December 25, 2017 7:15 am at 7:15 am #1435714
“I’m with Chabbadshlucha on this one (though I definitely didn’t need to learn Chassidus to get there) 😀”
Now that my statement was let through allow me to clarify. I don’t think most people here think this way, as can be seen from the conversations. The problem is, it seems although people here are rubbed the wrong way with these statements, it seems that there is no Torah response, which means that the result can be, a “Joseph” can make warped statements, and come away thinking this represents Torah thinking cvs, because the people who cry foul don’t have A Torah response.
I am a bit shocked because I NEVER heard such sentiments from a frum yid before. The reason is, I think, because when you learn the pnimius HaTorah on what men and women represent, you learn about Za and Malchus, Ma”d and Ma”n, Maps and Mekareved, Or Ain Sof and Shechina, you come away with the understanding that these are complementary energies, with each being utterly necessary, and no one being essentially greater than the other. So you will never come to utter such statements in the name of Torah, because you understand that when you see a source that favors one, there will be another that favors the other.
Besides for that, just seeing the way The Rebbe treated his mother and his wife –
He visited his mother every day when she lived near him, and didn’t turn his back to her –
He said that the tea time he spends every day with his wishes was as dear to him as the time he put on tefillin-
No one would dream of saying such things as both from chairs and the Rebbe’s personal example it is clear that Torah is nizhar with the kovod of bnos Yisrael.
And I would think that Joseph and his ilk have their own gedolim they look up to that act in the same way. So that’s why I’m a bit shocked by this kind of rhetoric.December 25, 2017 8:19 am at 8:19 am #1435724
I quoted the Rambam. He says the reason for that Halacha is because men have more Mitzvos. You gave a made-up reason for the Halacha. You were offended by both the Halacha and by Rambam’s explanation of it. Which is why you lashed out at the Halacha and the Rambam and kvetched about him twisting the Halacha and seeing women as Arabs. Nothing other than the Halacha and the Rambam were quoted. No implications about sub-men or anything unless you think the Halacha itself means that. Because there was no other commentary by anyone here or personal explanations other than just the stating of the plain Halacha and the Rambam. And that set you off. It is no different than when some people hear anything about tznius they start screaming Taliban. If a part of the Torah offended you, you should seek an explanation from a chachom rather than set off against what you don’t like or invent your own boich svara that is different than what the Halacha clearly states.December 25, 2017 9:16 am at 9:16 am #1435743
On the topic of the Rambam being nizhar with kovod bnos Yisrael, the Rambam paskens that if there are rumours going around of a girl doing something inappropriate but there are no witnesses or proof, then she is Kasher to marry even the Kohen Gadol, and you can look up the exact reason but I think it is because we have to be extremely cautious of being mizalzel the kovod of bnos Yisrael.December 25, 2017 10:41 am at 10:41 am #1435747
I think you have to be extremely cautious in general becuse since men are meant to lead the household, and eizohi isha ksheira osa rtzon baala, a woman can tend to feel Slighted as one of her maalos is that she is a mekabel, open to receiving the influence of her husband, but she can feel she is subpar as is represented by the medrash of the sun and moon.
Sun is Mashpia, moon mekabel. Man is Mashpia woman is mekabel. Hashem created them equally great but when the Nov complained that ee efshar lshtei melachim lhishtamesh bkeser Echad – we both can’t be the leader – Hashem said fine you’ll look smaller. But when the moon crowd over the injustice, Hashem gave it stars (or children where the mother is Mashpia) when the moon said it’s still not fair to be seen as less than, Hashem gave it more and more to compensate until finally He said we should bring for Him a kapara every month for making the moon smaller as it really was intended to be equally as great.
When moshiach comes everyone will appreciate the role and bittul of the mekabel and it won’t be seen as less than anymore in an egotistical world.
Until then be nizhar bkvod bnos Yisrael.December 25, 2017 10:42 am at 10:42 am #1435741
Did you post that reason before? I didn’t see it. If you did I apologise. I have no problem with the Rambam cvs, I have a problem with you inserting this halacha here in this discussion in response to my bringing and explaining the Zohar that shows how men and women are complimentary and equal. By inserting this halacha here, you imply that you disagree with the above and are trying to rebut it and show that women are sub men.
Hence my response.
This still has nothing to do with the Zohar or with other sources that I brought.
Halacha affects every area of our life and of course in the context of saving a life there needs to be halacha on who to save first. In that same context, a Cohen comes before A Levi who comes before A Yisrael. Yet no one would imply that the essence of a Levi is subpar to the Cohen…
You asked why that halacha is. I told you what I had learned which is not made up just because you haven’t heard it, the same way the Rambam isn’t made up just because I didn’t hear it before. If you’d like I can try to get the source for that reason – id need to reread my notes from the class and if the source isn’t mentioned, contact the Rabbi who gave it.
As far as the Rambams reason, yes that makes sense. Men draw down more hamshachos than women, which is the main avoda at the time of golus, however by the Geulas times, we will celebrate who we are which is more the idea of women – she makes the child Jewish while the man directs the avoda of the child – as is written, “nekeiva tisovev gever.”
We have already entered the era where women’s qualities are being highlighted and appreciated worldwide – the maala of the mekabel as we come closer and closer to the Geula.
Some typos in my previous post : *Mashpia, Mekabel, wife, TorahDecember 25, 2017 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #1436362
If a part of the Torah offended you, you should seek an explanation from a chachom rather than set off against what you don’t like or invent your own boich svara that is different than what the Halacha clearly states.
No part of the Torah offends me. Misuse of the Torah, however, does. Some parts of the Torah have very specific intent or context, or deal with very sensitive issues. If a man decided to shout out those halachos repeatedly on the subway in a mixed crowd, it’d be highly inappropriate. And a chillul Hashem. Even though the halachos are correct.
The fact that you repeatedly bring this halacha up on the CR in numerous threads indicates problems with your mindset, not the Torah.December 25, 2017 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #1436410
CS: I think there was a miscommunication between us. I didn’t intend my citation of this Halacha from Chazal to be a counterpoint or disagreement with the Zohar you cited, which it certainly wasn’t. And you’re response after having overlooked the Rambam I quoted led me to understand your comment as something other than you intended it to mean. Thus I accept your apology and hope you accept mine.December 25, 2017 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #1436401
Avram: While your characterization is completely inaccurate, as I haven’t mentioned this Halacha in years (provide a few links to several examples if you feel otherwise), you make an interesting point nevertheless. If someone were to repeatedly bring up in the CR in numerous threads halachos about avoda zora being assur or about shatnes being assur or about toeiva being a capital offense or about shechita or kashrus or about violating Shabbos being a capital offense, would you similarly get all bent out of shape and start kvetching that mentioning such halachos any louder than a whisper or any more times than once a shmita cycle are “highly inappropriate” and a so-called C”H “even though the halachos are correct”? How is this Halacha a misuse or any more about a certain “specific intent or context” than the other sensitive Halachas I just mentioned?
Or is it only certain halachos that make you uncomfortable that you deem forboden to say much? Also, how do you determine which halachos are from the forbidden tree to publicly discuss and which ones you’re okay with saying loud and clear? Why have you deemed this particular Halacha to be among those-that-may-not-be-publicly-said-too-loud-or-much? If instead of this Halacha I had cited the Halacha about the requirement to save a Kohein before a Yisroel would your reaction have been as equally vocal, even though that Halacha doesn’t particularly violate so much the gender egalitarianism demanded by modern secular society that has creeped into some religious peoples thinking process after their exposure to modern non-Jewish values, since the Kohein/Yisroel distinction comes from the same Halacha as the one I cited? Or do you, for some unfathomable reason, think publicly discussing the Kohein/Yisroel distinction is more okay than publicly discussing the men/women distinction — perhaps because when discussing this law one halachic distinction is less uncomfortable for you than the other.December 26, 2017 10:37 am at 10:37 am #1436578
While your characterization is completely inaccurate, as I haven’t mentioned this Halacha in years (provide a few links to several examples if you feel otherwise)
Whatever. See: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/saving-a-mans-life-first for example. You’ve probably had to lay off the topic for a while to keep the mods from blocking your posts.
If someone were to repeatedly bring up in the CR in numerous threads halachos about …
Yayin nesech is certainly not controversial to discuss in the beis medrash. But consider what the Agagi did with those halachos when he went to King Ahashverosh and said, “if a fly falls into a Jew’s cup of wine, he will pluck it out and drink the wine, but if the king touches a Jew’s wine, he’ll dump it out!” That statement was 100% factual, but due to the context it was cited as an example of Haman’s evil.
If instead of this Halacha I had cited the Halacha about the requirement to save a Kohein before a Yisroel would your reaction have been as equally vocal
You just destroyed your own argument. I would have brought this up had you not. We do not have a kohen constantly reminding us of this halacha on the CR. If we did, we’d probably think there was something mentally wrong with him.December 26, 2017 11:44 am at 11:44 am #1436622
Joseph is always right….he can create quotations from Chazal that will be proven correct in olam haboh, especially all his misogynistic fantasies regarding how daas torah supports the subordination of women. The secret is always to rationalize such sexist remarks with the cloak of “the special status of women” under daas torah or that Halacha creates separate but equally important roles, before defining the woman’s role not much differently than the German philosopher who relegated women to “children, kitchen and church” (loose translation from old German). Joseph obviously has issues with women, especially frum women who have a brain and a voice.December 26, 2017 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm #1436640
Joseph doesn’t rationalize his misogynistic views with “separate but equal” or “special status”. He believes in pure inequality.December 26, 2017 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #1436663
To Reb Yid:
I was trying to give our resident Trollista the benefit of the doubt but clearly was mistaken…December 26, 2017 1:42 pm at 1:42 pm #1436659
Avram: So you’ve now jumped from making up “repeatedly bring this halacha up on the CR in numerous threads” to finding a single thread from two years ago out of ten years of posting, and when confronted with your untruth you concede “Whatever” and suddenly jump to speculating that “you’ve probably had to lay off the topic for a while” to not be blocked. Yeah, okay. Anything about JFK you want to add?
Your Agagi example is incomparable since he specifically and overtly used it to attack Yidden. Which is clear as he was a goy and not citing the Halacha in a halachic discussion. No such context exists here. You still have failed to, despite being asked to, identify which Halachas should be toned down from being publicly discussed “even though the halachos are correct”, and what criteria you’ve come up with. Toeiva, shechita, avoda zora, gender roles? Any Halacha the goyim think is regressive, undemocratic, cruel, unfair, non-egalitarian, weird, funny, retro?
Regarding a Kohein making the Kohein/Yisroel point in Halacha, there is absolutely nothing wrong (and everything right) with him doing so. Now if he cited that Halacha every Monday and Thursday, something completely irrelevant to here where you offered 1 previous example from the last 10 years — which itself was 2 years ago, it would be unusual and interesting but no one would get bent out of shape because he repeated it so. Even if he kept saying it to Yisroelim. OTOH, you here declared a Halacha as “highly inappropriate” a “misuse” and a “C”H” to mention. Even if it would be weird for a Kohein to often repeat it, which again is inapplicable here, you wouldn’t tell the Kohein it is a misuse and a C”H. Because it isn’t any of that. The only reason you thought all that applied here is because that’s what the goyim and secularist think (in their own terminology.) And you picked up their values. The goyim are not only okay with but actually believe it is better to save women first (i.e. Titanic.) If someone would present a halachic argument here, even a convoluted one, making that same argument in support of the reverse of what I showed from Halacha, I’m quite sure you wouldn’t be jumping all up and down about how terrible it is to say that. But regarding this cited Halacha you’re embarrassed how the goyim perceive it. That’s the only motivation to be upset to hear the Halacha in public.
If the goyim in the near future widely start deeming shechita as cruelty to animals or bris milah as child abuse, something certainly within the realm of possibility in the future as even now such thoughts are gaining credence, I can see those with your thought process insisting we not too loudly or too much or publicly discuss shechita or mila. Even now right here in the CR (among other places) we have those who try to hush hush any halachic discussion of toeiva and even halachic gender issues since they’re embarrassed what the Torah says about them. But they’re too embarrassed to admit they’re embarrassed about what the Torah and Halacha says, so they come up with other rationalizations as why such halachic topics should be avoided.December 26, 2017 2:04 pm at 2:04 pm #1436676
Joseph correct me if I’m wrong but what I’ve inferred from previous posts is that the reason you’re so gung ho about this topic is because you feel the world today disrespects men and Jewish people are falling into non Torah feminist attitudes which are actually vicious against men in some cases, such as the “I can wear whatever I want and you should just look away” disgusting attitude, so you feel got need to correct that. Am I correct?December 26, 2017 2:23 pm at 2:23 pm #1436847
CS, there’s very much truth to that point you raise that modern secular society (which rubs off into the thought process of even some Jews) disrespects men. i.e. Just listen to the ads on the radio or in the newspapers on how they portray the wife/girlfriend as the know-it-all correcting her incompetent/stupid/klutz of a husband/boyfriend. That is very much a recurring and prevalent theme in ads and in popular American culture today. And some Jewish people are falling into non-Torah feminist attitudes like the one you mention, among many others.
That said, I’m not sure how much this point interacts with this discussion. Here what I think is more at play is that certain halachos (toeiva, gender, kaporos are some examples) embarrass some Jews who bought into popular culture, since the attitude of secular society has turned against many of these rituals or laws or practices, and these Jews don’t like seeming so far out of step with modern values that secular society deems the new moral, even if the Torah says the opposite.December 26, 2017 2:35 pm at 2:35 pm #1436910
Perhaps some Jews are embarrassed, as you say. But there’s another viewpoint- Torah belongs to Am Yisroel. It was not meant for the goyim, and Targum 70 was considered a tragedy. Not because we were embarrassed by what Torah had to say, but because the Goyim would inevitably twist things from the Torah and use it against us.
When statements of chazal are thrown out without context and without explanation, it can potentially be fodder for the anti-semites and anti-frum people out there who don’t know and don’t want to know what proper Torah Hashkafa is. Of course we should not be embarrassed by our Torah, but that does not mean that we need to share it with those who will distort it.December 26, 2017 3:00 pm at 3:00 pm #1436975
BTW since you know Rambam so well in the topic of men and women and you quoted that halacha, please remind me and all of us if a woman comes before A man if there is only one outfit of clothing, and for pidyon shvuim as well? I think it’s both and the reason is because a woman had more shame and tznius than a manDecember 26, 2017 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #1436997
Anyhow one can unfortunately conclude from halachos quoted out of context that the Torah cvs disrespects women when the truth is completely the opposite – the Torah very much cares for the honour of bnos Yisrael.December 26, 2017 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #1436967
My point is that I can fully agree with you on that. However, fighting these erroneous attitudes with halachos quoted out of context which is also a perversion of the Torahs view of women is like trying to put out fire with kerosene because it’s liquid just like water.
Enjoy this entertainment piece – I came up with it once when thinking about how people can run off with ain haisha ela lyofi to erroneously justify cosmetic surgery for shidduchim or talking to women and telling them they were created to incubate and pop babies because ain haisha ela lbonim.
Those kind of people may read “Ain haisha ela lyofi” and conclude that since “sheker hachein vhevel hayofi”
Women =sheker. And since “midvar sheker tirchak” all people ie men should keep their distance from women.
I’m sure you’d agree the above is ludicrous even though I just quoted three pesukim and maamarei chazal. The reason why is because it’s all twisted out of context to imply a non Jewish Islamic hashkofa which isn’t Torah.
If you think the above is anything other than humour I’d advise you to seriously learn pnimius HaTorah as you aren’t getting the hashkofa of Torah on your own.
If you have any questions on this I’ll be happy to answer 🙂December 26, 2017 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #1436969
And what is so distorted about the above examples of twisted halacha etc.?
Torah is the best thing for us and the world. Its the blueprint and instruction manual for the world. Following Torah is the best thing possible and leads to the best life possible for need and non Jews.
If a frum or not frum woman reads any of what you write and comes to the sad conclusion that a not frum woman leads a better and more fulfilling life than a woman would in a halachic society, that is wrong because it is simply untrue and to imply otherwise by twisting things out of context, is a travesty.December 26, 2017 3:51 pm at 3:51 pm #1437009
So you’ve now jumped from … [blah blah blah]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamevin yavin.
Your Agagi example is incomparable since he specifically and overtly used it to attack Yidden.
Once again you make my point before I can! The example is quite apropos.
You still have failed to, despite being asked to, identify which Halachas should be toned down from being publicly discussed “even though the halachos are correct”, and what criteria you’ve come up with.
That’s not my job. Most people learn about what is and is not appropriate to say and when to say or not say it when they are young.
Toeiva, shechita, avoda zora, gender roles?
Nope, nope, nope, nope. I’m not uncomfortable with any of those concepts. You may think that attempting to bully me through insinuations that I’m influenced by goyish mores and values will be effective. Sorry, it comes off like shooting wildly in the dark.
it would be unusual and interesting but no one would get bent out of shape because he repeated it so. Even if he kept saying it to Yisroelim.
I disagree, I think it would come off as rude, condescending, weird, and creepy. That said, the reason we don’t have much of an emotional response to the differences in status between kohanim and Yisroelim is due to the long darkness of golus. We don’t remember the avoda of the Beis Hamikdash, and don’t yearn for it properly. IY”H soon may we have to have some additional sensitivity and tact in explaining why kohanim get to do things that the rest of us don’t.
If someone would present a halachic argument here, even a convoluted one, making that same argument in support of the reverse of what I showed from Halacha, I’m quite sure you wouldn’t be jumping all up and down about how terrible it is to say that.
Wrong. Obviously you don’t read much of what I write. But that’s fine.
But regarding this cited Halacha you’re embarrassed how the goyim perceive it. That’s the only motivation to be upset to hear the Halacha in public.
Wrong again. I’m not concerned with how the goyim perceive halacha at all.
If the goyim in the near future widely start deeming shechita as cruelty to animals or bris milah as child abuse, something certainly within the realm of possibility in the future
I share those fears.
I can see those with your thought process insisting we not too loudly or too much or publicly discuss shechita or mila.
Absolutely, but not CV”S because I’m “embarrassed” by those mitzvos, but because I treasure them and want to perform them without interference. It’s interesting that you seem to get that we are in golus and shouldn’t excessively provoke the goyim in regards to things like yishuv baaretz, but on other matters you seem to have no compunction to provoke. But all of that is irrelevant here. I doubt many, if any goyim are on the CR.December 26, 2017 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #1437017
I doubt many, if any goyim are on the CR.
There are plenty of women here, don’t kid yourself.December 26, 2017 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #1437030
Winnie, your point is equally applicable regarding teaching goyim about Pesach and eating matzah. But a) were not avoiding halachic discussions between Yidden in the CR because of gentiles (even Avram says he doubts many goyim are lurking) and b) a Halacha clearly brought down in the Mishna, Gemorah, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch was cited. What context is missing? What else do you think needs to be added to this Halacha that wasn’t already mentioned?
Chabad, you provided an example of taking three independent Pesukim and Maamarei Chazal and combining them together completely out of context. Each on its own is 100% true but the way you humorously coalesced them is obviously out of context and entirely not the way Chazal said and intended them. But on the halachic topic that I cited it was not out of context. So that comparison is off. The Halacha I cited is straightforward from Chazal, Rambam and the Mechaber and said in the correct Halachic context.
Avram, you didn’t add much in your last comment other than hot air, but it is true that we lack a large part of the emotional response today to the Beis HaMikdash, Avoda, Korbonos and the special higher status of Kohanim that makes them more important and chashuv than Yisroelim, I don’t see why we need “additional sensitivity and tact in explaining why kohanim get to do things that the rest of us don’t.” We can sensitively explain it now. What “tact” is lacking in explaining it? Kohanim are more chashuv and important than Yisroelim. That’s why even today we stand up for Kohanim, give them special kibudim, they are seated at the head of the table, etc. You see saying all that as tactless? Those same principles between a Kohein and Yisroel apply between a man and a woman.
Regarding establishing a state, the issue is the Three Oaths. That’s a Halachic obligation between Klal Yisroel and the RBS”O; not the goyim. How does saying the Halacha regarding men and women provoke goyim? Because they think it is unfair and non-egalitarian? Whoever has a problem with that has a problem with the entire Orthodox Judaism not living up to the modern secular world’s demands for egalitarianism.December 26, 2017 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #1437031
Oy avrammd you make good points but you are quite merciless 🙈December 26, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1437033
I doubt many, if any goyim are on the CR.
Lots of people read YWN who just lurk..Its a known website and at least one time the headline of one of the newsarticles went viral and went across regular news sources across the internetDecember 26, 2017 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1437062
@joseph correct context would be that in Halacha a man’s life comes first because he is obligated in more mitzvos, or because woman suffer less as they are quicker to give up their life for others. And by pidyon shvuim and with clothing, women come first because they are more tznius and will study more shame.December 26, 2017 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1437067
*sufferDecember 26, 2017 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1437066
You could have also added that a married mans (even without children?) life comes before a single man to show the correct context – that priority goes by obligation, and that Torah is more mizalzel the kovod of bnos Yisrael. Quite the contrary – the Torah describes the Jewish woman as bas melech. Do you see the difference?December 26, 2017 6:26 pm at 6:26 pm #1437072
*notDecember 26, 2017 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1437076
“@joseph correct context would be that in Halacha a man’s life comes first because he is obligated in more mitzvos”
That’s exactly what was said in the very first post the Rambam was cited on this thread. So the context was here right from the beginning:
(You’re second reason about suffering less/quicker isn’t an accurate explanation for this Halacha, even assuming the point is correct — which is unlikely. Women don’t suffer less and aren’t quicker to offer to give up their lives.)December 26, 2017 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #1437081
When you say “priority goes by obligation” (Mitzvos), what it means is that those with more Mitzvos are more important/chashuv than those with less. Hence this is the Halacha of who gets priority.December 26, 2017 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #1437083
It should be clear at this point that given the context in which you cited the Halacha it came across as making the point that the life of women is worth less then that of men and that women are inferior. I could give you lots of other absalutely true statements made by Chazal and Rishonim that when read out of context would point to the same conclusion. But we all (I hope) agree that doing that would be a perversion of the Torah because such a conclusion is DEAD WRONG. So….
Why not just acknowledge that while the Halacha you stated is true given the context in which you stated it created an impression which is clearly false.December 26, 2017 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1437093
” I doubt many, if any goyim are on the CR.”
I’m sure there are many. This is the internet, and it is in english. I think that anytime anyone posts anything, they should consider it as though they are posting it for the whole world (because they are). In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised it there were more goyim reading this than Yeshivish people, despite the name of the website.December 26, 2017 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1437095
Girls are not obligated to light, but there is absolutely no problem with girls lighting.December 26, 2017 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #1437097
While one should certainly never be embarrassed about any halacha, it is not a good idea to make a point of quoting something that he knows will be misunderstood and lead people to have incorrect ideas about Judaism and the Torah.
The above halacha is a halacha whose intent could be misunderstood by many as meaning that women are not as valuable/important as men. Those of us who have been learning and living Torah our entire lives know that that can not possibly be the meaning of that halacha, and therefore are not disturbed by it.
However, someone who has not been living and learning Torah his entire life would assume that is the meaning of the halacha, if it’s not explained properly. And since it is part of a very complex and vast topic, it is unlikely that anyone here would be able to explain the halacha properly in one post of less than 1,000 words (or whatever the limit is). This is particularly so given the misconceptions prevalent in today’s society regarding women and men’s roles and the concepts of equality and different roles in general.December 26, 2017 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #1437098
WTP: “Perhaps some Jews are embarrassed, as you say. But there’s another viewpoint- Torah belongs to Am Yisroel. It was not meant for the goyim, and Targum 70 was considered a tragedy. Not because we were embarrassed by what Torah had to say, but because the Goyim would inevitably twist things from the Torah and use it against us.
When statements of chazal are thrown out without context and without explanation, it can potentially be fodder for the anti-semites and anti-frum people out there who don’t know and don’t want to know what proper Torah Hashkafa is. Of course we should not be embarrassed by our Torah, but that does not mean that we need to share it with those who will distort it.”
+1December 26, 2017 9:01 pm at 9:01 pm #1437102
Yes, it is extremely important to fight against acculturation to Western values. At the same time we have to be ever mindful to not allow our position to become determined by our adversaries. We have to be ever vigilant lest in our righteous war against Western values we adopt anti secularist positions that are rooted in non Jewish philosophy / theology. This is an insidious form of acculturation and an easy trap to fall into.December 26, 2017 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #1437105
“That’s exactly what was said in the very first post the Rambam was cited on this thread. So the context was here right from the beginning”
I knew this was coming.
There are 2 contexts that are at issue here:
1) The context in which the Halacha was cited which leads to an erroneous conclusion regarding how the Torah views women.
2) The context of how to properly understand this specific Halacha in light of all the other relevant Maamrai Chazal dealing with the issue at hand.
Nobody misunderstood the specific Halacha itself and context has nothing to do with it.December 27, 2017 12:48 am at 12:48 am #1437215
Actually these laws are found in Horiot 13a:
מתני’ האיש קודם לאשה להחיות ולהשב אבדה והאשה קודמת לאיש לכסות ולהוציא מבית השבי בזמן ששניהם עומדים בקלקלה האיש קודם לאשה:
גמ’ ת”ר היה הוא ואביו ורבו בשבי הוא קודם לרבו ורבו קודם לאביו אמו קודמת לכולם חכם קודם למלך ישראל חכם שמת אין לנו כיוצא בו מלך ישראל שמת כל ישראל ראוים למלכות מלך קודם לכהן גדול שנאמר (מלכים א א, טז) ויאמר המלך (אליהם) [להם] קחו עמכם (או מ) עבדי אדוניכם וגו’ כהן גדול קודם לנביא שנאמר (מלכים א א, לד) ומשח אותו שם צדוק הכהן ונתן הנביא הקדים צדוק לנתן ואומר (זכריה ג, ח) שמע נא יהושע הכהן הגדול אתה ורעיך וגו’ יכול הדיוטות היו ת”ל (זכריה ג, ח) כי אנשי מופת המה ואין מופת אלא נביא שנאמר (דברים יג, ב) ונתן אליך אות או מופת משוח בשמן המשחה קודם למרובה בגדים מרובה בגדים קודם למשיח שעבר מחמת קריו משיח שעבר ‘ מחמת קריו קודם לעבר מחמת מומו עבר מחמת מומו קודם למשוח מלחמה משוח מלחמה קודם לסגן סגן קודם לאמרכל מאי אמרכל אמר רב חסדא אמר כולא אמרכל קודם לגזבר גזבר קודם לראש משמר ראש משמר קודם לראש בית אב ראש בית אב קודם לכהן הדיוט איבעיא להו לענין טומאה סגן ומשוח מלחמה איזה מהם קודם אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן ת”ש דתניא סגן ומשוח מלחמה שהיו מהלכים בדרך ופגע בהם מת מצוה מוטב שיטמא משוח מלחמה ואל יטמא סגן שאם יארע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס הסגן ומשמש תחתיו והתניא משוח מלחמה קודם לסגן אמר רבינא כי תניא ההיא להחיותו:
So we see that sometimes a man comes first and sometimes a woman comes first. There is also an order among men. Rambam indeed says that the reason a man is saved before a woman is that he has more mitzvot. However, according to Rashba it is a gezerat haktuv. That is to say, Hashem decided that this is the order (and there must be some order) and that is that,December 27, 2017 8:28 am at 8:28 am #1437237
“(You’re second reason about suffering less/quicker isn’t an accurate explanation for this Halacha, even assuming the point is correct — which is unlikely. Women don’t suffer less and aren’t quicker to offer to give up their lives.)”
I realise it’s not really fair to quote something without a source. I’m working on getting that source, I learned it in Rabbi SB Hertzels class. He’s the shliach of rosh pina and has many fascinating stories about his experiences with the idf and halachic priorities.
In the meantime, I should take offence at your opinion of Jewish women but I won’t because I just feel bad that you don’t get it. A Yiddishe Mame gives up everything for her children and the prime example is actually brought out in this week’s parsha by hashgocha protis in Yaakov Avinus discussion with Yosef about the burial of his mother :
He tells Yosef he shouldn’t feel bad that he’s asking him to bury him in eretz Yisrael which shows how special it is, while he didn’t do the same for his mother. The reason he shouldn’t feel bad is that Rochel herself was more than ready to give up the special privilege to be buried in the holy maaras hamachpela so that she would be there for her children in the future. Not just any children, but wicked children who were exiled because of their sins. She was buried in the way so they would come and daven by her kever and then she would be able to get the promise from Hashem of vshavu banim ligvulam.
The reason why only she was able to get it was because of her great mesiras nefesh in being happy to give up her own spiritual rights for the sake of her children. This is a Yiddishe mame.
See likutei sichos chelek lamed,Parshas vayechi, sicha beis, for the full shakla vtarya on the Rashi, as well as why men give the status of Kohen Levi Yisrael, while the women make the child Jewish. I think you’ll find it fascinating.
But even without a sicha, you should know what a mother does for her children and family and how she will give up what she should have out of compassion for others.
In the Yeshiva world you would know of the essen teg where the women would take their own meals if necessary, to feed the bochurim. Bh we don’t need to do that nowadays as Hashem has blessed us with harchava.December 27, 2017 10:58 am at 10:58 am #1437343
you didn’t add much in your last comment other than hot air
I’m only responding to the material I’m given. Try writing something more substantive than baseless insinuations and fallacious statements, and maybe you’ll get more than hot air in response.
What “tact” is lacking in explaining it? Kohanim are more chashuv and important than Yisroelim. … You see saying all that as tactless?
Yeah, that was pretty tactless. And in a world iy”H soon where we feel pulled towards the ketores, towards offering our own korbonos, and towards experiencing closeness with Hashem in the kodesh kodashim, you might want to work on that delivery when talking to your children.
Those same principles between a Kohein and Yisroel apply between a man and a woman.
Yet the man and woman case seems to be the only one that interests you. Why is that?
When the goy came to R’ Hillel and challenged him to explain the entire Torah while he stood on one foot, he did not say, “if a man and a woman both need saving but you can only save one, the man comes before the woman. That’s the Torah, the rest is commentary, now go learn it.” What did R’ Hillel say?
Regarding establishing a state, the issue is the Three Oaths.
Who said anything about establishing a state? Is someone else named Avram posting in this thread, and I can’t see his posts?
How does saying the Halacha regarding men and women provoke goyim?
You answered your own question pretty well, so if you really care, you can go back and reread your own post. However, that’s your argument, not mine. I’m not concerned with provoking the goyim in this thread. I’m concerned about protecting the Torah’s honor, and not making it into a spade for anyone’s misogynistic dig. By responding to your points regarding bris mila and shechita, I was just pointing out an interesting contradiction in your approach to Jewish interactions with the non-Jewish world.December 27, 2017 10:59 am at 10:59 am #1437363
To the OP. Perhaps if you arranged for Reb SM Rubashkin Shlita to call them…..December 27, 2017 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm #1437536
Are we going to start rehashing the three non-oaths (why, BTW, also involve the other nations) again? It seems that I will have to re-post four hundred times.
1. The pasukim cited refer to the kelei hamikdash, not the people.
2. They are aggadata. Aggadata cannot be understood literally (Rambam, Intro. to Perek Chelek).
3. They are not brought down in any of the codes.
4. According to Rav Chaim Vital they were only for 1,000 years (Inro. to Sefer Etz Chaim 8).
5. According to Rav Meir Simcha the San Remo conference repealed them as the other nations agreed.
6. According to Rav Soloveichik (Kol Dodi Dofek) Hashem has called.
7. The other nations violated their oath not to persecute us too much on several occasions (Crusades, Chmielnitzky massacres, pogroms, Petlura massacres, Holocaust). Thus, the deal is off (Sotah 10a with Rashi d”h huchal shevuato shel Avimelech and Shulchan Aruch YD 236,6).December 27, 2017 2:05 pm at 2:05 pm #1437609
C’mon, don’t offer him another rabbit trail to go down just yet!December 27, 2017 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #1438097
Avi, don’t mind Avram. He’s still reeling from facing the reality that he’s influenced by goyish mores and values. Although he’s still in denial about that, obviously a Yid doesn’t set out to be influenced by goyish mores and values; but, rather, it is subconscious where he doesn’t even typically realize he’s been brainwashed by local societal values. Then he takes those gentile values and tries wrapping it around some Torah keywords and reselling it as some kind of valid hashkafa!
Regarding the Three Oaths, search the CR archives. We’ve had this conversation repeatedly. And I’ve already, more than once, demolished your argument that the Three Oaths aren’t halachicly binding today. I’ve provided you sources, citations and quotations from the Seforim HaKedoshim including Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim. GIYF.December 28, 2017 10:06 am at 10:06 am #1438587
To the OP. why do you have to explain anything to the girls? the Rma is clear thj\at all household members light (which the mishna berura says means everyone, except the wife since ishto kigufo). Unless of course, this family follows the mechaber that only the baal habayis lights in which case not only the girls in the family, but the boys dont either. If there is a family minhag that is not like either the mechaber, or the rma as explained by the mishna berura, then the father should explain this family minhag. If he is an am haaretz, let him ask someone who does understand the reason for the family minhag. perhaps there is NO reason and it is a minhag shtus to begin with. is there a chiyuv for a family member to follow a family minhag shtus that goes against the shulchan aruch? maybe. I would ask my rav the answer to this last question.December 28, 2017 10:14 am at 10:14 am #1438622
Apashutayid, you are wrong about the Mishnah Berurah’s opinion.
תרע”ה סק”ט: ועיין בתשובת עולת שמואל סימן ק”ה דלדידן שמדליקין כל אחד בפני עצמו מכל מקום אשה אינה צריכה להדליק דהויין רק טפילות לאנשים ואם רוצים להדליק מברכות דהוי כשאר מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא דיכולות לברךDecember 28, 2017 1:08 pm at 1:08 pm #1438836
“is there a chiyuv for a family member to follow a family minhag shtus that goes against the shulchan aruch? maybe.”
The above minhag is stated in many poskim so its certainly legit and not a “shtus”. As for the Mechaber, he is generally speaking about the very Chiyuv, which means if there is no man around the Isha certainly has a chiyuv to light, it is no less then Kriyas haMegilah and is not excepted from Zman Gramah as per the Gemara as being part (or the main) of the ‘nes”.
As for the Mishnah Berurah, I’m not so sure what the meaning is:
תרע”ה סק”ט: ועיין בתשובת עולת שמואל סימן ק”ה דלדידן שמדליקין כל אחד בפני עצמו מכל מקום אשה אינה צריכה להדליק דהויין רק טפילות לאנשים ואם רוצים להדליק מברכות דהוי כשאר מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא דיכולות לברך
Is he speaking about a single girl? I assume it is pertaining to a married that is טפילות לאנשים. Otherwise, why is a single “טפילות “? Where do we find such a savara?
Or perhaps we say on the halacha of “mehadrin min haMehadrin to be Yotzei the shitas haRambam we don’t apply that ‘chumrah’ to women, and they can rely on the other shitos.December 28, 2017 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #1438904
the mishna berura is clear. it means a persons wife. ishto kigufo doesnt refer to a father/daughter, sister/brother relationship. but, he is free to drei a kup. its a slow day today.December 28, 2017 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #1438910
He must have skipped Siman תרעא. The Rma is clear, the MB is clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.