Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › How are girls learning Gemorah
Tagged: l
- This topic has 66 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 hours, 33 minutes ago by HaKatan.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 7, 2025 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm #2422167Non PoliticalParticipant
@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.
July 7, 2025 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm #2422181simcha613ParticipantUJM- 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’oseh. And then brings down that Chazal commanded a father not teach his daughter Torah for the reasons in the Gemara. How do we reconcile these two statements? That women receive sechar for learning something that they are prohibited from doing? That would be very misleading by the Rambam and SA to say that if that were the case… why entice women to do something prohibited by telling they receive reward to do so? Or maybe that women are allowed to learn Torah and receive sechar for doing so but they just can’t be taught? That’s counterintuitive. Learning and being taught go hand in hand. If we are afraid that women will misrepresent halacha, then allowing them to learn without allowing them to be taught only exacerbates the problem. It’s only referring to parts of Torah that are practical to them? That also doesn’t seem correct because that’s Torah that they’re obligated in and the SA is clear that we’re talking about the parts of Torah that they aren’t obligated in.
There is clearly something that is not allowed, but it’s not as black and white as you make it sound. (Personally, I think what the Rambam and SA are saying is that a woman is allowed to learn, and is obviously therefore allowed to be taught. 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… as opposed to boys who are all compelled to learn Gemara from a young age whether they want to or not. But if a women is motivated by the right reasons to expand her Torah knowledge, then I think that’s exactly what the SA and Rambam are saying that the receive sechar for and can certainly be taught)
July 7, 2025 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm #2422387ujmParticipantNP: 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”.
July 7, 2025 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm #2422388ujmParticipantSimcha613: You’re ignoring the fact that both Shulchan Aruch and Rambam (and the Gemora and others) all pasken l’halacha that teaching girls Torah that they shouldn’t be learning is “tiflus”; which Rashi explains leads her to open immoralities.
And we see the fulfillment of this Shulchan Aruch/Rambam/Rashi in real life today where the girls who do not learn Torah shebal peh are overall much more Eidel and Ehrlich than those that are taught Torah shebal peh as part of their school curriculum, in defiance of the aforementioned Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Gemora et al. And where these “over-educated” girls are far more likely to be dressing non-tznius and otherwise be acting publicly in loud and unrefined and unfeminine like manners.
July 8, 2025 9:39 am at 9:39 am #2422602simcha613ParticipantUjm- 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.
July 8, 2025 9:40 am at 9:40 am #2422647Non PoliticalParticipant@ UJM
You wrote: “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”
The gap between the hairs I spit is the size of an elephant.
The criticism was for mocking the general principal. There have been many, many exceptions.You misquoted Chazal based on a personal boich svara. I called you on it. But that’s ok. Carry on.
To be clear, I am
July 8, 2025 9:40 am at 9:40 am #2422655Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantsimcha> 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.
July 8, 2025 9:41 am at 9:41 am #2422721DaMosheParticipantThere is a great article written by R’ Jachter on the topic, where he goes through both sides of the issue:
https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/are-women-permitted-to-study-gemara-by-rabbi-howard-jachterJuly 8, 2025 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #2422921none2.0ParticipantAn 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.July 8, 2025 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #2422922none2.0ParticipantNobody likes elite minded stuck up people..change your attitude. Being humble actually will make you more human
July 8, 2025 1:42 pm at 1:42 pm #2422933none2.0ParticipantLet’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.
July 8, 2025 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #2422980yeshivaguy45ParticipantGadolhadorah-Anyone who is a regular on the live (12:10 AM EDT) zoom broadcast of R’ Stefansky’s MDY knows there are women who participate nightly but keep their Zoom video box shut off to avoid revealing their gender. Some have screen-mames (not turned off) which clearly imply their gender.
You are correct but it’s not always true as there are men that have their cameras on and yet they have a female screen names, most probably their wives.
I was once on the zoom for R’Eli’s shiur a few years ago and a woman had her camera on for a few minutes. She wrote in the chat on zoom that she is one of many women who watch R’Eli’s shiur and when she is in Israel, she tries to go on zoom. Happens to be, R’Eli once read an email from her, not realizing it was from a woman (many people have interesting nicknames so he didn’t realize).
There was also an almana at one point (she has since remarried) who was part of the shiur and she wrote to R’Eli that she wanted Torah in the house and that’s how she got involved in the shiur.July 8, 2025 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #2422988Rachel hexParticipanthk
July 8, 2025 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #2423016none2.0ParticipantWho tought you you are better then everyone. People? Reality? Noone is better then anyone ever. We are all simply a sum total of our actions not our birthright.
July 8, 2025 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #2423017none2.0Participant“who told you you….” ah you ate from the tree of _knowledge_ aka delusion
July 8, 2025 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #2423029Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipantDaMoshe, thanks for referring this good summary of the sugya. These issues seem to be critical:
– Rav Aharon Soloveitchik – Torah Temima (Devarim 11:19) -Teshuvot Maayan Ganim: Chazal only prohibited coercing women to study Torah. If, however, they choose to learn Torah, then they deserve full support of the community.
AAQ: so not just not considering this an offense, but community support?! Kollel Ezras Nashim?– Rav Meyer Twersky – R Soloveitchik: A father’s obligation of Chinuch relates equally to sons and daughters (see, for example, Yoma 82a). The prohibition of teaching the Oral Law to women relates to optional study. 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.
AAQ: so it is the same social reason that Chofetz Chaim and Gerer Rebbe used to approve BY (despite opposition at the time) – surely if in 1920 the discussion was about Jewish women being able to read Hebrew v. going to gymnasiums, the level should be different when we talking about women who are doing graduate studies.– Rav Lichtenstein and Rav Henkin argue that women who study secular studies at the highest level should also study Torah at the highest levels including the study of Gemara.
And also I do not see a discussion of what “Gemora” means here: learning reasons for mitzvos v. doing daf yomi. If we all are so tied into the tzuras hadaf that we do not see the difference between the two, we have bigger problems.
July 9, 2025 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm #2423078HaKatanParticipantDaMoshe:
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.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.