Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No but I did read a quote from R’ Moshe Feinstein:
????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???”? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????
Ok. I am not trying to be antgonistic. I respect the moderators’ right to not approve of certain comments. However, I assumed that there wouldn’t be anything wrong with simply quoting something the Netziv said. When I first attempted to post it about a week and a half ago, I put in my own points after the quote. When that was blocked, I tried again with just the quote, figuring that maybe my words had been problematic but it was blocked again. After a lull in time I tried again – perhaps the moderators would be in a different mood this week – but it was not to be. Then I figured that maybe the quote was problematic because by posting it in the Daas Torah thread, it is portrayed in a certain context. So I put in a new thread and it was allowed through. But then when I posted the link to that thread in this thread, that thread was taken down. My question then was mima nifshach – if my assumption about contexts was correct then why was the other thread taken down, and if my assumption was incorrect then why was the other thread allowed up in the first place? That is what I didn’t understand. (Granted I engaged in a bit of trickery by linking it here, but that could have been taken care of by simply blocking the link.)
So in summation, I respect the moderators’ decision but I am peacefully demonstrating my disagreement with it.
I almost deleted that thread to begin with because I knew which context you meant it in, but allowed it, because it was not directly put into that context. When you linked it in the other thread, I deleted both. Yes, it was trickery on your part, please do not engage in that any more. TIA.
?
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read
And:Do not resubmit deleted posts.
You understood why your original comment was deleted.
Please do not keep on attempting to submit it in creative ways. It is still the same comment. Thank you.
Here is something I posted a while back about ruach hachodesh:
R’ Shlomo Aviner recently wrote:
“When did this change you speak of occur? After the establishment of the bais yaakov system? If not the kasha on you still remains as to why this change was not implemented earlier in history or certainly at the latest when the BY was established.”
I would venture to say that there has been a bigger change from 1917 to today then from Chazal to 1917. Look at the life of a girl today especially in terms of general education and interaction with the world. Also, even if 1917 was the same as today (which it wasn’t) starting Bais Yaakov was enough of a chiddush as it was. They may have felt Tafasta Meruba Lo Tafasta.
Yes I am referring to the Divrei Yoel. He quotes the Chofetz Chaim and very severely limits what it would apply to.
Lior and DaasYochid:
There was a very big change from the times of Chazal. Ayin Likutei Halachos on the Gemara in Sotah. This is just taking that idea a step further. (Granted R’ Yoel in very strong terms made a chiluk between certain types of learning e.g. Gemara, where there was mamesh an Issur)
Because part of point 1 and 2 is that (specifically) a contemporary girl’s exposure to other Chachmos will likely cause her to perceive the Torah as lacking in many areas, simply because they don’t have any real hasaga of what Torah is.
“PAA, what’s wrong with the halacha as it is and has always been that there is this itch to change it?”
That is the other issue which until now I was not addressing. But now I will discuss it briefly. I would suggest that there are several problems with the current system of girls learning (primarily speaking about halacha/hashkafa as opposed to Tanach).
1)Girls are not taught to understand; they are taught to memorize a list of rules which (to them) doesn’t really mean anything and often probably seems to not be sensible.If they would learn Gemara with the Rishonim/Acharonim/Poskim they would be understanding instead of memorizing. They would see how the process works – e.g. they would see how a halacha is based off a memra in the Gemara which provides a scriptural source and then the Rishonim debate the pshat in the Gemara and then the Acharonim conclude as to which we Rishonim we should be choshesh for and which Rishonim we shouldn’t be choshesh for. This brings an entire new world to light for girls. (This same problem might exist for boys also, depending on how they learn/are taught.
2)Without learning Gemara you are really lacking the basics and fundamentals of understanding Judaism. This point is a little hard to express but I think Bais Yaakov Maidel said something similar in the (in)famous thread a while back.
3)Without having any background/knowledge in Gemara, a girl is at the mercy of any one who quotes her anything. If a girl hears someone quoting a Gemara, she has no way to know if the quote is real, if it is being taken out of context, if it is being misunderstood, or if it is being abused to further someone’s agenda. I see this all the time.
I realize that some of these points sort of overlap. Also this is just a brief touch on something which is rather hard to explain but I tried.
It’s interesting because the Gemara in Sotah doesn’t mention anything about differences between men and women.
DaasYochid:
It’s still a machlokes in metzius. One side holds that women’s performance in all other areas demonstrates that they are as capable as men, whereas the other side holds that it doesn’t. Besides, you can’t really make the halacha based on something unquantifiable because then you can’t apply it – for example how could you quantify whether an individual woman is an exception?
“PAA: You’re basically saying that the concept of nishtaneh hateva proves that any metzius Chazal used to codify a halacha can have changed since their time, thus nullifying the halacha by simply engaging in a debate whether the metzius used changed? Where do you draw the line?”
Yes it does prove that the metzius could change. You can debate the metzius on any issue in which the metzius is debatable.
“And how do you even determine what metzius Chazal used to codify a halacha and whether they in fact based it on a metzius or rather only used a metzius to explain a halacha that is in reality binding irregardless of the metzius which was only given as an explanation for a set halacha [i.e. isn’t given as a basis (causatively) but as a ta’am]? We don’t pasken based on ta’amei hamitzvos.”
Generally speaking, when the Rabanan create a halacha, decree etc. it is because of a metzius; they don’t use a metzius to explain the halacha because there had to have been a reason to create the halacha in the first place.
I’m not claiming that the concept of nishtaneh hateva can prove that women now are capable of learning. What I am saying is that the concept of nishtaneh hateva should prove that one cannot say that the metzius can’t change because Chazal said what they said etc. But what it would come down to would be solely a debate as to what the current metzius is, which shouldn’t cause any raised blood pressure.
If women nowadays are not demonstrably inferior then that should be grounds to invoke nishtaneh hateva
“The halachos are the same now as they were then, nothing changed there. We are learning the pertinent halachos the same way it was learnt back then, baal peh (or for some topics, using a kitzur). Why the need for change just because the times changed?”
I am deliberately trying to keep the two issues seperate. I think you are combining them. Let’s grant that the starting point is that everyone should learn the parts of Torah that are relevant to them, in the best possible way. However, there might be overriding factors. So let’s say that Chazal thought that there were overriding factors that should prevent women from learning. Would it be a fair assumption that if those factors went away then we would be back to the starting point of women learning? This is all independent of whether there are issues nowadays which should COMPEL women to learn.
A proof that women should be learning: ???? ??? ?? ??????
“And why try to pigeonhole a nishtaneh hateva argument for essentially the purpose of trying to advance a political desire of equality.”
I might agree in regards to those who are trying to advance a political desire of equality. But there are plenty of others who aren’t.
“Aha, thanks for taking the time to explain that”
You’re welcome.
“you know you’re good at explaining, right?”
If I didn’t I guess I do now. Thanks for the compliment.
“Could you imagine, I would’ve never thought so deeply about your existence if not for this thread.”
I hope it was a productive use of your time.
“But Chazal said farkert; their lower intellectualism is why they shouldn’t be educated. “
No, Chazal said it is why they shouldn’t be educated in Torah. Meaning it is very possible that Chazal were saying that it is dangerous to take a woman who is completely uneducated and teach her just Torah. But if they are educated in all other regards then perhaps it would not be so dangerous for them to learn Torah.
“What exactly in today’s reality dictates that women should be learning? What has changed since the original BY that would obligate girls to learn?”
There are two seperate issues. 1)Is there a reason why women specifically nowadays NEED to learn 2)Do the reasons why in the past women were not supposed to learn still apply nowadays.
I was discussing the second issue. (I am more than willing to discuss the first issue as well, in a minute.)
“but on the other hand, there is no reason why they should.”
The reason why they should is to know the halachos.
It is siman 6. I didn’t steal it. I don’t think he is saying quite what I said. He doesn’t seem to be working within the split between limud hatorah and yedias hatorah. But it is definitely a similar idea. But it doesn’t make too much sense – the Bais Halevi himself says that a woman has no chiyuv whatsoever to learn things that don’t apply to her so why would a man have such a chiyuv (mita’am yedias hatorah; obviously he would have a chiyuv of limud hatorah).
“Answer to the OP:
Because they’re too busy doing what they’re supposed to be doing.”
If I may engage in some pilpul over here:
R’ Yisrael Salanter (in Iggeres 27) writes that there are two parts to learning Torah – limud hatorah and yedias hatorah. Limud Hatorah is simply to learn any part of Torah whenever possible. Yedias Hatorah is that you have to know Torah which includes knowing the halachic conclusions and mastering the methodology by which they are reached. Seemingly, a woman’s chiyuv of yedias hatorah in topics that apply to women should be identical to a man’s chiyuv. They both have to know how to properly observe the Torah. Now R’ Salanter writes that one can be mevatel limud hatorah in order to further the goal of yedias hatorah. So a woman should also be able to be mevatel her other responsibilities in order to further the goal of yedias hatorah. If you say that she doesn’t need to know because she can always ask someone, you can say the same thing about a man.
However, R’ Salanter explains that the chiyuv of yedias hatorah is based on “V’shinantum L’vanecha”. Therefore it is possible that we we would darshen ???? ??? ??? (the Gemara only makes this derasha by ?????? ???? ?? ?????), and it would come out that a woman doesn’t have a chiyuv to know any Torah – she just has to be able to observe it properly and knowing Torah would be a hechsher mitzvah so to speak, whereas a man aould have a specific chiyuv to know Torah independent of enabling him to observe it. And therefore the chiyuv to know Torah could override a man’s chiyuv to learn Torah but a woman wouldn’t have such a chiyuv to override her other responsibilities. (It could also be that limud hatorah is an exception in that any mitzvah can be docheh it, but than again I don’t think that the responsibilities that a woman would be “neglecting” by pursuing advanced learning would be an actual “chiyuv” in the first place.)
I see the mistake that you made: The list of threads in someone’s profile is listed in the order that that person posted on them, however if that person in the future posts again on one of those threads, it will move to the top of the list. Therefore if you see that the bottom of my list is from three years ago and suddenly it goes to six months ago it could be that in the interim I was active, and all the threads I posted on during that time I also posted on within the last six months. That being said it is true that I was very sporadic during that time (I think I only posted on the Techeiles thread for that entire period but lemaaseh I was here). The Slifkin thread is what drew me back into the main coffee room because it seemed to me that no one was adequately representing one side of the issue.
“I don’t know if they taught history back in Sara Schenirer’s days, but if they did or didn’t doesn’t make a difference. It’s taught out of necessity, no other reason, so yes recent history is taught too.”
I apologize for not making my point clearer. My point was not about things that were changed by necessity. Let’s say that there was never any objection to teaching history and it was taught since the first day of the first Bais Yaakov. Would anyone say that from now on we can only teach the history that was taught at that time but nothing more recent? Probably not because there is no reason not to. Now when Bais Yaakov was started, the metzius was very different than it is today. Additionally, Bais Yaakov at all was a chiddush and controversial enough without introducing Gemara. So what they did then doesn’t really address today’s reality. Now if someone thinks that the reality is the same then fine, but they shouldn’t have any problem if other people disagree (which many of them clearly do as can be seen here in the Coffee Room). Unless they think that it is not possible for the reality to change. Which is why I brought up nishtaneh hateva.
“The seculars claim that women are not only currently intellectual equals but that they have always been intellectual equals, and that nothing changed physically or intellectually to make them more equal in contemporary times but rather they claim that they were suppressed in the past.”
On what basis would someone state that currently, women are not intellectual equals? If there is no basis and you believe that thousands of years they were not equal then you can simply say nishtaneh hateva. The main argument that people use today in favor of women learning is that they have demonstrated intellectual equality, e.g. by becoming doctors, lawyers, scientists etc. (For the record I don’t know if “intellectual” is the precise word which should be used, but I can’t think of any one word which would be more precise.) Now if someone thinks that this is not true then let him/her hold that women are not capable of learning. But if someone thinks that it is true then why not say nishtaneh hateva to avoid any problems. Especially considering that it is very sensible that people’s intellectual/emotional capacity would change based on their life circumstances – i.e. someone who never had any education would have a much harder time learning gemara. So for instance, if all a woman ever had to do was cook and have children, then it would make sense that in certain regards she would be “intellectually inferior” (and presumably a man in that situation would also be inferior) but once women do the same things as men it would make sense that this would change.
“I don’t think there is an objection per se, its just the way things have been done since the first BY school was formed.”
Do they not teach the past 90+ years of history because they didn’t teach it when the first BY school was formed?
It’s actually almost 3.5 years.
Thanks for the shout out. But for the record, I predate two thirds of the list of “old-timers”.
It could be in regards to both. But if we grant that it’s a possibility then there should be no objection to women learning.
The same thing which is stopping anyone from issuing semicha to anyone else they fancy, qualified or not, based on whatever criteria or lack thereof they self-establish. I.e. nothing. Yet how many stories have you heard of charlatans issuing Semicha? Obviously people only take a semicha seriously if it comes from a reputable source. The same would be with a certificate.
Lior:
I’m not sure what your point is. Care to clarify?
Yes I saw his article on Obama, but I didn’t mention it because it seemed that the intent of this thread was to discuss your displeasure with the New York Times, not to discuss your displeasure with President Obama.
“I was told he has to say certain things (that’s what spokesmen do) so people don’t get mad, even though he might not mean it”
This will obviously take us into murky territory. If you are correct in your assertion then none of his statements carry any weight because we never know if he means it. Which effectively marginalizes Agudah’s position on every matter because pretty much all their statements go through him and he might not mean what he says. Unless you have a way of knowing when he is serious and when he is not.
Question:
If one can accept nishtaneh hateva that various physical processes changed then why can’t one say nishtaneh hateva in regards to the minds of women?
(You can see it on CrossCurrents)
The Spokesman for Agudah was generally satisfied with their reportage of the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Would anyone object if instead of giving a woman semicha they gave her a certificate which says “(insert name) has demonstrated a proficient understanding of the laws of (insert category e.g. shabbos, niddah etc.)”? If yes then why? I don’t see how the conservative/reform argument could apply in such a situation. If they wouldn’t object then great. Now this may not have any relevance to people/institutions that specifically want to get women into equivalent positions as those of men, but for an individual woman this should be a fine arrangement.
??”? ??????? ????? ??? ?’ ???? ??:
????? ?”? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??”? ????? ??? ???”? ????? ???”? ???? ????? ???? ??”? ??”? ??”? ??’ ?’ ?”? ???? ????????? ?????’ ?”? ?? ?”? ?”? ?”? ????’ ????? ???? ???’ ??”? ?? ??? ???”? [???? ??????? ?”? ????? ??”? ?”? ???”? ??”? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??”?] ???’ ???”? ???? ?”? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????
That didn’t really help.
Perhaps benignuman is referring to Orach Chaim Chelek 5 Siman 12 Ose 1
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14679&st=&pgnum=66&hilite=
What does “rav5” mean?
“For PF to Vicariously Rant Endlessly About the Over-Emphasis of onions through PAA”
That title is an impossibility unless Moderator 100 is a liar.
How so? -100
“I asked who the mechaber of the BAAL Hamaor was, not the mechaber of the Maor”
I was in a seforim store recently and I saw they had an edition which was called “Sefer Ba’al Hamaor”.