Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
clearheaed:
Like I mentioned in my previous comment, you hadn’t acknowledged the authority until your Motzei Shabbos post. With that inclusion/clarification, I completely agreed with everything you wrote.
In no post I have made have I said he rules her in all aspects.
Ah Gutten Chodesh
clearheaded:
Kasha, I never heard of the word “semantics”. Maybe you meant syntax?
I meant semantics.
From Merriam-Webster:
Pronunciation: si-?man-tiks
a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.
IOW, from our most recent exchange, it appears we agree in principle but have just stressed different areas.
I can concede you only used equal 5 times not 6 [-:, but I still maintain the term equal is out of context in this regard. But again, this is simply a semantical issue, not a substantiative disagreement between us.
I do hope I made myself clear that a husband’s role of authority in the marriage does not mutually exclude equality in marriage or in general between both genders.
If I’m not mistaken, your comment from several hours ago discussing this authority was the first instance you acknowledged such in this thread. Is an employee’s manager, under whose authority he reports to at an office, his “equal” in the employment relationship? I don’t think that would be a correct usage of the term. Nevertheless, and again, that would simply be a semantical issue of how to describe the relationship – not a disagreement as to the nature of the relationship.
I agree with everything in your last post.
(I was going to question you usage of the term equal, which I counted 6 times in the post, but that is mere semantics.)
I’m not sure what is relevant about the fact a woman cannot remarry her first husband if she ever married someone else subsequently.
should ask a shalah if they are acting within the parameters of halacha because at the end of the day we are halachic Jews.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying! (First comment on this page: “ask the 2 shaalos that were suggested to you? I know you said you don’t think their necessary, but at the end of the day were all halachic Jews.”) Someone here [*cough*] expressed a reluctance though to even ask a shailah…
BTW, your points 1 and 2 although roughly correct (actually Chazal didn’t “create” halacha, they’ve interpreted it. Chazal have instituted some Mitzvos D’Rabbonon [i.e. gezeiros and takkanos], but the issue we’ve been discussing here is a m’doriaisa that the poskim and meforshim that I’ve quoted and others base from a pasuk in the Torah.)
clearheaded: There is a common expressive question of “who wears the pants in the house?” (The question is figurative, not literal.) From your descriptions here thus far, it seems the answer in your case is that you share it with your husband. (i.e. your talk of “equality.”) Is this a correct reading of your comments, or do you perhaps wish to clarify this perception?
oomis, the halachicly actionable reasons differ between husband and wife.
Nevertheless, not being warm enough or feeling “unloved” is not a halachicly actionable reason for either party in the absence of more substantiative reasons.
Indeed you are correct; the greatest tragedy of divorces are the victimization of the innocent children.
Most divorces are preventable. It is unfortunate some people don’t give it a chance, and run to divorce court at the first sign of difficulty.
Al pi halacha, a person cannot insist on a divorce just cause s/he wants it. There has to be a reason that is considered actionable under the eyes of halacha.
The bottom line is divorce is invoked far far too frequently, especially being pushed by corrupt therapists/counselors. And it is unfortunately done far more than necessary, where in many cases the marriage could have and should have been preserved.
The victims of the above-described cases are:
The ex-husband
The ex-wife
and most terrible of all…
The children
That’s why I said there are too many variables. BTW, I meant it occurred after 25 years, not in the beginning, but this is almost irrelevant.
Lying about marriage is terrible wrong, but certainly — generally — NOT grounds for divorce by a long-shot. This is what I mean by people purveying divorce as another trip to the grocery.
In any event, in the majority of divorce cases, things could have been worked out. What’s even sadder, is that these people — in most cases — are even sadder after divorce. And what’s even more, often their remarriage will be no happier than their first marriage that they broke up; and it often will include a whole bunch of baggage of its own.
You’re asking a hypothetical, not an actual situation. (i.e. She was once pushed for the first and last time after 25 years of marriage of a loving marriage; [And make no mistake, unfortunately there are some reshoyim — outside of the marriage i.e. corrupt counselor/therapists — even within the community who will push for divorce]; there are so many possible variables and possibilities.)
Yes, it is possible to work it out in many, probably most, situations.
One of them (if it occurred by the wife) are grounds for a mandatory divorce. Anything else, while obviously situation dependent, but can generally be worked out within a marriage without Chas V’Shalom going through a divorce.
Most of those issues CAN AND SHOULD be resolved within a marriage.
Jews should not be promoting secular-style free-divorce.
Divorce is a 4-letter word in a Jewish household.
You also need common sense.
Like I said, we need to discourage divorce and encourage working out differences in marriage. Divorce should be an absolute last resort to be avoided at almost all costs. We have too many idiots in the community trying to push divorce, to C”V “catch-up” with secular society. B”H for the stigma and whatever other reasons that keep marriages intact, and children with 2 parent household. Divorce should be a dirty word in a Jewish home.
From what I understand, divorce is a great stigma in the chassidish world than in the rest of Judaism. So people are more likely to stay in bad marriages.
There is no basis in reality for this assumption. You are assuming a baseless reason without any data, to fulfil you’re assumptions.
More importantly, there SHOULD be a stigma for divorce. Divorce as is, is done way too much and way too rapidly without giving the marriage a chance or a chance to fix there underlying problems. (Sure there are some exceptions.) If divorce didn’t have a stigma, you would have even more of them. Thank G-d there is a great stigma against divorce, otherwise divorce would be just like another trip to the grocery.
Wolf, I was talking to clearheaded. She is making points no one is arguing with, i.e.:
a marriage should have mutual respect for each other
the wife’s opinion carries some weight
a husband cannot force a wife to do something against halacha
etc.
BTW clearheaded, the answer to your questionnaire is technically 2, but the way you presented it is absurd. A husband should not make it as a fiat (even if he is entitled to.) He must speak to his wife with love and compassion, even if he is setting rules. You stressed the word must in your quote, and that is not the correct approach to it. Additionally, you made an issue of mental health. If there is a question about that (as your example says), a mental health professional should be consulted for her, if the husband isn’t one, to make that determination.
In any event, I’ve repeatedly responded to your same repetitive points sufficient times. Consider this response conclusive.
clearheaded
Your repetitive response indicates you are still writing from an emotional cocoon. There is nothing more to add to it.
clearheaded,
Why don’t you humor us and ask the 2 shaalos that were suggested to you? I know you said you don’t think their necessary, but at the end of the day were all halachic Jews. You’re Rov isn’t gonna bite your head off or even laugh at you if you ask him
a. If a wife should always follow her husbands requests (that aren’t against halacha) and
b. If a woman should try to limit how much time she spends outside the home
So what do you have to lose by just asking? Its just a quick 3-4 minute phone call. Could you do us that favor and let us know?
At age 17 the Chofetz Chaim married his step-sister as Kibud Eim to keep the shalom bayis between his mother and step-father (who pressed for the shidduch with his daughter since it was already clear the Chofetz Chaim was great.)
The Chofetz Chaim’s second wife lived in flatbush and was only niftar about 10 years ago.
Rav Elyashiv Rules Permissively on Herring: Forbids Wild Salmon & Other Fish Unless Inspected
(Thursday, June 10th, 2010)
[Rabbi Yair Hoffman – 5 Towns Jewish Times]
In a series of meetings with Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Karp and others, both on Tuesday and today, Thursday, Rav Elyashiv Shlita issued two rulings: He firmly reaffirmed the prohibition of consuming all fish species that have the Anisakis water nematode (worm) and he also ruled, however, that herring are permitted lechatchila.
The permissive ruling on the herring, according to Rabbi Karp was based up, at least, two factors:
The first factor, among others, is that the Anisakis nematode is almost impossible to find and identify after the herring has been marinated. Herring are significantly different than wild salmon and other fish that are infested with Anisakis in this regard. Indeed, according to Rabbi Pappenheim of Beit Shemesh, formerly the editor of the Eida, the Eida Chareidis of Jerusalem conducted examinations yesterday with Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Karp present and could not identify any Anisakis nematodes.
clearheaded:
This conversation is clearly exhausted. You are speaking from a purely emotional standpoint, due to the feminist influence you’ve been exposed to. I know you claim not to be a feminist, but their philosphies and hashkofos have clearly rubbed off on you. (BTW, Wolf is admittedly clearly more receptive to feminism than even you.) I have not, nor will I, C”V consider you an apikorus, since you don’t know better and I see that you mean well, even though you have been led astray and off the reservation.
But essentially you HAVE in fact argued against the aforementioned meforshim I cited. It is apparent you haven’t read or studied or otherwise sought to understand exactly what these meforshim are saying. What you are stating is clearly at odds with how the halacha is explained there. I must assume this is not your intention, but as a matter of reality there is no other way to describe your comments other than being at odd with our heilige meforshim.
“However I do not agree that YOUR stand IS the meforshim’s stand.”
How can you “agree” or “disagree” with a stand on meforshim you never read?
“And because of HOW KLAL YISROEL PRACTICES HALACHA your stand CANNOT BE CORRECT. AS I HAVE BROUGHT DOWN INSTANCES THAT ARE HALACHA THE WAY THE MAJORITY OF KLAL YISROEL PRACTICES.”
Incorrect. It is possible the majority practices a certain halacha incorrectly. Judaism isn’t ruled by majority. Judaism isn’t a democracy. (This can be said without even addressing how in fact the majority act in the area under discussion.) If we went by how the majority ACTS, the Reform/Conservative actions would unfortunately constitute a majority. I’m sure even you would admit that it would be preposterous to go by how such a majority ACTS. Jews are imperfect – we know that and accept it – but Judaism is perfect, and unchangeable. We do not make over G-d in our own image.
Klal Yisroel does not practice halacha (in the parts of Klal Yisroel that faithfully practices halacha) differently than our holy meforshim I’ve quoted tell us to. Practical halacha on a m’doraisa does not ever deviate with the passage of time from the basic interpretation of the m’doraisa.
There is no more I can add to this conversation. Whatever you plan on responding will surely be the same repetitive and incorrect points you’ve made thus far. One day, I trust, you too will come to your proper Yiddishe senses, and the golus influence will have evaporated from you. Hopefully that will occur prior to the arrival of Moshiach; but better yet Moshiach will be here very shortly, Bimhera Byomeinu Amen.
Chazak V’Amatz
Mod80: Agreed. Hence I cited the aforementioned litany of meforshim including the Mishna, Ramban, Rambam, Torah Temima, etc.
Thank you for sharing that you generally share my position here. 🙂
??. ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????????? ?????? ???????? ?????:
16. To the woman He said, “I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you.”
Is this pasuk in the Torah explicit enough?
clearheaded:
1. Parshas Bereishis, Perek Gimmel, Pasuk Tes Zayin says a husband shall rule over his wife.
2. I don’t care much about our “logical arguments” arguing against our heilige meforshim, who say what I’ve said earlier about this issue of the husband-wife relationship. Dismissing the meforshim with our “logical arguments” simply doesn’t cut it.
3. Minhugim NEVER clash with halacha m’doraisa from an explicit pasuk in the Torah.
LOL! Now I understand what you meant a couple hours ago when you wrote on this thread “I enjoy a good argument.”
My most recent response to you regarding the Mishna in question does not suffice as an answer to her query as well? Any or all of the other sources I just cited (for the second time at least), even ignoring the Mishna in question, does not suffice as a response?
Fugghedaboutit!
clearheaded:
I really think this has been exhausted. We are being repetitive here. This has been all addressed. But for your elucidation, since you seem to be such a nice person, I will reiterate it one final time.
In addition, you keep on stating that it is an explicit posuk in the Torah that a wife is ruled by her husband.
Bereishis 3:16.
Maybe the meforshim expound on a certain posuk in the Torah. Which meforshim are you talking about?
Ramban on Bereishis 3:16
Likutim on the mishna in Kerisus
Torah Temima, Bereishis 3:16, note 22
Mishna Kerisos 6:9
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ishus 15:20
Kol Tuv, Zeits Gezunt, un ah Gutte Chodesh!
BTW, I still need to double-check the Mishna in Kesuvos, but I’ll accept your interpretation of it. That being said, I did NOT intend to say the Mishna includes even when she’s an UNMARRIED ADULT. If I was mistakenly understood as such (regardless of fault), I apologize.
Regarding the metzius discussion (which is entirely different than what we’ve been talking about in Bereishis), I still don’t agree with you. Neither do I currently feel adequately prepared to defend my position on it at the moment, but perhaps I’ll have an opportunity to explain it better after some discussion with Rebbeim. It is a deep concept.
Wolf: I think we’ve exhausted this discussion. I will follow up your last comment as follows.
If I can waive my rights, then it’s obviously not mandatory.
You can also waive other rights you have in the Torah and halacha. i.e. If someone owes you money, you can forgive the debt, even though you are entitled under halacha to claim the money. This point doesn’t mean “it’s obviously not mandatory” under halacha that your debtor repay you (prior to your debt forgiveness.)
“Why are the two different?”
For one thing (amongst others), the Chachomim clearly stated that a husband ruling his wife is halacha l’maaisa. Secondly, this involves the rights of two parties (the husband and wife), whilst the child birth doesn’t involve abrogating another parties rights.
Kol Tuv
Your language of “but not because of the pasuk” is far different than your claim now that “The point was that my answer would be the same even absent the pasuk.” Your original terminology clearly indicates your disregard if not contempt for the pasuk.
“You also stated earlier in this thread that it’s perfectly fine with the Torah if I *don’t* run my marriage that way.”
I said that I think you have the right to surrender your rights. That in no way shape or form indicates that “Obviously it’s not a mandatory halacha.”
The bottom line is this:
We have an explicit pasuk in the Torah that a man rules his wife. It is clear, unambiguous, and black and white in so many words. It is part of the Torah HaKedosha. Period.
The meforshim (some previously cited) state this is halacha and the Torah ideal. Not some abstract concept or C”V some antiquated part of the Torah or a curse to hope to do away with or even just an interesting idea. It is the law of the land.
The above part of our Torah HaKedosha is nothing to be ashamed of. Even though the goyim will scoff at such “antiquated” ideas.
The above may be difficult to digest for someone exposed to feminism — as we all (probably) were. Even if you reject feminism in its entirety, these goyishe ideas from society tend to unfortunately (at least somewhat) rub off on us.
Kol Tuv
Regarding the analogy between a King and a husband, it was simply that both involve ruling and neither is any reason to be ashamed of it. The King wears a crown and the husband doesn’t; I guess that’s another reason the analogy isn’t oh so perfect. (I’m sure you can nitpick some more reasons.)
Nevertheless, I would encourage you not to focus so much on the analogy. The point is greater than that; and the point is an explicit pasuk in the Torah.
“but not because of the pasuk”
The pasuk isn’t good enough for you?
I have no idea what you are talking about in your last paragraph of your last post.
BTW, regarding the Mishna in Kesuvos I quoted, I read it last night but don’t have the mesechta here now. It says “she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in”, so how is it talking about a ketana?
Do you care to comment on 80’s point, that it says “will”, not should?
The same pasuk says she shall desire her husband. Do you feel its okay if she neglects that part of the pasuk?
And more importantly than all that, I’ve cited that the ruling is actual halacha and the Torah ideal, not just a curse.
Wolf: yitay already made that argument, and I’ve addressed it above (on this page.)
It was just an analogy. Analogies tend not to be perfect.
The main point I am making is that were talking about an explicit pasuk in the Torah.
Wolf:
My point was that in relation to the King, the Queen was under his jurisdiction.
I did not address whatever powers the Queen had in relation to others.
Kasha what excactly do you want to prove when you bring from “Kesuvos 48a-48b (Mishna) – A girl is always in her father’s “Reshus”, until she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in”, if it’s not that a woman is an object to be ruled over?
clearheaded: I quoted verbatim an explicit Mishna, without offering an interpretation. The interpretation was yours, not mine.
clearheaded:
“As to who rules over whom, as I continue to mention that is mekom (in this case not only place, but time as well) minhag.”
Absolutely incorrect. It isn’t minhug hamokem, as it is an EXPLICIT pasuk in the Torah (with associated meforshim) that the husband rules his wife.
“Therefore if there would be a king in England he would rule over his queen equaly as his queen rules over him. In other words, they are both figureheads and on equal footing.”
Incorrect again. Today they are just figureheads. But when they had actual power, and there was both a King and Queen of England, the King had absolute power over the Queen. (Sometimes he would even behead her on a whim. Look at English history.) This was typical of secular Kingdoms. But in any event, I’m talking about Torah law.
Wolf:
You missed my primary point. Just as a King ruling his national subjects is the natural state of affairs, so too a husband ruling his wife is the natural state of affairs. Aside from it being written explicitly in the Torah itself, and expanded upon by the meforshim, it is common sense.
(Feminism of course has dulled contemporary society’s common sense though, and even people mostly unaffected by feminism onslaught against society, tend to feel after affects of the degeneration it has wrought, and even they fall prey to some or many of feminisms subtle and overt messages of “equality.”)
clearheaded:
I believe you are confusing me with another poster, as in none of my comments on this thread have I brought up the “chefetz” (or “object”) issue.
As far as the “equality” issue, the sources I quoted above, as well as previous comments I posted here, clearly indicate otherwise. Just as an orange isn’t “equal” to an apple (or better than an apple), men aren’t “equal” to women (or better than women.) So no, men and women are not equal.
As far as the husbands “ruling” their wives, as brought from the Torah – Chumash Bereishis [and the cited meforshim above] is concerned, this is nothing to be ashamed of. Is one ashamed that the King of his country is his ruler? No, such is the natural state of affairs. Same as between husband and wife.
yitayningwut:
Getting back to the earlier “equality” discussion here, I found some additional points on this topic.
Regarding the discussion of the husband ruling his wife, per Bereshis, see the Ramban on Bereishis 3:16.
Your dismissing of the pasuk in the Torah’s saying he shall rule over her as merely a curse and not the ideal isn’t tenable, especially without you being equally dismissive of the part of the pasuk saying a wife “desiring” her husband is not necessary, since its only a curse.
Anyways, that point aside, see support for what I’m saying in Likutim on the mishna in Kerisus and in Torah Temima, Bereishis 3:16, note 22 that the husband “ruling” the wife is actual halacha and the Torah ideal, not just a curse.
Further supporting this is the Mishna Kerisos 6:9 and Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ishus 15:20.
Then there is the halacha that all of a wife’s money/property (acquired after marriage) belongs to the husband (Bava Kama 87a). And that only brothers (and not sisters unless there are no brothers) inherit their father. (Bamidbar 27:8 and S”A CM 276:1)
Kesuvos 48a-48b (Mishna) – A girl is always in her father’s “Reshus”, until she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in.
It’s more apparent that you didn’t understand the Gemarah Sanhedrin. Nothing wrong with saying ich vaist nisht. Rashi also says so sometimes.
yitay – I met all of the above in the near past.
I don’t believe you will claim things changed on this issue in the past couple of years.
Personal bias is a prism anyone can view any issue through. It isn’t something to apologize for, yet it is worth pointing out that possibility.
In any event, we’re still awaiting a response to the second point.
See my earlier comment about metzius.
(This comment was a response to a now deleted post.)
Neither am I making an assumption, but rather basing my comment on looking around and assessing the situation for a very clear vantage point. I really don’t see how you can observe that. Perhaps the folks that you’ve come across like that, gave you an impression you projected on the rest or your own personal bias did as such. Nevertheless, I strongly maintain you are accepting a bad impression. I don’t question your integrity.
cherrybim: Chazal most certainly were not handicapped, as they received divine assistance in their every word and breath. The terminology they utilized in explaining concepts to the masses often utilized common observations, but their knowledge encompassed Kol HaTorah Kulah from Maasei Breishis through Matan Torah and further.
Just speculating on my part, but perhaps one was referring to a physical sense and the other a metaphysical sense.
(Wow, over 400 posts on a thread less than a week old!)
Wolf: I’m glad you don’t purport to know or even understand everything. I’m glad you admit there are things and concepts you don’t understand. I’m glad you realize what you think may be “mutually exclusive” in fact of reality your understanding is what may not be exclusive. That your very understanding of metzius itself perhaps, just perhaps, is incorrect.
Chazal meant what they said. If they intended to exaggerate a point, then it is an exaggeration, per their intentions. Determining when it is and when it is not an exaggerated point is the job of our meforshim, not your or my job.