I’m only bringing up this topic because of the other topic regarding a woman learning Daf Yomi.
simcha613 -“So you have to reconcile the beginning of that halachah that they have sechar with the end that it is not allowed to be taught to them. If you say that there is an issur for women to learn Gemara, why would S”A add the part that they receive sechar? What does that add practically?
So, you could argue that it adds nothing practically, and the S”A was just saying that theoretically they receive sechar but Chazal made an issur for them to learn. IMHO, if that were the case, S”A should have left it out. Are there any other Mitzvos that women are theoretically allowed to do and probably receive sechar for it but Chazal assured it, and the S”A told us all that? Does the S”A say that women receive sechar for wearing tzitizs or tefilin, but Chazal said they aren’t allowed to?
The way I’ve learned it is that a woman is allowed to learn Gemara and she receives sechar for it, as long as she genuinely wants to learn for lishmah reasons. However it cannot be taught to her, in other words it cannot be imposed on her. The issur is on the male (or female) teacher, not the female learner. The teacher has the responsibility to make sure that she wants to do it for the right reasons, and only then can she be taught.
Just to clarify- the reason why I understand that when the S”A says one is not allowed to teach his daughter Torah means it cannot be imposed on her, is because assuming that a woman is allowed to learn Gemara (which would explain why the S”A chose to tell us that they receive sechar for learning), I don’t think the S”A means they are allowed to learn but they are not allowed to be taught.
How can you learn without being taught?”
Exactly; so both are Ossur! There are a lot of Krumme things in your post that I’d like to point out. What I’m basically saying is that the S’A would not hold like the Drisha/Prisha!
“So, you could argue that it adds nothing practically, and the S”A was just saying that theoretically they receive sechar but Chazal made an issur for them to learn. IMHO, if that were the case, S”A should have left it out. Are there any other Mitzvos that women are theoretically allowed to do and probably receive sechar for it but Chazal assured it, and the S”A told us all that? Does the S”A say that women receive sechar for wearing tzitizs or tefilin, but Chazal said they aren’t allowed to?”
This paragraph makes sense, but Not your conclusion!
“The way I’ve learned it is that a woman is allowed to learn Gemara and she receives sechar for it, as long as she genuinely wants to learn for lishmah reasons.”
Well how do you know this woman will learn Lishma? It’s Ossur because of “Lo Plug”, unless the woman is “Borur” like “Bruria” that she can. And noone nowadays can claim that she is like her.
“However it cannot be taught to her, in other words it cannot be imposed on her. The issur is on the male (or female) teacher, not the female learner. The teacher has the responsibility to make sure that she wants to do it for the right reasons, and only then can she be taught.”
Here you agree that they are equal and I say it’s Ossur for both!
“So you have to reconcile the beginning of that halachah that they have sechar with the end that it is not allowed to be taught to them. If you say that there is an issur for women to learn Gemara, why would S”A add the part that they receive sechar? What does that add practically?”
This is where you start on your Krumme path. Obviously the S’A is saying about Sechar for a practical reason. Did it ever occur to you that there are times when it would be Mutter for a woman to learn and/or be taught Torah SheBaal Peh and them learning ALL Torah SheBaal Peh doesn’t have to be Mutter? An example would be Halachos that they have to know in order for them to keep the Mitzvos that they are required to keep. This doesn’t include Daf Yomi!