Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
America should certainly demand the Brits drop the upright accent as a condition of entry.
Should say: “Whilst I agree with you” (not your).
I should add even you changed your story vis-a-vis Reb Dovid/Rebt. Feinstein, demonstrating the unreliability of these stories.
Zach, the point about the revolution re the earth and sun was just a hypothesis to make a point. And it is as you admit, that there is no absolute frame of refrence for the universe. (And yes, modern medicine is good, but general technology has not improved the lot of mankind.)
Charlie, Israel’s life expectancy is about the same as American Caucasians. If you want to see the mess caused by socialized health care, see Canada and its wait times for medical specialists (and how Canadians — as well as foreigners from around the world — run to the US for medical treatment.)
Re Rabbeinu Avraham, there are serious questions regarding the authenticity of the controversial passage, as the OP noted.
Jothar,
Whilst I agree with your that a plain reading of the Igros Moshe shows Reb Moshe held cholov stam permissible bshas hadchak, I must say I’ve heard so many different versions of that story of someone in Reb Moshe’s family purportedly eating cholov stam, and on the other hand stories of Reb Moshe throwing up having found out something he ate was cholov stam… that, like you say, this is all hearsay possibly by people seeing what they thought/want to see.
You did say earlier you don’t know if Reb Dovid’s shitta is his own, or his interpretation of Reb Moshe’s.
aussie, CY is not a chumrah, it is a l’chatchilah, and there is a big difference between the two. This is even according to Rav Moshe.
CY is not a chumrah, it is a l’chatchilah, and there is a big difference. Everyone should be makpid on cholov yisroel halachicly, even according to Rav Moshe.
Isn’t noitallmt a Brit? The Brits use “clever” as American’s use “smart”.
kiruvwife, if you can provide one more elucidation (non argumentative) on your point. If they reach the door simutaneously side by side, why do you propose he open it for her rather than vice versa. (Say she pulls the door open allowing him in first; is that not the mentchlich thing to do?)
Bemused,
I’m sorry that the mussar you were given did not have the positive effect intended. But continual letzanus is not an appropriate response and I truly believe you are better than that.
There isn’t any reason you or any poster needs to identify their age or gender as it is better left unstated. And unless someone is blogging on yw day and night, the likelihood is they will not know most others biographical data.
Again, I say this with the utmost respect and hope that you can do better in the future. Everyone makes mistakes and no one is holding a grudge against you.
Bemused,
Your comments fulfill the prototypical definition of letzanus. I don’t know why you need to advertise your age or gender online, but no one would or needed to know it.
If you are opposed to certain halachos, so be it. Don’t slyly project that rejection on others.
This too is said as constructive criticism that you can hopefully take to heart.
kiruvwife, generally dates are walking side by side, not him ahead of her.
I completely agree with you regarding the tznius problem today and its education.
Bemused,
The letzanim ask questions like that. The Rabbonim and the Seforim discuss these halachic issues, and they are discussed in the Beis Medrash as well.
And who is a young girl here? I’m not aware of most posters age or gender, unless they use an obvious name. (I have no idea what you are.)
ames, not everyone does things correctly. That is no raya (proof).
Did you see my reference to the Tanchuma Vayishlach above, regarding makeup and perfume?
kiruvwife, Okay, thanks for clarifying your point. Just to understand where you are coming from, and not to make any point with this question, why do you hold he should open the door and walk in first and hold the door behind him as opposed she open the door for him and let him in first? (Assuming the door opens by pulling it out.)
Also, do you agree there is a widespread tznius problem these days, an example of which is when a girl gets into a car there is a breach? (Nothing to do with shidduchim specifically.)
syrian, you realize its pointless to wear makeup to school, since your not trying to attract anyone at an all-girls school. That reasoning should explain why a Jewish schoolgirl (or anyone not in shidduchim yet) should not wear makeup outside of school either.
Tanchuma Vayishlach Piskah Hey says that makeup and perfume is intended to beautify a wife for her husband, and that beyond that it should be used scarcely if at all.
A Nuran, it is applaudable that you treat your spouse with respect, and you should treat other Yidden with the same respect when they quote Torah sources and not be angered at your fellow Jew when they quote a Torah source you fail to understand or like. Ad hominems never work.
kiruvwife:
I understood one of your earlier posts saying that the guy shouldn’t close the door for her because of a potential tznius breach when she gets herself in. All I was trying to say is that she should not be in a position that would cause such a breach. I think this lack of proper decorum is more prevalent than many would admit, for example when a girl gets into a car it raises problems. Do you agree/disagree with this assessment?
Can you clarify your point regarding the hotel door? Would it be appropriate for her to open the door for him to allow her in (first)? Why/why not?
Bogen, thanks for putting it so well. Nuran engaged in an ad hominem, and that will not win his arguments any points. I think it is a sad commentary that a couple of posters took issue with will hill for simply quoting Shulchan Aruch and Rambam. If the Shulchan Aruch/Rambam makes someone uncomfortable hearing/seeing it, the problem is with the person not C’V with the Shulchan Aruch/Rambam.
As Yidden we do not do what “we” feel is right, or what seems right based on the outside world. We follow Shulchan Aruch.
Bemused, That isn’t the point, what my personal situation is. This is a side-point. I just quoted a halacha that the goyim wouldn’t like. Does that mean we run away from it? An emphatic NO!
BTW, if a girl would have turned me down because I didn’t open the door for her, I would B’H be thankful to the Ribono Shel Olam for keeping me away from such a vain person. The Eibershter has many ways of protecting us.
Now that we’ve hashed out Mi Yichya Umi Yomis, lets get back to the original hot topic. Opening the door for the girl.
Two points disconcert me greatly, from some of the comments I see. One is that some have proposed that the guy can open the door for the girl but then scatter before she gets in, and let her close it herself. Reason being, due to the potential tznius issue involved post-opening the door. Well, this shouldn’t be the case. Why does this issue exist? She should be dressed modestly, meaning any normal activity — i.e. getting into a car — does NOT pose a tznius breach. The fact that in reality we all know this IS a problem, tells us that too many of us are not upholding tznius appropriately.
Second, I completely agree with the posters that pointed out this concept of opening the door comes from the goyim. Like has been raised, the vice versa situation would be considered “weird”. (i.e. the girl opening the door for the guy.) This belies the myth that the opening of the door has anything to do with mentchlichkeit issues. Next, will these prima donnas expect the guys to pull out their chairs for them to sit?
Rambam states that “we find that every woman performs five tasks for her husband. She spins, washes his face, hands, and legs, pours his drink, makes the bed, and serves him. There are six tasks some women do and some don’t: grind and bake and cook, wash, nurse children, and feed the animals.” Is this Rambam okay with the goyim or must we update our halachas for the 21st Century?
omis1105, so you are proposing that this guy never get married. You are maintaining we should advise any potential kallah of his to keep away. After all, he will have the same parents regardless of who he marries.
Bogen – From various sources. Rav Miller’s though are from one of his Seforim.
The Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, etc. (amongst the other varied sources) is halacha lmaaisa. I apologize in advance for your MO sensibilities that are in sync with Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Susan B. Anthony, rather than the Chofetz Chaim, the Chazon Ish, and the Steipler Gaon.
Its just too bad that you view 3,000 years of glorious Jewish history as “women were totally subservient to men, and NOT treated at equal partners in their marriages.” For us Torah-based traditionalist, we will continue living in the ways of our holy zeidas and bubbes, as they have since Matan Sinai.
oomis, not that I intended to be strident with you, but aside from being incorrect the tone of your comment was acerbic and dismissive.
anon, In Igros Moshe (Even Haezer vol 1 beggining of no. 64), Reb Moshe states that “spacing” for non-medical reasons is completely assur. Nursing is highly recommended and completely muttar regardless that it reduces the likelihood of pregnancy while nursing.
anon, In Igros Moshe (Even Haezer vol 1 beggining of no. 64), Reb Moshe states that “spacing” for non-medical reasons is completely assur. Nursing is highly recommended and completely muttar regardless that it reduces the likelihood of pregnancy while nursing.
uhh oomis, sorry for offending your very sensitive modern orthodox feelings. But everything in my preceding comment were verbatim quotes from the Gemora, Shulchan Aruch, Rambam and many other meforshim. NONE of it were my own words or chiddushim. So the problem you have you’ll have to take up with the Shulchan Aruch, not me.
And btw, Sara, Rivka, Rochel, and Leah Emainu looked towards Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov Avinu for all their guidance.
Yeah, I know. Your MO Rabbi never mentioned any of this in his “Shabbat speeches”.
Regarding BC for non-medical (e.g. financial or other) reasons…
The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 76, 6), Rambam (Ishus 15, 1), Chazon Ish, Maharam Schick, etc clearly states it is assur for a married couple to postpone the mitzva of pirya vrivya.
The Chazon Ish amongst others states postponing the fulfilling of this mitzvah is Bittul Hamitzvah even if one later fulfils the mitzvah.
In Igros Moshe Even Haezer vol 1 beggining of no. 64, Reb Moshe states that “spacing” children is completely assur.
The Gemora in Yevomos 62b says that even after fulfilling pirya vrivya (i.e. one boy and one girl) one must continue to have additional children. This is based on Koheles 11:6 vloerev al tanach yodecha. In the morning you shall plant your seed, and in the evening you shall continue to do so.
The Birkei Yosef in Even Haezer chap. 1 writes you cannot decide to discontinue having children.
And today the wife has the same obligation as the husband of pirya vrivya (Lev Avraham #99 from the Chasam Sofer), since today the husband can only have one wife, whereas previously the husband could have multiple so if one wife wasn’t having children the husband could fulfil his obligation with other wives. The Avnei Nezer says this fact was true even before Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom.
1) Women should stay inside:
(a) Poskim
1. Shulchan Aruch (73:1): A man must give his wife clothing like women normally wear outside. A woman should not go outside much. The beauty of a woman is to stay inside – “Kol Kevudah…”
i. Gra (4): Hash-m did not create Chavah from Adam’s foot, lest she roam too much (Bereishis Rabah 18:2). “Ishtecha k’Gefen Poriyah” is only when she is modest “b’Yarkesei Veisecha” (Medrash Tehilim 128:3).
(b) Rishonim
1. Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 13:11): A man must give his wife clothing like women normally wear outside in order that she can go to her father or a house of mourning or Simchah. She may go to these places to bestow Chesed to her friends and relatives, in order that they will come to her. She is not a prisoner who may not come and go. However, it is degrading for a woman to always be outside and on the streets. A man should prevent his wife from doing so. She should go outside once or twice a month, according to the need. The beauty of a woman is to stay inside – “Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah”.
i. Source (Magid Mishneh): Bereishis Rabah (45:5) says that when the Torah discusses the detriment of women, it says that they go out – ‘Va’Tetzei Dinah”. The Sifri (Tetzei 242 (23)), regarding a Na’arah Me’orasah who was enticed to Zenus, says that a breach (going out in the city) calls to the thief. Bereishis Rabah (8:12) reads “Kivshuha” like ‘Kavshah’ to teach that a husband should prevent his wife from going out too much.
2. Rambam (Nedarim 12:11): If a woman vowed not to give water to her husband’s animals, he cannot annul it. A wife need not do this for her husband.
i. Kesef Mishneh: A wife must give straw to her husband’s animals, but she need not give water. This is because normally one leaves the house to go to the river or spring for this, and “Kol Kevudah…”
4. Rosh (Kesuvos 13:17): If a man married a woman from a city of the same quality as his own, even if he married her in his city we force him to live in her city. We learn from “Be’ulas Ba’al”… Another reason is because he can go to visit his friends, but she cannot, due to “Kol Kevudah.”
5. Rosh (Shevu’os 4:2): The Ri ha’Levi learns from our Gemara that we do not disgrace an honorable woman to go to Beis Din, due to “Kol Kevudah.” Rather, we send a Shali’ach of Beis Din to hear her claims. The Aruch and R. Chananel agree. The Ramban and Teshuvos of the Rif and Rav Sadya Gaon do not allow this. The Rif allows only that Beis Din send scribes to record her claim. The same applies to a Chacham for whom it is degrading to argue with Amei ha’Aretz in Beis Din; his honor is greater than a woman’s.
i. Teshuvos Maimoniyos (Mishpatim 5): The Gemara (Nazir 12a) says that women are Kevu’os due to “Kol Kevudah.”
(c) Gemara
1. (R. Yochanan): Avner told Do’eg ‘We learned that an Amoni and a Mo’avi are forbidden, but an Amonis and a Mo’avis are not!’
2. Question (Do’eg): If so, you should say that a Mitzri is forbidden, not a Mitzris!
3. Answer (Avner): Mo’avim are forbidden “Because they did not go out to greet you with bread and water.” This does not apply to women. It is normal for men to go out to greet, but not for women.
4. Objection (Do’eg): The men should have gone out to greet the men, and the women to greet the women!
5. Avner was silent.
6. Question: How can we answer?
7. Answer #1 (Chachamim of Bavel): “Kol Kevudah Vas Melech Penimah” (it is dishonorable for women to go outside, even to greet women).
8. Answer #2 (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): We learn this from ” … Where is your wife Sarah?” (It is praiseworthy that she stayed in the tent.)
9. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): “Amoni” and “Mo’avi” are forbidden, not Amonis and Mo’avis;
10. R. Shimon says, “Because they did not go out …” – it is the way of a man …
11. Nazir 12a (R. Yochanan): If Reuven made a Shali’ach to be Mekadesh an unspecified woman and the agent died, Reuven may not marry any woman (Leah), lest the Shali’ach was Mekadesh Leah’s relative to Reuven.
12. Question (Reish Lakish): When a Hekdesh bird flies away, we are not concerned about other birds (lest it is the Hekdesh bird; we follow the majority. The same should apply here (most women are not Leah’s relatives)!
13. Answer (R. Yochanan): Because woman do not roam, the Safek is considered Kavu’a (fixed), so we don’t follow the majority.
15. Gitin 12a (Beraisa): If a wife was exiled to a refuge city, her husband must feed her. He can tell her to feed herself from her earnings only if she earns enough to feed herself.
16. Question: If she can earn enough, this is obvious!
17. Answer: One might have thought that due to “Kol Kevudah…”, she need not work and he must feed her. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
18. Shevu’os 30a – Question: What is the source that (women are invalid witnesses, so) Shevu’as ha’Edus does not apply to women?
19. Answer (Beraisa): “V’Omdu Shnei ha’Anashim” refers to the witnesses.
20. Question: Perhaps it refers to the parties in the case!
21. Answer #1: The Torah would not say “men”, for women also need to come for judgment.
22. Answer #2: If you prefer, you can learn from “Shnei” (masculine).
23. Question: What objection might one have to the first answer?
24. Answer: Normally women do not come to Beis Din for judgment (rather, they send a man to plead their case), due to “Kol Kevudah…”
Regarding birth control for non-medical (e.g. financial or other) reasons…
The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 76, 6), Rambam (Ishus 15, 1), Chazon Ish, Maharam Schick, etc clearly states it is assur for a married couple to postpone the mitzva of pirya vrivya.
The Chazon Ish amongst others states postponing the fulfilling of this mitzvah is Bittul Hamitzvah even if one later fulfils the mitzvah.
In Igros Moshe Even Haezer vol 1 beggining of no. 64, Reb Moshe states that “spacing” children is completely assur.
The Gemora in Yevomos 62b says that even after fulfilling pirya vrivya (i.e. one boy and one girl) one must continue to have additional children. This is based on Koheles 11:6 vloerev al tanach yodecha. In the morning you shall plant your seed, and in the evening you shall continue to do so.
The Birkei Yosef in Even Haezer chap. 1 writes you cannot decide to discontinue having children.
And today the wife has the same obligation as the husband of pirya vrivya (Lev Avraham #99 from the Chasam Sofer), since today the husband can only have one wife, whereas previously the husband could have multiple so if one wife wasn’t having children the husband could fulfil his obligation with other wives. The Avnei Nezer says this fact was true even before Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom.
gmab, I mean that sincerely. I would like to take an interest in you and your mishpacha.
gmab, because I care about you.
gmab, vi alt bistu, un hustu kinder?
And even in the times when there were milchomos mitzvah, the troops were divided into three groups of equal size: combat, support, and learning. And the women were never in combat. You’ll find no such instance in Jewish history.
In fact, the Chinuch writes that the prohibition of showing fear in battle and the other mitzvos that apply to battle (e.g. yateid al azeinecha) are incumbent upon men and not women, as women do not go out to battle. Since these mitzvos apply to milchamos mitzvah, wars against Amalek and the Seven Nations of Canaan, as well as milchamos reshus, the Minchas Chinuch asks why women are exempt – the Mishna tells us that even a kallah must go out from her chuppah to fight in a milchemes mitzvah.
Rav Soloveitchik, (certainly not an anti-Zionist), explained that aside from the mitzvah of waging war (chovas tzibur) against Amalek and the Seven Nations, there is an obligation (chovas yachid) incumbent upon each Jew to kill members of these nations (Melachim 7:4). The participation of women in battle is not based on the communal obligation of warfare, but on their mitzvah as individuals to fight against these evil nations. This does not effect their exemption from mitzvos that relate to the communal act of war. The same reasoning applies to the reading of the Mashuach Milchama. There still exists a dispensation from the communal act of war for those people normally exempted, but they must participate in some way to fulfill their obligation as individuals to assist the destruction of evil.
The Gemora additionally says that there are three requirements for a Milchemes Reshus. The first is the consent of the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 29b). The second is the presence of a Melech (Sanhedrin 20a). The third is consultation with the Urim Vetumim, the ornament worn by the Kohen Godol (Sanhedrin 16b).
A number of meforshim significantly limit each of these three requirements from the Gemora. Rambam does not list the requirement of the Urim Vetumim. Rambam does, however, state elsewhere (Sefer Hamitzvos, perek 14) that the Urim Vetumim are needed.
rabbiofberlin, In any event, Milkhemes Mitzvah a war during the times of the Tanach when a king would go to war in order to fulfil something based on, and required by, the Torah without needing approval from a Sanhedrin, such as war against Amalek.
Milkhemes Mitzvah by definition is not applicable byom hazeh.
1. Rambam Hilchos Melachim 5:1,2
Berlin,
C’V, I most certainly respect you despite your mistaken views. I’m sure the RBS’O will give you the strength to see the Emes! But even until such time, we love you no less.
I’ve provided you several sources sating they don’t go to war. Do you have any Rishonim/Achronim stating OUTRIGHT (meaning its clear from the text) that women go to war? (I know the Gemorah, but want to know if you have any psak Rishonim/Achronim thats how they pasken.)
After my research on that issue, I think I’ll let you quote me the Perisha you refer to. Thanks in advance.
You told Matisyahu regarding his statement that woman cannot learn Gemora, you said its a “declarations that you cannot suport” (obviously you were wrong, I provided the support), that his position was “ignorant” (its actually the most widely accepted position), and you called it ” that (false) assumption.” So what gives?
So now tell us some mekors that a woman CAN learn Gemora. I provided you more than sufficient that she cannot. Do you have any Rishonim/Achronim? (Rather than your assumed interpertations.)
Rashi comments that Tiflus means lechery, meaning the study of Torah will lead women to immoral sexual acts. BTW anything more than the simple meaning of Torah Shel B’Ksav is not allowed for woman (like I demonstrated in the old thread.)
Berlin: “a few mitzvos that are not applicable today or never were:”
I asked for Mitzvos that WERE applicable when brought down in Shulchan Orach/Rambam but became non-applicable since, like mariner implied regarding the afore discussed Shulchan Orach and Rambam.
mariner,
State your mekor that “nowadays” Geirim do not break off their ties with their ex-family in a manner different than previous generations. You seem to have a fixation that halacha changes with time (even though as you put it, it “no longer applies” though “its technically still applicable.”)
Berlin, you are just questioning the correct meforesh for # i?:
i. Radvaz: Women do not fight, due to “Kol Kevudah.” Rather, a Kalah leaves the Chupah, i.e. she forfeits the week of Sheva Berachos because her husband must go to fight. Alternatively, women supply water and food for their husbands, like Aravi women do nowadays.
ii. Sefer ha’Chinuch (Mitzvah 603): Women do not fight in war.
iii. Question (Minchas Chinuch): What is the source to exempt them? This is an Aseh that is not Zman Grama!
iv. Rambam (introduction to Sefer ha’Mitzvos DH v’Atah): Women are exempt from optional wars.
v. Rashash (Sotah 44b b’Mishnah): It is a Chidush that women go. Perhaps they go to prepare food for the men.
Berlin, The quotes I believe are verbatim. Did I name the wrong meforesh? I don’t think so but certainly can check. As far as women and gemoras you were very adamant in that closed thread that there is no such concept of women no being allowed to learn gemora. I clearly demonstrated with a boatload of mekoros that you were totally off the wall with that.
Berlin, Please do. Examples of halachos that are in Shulchan Orach and Rambam that applied previously but are no longer applicable in the new generations. And please specify if your claim is universally accepted or a fringe view. Thanks
mariner or pashuteh, several commentors provided maarah mokoms showing not only that a woman should be limited in how much time she is outside< but sources specifiying suggested amout of times she should be out>
now please provide your sources and mekoros backing up what you say> in this entire conversation neither of you has provided a single source other than to knock shulchan orach and rambam saying that they say its a “good idea” but not a requirement> sorry to break it to you two but it is a requirement not just a nice idea>
why cant you provide any sources?
Reb Gavra,
All I have done is quote VERBATIM the Shulchan Aruch, the Gemora, the Gra, the Rambam, the Magid Mishneh, the Kesef Mishneh, the Radvaz, Sefer ha’Chinuch, the Minchas Chinuch, the Rashash, the Rosh, and the Teshuvos Maimoniyos.
About “waiving” all of that, I dunno. Ask your local orthodox Rabbi. I just stated the norm as written in the aforementioned poskim, rishonim, and meforshim. They are direct quotes.
I see more than a few commentors fall into what the first comment on this thread said.
The Baalei Loshon Hora are expert on “matiring” loshon hora. When someone starts telling you what a “mitzvah” it is to talk about someone or some machlokes, you know to run.
cantoresq, Was YU matir it?
Ahhh rabbiofberlin, you were caught with your pants down this time. Its happened before, but you always try to wiggle yourself out. And it is so obvious and blatant that you have long lost any shred of remaining credibility.
You were INDIGENT and ADAMANT throughout this long thread, repeating at least 4 or 5 times that saying that women cannot learn Gemora is a “false assumption” (in your own words) and that saying so is an example of Matisyahu being “ignorant” and something he cannot “support.” And since unlike you Matusyahu isn’t on the internet 24/6 and didn’t immediately respond to your demands, since he is likely in the Beis Medrash using his time productively, you berate him.
And now that you are proven imbecilicly wrong – you insinuated there was no mekor, well you got a boatful of mekoros from the Gemora, Rashi, Rambam, Shulchan Orach, etc. and the best you can muster is “Matisjohu did not know these mekoros and blithely spouted soem words.” You who insisted “you issue declarations that you cannot support”, “false assumptions”, and “ignorant” about dare challenging the 20th century feminist ideals and (gasp) saying that women have vastly different roles in life than men and that there are things a woman is halachicly prohibited from doing!
Now we know who the ignorant one is. Take your pretty time to “respond to your posting later”, like you have promised with empty words previously when caught cheating, since you’ll need it. The best you’ll be able to muster will perhaps be some YU “Godol” who “paskened” that the aforementioned Shulchan Orach, Rambam, Gemora, etc. are no longer relevant to our “modern day and age” and were merely applicable for “a bygone era.”
I second MYOB
illini07,
I have two friends, Reuven and Shimon. Both of them are about the same level religious-wise, with one notable exception. They both still eat treif. In fact neither of them have even given up eating chazar (pork) yet. But the difference between them is if you meet Reuven and ask him where you could get a good dinner, he will tell you to go down the block to Tony’s Pighouse where they have the best bacon in the neighborhood. And he’ll even offer to join you for that juicy dinner.
Shimon on the other hand will only eat pork unseen. If you ask him where to get dinner, he’ll only refer you to a Glatt Kosher establishment, with only the most reliable kosher certification. If you tell him you plan to go to a non-kosher restaurant, he’ll become red in the face and start telling you how much of an aveira that is. He will not give up until he talked you out of eating treif.
Who is right?
A) Reuven – at least he is not a hypocrite.
B) Shimon – at least he knows he is doing wrong.
When you come to Beis Din Shel Maaila, would you rather be in Reuven’s shoes or Shimon’s shoes?
Now change eating port with using the internet.
Belev, NEVER in Jewish History has been either acceptable OR permissible to strike a wife. This halachic discussion is regarding the avenues available to the authorities in a case where the wife stubbornly refused to do her spousal duties.
And some final discussions that I found on this issue in response to BERLIN who (on page 5 of this thread) flatly stated:
“Matisjohus words are the worst and the most ignorant. One example- he flatly denies the right to women/girls to learn gemoro. OK, can you give the mekor for this????”
AND
“You issue declarations that you cannot suport, like saying (Matisjohu) “a woman/girl is not allowed to learn gemoro”. OK= PROVE IT! show me the source for that (false) assumption.”
There is a dispute in the Mishna Sotah 20a whether one is even allowed to teach Torah to women at all. The argument against the teaching of Torah to women states that if one does so, it is like teaching them Tiflut. Rashi comments that Tiflut means lechery, meaning the study of Torah will lead women to immoral sexual acts. Rashi then cites the famous story of Bruriah, one of the greatest female scholars in Jewish history to prove his point. One day, Bruriah ridiculed the Gemara (in Kidushin 80b) which states that that women are lightheaded. Rabbi Meir, her husband, ordered his student to test Bruriah’s strength and try to seduce his wife. Bruriah caved in and when she realized what she had done, she hung herself.
Thus Rashi’s argument is that women’s minds are not meant for serious Torah learning. The Rambam agrees with Rashi’s take. Rambam also adds that when the chachamim had said, “He who teaches his daughter Torah, is as if he taught his daughter tiflut,”only applies to the oral law. The Rambam says that a man should not teach his daughters written law but if he does , it is not considered tiflut. The Shulchan Urach follows this approach of Rambam.
Women Learning Gemara – THE PROHIBITION:
The Mishnah (Sotah 20a) quotes R. Eliezer who states that one who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he had taught her tiflus (I’ll leave that untranslated and we can just assume that it is a bad thing). The Shulhan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 246:6) quotes this law and states that this applies only to the Oral Torah but one should still not teach women the Written Torah either. However, the Rema points out that women need to learn the basic laws that they must fulfill and the Taz (ad loc., 4) argues that women are also allowed to learn the simple meaning of the Written Torah.
The conclusion is that there are four areas within this law:
1. Women may not learn the Oral Torah
2. Women may learn the simple meaning of the Written Torah
3. Women may not learn the Written Torah in depth
4. Women must learn the laws that apply to them
The poskim assume that included within “the laws that apply to them” is mussar that keep women them within the bounds of halachah. Even the Satmar Raebbe who as we shall see was very strict on these rules, permits women to learn mussar (Va-Yo’el Moshe, Ma’amar Lashon Ha-Kodesh ch. 33). He does not, however, permit women to study even Rashi on the Torah because it contains Oral Torah.
Note that the suggestion that this prohibition emanates from some sort of misogynist rabbinic bias or historical circumstance is insulting and bordering on heresy.
Much more can be found in the 3rd part of Vayoel Moshe – “Maamar
Loshon Hakodesh” – which is actually based on a teshuva that the SR z’l
wrote to Rav Pinchos Hirshprung zt’l of Montreal.
Okay BERLIN, there you have it. You said “OK, can you give the mekor for this????” I hope the Gemora itself, Shulchan Orach, the Gr”a, Child”a, Rambam, the Tur and other meforshim suffice for a mekor “for that false assumption.”
Now what have you BERLIN? (Some “YESHIVA UNIVERSITY source” that argues on the above Gemora, Shulcahn Orach, Rambam, etc? Please share the laugh with the rest of us who are not members of your FLAT-EARTH SOCIETY.)
blueshirt,
And the source for 4. that ONLY 1% of those ignorant peasant ancestors of ours were “taslmedai chachamim”