Kollel guy” Seminaries that push the woman to support. Place the blame where it belongs.
SJS, good to see you here.
DY – The question as quoted from Rav Aharon says that all that counts is the husband’s learning. (“Even if a woman knows all of Shas, it means nothing. It is her husband’s learning that counts.”) Not her role in running the household, instilling Emunah and continuing the Shalsheles. The first is a vicarious role, while the second is her own accomplishment.
As I pointed out earlier, if all that counts is her husband’s learning, who really cares what she does?
Logician,
You said “A statement of Chazal of such a nature will often be questioned by the meforshim and explained in a manner different enough from the superficial meaning to warrant what I wrote. While this statement clearly has practical ramifications relating to laziness, I’m confident in my assumption that I can easily find a mareh makom explaining it in a way which would make it far more ‘palatable’ for you.”
I’m sure you can find a Pshat by someone who lived later that will explain it in a way that is more in line with modern sensitivities (chances are that Pshat will have been written by someone who lived or lives in a time when such statements about the inferiority of women are no longer acceptable to the public- which sort of proves my original point)
2)”I have no issue with a statement of Chazal which says a common character deficiency of women. There are plenty about men, and plenty of praiseworthy ones about both genders too. This has nothing to do with either one being intrinsically inferior. As they have different natures, it only makes sense that they have different flaws, with different ramifications.”
The statements we are talking about like “women are lazy” etc. are statements on the intrinsic inferiority of women, don’t fool yourself . And that statement is a mellow one, there are ones that are a whole lot stronger that I won’t quote here out of respect.
3)”You may not understand the Rambam or Gemara, but it says nothing, in those cases, of being dumb or untrustworthy. Nor am I aware of the Halacha having changed”
Yes it does very clearly. From the way the Rambam writes about them it is apparent that he took for granted that women are less intelligent and inferior
B y maidel, re your comments on feminism- agreed, the feminist movement had some good ideas (equal pay for equal work comes to mind). So did some other “ism”s, including socialism and communism. But we Jews have survived the millennia by following the Torah, which provides us with all the ideology we need. And the role of the woman is clearly defined. With regard to limud Torah, a central mitzvah and part of our lives, the woman’s role is supportive. This in no way makes you a chameleon, and you certainly don’t change, as you suggested, with whatever your husband is. As another poster mentioned (Logician?) you receive your schar for performing your supportive role, independent of your husband’s (or your children’s) success in learning.
A woman is primarily giving of herself to others. If you study her 3 Mitzvos, you will notice that in each of them she is providing something (light, sustenance, kedushah) to her family. They’re not mitzvos, like bentshing lulav, that exist only in the realm of the performer and his Creator; they are performed by committing oneself to others.
And to Gavra- yes, a woman does get schar for learning. But she is (in most cases) not a metzuveh v’oseh in this capacity, so her schar is not the same as a man’s. (One might argue that the yetzer hara’s battle to stop her from learning is less as well.) As for a man carpooling his kids to Yeshiva, I’m not sure where he stands as far as being metzuveh, but it would seem that for him this is part of the obligation to teach Torah to his children.
00646, it does say “nashim atzlaniyos.” No question there. And yes, there are other statements that could make a woman (or somebody who loves one) uncomfortable. But there are lots of compliments too. Endlessly quoted in Bais Yakovs everywhere, I might add.
I prefer to leave the statement about women and bedikas chametz as a personal teiku. And I’m getting off the CR so I don’t join the ranks of those who prove the statement correct.
I miss you, OOM.
tl;dr
There goes my dan l’kaf zchus.
You said earlier (I do hate to have to repeat it) that the Gemara’s statements may be reflective of the social beliefs of the time, and therefore no longer currently relevant. That was quite bad enough. So I said the meforshim will often explain differently. So now you’re saying that the meforshim are explaining according to their times. So now you’re saying that the meforshim are often whitewashing the Gemara’s intentions ?!
No, it would not be saying women are intrinsically inferior to say they have a tendency to be lazy. If I wrote some of the issues men tend to have I doubt people would get worked up. It makes perfect sense that they have different tendencies. If all you’d mean is that you have a problem accepting that they have this tendency, that’s a different story.
Respect for who ? You think you’re being respectful of Chazal, or anyone here, by not quoting a statement of Chazal ? How sick is that.
If you’d like to quote a specific Rambam – after having studied the classical commentaries – which you have issue with, then you’d be able to carry on a discussion (one which I personally have no particular inclination to have). Until then, its just rhetoric.
- The topic ‘Vicarious Accomplishment of Women’ is closed to new replies.