Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There were several sources for purple. Finding a source which was used doesn’t establish that its the argaman we’re referring to, and so we turn to our mekoros from Chazal and meforshim. In which, as I’ve said, there are very conflicting indications, and it’s a whole sugya – “lo al regel achas”.
BYM, I’ll give you this: if you’ve been doing a lot of reading, listening etc, then yes, I’m sure you’ve heard a lot of drivel. This is the age when it takes next to nothing to establish yourself as an ‘authority’ on any given topic. And people def. tend to simply parrot the hashkafos they’re taught, without giving thought to today’s realities.
So you’re really seeking the truth. So just as example, I’ll ask you: why do you keep on harping on the intelligence issue ? Not one poster, far as I can recall, claimed that the Torah role for women is defined by their inferior intelligence. And I’m sure you haven’t come across that either. Yet you’re sure that’s really behind people’s attitudes.
So, as a very interesting case in point: How have you understood the Rambam’s very interesting terminology when explaining why women don’t/shouldn’t learn/be taught [have I covered all bases there?] Gemara ?
Well then, I’m sure a lot of people on this thread would prefer you stop teaching ! 😉
You have not been honest. You started with a valid question about a Torah-delegated vicarious role. This grew to a question why we don’t have identical roles, and now we have you stating that men and women are simply not different at all.
i think the torah probably wants a jew to be happy more than anything else.
Rather do some studying of what the Torah wants from you, than deciding what it ‘probably’ wants.
The above is a gross misunderstanding of the sources that discuss the importance of Simcha.
I just saw a whole kuntres dedicated to the question of the identity of argaman. From a cursory look, there seems to be quite some confusion.
You batlan. He might have made it to 303 times if you hadn’t wasted his time.
trust 789 – Well that’s just the point. They are upset because of what happened, and find a scapegoat, as mentioned earlier. By unjustified I meant for being directed at the person.
Those who quote Nefesh HaChaim in support of their position that Torah learning has intrinsic value in the sense that you are thereby accomplishing and do not need to do for or teach others, are very much mistaken.
R’ Itzele explicitly says that his father admonished him for not doing enough for the Klal. As we all understand that he was learning, clearly R’ Chaim meant that he needs to do for others in a way BESIDES for learning. [B’sheim umro – not my proof, heard from a prominent Mashgiach.]
We find this idea clearly in many of the Gedolei Mussar. [Not to say that Torah learning doesn’t positively affect the world, as famous from R’ Elchonan’s pshat in the braisa of Eilu Dvarim – simply that that’s not enough.]
besalel – I’m not quite sure what you said in that last post, but I don’t recognize anything in line with what I said. I vehemently disagree with your original post.
BYM, you’ve been making pretty big statements, and not backing them up at all. I’m going to have to assume that you’re going with your gut, or vague recollections of things you’ve heard/studied, as opposed to real knowledge.
“It seems to me…” – No one here disagreed that the underlying purpose is the same as the man’s. We’re discussing the means of doing so.
000646 – your question is valid. R’ Wolbe z”l has a very special sefer entitled “Mitzvos HaShekulos” where he deals exclusively with this.
I’ve heard there are parts of the scrolls that were never made public, which according to rumor is because they cast doubt on the historical veracity of Christianity. Any basis to this ?
DY – agreed then. And of course people are unjustifiably upset due to personal reasons – is anyone ever really upset because of the ‘principle of the matter’ ?!
3) Ben Levi – We’ll just have to disagree. When Hashem lets you get fooled into marrying someone who is not fit for marriage, that was the (Heavenly-ordained) tragedy. Getting out is the hatzala.
hashtorani – I stuck in my two cents there only because BL made it quite clear that he is talking in all cases, even the ones BYM referred to. And blamed it on his Grand Torah Hashkafa.
Until Hillel and Shamai, there was ONE machlokes in Torah. Period. (about semichah).
And Froggie did quote THE pasuk in regard to learning, the one from where we see its a chiyuv every (available) moment, at the very beginning of Nach.
And why exactly are you not accepting of Chazal’s interpretations of the pseukim ?
A question is fine. The provocative “when did this mitzvah start”, applied to this clear and well discussed mitzvah, is not.
Methinks the issue in Emunah we have here is not the result of this question…
And that we should educate ourselves a bit before asking grand sweeping questions of such nature.
DY – Fully agree to first point. Though Yashrus is ‘mechayev’, more than just a chesed.
Also, the extent of the possible damage shows the importance of this particular yashrus as opposed to just the ability to help someone.
And so, as to second point, not sure if I really think they’re off the hook (if its a reasonable expense for them).
I think someone earlier made a good argument that no one really responded to.
Even if you only HAVE to shovel ‘cuz of the law, and not a previous moral obligation, its obvious that as a community we’re going to do something to make streets passable. Now the method is through law-enforced(?) private shoveling, like it or not. Today people are having a hard time because of you. Fits the bill for ‘Yashrus’ in my book.
I think you’re being very bullheaded here.
The distinction made earlier is quite valid. Just because a marriage is about more than the two individuals doesn’t mean that in every case it was supposed to build a Bayis Ne’eman and tragically didn’t. If a spouse is abusive, and not ready to enter any marriage, and it is not feasible for the marriage to work, then it was perhaps a gezeirah on the spouse to have to go through that, but you cannot say that a Bayis is tragically being broken. Your general point may be valid while acknowledging these exceptions.
I think a better question is why YWN doesn’t have clearly defined guidelines. And if they do, they should post them, because I am here with my Chofetz Chaim in hand, ready to show how many such threads are 100% assur.
hashtorani – you cannot claim historical precedent for the naturalness of that way of marriage, as you have to factor in the new phenomena of women being the sole or equal breadwinner.
interjection – Your clearly defined idea of finances in marriage are just not in accordance with halacha, as has been clarified on this thread several times already. If you are referring to what you believe should be mutually agreed upon these days, for whatever reason, then say so. But by definition, no, there is a question of control. And it is not indicative either way of the idea of the unity in marriage. There def. can be defined area’s of control in a marriage, due to each’s strength’s etc, irregardless of the strength of their bond.
The idea of compassionate use is the ability to make exceptions. So I was assuming that the petition was a way of making sure that the request would be taken seriously, and not get denied due to bureaucratic red tape or the like. Which would not explain the WH response. Otherwise, I agree – what else did they expect, why should they doubt the FDA’s decision due to a petition ?!
I had looked again, just didn’t seem to read that way, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I agree that the scenario doesn’t sound great (although it would probably be indicative of a problem , more than creating one!), but would point out that it is the ideal scenario promoted by a great many Torah authorities, when mutually accepted.
Gosh, I thought squeak was being facetious!
Believing that an outcome is ‘determined’ by statistics is wrong. And there is even the idea that our bodies are different, as you wrote (although they note that we still depend on medical knowledge gleaned from experiments and data with goyim).
But why would you assume we have different pizza eating habits?
BYM – yes indeed, but that’s not what you wrote. You said you would insist on separate accounts (as per halacha), and “you could not imagine normal shalom bayis living that way” – ???
GAW – many gezeiros still applicable despite reason no longer relevant. M”A in Hilchos Purim differentiates between Takanos and Chashashos. I was just referring to those that do.
yytz – never read, but are you sure he doesn’t say/mean that she should balance the books, budget etc, but according to the values and decisions set down or agreed upon by/with husband ?
BYM – There are halachos governing this, as every aspect of life. If you think a husband today should set things up differently for practical reasons, that’s one thing. But if you are simply not comfortable with this arrangement, do some research and deal with it. (Of course, Sam2 already noted that the halacha is not quite as simple as that. I’m sure R’ Miller, too, was not focusing on the halacha, but rather on what he perceived as the proper attitude of wife to husband. If some of the people on this thread would read his description of the ideal marriage relationship, they’d probably want to arrange public burning’s of his books. Not exactly sympathetic to feminist ideas.)
Being a good teacher/Rebbe is def. a skilled enough job to deserve way more than the going salary.
GAW – if i were to do exhaustive study of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, would that be ‘nothing’ ? I could probably find occupation in a different world than my own, publish books etc. yet practically speaking, in my personal life, it would be worthless. It is therefore conceivable to argue that if a women’s focus should be elsewhere, and she exerts much efforts in studying gemara, then its worthless – i.e. not bringing her to where she’s supposed to go. (As usual, I’m nor espousing my view, just saying I don’t see why you’re so incredulous about such a statement.)
And you know very well that even if such a statement was made, it had nothing to do with the speakers opinion about the ‘lowliness’ of women, so…
Although that begs another question – how the heck could you protect them from parental abuse?!
Yeah, but they got it with their parent sitting in the room approving…
interjection – love your posts. To have those feelings, and they clearly aren’t there by rote but from conscious decisions and an openness to life’s experiences – it says a lot.
GAW – I haven’t read it yet, just the intro. am planning to. But from what I know, I have a hard time believing that he says what I referred to. My problem was with the implication that the SOURCE of Chazal’s statement’s were social understandings, and the meforshim reinterpreted them according to modern ‘sensibilities’. To say that Chazal had a Torah source for an idea, and while their understanding was based on their perception, it is valid despite that being proven wrong, for reasons we may know better today – that’s something else. [I’m not saying I believe that, just differentiating between two similar sounding ideas.]
The idea may be similar to gezeiros, where we (often) say that they are still valid even when the reason given is no longer applicable, because they had hidden reasons as well.
Well, that is the preeminent source for the concept questioned…
My doctor explained it to them just fine at their annual checkup.
You could have a “so-called fantasy” involving malachim, sheidim, kishuf etc.
Tur states that each month corresponds to one of the Shevatim.
Sefer Yeztirah has several lists of Twelve, which it correlates to the months.
Adar corresponds to the letter Kuf, Shevet Dan, and the koach of Tzchok – laughter.
And now we are all much smarter.
Lets go back to discussing snow shoveling, the IDF, YCT, and the like. Where it makes not much difference if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
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.
“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 ?!
I don’t think anyone can furnish any ‘proof’ for any of the assertions we’re throwing around here. Just strong anecdotal evidence.
Of course, if you’re just staying there for your ‘name’, but really are waiting to leave, no difference. But otherwise it might make lot of sense. If you set a tone in the house, a certain routine where Torah is supreme, so that atmosphere can more easily continue despite spending much less time actually learning. In addition, the difficulties in college or the workplace are presumably easier to handle when equipped with the “shemira’ of being married and the stability of the home.
And so its not at all “vicarious”.
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
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.
I never said or implied anything about your first point, and I explicitly stated the second.
Was having a discussion with hodulashem about the reasons for her unfortunate difficulties with shidduchim.
Chill out.
Wow. So the issue really is pressure to date indiscriminately, understood as an overly strong emphasis on marrying right away. Not a question why marriage is important. OhhhhK.
Absolutely right. Good job. But gosh somethings gotta be done about it!
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
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.
There you go again, assuming everyone else is also a Talmid Chochom 🙂
I’ll take a look.
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.
And yet I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most boys who start working (not college) while single aren’t learnig part-time either (and by that I don’t mean one or two hours).
Not saying anything too terrible about them, nor saying they have to be in learning – just pointing out that the “not everyone is cut out for full time learning” explanation is liberally applied in many inapplicable cases.
I’m not yelling lashon hara (though I’m not sure where the to’eles is). I would just not want that responsibility on my head. So just wondering YWN’s system. Maybe their gut is usually good enough. Here…
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 ?
Only the boys. To alleviate shidduch crisis 🙂
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.
I’m not assuming that if these questions were directed to her parents/teachers/whatever they would not respond accordingly.
The question is why we tell young people to date and get engaged, and only then wake up to start explaining what its all about. Which leaves us with the common, sad reality of the wrong criteria and understanding going into the method of dating and choosing..