Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We heard Hashem say the Aseres Hadibros.
Additionally, at least according the M”D megilla megilla nitna, we received the Torah from Bereishis until Mattan Torah.
Popa,
Boruch Hashem. Dan l’kaf zechus. It works 🙂
Popa,
Yes. But it is too soon to infer from Rav Feldman’s silence that he hasn’t. I don’t know the context under which Rav Feldman was speaking (I think it was a shiur), but he might wait until the next such context (i.e. the next such shiur) to clarify.
I don’t expect Rav Feldman to retract from his general statements, only from the statement calling Lipman a rasha.
Popa,
As yytz said, how do you know he didn’t call Rav Feldman?
Rav Feldman’s talk was unfortunately spread all over the internet, so he needed to clear his name. V’hoyisem nikiim . . .
“Lipman is a rasha – the lowest of his kind.”
Lipman has not done anything that would make him a rasha. Rabbi Feldman called him that having misunderstood what Lipman had said. This is straight up loshon hara.
If there is a senior mod out there, please don’t let this turn into a forum for loshon hara and chilul Hashem.
“we can know what influenced chazal, because there are many historians running around with thousands of artifacts, and lots of data from different periods/areas that chazal lived in.”
I would need to see a specific argument to comment in detail. Maybe the have found a way around the logical problems I outlined above.
I will say however that I have read various such arguments in the past and frankly they would not hold water in a court of law (without the Daubert rules). Historians and archeologists are not great on causation v. correlation, they jump to conclusions on weak evidence, fail to consider alternatives that don’t fit their paradigms and, most of all, confuse change in idiom and terminology with change in ideas.
Sof davar: when dealing with the soft sciences don’t just read their conclusions, read the data and the argument and think critically.
DY,
Why does it not make sense? A woman’s yetzer horah, in the ideal world, was far weaker than that of a man. In such a world her minimum connection to limmud haTorah was sufficient.
rational,
That is why it is called a diyuk. M’klal lav attah shomeiya hen.
I think that it is meduyak from the Shulchan Aruch that he is understanding that the concern is that the majority of women are not suited for learning Gemara. Therefore a father should not require his daughters to learn the Oral Torah (beyond the halachos they need to know).
However for the minority who are suited for such study it is a wonderful thing if they learn the Oral Torah and if they come and ask to be taught (and you deem them capable and worthy) you should teach them.
Rational,
You wrote: “All I said is that CERTAIN (I have to capitalize for you people) ideals they believed were influenced by non Jewish ideals and thinkers . . . Most of Halacha isn’t like this, but here its obvious it is, because of the similarities in thought.”
Now, I am not sure what you are specifically referring to by “here” but as a logical matter, just because things are “similar” doesn’t mean that one influenced the other and even if there was influence, it doesn’t tell you which one did the influencing.
I am not denying that influence is possible. Chazal were human after all. I am maintaining however, that we cannot know where the influence, if any, lies and we certainly can’t know that we, in our assessment of Chazal are not succumbing to the same sort of outside influences. And therefore it is foolish to make any practical changes based on suspicions of influence.
This is not like empirical fact.
(As an aside, I don’t think Chazal believed the world was flat. The Greeks knew the world was round and, according to the Yerushalmi, Alexander the Great proved the world was round. Chazal had extensive contact with Greek science and would have been aware of this.)
Torahlishma613,
Nobody holds that woman are not allowed to learn Gemara. The issue is with teaching them Gemara. A capable woman can learn whatever she wants.
V’neera li as a davar pashut that if a women comes to a rabbi and asks him to teach her in sincerity, and he finds that she is capable, he should teach her.
Rational,
It is a logical fallacy to assume that because A is similar to B, therefore A is derived from B.
There are at least 3 other equally likely possibilities (absent additional evidence of course). It could be that B is derived from A; it could be that the similarity is a coincidence/superficial; or it could be that both are derived from the same source.
“According to his understanding, that this presumably affects both, until recently, women have been left defenseless (or at least weren’t mandated to take the only effective measures against the yetzer hora).”
The Gemara doesn’t say that the mitzvah of “talmud Torah” is the tavlin, it is says that “Torah” is the tavlin. As I explained above, although women don’t have the the mitzvah of “talmud Torah” they do have a mitzvos of lilmod al m’nas laasos and hakhel. Those alone, in a more perfect world, would be sufficient to combat the lower level yetzer harah possessed by women.
Rational,
There is a big difference between science and values. Torah is not about science but it is about values. Chazal consciously used the science of their time because the Torah is not a source of science (for the most part) but Chazal did not consciously use the values of their time.
I assume you mean, that although they didn’t consciously use the values of their time, they might have been influenced by the values of their time and, chas v’shalom, misinterpreted the Torah. It is true that they might have been so influenced, nobody is perfect, but there is no way to know. And given that we can’t know one way or another, there is no reason to assume regarding any given issue that there was such influence. Therefore the point is has no practical ramifications.
Rationalfrummie,
When you say “Hellenistic ideals of women and their role greatly influenced this halachic sphere. Just like science, when these ideas are abandoned or rejected, we have to rethink if those still apply today.”
Do you mean that Chazal made takanos to correct problem in society at that time, but those problems no longer exist today?
Or do you mean that Chazal themselves held these hellenistic ideals to be good?
Unlike science “ideals” cannot be empirically disproven. There is no objective way to show (outside of Torah) that modern society’s values are any “better” than those of Greece 2000 years ago, or, Sodom, 3600 years ago.
“I understand halachicallly women are considered not smart enough to learn, and that their limmudim are “Tifllus.”
I don’t think that halachically women are considered “not smart enough to learn.” Nashim daatam kaalos means that women are easily seduced even when intellectually they know it is foolish.
Nor is their learning considered tiflus. Rather to force them to learn they way we would a boy is considered as if you are teaching them tiflus.
If a woman voluntarily learns it is a wonderful thing.
“Milchigs is assur on yontiff even if only a ????.”
I have been trying to convince my wife of this for years. Do you have any good sources?
Popa,
I suspect that YCT will say that they are also getting their values from Chazal, but that those values are in conflict with some minhagim we have because of changes in the society around us.
So to go back to women’s aliyos, let’s assume their interpretations of “kavod hatzibur” are correct (and I am not sure it is) that the lack of kavod was because it was considered inappropriate for a women to be an a “men’s section” or because it was insulting to men that they “needed” a women to read the Torah for them. On the other hand, because of the mores at the time, women would not be insulted by such a minhag.
Chazal may have been ambivalent to whether or not men should be offended about this. But they held that if men are so offended then women should not get aliyos because Kriyas HaTorah should not be a source of strife and b’zayon. (I realize that this is rank speculation, this is just a hypothetical).
If the main point is that Kriyas HaTorah should not be a source of b’zayon, then today, where men will not find this inappropriate and where a baal koreh reads everything anyway and where it is women who are embarrassed, offended and insulted by not getting aliyos, then the kavod hatzibbur falls away or would mandate that women should get aliyos.
“I discussed the article with a common friend I have with the author. (legislative history).”
I am a textualist, I do not value legislative history.
(Although one of the prime arguments against legislative history, does not apply to a document authored by a single person).
Popa,
It is not bizui of the talmud chacham to opine that he was mistaken, if the tone is respectful. If he would have written “the Rambam was a bigot” then I would be maskim. If someone says that the Rambam was influenced by the mores of his time and those mores were sexist, that is not bizui.
For example: Aliyos for women. I don’t think there is any issur if a person says that the pashut pshat “kavod hatzibbur” referred to in the Gemara is based on the sexist mores at the time, and today that we are not as sexist there is no problem of kavod hatzibbur.
That isn’t even saying that today’s mores are superior to the mores in Talmudic times, it is just noting the factual difference in mores.
“I’m sorry, but saying a minhag of the rishonim and of the amoraim is wrong because it is based on bigotry is assur. And apikorsus.”
What issur, and what ikkar?
HaLeivi,
Bittul Chametz is d’oraisa.
yytz,
Maybe we are using the word “sexist” differently. If all one means by the term is “discrimination based on gender” then the Halacha is certainly sexist. The very fact that women have fewer mitzvos is itself a discrimination based on gender and therefore sexist.
“I reject your ambiguity because it is clear that he is tapping into allegations of bigotry by noting that chazal were male.”
Under my reading he is tapping into the modern perception of things being sexist when they are said by men (because only women can ever be objective). In other words, it isn’t that he believes Chazal were sexist (at least not in the bigot sense), but that he understands that they are perceived as such, partially because they are men.
“I don’t know or care what “bigotry” or “sexist” means, but if someone were to say or even imply that any halachos or mesorah or minhagim are wrong or bad or mistaken or ought to be modified, they are violating numerous issurim.”
Once again, you need to separate out minhagim. There exists such a thing as a “minhag shtus” or a minhag that once had a proper basis but no longer. Even in halacha things can be modified if the circumstances change or the accepted psak changes.
Saying a minhag is wrong is not assur. Even saying that a common psak is wrong is not assur, so long as your are making a halachic argument.
“But then in the next paragraph he writes: ‘Written by male rabbis nearly 2,000 years ago, these words evoke for me the sexism too prevalent in the Orthodox world and beyond… Do I want any part of that sexism? No.'”
First of all, he is not saying that the rabbis that wrote the brocho were sexist but that reading it today it evokes in his mind the sexism that he seas in the Orthodox community today. In other words what bothers him is how the words would be understood today, not their actual original meaning.
Second, even under your reading, he is essentially saying that although he wished the brocho wasn’t sexist, he will say it even though he doesn’t like it. That’s being mevatel your daas to halacha, a good thing.
At the very least this gets us to Chevron step two.
“By saying that halachos and minhagim stated in chazal can be attributed to bigotry against women, the entire concept of mesorah falls.”
Wait a minute. There is a big difference between “minhagim” and “halachos” here. How is the concept of mesorah harmed by saying that minhagim were influenced by bigotry towards women?
Furthermore, if by bigotry you mean sexism (as opposed to misogyny) then they are correct. Many halachos are sexist (e.g. a woman cannot be an Eid for many matters). As long as that doesn’t mean that the halachos are invalid, how does it damage the mesorah.
“Women always had a yetzer hara, and always were given the tools by Hashem to deal with it, and that never included the mitzva of limud hatorah.”
Popa, women have always had a more limited mitza of limud hatorah, in the form of limmud al m’nas laasos and hakhel. In previous times that was sufficient to combat their yetzer hara, which was (and still is) weaker than that of men (especially because they spent most of their time in the home). Additionally a particular woman who faced a stronger yetzer hara, could always supplement as an ayno m’tvuva v’oseh.
Yitay,
Off topic: I (finally) posted a rebuttal to your “pashut pshat” argument in the “why women have to cover their legs” thread.
I am curious to hear your thoughts.
Yitayningwut,
I meant to post this rebuttal after Pesach but I forgot.
I don’t think your argument that my pshat is not “pashut pshat” holds up in this case. You say that given that the Gemara is listing things that are Erva it is cannot be pashut pshat that “erva” means different things regarding each one. If this were the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch, I would agree with you. However in two respects the Gemara here is different:
(1) Gemara is not meant for laymen to be able to just pick up and read, it is meant (like mishnayos) to be learned with a Rebbi who will transmit a mesorah as to how it should be understood (in this case Rashi.)
(2) More importantly, this is not one person giving a list. These are statements of Amoraim who lived hundreds of years apart. Therefore the inference that they all meant the same thing by the word “erva” is not nearly as strong.
Finally, you wrote: “Shir Hashirim is a much better place to bring an asmachta from, because it is all about hirhurim. Since hair and voice are mentioned in Shir Hashirim, we don’t need to run to other places. The shok of a woman is not mentioned in Shir HaShirim, therefore we have to resort to an obscure siman l’davar.”
There are two problems with this:
(1) There are other body parts mentioned as a source of tayva in Shir Hashirim that were almost certainly covered in the times of Chazal, but are not mentioned in the Gemara.
(2) While the word “shok” is not mentioned in Shir HaShirim, the other word for the same body part, “yerech” is mentioned: ???-?????? ?????????? ????????????, ????-??????; ????????? ??????????–?????? ????????, ???????? ????? ??????.
613,
The only problem is minhag hamakom. Meaning, if one lives in a community where it is considered untziusdik, and women therefore do not where them, then it is assur as a violation of daas yehudis.
I recall reading an interview with R’ Herschel Shachter many years ago, where he said there were 3 principled differences between Modern Orthodoxy and the rest of the Yeshiva World. Paraphrasing, they were:
1) Whether secular learning is a value in and of itself (not just to earn a living);
2) Whether there is such a thing, or whether one must listen to, Daas Torah; and
3) Whether the State of Israel is Reishis Smichas Geuloseinu (aka Zionism).
Popa,
I have not read R’ Lichtenstein’s work. However, it seems to me that this might be a valid basis for requiring stronger more universal Torah learning for women. As an analogy, in the past Torah education wasn’t common among the masses for older teenagers and 20somethings. Today it is sacrosanct. I wonder if the reason is the sense that the outside world is ever more tempting and to combat the modern Yetzer Horah ever more Torah is needed.
Maybe it was the lack of advanced Torah institutions that allowed for the spiritual devastation wrought be Haskalah/Communism/ Zionism.
I can hear a strong argument that the more involved in the secular world Jews are, the more intense their Torah learning must be. Because the “Centrist Orthodox” as a matter of principle want great involvement in the outside world, correspondingly, their girls must learn Torah in greater depth, including learning Gemara.
Popa,
In regards to point 4, I suspect that what R’Lichtenstein would tell you is that the Yetzer Hara today, through media and secular education, is much more prevalent and powerful and therefore a greater level of Torah is necessary for women to withstand it.
In this vain, I once heard argument made by a woman who was bothered by the materialism and shallowness of the girls in a local Modern Orthodox school and thought that making Gemara and more intensive halacha mandatory for girls would help solve the problem.
DY,
Thank you for correcting me about R’Moshe’s shitta on mechitza by a wedding. However, I should point out that the teshuva you cited is holding that a mechitza is not required, it is not clear what R’Moshe would hold about separate seating.
Furthermore, R’Moshe’s rationale is that by a wedding it is closed group, primarily family, and therefore kalos rosh is more easily controlled and prevented. It seems to me that there is a question of metzius here and that judgment needs to be made on a case by case basis.
Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer Chelek 4, Siman 60.
That teshuvah is not directly discussing mixed seating (he is discussing “having a girlfriend”).
I am pretty sure I remember a teshuvah discussing mixed seating at weddings. I will, bli neder, look it up tonight and find the exact teshuvah.
I don’t know what to make of their testimony. I would venture a guess that R’Moshe’s opinion is a chiddush and that he himself didn’t arrive at this conclusion until sometime in the sixties.
It is not semantics. I was explaining R’Moshe not giving my own opinion. Kalus Rosh is an issur d’oraisa according to R’Moshe. Therefore one is required m’doraisa to take the necessary steps to prevent kalos rosh.
The decision to use a balcony or mechitza as the means to prevent kalos rosh is d’rabbanan, but something must be done m’doraisa. This explains why there was the balcony was taken down after Yom Tov and why they only implemented the balcony in Bayis Sheini.
This is also why R’Moshe requires separate seating at weddings. Not because there is a din of separate seating but because of kalos rosh.
This also might be why the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t bring down mechitza as a din. He does bring down Kalos Rosh as issur chamur and he emphatically states the efforts needed to distance oneself from woman (who are forbidden).
rabbiofberlin,
I think we need to distinguish two things. The literal “ama” of a person, i.e. from the tip of their middle finger to the bottom of their elbow, and the standardized measurement used for building.
When it comes to mikva and mechitza where the shiur needs to serve a practical purpose, the ama will be the literal one and will changed based on the average ama in each generation. When it comes to things like the mishkan or the teyva we are dealing with a standardized measurement. The Chazon Ish can be right as to the standardized measurement used, even though that shiur will not be what is used for mikvah and mechitza.
Tosafos is stating a fact about normal human body proportions. The average human is the height of 4X his ama (elbow to fingertip).
“There are no 2 words in Loshon Kodesh that mean the same thing.”
I am going to dispute that too. There are many. We often build drashos around explaining why different words are used, but pashut pshat there are 2 words that mean the same thing.
E.g., “dror” and “cheirus”