How are girls learning Gemorah

@AAQ

You wrote: “Anyone who resolves in his heart to engage in Torah and not to do work and to be supported by charity, this person profanes the Name and disgraces the Torah, for it is forbidden to benefit from the words of Torah. Any Torah that is not accompanied by work leads to sin and in the end he will steal from people”

I see you are a fan of the Rambam. Couple of things to be aware of:

1) The Rambam himself was supported by his brother until he died at sea. He clearly didn’t equate receiving support from willful patrons of Torah scholarship with “being supported by charity”.
2) The Rambam writes that not only the tribe of Levi but anyone who commits sincerely to Limid HaTorah will have their parnassa provided for by Hashem.
3) Rav Moshe wrote that once the Kollel system was established, joining a Kollel is a form of gainful employment (albeit not one suited for the persute of material wealth).

Yeshivos and Kollelim are essential to ANY community (Litvish, D”L, Chasidish, Ashkenazi, Sefardi) that wishes to thrive Judaically.

NP: You’re splitting hairs when it is directly and implicitly the same thing. Chazal’s criticism of Bruria for her mocking of the truth about Nashim Da’atan Kalos is well understood by the meforshim to be a result of her learnt Torah not intended for women and as a result her thinking herself more knowledgeable and understanding than reality, directly a result of her “over learning”.

Ujm- I didn’t ignore that at all. That’s the very contradiction. On the one hand the SA and Rambam say Chazal commanded not to teach your daughter Torah because it leads to tiflus. On the other hand, a woman receives reward for learning that Torah. If the understanding is as you are presenting it, then Rambam and SA never should have added that they receive reward doing so… What’s the point? I don’t believe that’s even part of that Gemara in Sota… They added it for a practical reason. Otherwise, it’s very misleading… It’s like they are trying to entice women to do something forbidden by telling them that they nevertheless receive reward for violating that halacha?

And I can’t argue with your observations, but mine are not the same.

simcha> it’s not so clear that the halachos in SA and Rambam are clearly prohibiting teaching women parts of Torah. The Rambam and SA open up the halachos by saying that women receive sechar for learning Torah but not as much as man because she’s eino metzuveh v’ose

First, note that this argument takes the low road when your opponent quotes part of Rambam and not the other. So, you read the whole thing and can answer. Imagine you would not – and would be misled by your opponent in your Torah learning. You just saved him from gehinom. Thank you!

> What’s not allowed is imposing on them to learn the Torah that they are exempt in, like having a required class in Gemara or Torah Shebe’al Peh

Unfortunately, modern education favors standards. So, it is either schools that pretend they do not teach gemorah (the better ones, of course, teach girls understanding of the halochos which _is_ Gemora al pi Rambam, but they can not say so) or schools that insist on all girls to learn it – and to learn it the way boys do. I personally think that both (many) boys and (almost all) girls would benefit from learning Gemora the way Rambam intended to: by analyzing reasons for mitzvos based on material that is relevant to them, not necessarily going blatt after blatt decoding tosfos.

An elitist attitude can lead to several negative byproducts, including social division, condescension, and the marginalization of others. Elitists often believe that they are superior to others due to their perceived qualities such as intellect, wealth, or expertise, which can result in a dismissive or arrogant behavior toward those they consider less accomplished.
This attitude can foster a sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy, as elitists may disregard the opinions or contributions of others, leading to strained relationships and a lack of cooperation.
Furthermore, elitism can contribute to a culture of exclusion, where individuals are judged based on their status rather than their merits, thereby reinforcing social hierarchies and limiting opportunities for those outside the elite group.
The byproducts of an elitist attitude can also include a reluctance to acknowledge one’s own flaws or the value of diverse perspectives, which can hinder personal growth and societal progress.

Let’s say I thought I was better then everyone cuz I had more money you think I won’t start treating “others” differently. Elitist attitude doesn’t lead to good behavior doesn’t matter what the excuse for it is.

hk

“who told you you….” ah you ate from the tree of _knowledge_ aka delusion

DaMoshe:
His article is indeed well-written.
But, by “great”, you presumably mean for today’s maskilim who disregard mesorah in favor of anything from the talmud professor of YU (who also disregarded mesorah, especially his family’s mesorah by his adopting the idolatry and heresy of Zionism) that they call “the Rav”.

Rav Moshe Feinstein was the Posek HaDor.
As the article points out, he ruled that women may not study even mishnayos – never mind gemara – other than pirkei avos.

Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was “responsible for all the tuma in America” according to Rav Aharon Kotler, and he also was the head of “Mizrachi”, meaning “Religious Zionist” idolatry and heresy, in America, so his opinion is anyways irrelevant to Orthodox Judaism. The talmud lecture he gave to the Stern College women was also obviously not permitted.

Rabbi Twersky’s attempt to justify his grandfather’s non-halachic pirtza mentioned above simply doesn’t work, and it is also absurd to compare that to the Chofetz Chaim’s heter of teaching chumash and mussar, as he did.

Rabbi Twersky writes, “If ever circumstances dictate that study of the Oral Law is necessary to provide a firm foundation for faith, such study becomes obligatory and obviously lies beyond the pale of any prohibition.” Even if that “heter” were theoretically true – still, none of the Orthodox (i.e., non-MO) schools ever dreamed that “circumstances dictate that study of the Oral Law is necessary to provide a firm foundation for faith”. So, no, of course his pirtza and disregarding of mesorah by permitting that which had always been forbidden were not needed and, yes, it obviously was “an instance of modernism”, and not “Torah intuition” unlike Rabbi Twersky’s attempt to claim otherwise.

As Rabbi Jachter quoted from the Satmar Rav, “the Chafetz Chaim limited his permission to the study of Tanach and Mussar.” As mentioned earlier in the article, the CC did so because the women otherwise would “deviate entirely from the way of Hashem and the Torah”. To extend that to, not only permitting but actively encouraging, talmud is simply absurd.

In fact, the MO’s claim to “need” this for their women – when no Orthodox women needed this, not then and not now – means that there is something very rotten with MO education and “culture” – and they should fix that (i.e., become Orthodox, of course) and then their imagined problem of this “need” of talmud for women would also be solved. Kind of interesting that none of them seem to notice that. But that’s anyways all nonsense; it’s not needed, and all the Orthodox women who don’t need it are the biggest proof that this imagined need of MO is nonsense.

Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik was, like his father-in-law, a “Religious Zionist”, which means that his opinions are also irrelevant to Orthodox Judaism. Regardless, even if it were true, as he claims, that “Chazal only prohibited coercing women to study Torah. If, however, they choose to learn Torah, then they deserve full support of the community”, that would not at all justify setting up “Beit midrash programs”, or talmud lectures in Stern College, that encourage women to do so. This is both disingenuous and silly.

As Rav Aharon Kotler wrote, Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was responsible for all the tuma in America. Just become Orthodox already and drop the idol and all the silliness.