- This topic has 305 replies, 88 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 3 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
Joe – So you’re a Chasid Shote, and I’m Open Orthodox. I’ll take the OO side any day over the Chasid Shote side, and twice on Yom Tov 🙂
According to Josephs Hashkafa, Since Rebbitzen Neuman drives, She is OO as well
“jf02, sure I’d characterize male drivers as gallivanting when applicable. I didn’t characterize all female driving like that, I specifically referred to the times it’s applicable.”
Really? Because I’m pretty sure that this comment was just talking about driving in general, since you didn’t mention that it was in the context of frivolous or “unnecessary” travel.
“You don’t see Rebbetzins Kotler, Olshin, Schustal, Neuman, Salamon or Wachtfogel cruising around Lakewood.”
What’s that have to do with galavanting? Nothing I said should have led you to confuse two unrelated comments.
Joseph- you keep saying a woman shouldn’t be leaving the house more than twice a month. You fail to provide a single example of one gadol whose wife did so. Have you heard of any rebbitzen that only left the house once a month? Most go to shul every shabbos, so that’s obviously not the case.
Gamanit, due to the many sins of our generation we aren’t able to fully maintain the righteous standards our holy zeidas and bubbes held and lived by their entire lives, as enumerated and cited in the Gemora, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and numerous other poskim and seforim hakedoshim. So therefore you would suggest that we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
It’s true that today that, to our sorrow, women can’t stay indoors as much as is appropriate and halachicly expected. Would you therefore c’v suggest that women be out of the home as frequently and as much as they desire? In contravention to everything Chazal and the poskim implore of us? At least we should aim that they stay inside, and not outside in public, as much as is attainable in our weak generation.
Joseph, did you read my earlier comment? The question was why you refer to women drivers specifically as “gallivanting”, “cruising around”, and “going on leisurely rides”, whereas by men driving is just driving.
So yes, “cruising around” and “gallivanting” are not unrelated.
Waiting for your response.
P.S. Yes, I WOULD “suggest that women be out of the home as frequently and as much as they desire.” I have never had to ask permission from my husband or my rav to leave my house (for any reason or no reason at all), or to justify to them why I “have to” leave the house. Never before, and I don’t intend to start now. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate or problematic about women stam leaving the house (obviously if they’re going to inappropriate places, that’s a different story). I am sure you’re aware that Chazal say a LOT of things that we don’t actually pasken by anymore.
jfem – don’t bother. This is a common “tactic” of Joseph and one or two other posters. They add adjectives that totally shift the meaning of the argument/point and then try to back you into a wall with it. When you force the issue it gets ignored, or they disappear. But meanwhile it is very frustrating. I noticed the same thing when he added those words but was too weary to bother.
It seems you missed one bait but found another 🙂
It isn’t just Chazal. And it isn’t just Rambam. It is paskened as halacha l’maaisa by the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch. And virtually all the poskim over the centuries who discuss it. It isn’t even controversial.
At least not before Susan B. Anthony’s times.
If you simply want to disregard halacha that you disagree with and don’t like in favor of a post-feminism view, be intellectually honest and say that outright.
The idea to “suggest that women be out of the home as frequently and as much as they desire” is clearly and unambiguously in contravention of everything in the Torah from Sarah Imainu through everything Chazal clearly implore of us in the Gemora through what the poskim pasken l’halacha, including the Shulchan Aruch.
It’s not halacha. I don’t know a single rav who actually paskens that way.
This isn’t the only case of a halacha showing up in the Shulchan Aruch that we don’t pasken by anymore. Don’t pretend it’s such a huge chiddush.
I see that you didn’t answer my other question.
Syag Lchochma, yep…sigh…
It is certainly halacha. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch are citing and paskening a Chazal l’halacha.
If you claim that this is a “Shulchan Aruch that we don’t pasken by anymore” (wow!) you’re going to have to cite gedolei poskim who say such a strong (and strange) thing rather than just your own boich svara. Override a halacha in Shulchan Aruch? It is theoretically possible in a small number of cases, but one needs poskim (of yore) with very big shoes to even contemplate such a possibility, put their halachic reasoning against SA in writing, and have it accepted by the gedolei poskim. On this issue no one of note ever even postulated against the SA. It’s been the normative Jewish practice from Sara Imainu through Chazal through SA and on.
The other question was a silly semantical back and forth that is neither important nor worth wasting keystrokes over.
As I said in the car rides post (these threads should all be consolidated since they are all about the same thing), Chazal also are clear that (with very few exceptions–the quotes are in the car ride post), that all men should learn a trade, and that torah without work leads to bitul torah too.
I can only assume Charedim in kollel have sources that interpret around this, just as non-charedim interpret around some of what you cite. Or, the charedim argue what you do about the 50s, that was bedieved, but now there are ways to learn in kollel without working.
Again, R’ Sperber makes a good point in his speech which is online that a good argument can be made that charedim are to the right of where most of chazal was.
Frankly, my own personal view (for whatever its worth, which probably is not much) is that since no one can truly recreate the times of the Rambam, much less Chazal, every group has done their best to create the closest facsimile within their own viewpoints.
It’s not “normative Jewish practice” today. No woman I know, including in Chareidi circles, has to justify why and when and how often they leave their houses. Neither do they restrict their goings and comings to “necessary” things; social visits are certainly not “necessary” but they are very very common. And the frummest of frum women attend Bar Mitzvahs and l’chayims that they certainly aren’t required to attend. If it’s a family simcha, that’s different, but I’m talking about a simcha where you won’t lose any friends by not going. And yet the most chashuve rebbetzins don’t shy away. Why?
I will repeat my earlier question in a way that will perhaps help you to better understand. Why is it that when women get into their cars to go somewhere, you characterize them with frivolous verbiage such as “gallivanting” and “cruising around”? Why don’t you characterize the men this way? For instance, when you said that our bubbes wouldn’t have been caught dead gallivanting around on a horse and buggy, why didn’t you say that it was just fine for the zaides to “gallivant” but not the bubbes? Somehow these snide characterizations only apply to the women, even though the actual activity itself (driving) is identical. I want to know why.
Joseph – can i please have a ride (being sarcastic)? i mean i cant drive because im a girl.
jf02, as late as the 1950s and part of the ’60s in America, Shatnes was a neglected Torah obligation that the vast majority of frum Americans were blissfully unaware of and, unfortunately, violated daily. Until an all-Jewish hero from Vienna arrived on these shores, namely Mr. Joseph Rosenberger, who opened Shatnes Labs and preached the obligation to avoid wearing Shatnes. Did the pre-Rosenberger era where it was normative to wear Shatnes define the halacha for Shatnes or somehow make it permissible to wear Shatnes? Most certainly not.
Same here. A lot or a majority or even a vast majority of the hamon hoam violating halachic precepts does not redefine halacha or make the forbidden to be permitted.
I hope to address your gallivanting concern when I have the opportunity to use a keyboard.
Same here? Same here?!?
Are you actually comparing an outright torah obligation/prohibition (shatnez) to the “prohibition” of women going out more than twice a month?
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Quite possibly you are being motzi la’az on every rebbitzin and rosh yeshiva that doesn’t live by those “righteous standards” that “we aren’t able to fully maintain”
If something is an outright issur, don’t tell me that our Rosh yeshivas would allow their wives to drive (or leave the house!) because we’re “weak”.
You never addressed ZD account of rebbitzin Neuman driving. With her husband right there.
Is he
(a) ignorant of the S’A? (motzi la’az)
(b) weak (motzi la’az)
(c) openly flouting Halacha (motzi la’az)
(d) OO (motzi la’az)
That is one of the most dishonest comparisons I’ve seen here.
Only the most ignorant would fall for it.
Or propose it.
Don’t put words in my mouth. And don’t expect me to answer for an anonymous claim of a claimed event. And don’t argue against SA with bubbe maaisas. Using your so-called arguments, you’re motzi la’az on the Rambam and Mechaber. Why are you putting the Rambam’s holy psak in scare quotation marks? Do you consider the Rambam and Mechaber to be extremists?
Here is the translation for the post on the previous page, relevant to the present discussion:
In a place where it is customary for a woman not to go out to the market place wearing merely a cap on her head, but also a veil that covers her entire body like a cloak, her husband must provide at least the least expensive type of veil for her. If he is wealthy, [he must provide her with a veil whose quality] is commensurate with his wealth.
[He must give her this veil] so that she can visit her father’s home, a house of mourning or a wedding celebration. For every woman should be given the opportunity to visit her father and to go to a house of mourning or a wedding celebration as an expression of kindness to her friends and relatives, for [this will have a reciprocal effect], and they will return the visits. For a woman [at home] is not confined in a jail, from which she cannot come and go.
Nevertheless, it is uncouth for a woman always to leave home – this time to go out and another time to go on the street. Indeed, a husband should prevent a wife from doing this and not allow her to go out more than once or twice a month, as is necessary. For there is nothing more attractive for a woman than to sit in the corner of her home, as [implied by Tehilim 45:14]: “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within.”
Joseph, “much” obviously varies according to time, place and community. See the Levush in the likutim that even in his time women were involved in business dealings with men. Apparently Beruria also went out and about from time to time (Eruvin 53b).
Joseph: You intentionally misread that Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. As a base, it’s Muttar to leave for the Shuk, Simchas, visiting relatives, and doing Chessed as often as she likes, as is explicit. On top of that, it is a “Gnai” for her to “galavant” more than once or twice a month.
And calling something that is a “Gnai”, which is a Lashon of an Eitzah Tovah or a Middas Chassidus at absolute best, an actual Issur is a D’Oraisa violation of Ba’al Tosif and is quite honestly probably a violation of Megaleh Panim BaTorah Shelo KeHalachah because you know that you’re misrepresenting the Halachah. Is inventing Chumros on the internet really worth losing your Olam Haba over?
Miriam the Women’s Hair Stylist (a.k.a Mary Magdalene) went OTD because her husband was overly strict about this (Gittin 90a).
There are those who hold that a women place is in her home and therefor they shouldn’t drive. It was only in the 1920s that Bais Yakovs , the idea of Jewish female education, was born. Before that it was thought that anyone that taught their daughters Torah was a Heretic.
Similarly, in the last Mishna in Kiddushan 82A it says that a woman can’t teach yet all yeshivas have female teachers in the early grades.
Just as the Jewish people (Orthodox) couldn’t survive without female Jewish Education, so too they can’t survive without both parents working outside the house.
The question is , ” is driving a luxury or a necessity?” If you hold it’s a luxury then women shouldn’t drive but if you hold it’s a necessity then women must drive and just as a father is obligated to teach his son to swim so too must he teach his daughter to drive. Otherwise the husband will have to do all the shopping and cut into his learning time.
In an ideal society where food and clothing came down from heaven and as soon as you went to the bus stop or train station mass transit was there then perhaps woman shouldn’t drive.
Joseph: You intentionally misread that Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
Don’t feed the Troll (more than once) 😉
“Don’t put words in my mouth.”
What have I claimed you said (or implied) that you actually didn’t say (or imply)?
“And don’t expect me to answer for an anonymous claim of a claimed event.”
You claim to know the exact behaviors of our ancestors traveling habits. And you bring that as ‘proof’ that our behavior is therefore lacking. Were you there? Did you actually see how our bubbes and zaides travelled? Or are you using circular reasoning to assume ‘well, that’s what they must have done, so therefore they did it.’ While in this specific case (ZD and rebitzin Neuman) you technically can call it an anonymous claim, by that logic, anyone’s claim here that they have witnessed something is subject to the same dismissal. And I would venture to say that most people here have seen rebitizins of choshuve rabbonim driving. Rabbonim who would not allow something that’s an outright issur. You can dismiss that if you like, but when something is collectively known and witnessed by the multitudes, it’s pretty lame to dismiss it as anonymous just because you don’t know the name of the person who’s saying it.
“And don’t argue against SA with bubbe maaisas.”
What bubbe maises? Are you denying the obvious that rebitizins of choshuve rabbonim drive with their husbands approval? see previous paragraph
“Using your so-called arguments, you’re motzi la’az on the Rambam and Mechaber.”
How so? At what point did I ever say anything negative about their words or behavior? Just because things are different nowadays, does not mean that anybody holds they were wrong at that time. And don’t try to say that Halacha is immutable and completely unchanging. While the underpinnings of halacha do not change, their application can. And that can work both ways – l’kula and l’chumra
“Why are you putting the Rambam’s holy psak in scare quotation marks?”
I only put your words from previous post in quotes.
“Do you consider the Rambam and Mechaber to be extremists?”
Again, when did I ever say that? Now, who’s putting words in whos mouth?
We are not living in 1950s America where people are simply uneducated and don’t know any better.
Baruch Hashem, America has become a place of Torah scholarship and we have countless very learned rabbis, who certainly are not ignorant of the Rambam you keep quoting. And yet they allow their wives to come and go as they please, and they do not instruct their talmidim to limit their wives’ and daughters’ comings and goings to “necessary” errands.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Find me at least one modern-day rav who says it’s a halacha for women to stay home as much as possible (and I don’t mean working vs stay at home mothering, I mean physically in the house vs out of the house regardless of her occupation). I bet you can’t.
I can pretty much assure you that over 90% of frum Americans today do not know this Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. 2010s, not just 1950s.
And the principal that women should avoid unnecessary public exposure and being on the streets unnecessarily can be found in many sh”ut seforim of fairly recent vintage.
I learned it as a teenager and I’m far from a big talmid chochom…anyway, we’re not just talking about everyday Americans here. If it was a real halacha, the rebbeim could get together and make a kol koreh. Why didn’t they?
Principle, not principal, and you should clarify what you mean by “public exposure” and “being on the streets”, because that may have to do with the actual nature of the errand, not just stam being out of the house.
Like Shatnes. It took a Mr. Joseph Rosenberger to fix the problem. Dare I say we need another Joseph today for this laxity? (This will be so worth the flak I’m about to get.)
There you go again with a dishonest comparison.
Had you asked any frum rav in the ’50s about shatnez, they would have unequivocally answered that it’s assur, despite the laxity or ignorance of the general public.
Please name a mainstream rav/rosh yeshiva who says that women should be staying home and not driving except as a b’di’eved
adocs, have you ever asked a shaila from a posek or Rov whether the Halacha in the Shulchan Aruch we’re discussing, as well as the equivalent Rambam, are utterly meaningless and irrelevant in our modern day, with our era having replaced the anarchistic practices and rulings from the days of the Mechaber? No? I didn’t think so. So I’ll tell you what. Call a posek of note and ask him if a) the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam we’re discussing can be scratched out as irrelevant and to be ignored without any meaning for our times or b) the Shulchanch Aruch and Rambam remain relevant for us today and ought to guide our lives in some manner.
Joseph: Excellent job ignoring my post. Well done.
Sam, you’re regurgitating the same inaccurate point we’ve previously discussed. You’re stressing precisely the opposite of what the Rambam and Mechaber are stressing. And he doesn’t say it is an “Eitzah Tovah”, he explicitly paskens that the husband should prevent and not allow his wife to go out more frequently.
Joseph why not take a drive to Lakewood and ask Rav Neuman why his wife drives? After all she is disobeying the Shulchan Aruch
“adocs, have you ever asked a shaila from a posek or Rov whether the Halacha in the Shulchan Aruch we’re discussing, as well as the equivalent Rambam, are utterly meaningless and irrelevant in our modern day, with our era having replaced the anarchistic practices and rulings from the days of the Mechaber? No? I didn’t think so. So I’ll tell you what. Call a posek of note and ask him if a) the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam we’re discussing can be scratched out as irrelevant and to be ignored without any meaning for our times or b) the Shulchanch Aruch and Rambam remain relevant for us today and ought to guide our lives in some manner.”
Um, that’s not how shailahs work. You don’t call a Rav and ask him “Do I have to follow this Rambam?” You call a Rav and ask him “Can women drive wherever and whenever they want to, assuming the errand is not inappropriate, or does there have to be a special reason for them going out because it’s only bedieved?” and the Rav will give his answer based on his knowledge of Shas and poskim. Either he will pasken based on that particular Rambam, or he won’t. But you don’t ask the shailah on the Rambam itself.
The rabbonim in New Square don’t allow women to drive. Also, some of the other chasidim don’t allow women to drive.
Joseph: First of all, your stress is explicitly against the Rambam where he says, “????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????”
He says it’s a Gnai. He doesn’t say Assur. He doesn’t say it’s a D’Rabannan. He says it’s a Gnai. That implies it’s a Shevach to avoid. That means a Middas Chassidus or an Eitzah Tovah, not a Halchah.
Similarly, when recommending the husband to limit his wife’s galavanting, he says “Yesh”. He doesn’t say Chayav. He doesn’t imply obligation at all. “Yesh” is a Lashon of Lechatchilah at best. He doesn’t even say “Tzarich”, which is a stronger Lashon of Lechatchilah (well, I’m not positive about the Rambam for that; it’s true for the Shulchan Aruch). “Yesh” implies that it’s a good idea, not that there is any obligation whatsoever.
What did you make of the Rav Nissim Karelitz shlit”a and Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”a that I linked above from Hebrewbooks on this Rambam/SA?
Joseph: R’ Nissim Karelitz says that that Rambam and SH”A shows what society was like back then and he says it’s different now. How one Earth does that support you?
R’ Moshe Shternbuch is also not quoting that Lema’aseh. He uses it to contrast the Rambam’s time to ours to emphasize a point. He did not in any way claim that it is in any way some form of Chiyuv nowdays.
Next time, try to find sources that actually read and quote the Rambam the way you’re claiming they are.
I might be missing something having not read all the previous pages. But even taking Joseph’s interpretation of the Rambam, what does that have to do with driving. Even if a woman only goes out once or twice a month, why can’t she drive?
Driving is simply a more efficient mode of transportation.
Joseph is just having fun at other peoples expense.
That point was addressed. By having a driver’s license and ready availability to a car in the driveway, the reality is the woman will more readily and more frequently be going for a spin around town even if it isn’t an appropriate reason for her to be shpatziring outside according to the Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, etc.
Think of it like having a TV in the home. Sure National Geographic and PBS might have some kosher programming, but once you have access to everything, we all know the great risks.
By having a driver’s license and ready availability to a car in the driveway, the reality is the woman will more readily and more frequently be going for a spin around town even if it isn’t an appropriate reason for her to be shpatziring outside
The words in bold were NOT
according to the Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, etc.
Your misrepresentation of Torah is very harmful, upsetting, serious
Shulchan Aruch and Rambam specify their are frequency limitations, and type of reasons for going out limitations. I’m simply relating the reality of what they pasken.
There once was a real danger that women faced going outside.
I’m simply relating the reality of what they pasken.
If you believed the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam were correct, you would respectfully leave your personal adjectives out of the “relating”
But without a car, won’t she walk more places and be out for everyone to see even more than if she is safely ensconced in a car?
I would think that walking, taking a bus, taking a subway, or taking a cab would all be less tzniyusdik.
I don’t know a single person, man or woman, who enjoys “going for a spin around town”. People use cars so that they can get places. Now if you’re going to claim that a woman should not go out “unnecessarily”, you might not approve of her paying a social visit to her sister, for instance. But the fact is that the car is just the vehicle that gets her to the sister’s house. The “frivolity” or whatever is the social visit itself, not the mode of transportation.
In Josephs Defense, there are plenty of people who like to go for a drive
Ever hear of the term “Sunday Drive”
They make plenty of vehicles that are fun to Drive (A 15 year old Mini-van with 50 dents is not fun to drive)
They wouldnt make Mustangs ,Camaros , or Jeeps if people didnt want cars that are fun to drive
For sure. All people do on South Beach sometimes is cruise in their cars and nothing else. That said, I think we can safely assume that is not why frum women are driving.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.