September 27, 2011 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #814547tickle toe eitusMember
gavra, the position you attribute to the RY of Lakewood is incorrect. (It is at best only half correct in what their position is.) Also see the third comment made by a poster on this thread, a point you haven’t acknowledged.September 27, 2011 5:51 pm at 5:51 pm #814548mikehall12382Member
Giving a family a break on paying full tuition is for people who need help, who have exhausted all other means and have no choice but to accept it. To me this means that the husband desires to work, is searching for work and is unable to find it, or simply not making enough..
However if the women is working and the ONLY bread winner, while the husband is not working but is physically and mentally capable of doing so, Then why should families paying full tuition subsidies their children?
Then how do you justify a man sitting in Kollel all day and the women working to support their families? How can you have it both ways?September 27, 2011 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #814549
tickle toe eitus:
gavra, the position you attribute to the RY of Lakewood is incorrect.
OK, so what is their position? Any quotes (not Boich Svaras, once again). Why do they promote women working out of the home?
Also see the third comment made by a poster on this thread, a point you haven’t acknowledged.
Kol Kavod Bas Melech is Halacha, and we have dealt with it many times here in the CR. I have nothing to add to that point.
My question to you though, is does it apply now (either at all, or with the alternative being taking Tzedaka).September 27, 2011 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #814550
“A woman’s place is defined in the Torah and commentaries. It is at home, not at work.”
Please quote one.September 27, 2011 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #814551
“A woman’s place is at home.”
I wonder what every female who teaches in every pre school, elementary school, high school and seminary has to say about this? Once we have their response, we can then ask every married woman who works in a Yeshiva office what their reply is. We can then ask every Yeshiva administrator who employs married women in his yeshiva office what their answer is, or perhaps we can ask the Roshei Yeshiva of these very same yeshivos what their reply is.September 27, 2011 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #814552
“gavra, the position you attribute to the RY of Lakewood is incorrect.”
I would have to assume the Roshei Yeshiva Shlita of BMG have no issues with married women with small children working outside the home. They employ married women with small children in their own offices.September 27, 2011 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #814553
Who cares wha the hamon hoam’s reply is? We know what Shulchan Aruch says. The fact their are extenuating circumstances that unfortunately make women leave their home, does not make it anywhere near the ideal.September 27, 2011 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #814554
Sam2: Chanie: Revisionist history at its best.
Please explain why it is Revisionist history? My source is the Artscroll’s biography of the Chofetz Chaim. When the people from Radin discovered that the store belonged to the Chofetz Chaim they all shopped there. In order that the other shopkeepers shouldn’t lose out, once he made the money that he needed to survive for that day, he would have his wife close the store. In total his store was open for maybe 2-3 hours daily. All in all, his store was opened for maybe 5 years. I’m sorry if it doesn’t fit into your modern Hashkofos.
Let’s see your sources.September 27, 2011 6:43 pm at 6:43 pm #814555
Please a) quote the shulchan aruch that is relevant here and b)apparently these extenuating circumstances are legitimate enough that despite whatever shulchan aruch you might quote Roshei Yeshiva are willing to not only look the other way, but actively employ these women for their own offices.September 27, 2011 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #814556
Who cares wha the hamon hoam’s reply is? We know what Shulchan Aruch says. The fact their are extenuating circumstances that unfortunately make women leave their home, does not make it anywhere near the ideal.
1: That is the first time I have heard the Lakewood Roshei Yeshiva called the “Hamon Am”. (I didn’t say it, he did 🙂
2: Tuition IS an extenuating circumstance, being that your other option is taking Tzedaka (at the minimum).September 27, 2011 6:53 pm at 6:53 pm #814557flowersParticipant
There shouldn’t be female doctors, nurses, therapists, teachers, salesladies. All poffessions and all kinds of employment should be filled by men. Even women’s clothing stores should be run by men.
And why limit it only to work? Grocery shopping should be done by men. They should even put their kids on the buses, because women cannot be out on the street. Doctors appointments, you guessed it. Men have to take care of that too. Shopping for clothing and shoe for women and children ought to be done by men too. Of course the women won’t need much clothing, since they will always be indoors. And oh, yes! what about simchas? Bar mitzvahs is no problem. It will be all male affair, but what about chasunahs?
And oh, what an ideal world!! Your wife is depressed because she locked up inside the whole day? Just explain that this is the way the Torah wants and her disatisfaction is just the yetzer hara in the form of feminism.September 27, 2011 7:41 pm at 7:41 pm #814558
“When the people from Radin discovered that the store belonged to the Chofetz Chaim they all shopped there. In order that the other shopkeepers shouldn’t lose out, once he made the money that he needed to survive for that day, he would have his wife close the store. In total his store was open for maybe 2-3 hours daily. All in all, his store was opened for maybe 5 years. I’m sorry if it doesn’t fit into your modern Hashkofos.”
From this citation is would appear that the Rebbetzin ran the store, not the CC himself. Was the Rebbetzin of the feminist bent that she held a job? What was she doing outside the home?September 27, 2011 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #814559
gavra: does SA say not to take tzedaka? SA says they shouldn’t go out the house much. It’s obvious from SA to rather take tzedaka than go out.
apy: The CC’s store was in the back of his house. She didn’t have to go out. And the SA is 73:1.September 27, 2011 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #814560
i think the key in this argument is how we define staying in the home. the people being sarcastic and taking issue are those who would wish we would define it as literally nev er leaving the home. take a lok at the Gaon’s letter to his wife- spooky. i think the yeshivish elelments here and the OP arent defining it as above, rather that a womans focus should be her homelife. the flipside of this is a woman whose main and central focus is her career. in which case her career comes before her husband, children, domestic duties (ouch! i said it), and raising a family. a woman can teach in a frum school and still be in the category to be defined as “in the home”. a woman who works fourteen hours as a partner on wall stret probably cannot. therein lies the miscommunication.September 27, 2011 8:27 pm at 8:27 pm #814562
apushatayid: Your right! I can’t answer your question as I do not know the parameters of how a ????, especially one of the stature of a ??? ???? paskens. The wife of the ???? ??? ran a business as well. However I think it very disrespectful to label these holy women feminist.September 27, 2011 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm #814563
I’m not labeling them feminists. That’s my point.
The store was in back of his home and people didn’t realize the store belonged to the CC? Did he go into the real estate business?
I guess I’ll chalk it up to a kasha af a maaseh.
A school principle is also a “career woman”.September 28, 2011 12:22 am at 12:22 am #814564
The store was not located within the confines of his small home. No, he wasn’t in the real estate business, he rented the property ?. The people of Radin DID know that he and his wife owned the store, and that is why people flocked to his store, in order of hoping to catch a glimpse of him. A ????? ?????? ????.September 28, 2011 2:06 am at 2:06 am #814565Sam2Participant
Chanie: I don’t know what here did or did not fit with my “modern Hashkafas”. All I know is that it is far from true that the Chofetz Chaim only entered his store to check the weights.September 28, 2011 6:00 am at 6:00 am #814566
Sam2: All I know is that it is far from true that the Chofetz Chaim only entered his store to check the weights.
I brought down my source, you can’t. “All I know” is not an answer. Which leaves me with one conclusion. You made it up!
End of subject!September 28, 2011 7:34 am at 7:34 am #814567
apushit- not if her focus is her house and family. i mean to contrast the outlook of these two types; whats their focus in life. not what osition they hold. i posit that a wall street career woman is more likely to give priority to her job than a BY principal.September 28, 2011 10:30 am at 10:30 am #814569zahavasdadParticipant
Actually I also heard the story that the Chofetz Chaim’s wife ran the store and when the entire community heard who ran that store they all wanted to shop there and he had it only opened for as much time as needed for his basic living expensesSeptember 28, 2011 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm #814570jewish22Member
i really think that its very true what u wrote about the women choose this way.
im not going to say they have much options because there are some things thats belong to the women and there are some things that belong to the man but yes women can choose a lot of things in life they can choose to have a good and enjoyable life as well even they really do have hard work as matter of fact men also have hard work but somehow they dont mind giving themselfs a good time sometimes.
im sure if u would tell your husband that u treated yourself to something and u had a good time he would only be more then happy to hear and even understand u if some things where not done because of this if they will be done we dont have to work 24/7 but we have to do our workSeptember 28, 2011 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm #814571SJSinNYCMember
This thread is entertaining.September 28, 2011 1:08 pm at 1:08 pm #814572soliekMember
SJS! long time no pixel! howyabin?! i thought youd enjoy this thread 😛September 28, 2011 3:41 pm at 3:41 pm #814573Sam2Participant
Chanie: There are many stories told both secondhand and by those who met him about times when they bought stuff directly from him in the shop. And ArtScroll Gedolim books are not a source. They are amazing compendia of inspiring and uplifting stories, not historical facts.September 28, 2011 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #814574
TOI. “wall street women” may very well be committed to a career. It does not mean they are not committed to their family. People juggle many commitments quite successfully. My main objection to the OP (or her friend) is the very broad brush used to swipe whole groups of people with one quick stroke. i dont understand how “they”. why dont “those who”…
The newest volume of Igros Moshe has an interesting teshuva about Touro College for Women. It is the every last teshuva in the hashkafa section (right before the teshuvos of his brother R’ Mordechai Z’l). Lest I be accused of misquoting or misinterpreting, I suggest the OP (and her friend) read it for themselves.September 28, 2011 5:24 pm at 5:24 pm #814575
Sam2: In theory you are correct. As someone who is privy to the inner workings of Artscroll, I can tell you with certainty that when they come out with a biography of someone, they will only print stories about that person that is historically true. My husband knew 2 Gedolim who are no longer alive who learned by the Chofetz Chaim and/or Rav Elchonon Wasserman, and were there ???? ????, and they in turn told their son’s the stories, or confirmed their veracity. In fact, when “The Vilna Gaon” came out years ago, I personally spoke to the author and asked if all the stories are factual. He replied, “I only print material that is verifiable through either Seforim on him, or stories that were handed down from his talmidim though today”. He continued, “If I were to write all the unverifiable stories, and legends, the book would have 3 times the pages”!
I will tell you a story that my father in law tells about the time in the late 1950’s when he learnt in Bais Medrash Elyon.
There was a friendly argument between the Litvishe and Chasidishe bochrim on which is the more choshuv aliya, ????? or ???. They decided to ask a grandson of the Chofetz Chaim who learned there which aliya his grandfather took. After much deliberation he said I think ?????. The Litvishe were estatic until one Chasidishe bochur asked; “Wasn’t your grandfather a ???”?
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and can believe what they wish. It’s not one of the Rambam’s ???? ??? ?????.
A ????? ?????? ????September 28, 2011 5:38 pm at 5:38 pm #814576
Artscroll is one of the foremost compilations of historical facts in the Jewish world.September 28, 2011 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #814577zahavasdadParticipant
Ive read Art Scroll Biographies and regular biographies and the art scroll are not written in the same way. There may be historical license as opposed to fact with them.
Pretty much all say the same………..
At 3 years old when everyone else was learning Alef Bais, the Gadol had already finished Chumash
At 10 years old everyone saw the Gadol was an Iluy and he finished SHAS for the first times
At 13 years old the Rosh Yehsiva gave the gadol Semicha and learned Chavursa with him and at 18, the Rosh Yeshiva gave the gadol his daughter for marriage.September 28, 2011 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #814578popa_bar_abbaParticipant
Ive read Art Scroll Biographies and regular biographies
By which you mean, you’ve read artscroll biographies, and The Making of a Gadol.September 28, 2011 7:55 pm at 7:55 pm #814579
Not to worry. If and when they write your biography they will not say…..
At 3 years old when everyone else was learning Alef Bais, Zahavasdad had already finished Chumash
At 10 years old everyone saw the Zahavasdad was an Iluy and he finished SHAS for the first times
At 13 years old the Rosh Yehsiva gave the Zahavasdad Semicha and learned Chavursa with him and at 18, the Rosh Yeshiva gave the Zahavasdad his daughter for marriage.
In all seriousness, my husbands Rosh Yeshiva once gave a schmuess and he stated that he is not impress by this one or that one who was born with a photographic memory and accomplished such and such. What made an impression on him was a masmid of average intelligence who worked his way up to becoming a Godol in Torah and middos.October 1, 2011 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #814580
apushita- im giving a mashal. i think you understood that. i also think you understand my point.October 4, 2011 7:02 am at 7:02 am #814581HealthParticipant
soliek -“she shouldnt…her husband should either get a job…or make arrangements”
Most Naarish a thing I ever heard. Let’s say the husband gets a job and they still can’t make ends meet? Of course the woman should work. If you said she should preferably work from in the house as opposed to working in the street, this I would agree. But you said she shouldn’t work at all. This is K’neged Chazal whom in many places say a woman is Mechuyav to work. Do you know the definition of Masay Yodeha? They even say she is Mechuyav to work, even if the family doesn’t need the money because of Batolla Mayve L’yehday Shemum! In this case she can do some minor work at home. Having to work in the street is not a Patur to not work at all, if she can’t do a Parnossa from the home.October 4, 2011 1:25 pm at 1:25 pm #814582
i think the yeshivish elelments here and the OP arent defining it as above, rather that a womans focus should be her homelife. the flipside of this is a woman whose main and central focus is her career.
Nothing doing. shmoel is certainly talking about staying at home, and neither the husband OR wife should have their “focus” on work.October 4, 2011 7:32 pm at 7:32 pm #814583
“It’s obvious from SA to rather take tzedaka than go out.”
This is implied in 73:1?
73:6 (Siman Vav) clearly contradicts this. Of course a woman has a right to be mochel any “rights” guaranteed by her kesuba, and I suppose the children can be mochel whatever support the father is obligated in too, but the question then becomes, should the wife/mother become the breadwinner (which 73:1 comment of the Tur surely would not be happy with, I think) or should the family rely on tzedaka? You have paskened take tzedaka. What is your source for this psak?October 4, 2011 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #814584
“It’s obvious from SA to rather take tzedaka than go out.”
I took this as a Moshe Rose statement, and the author did not really mean it.
An “Argument from ignorance”.October 5, 2011 11:46 am at 11:46 am #814585
There is nothing in SA that says 73:1’s admonitions for her to not go outside (Rambam says once or twice a month is good but SA just says not too much) becomes inapplicable if she otherwise will accept tzedaka.October 5, 2011 1:13 pm at 1:13 pm #814586
I’m surprised the “moshe rose like” commenter didn’t jump all over the statement of the SA regarding “Redid” and advocate burqas for all frum women 🙂October 5, 2011 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #814587HealthParticipant
shmoel -“becomes inapplicable if she otherwise will accept tzedaka.”
“It’s obvious from SA to rather take tzedaka than go out.”
Stop with the mind playing. There is a big difference between willing to take Tzedaka and having to take Tzedaka in order not to go out. Why can’t you just admit your first statement is wrong?October 5, 2011 4:52 pm at 4:52 pm #814588
These are the relevant words of the Tur in Siman Ayin Gimmel. Just prior to these words he is discussing what the husband is obligated to give his wife (clothing, household needs) and then discusses the difference betwene an ani and ashir. He then writes why it is important for his wife to have the appropriate attire to go out (I hope the copy and paste comes out clean and readable)….
???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????
????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ??????
??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???
???? ????? ????? ???? ??? W ??? ??? ??? ???? ????
???? ??? ???????(??) ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????
???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????
???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????:
I am not a posek by any stretch of the imagination. How to practically understand the words of the Tur, consult your Rav. On the one hand he says clearly there are legitimate needs for a woman to go out and even makes the statement she is not in prison, yet he continues that she should not be accustomed to going out often. The nosei keilim (both the Prisha and Beis Yosef) attribute the comments of the Tur to various midrashim and perhaps gemaras as well (its not clear to me).October 5, 2011 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #814589StamperMember
The Rambam also writes she shouldn’t be a prisoner in her home. Therefore, writes the Rambam, her husband should allow her to visit her father, etc. once or twice a month. Like gavra wrote, the halacha is based on Kol Kevuda Bas Melech Penima.October 5, 2011 6:04 pm at 6:04 pm #814590bein_hasdorimParticipant
I don’t understand the question?
A Woman’s Place in Frum Society is in a kosher kitchen, of course!!!
It doesn’t have to have a Pareve section, that is Lifnim M’shuras Hadin! Now that’s settled, any other questions?October 5, 2011 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #814591
The question is not one of “why”, rather one of practical application.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.